Can you just stop posting and acknowledge the fact that if you’re indeed someone who doesn’t care about aspects of the game, are too casual to know about and engage with key aspects of the game, do not participate in many of the activities that compose the game, generally have zero knowledge of the game, and generally ignore an overwhelming majority of the content in the game, you have no business commenting with authority over what’s enjoyable about the game? Or at the very least, your opinion holds very little weight.
You know nothing about me. If you were 15 at least you’d have potential; if you’re truly 62 I’d be embarrassed that you’re trying to flex on someone nearly half your age who probably out earns you.
No dude, it’s just that if people were trying to flex their education in philosophy of ethics I’d expect them to be drawing a dichotomy between Kant and Nietzsche, not pointing at a book by Sam Harris.
Sorry that I don’t consider a man who spent years crying about how Donald Trump is the worst calamity to ever happen to the united states the greatest intellectual of all time. Dude couldn’t even make a solid case against religion against the likes of Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. Find better pseudo intellectuals to worship.
Alex O’Connor was making more logically coherent arguments than Harris when he was a literal child.
I just find it amusing that you are spouting you are superior, smarter and above everyone else while having a man-child tantrum which includes agism, money, and other “isms” like someone who can’t control himself.
No, Id play those expansions, but I would expect end of game fixes and patches along with it, as well as good changes, like BFA is a good expansion, bar the azerite restrictions, and shadowlands can be a good expansion if you removed the restrictions of the maw and generally allowed players to play the game and delete the jailer from the lore.
Sure. So long as you acknowledge that most players are casual and very few engage in all aspects of the game. Most people don’t engage in mythics. Many don’t pvp. And we don’t care about your mythic or pvp gear or mounts. I don’t have to do mythics or grind pvp mounts or gear to know that most of us don’t care if you do. We’re not paying attention to what you think is pretty gear that you “earned” and we’re not paying attention to the pretty gear that someone may have bought. We don’t care whether you transmoged your pretty gear or bought it because we’re just not paying attention.
You probably do. But what you don’t get is that it’s all about values and I never valued a high salary. So like the cosmetic items for sale I don’t care how much money you make. All I wanted was to retire on enough land to play around with it in the south west where it’s warm. And to not sell many of the precious hours of my life doing things for other people for dollars. I have many friends that are doctors and lawyers working 60 to 80 hours a week when I tried to find ways to not work full time. I don’t flex about that, it’s all comes down to what one values, money or personal fulfillment. I care more about hanging out with botanist friends in a wilderness area learning about the plants there then making a few extra dollars. Or hanging out playing music with friends than making more dollars. I get how slow you are but maybe this can educate you about the difference between objective and subjective values
Cataclysm ill level a few toons and then log off until MoP. MoP ill play -and level a monk and do the legendary quest line on 3-4 toons.
WoD I’ll level whatever toons I have after MoP and park them in the garrison and make gold.
Legion I will play. Then I’ll delete warcraft from my computer.
Most people would likely benefit from an easy mode in dark souls. Most people don’t realize why they’ve stopped enjoying a game as much over time. I don’t think a game should be designed around people who don’t care to engage with the overwhelming majority of the game.
With arguments so air tight they get destroyed by kids on youtube?
And I don’t think a game should be designed for the 1% who are elitists. That’s not objectively true or false. It’s just a subjective personal opinion. I seek out the low popularity pursuits when I listen to music, mostly jazz and classical. I can say many things about the difference between rock and jazz. But what I can’t say is that jazz is objectively better than rock. Just as you can’t say that those things you value in game are objective values. They’re just your personal opinion of what makes a game better or worse.
This from a guy who hasn’t even figured out how to put links on this forum without garbling it. You just indent 4 spaces d…a
It’s wild getting into an argument with someone over ethics and morality simply because they A. misinterpret what I write and B. because they demand words be used in accordance with the literal definition their 'tistic mind demands.
Damn bro you got dunked on.
“Acktually I was never submerged in anything nor do I play basketball, so I don’t understand how I was “dunked” on perhaps you need a lesson in definitions might I recommend some reading on…”
I didn’t misinterpret what you wrote. I just gave a cogent explanation why I thought your metaphor comparing children who beg their parents to pay to play wow to children who work “in the mines” to avoid starvation was the most idiotic post ever written on this forum
Here’s something you don’t know. I know that words have definitions and connotations. There are colloquialisms, idioms, and slang. Look that up and learn something about the language you’re barely capable of grunting in. And of course I expect them all to be used correctly. That’s what educated people expect when engaged in rational discussion or debate.
This. Never. Happened. Show me where this happened.
You taking my post and getting “you were comparing children who beg their parents to play wow to child who work in the mines” from it after I thoroughly explained it to you when it should be self evident is the most idiotic thing ever written.
You demanded I agree to your SUBJECTIVE opinion of what constitutes OBJECTIVITY by appealing to the SUBJECTIVE interpretation by Sam Harris based on the SUBJECTIVE assumption that things are self evidently good or bad, which can be reduced to nothing more than the SUBJECTIVE agreement between people that something is good… and then attempted to argue that my use of OBJECTIVE to describe something that is widely agreed upon SUBJECTIVELY was incorrect.
Another idiotic post. You still haven’t bothered to learn the difference between objective and subjective. Things that are widely agreed upon doesn’t make them objectively true or false or objectively anything. The proper term for things that are widely agreed on is “popular.” Among the uneducated believing ideas that are popular are objectively true is a common misconception. And you have not even offered any proof that your personal fee fees about the game are widely agreed on.
This is literally the narrative that Sam Harris asserts.
Do you have another definition for objectivity? If so, which God do you believe in and tell me about how that God’s subjective opinions make something objective.
As someone who has read several of his books and watched a few dozen of his debates and podcasts it literally is not. In fact he has spent considerable time arguing against many popular ideas. Which book written by Harris have you read that caused you to reach that conclusion?
I don’t have a personal definition. I just use the one in the dictionary. But you should try a thesaurus. You’ll find that “popular” is not a synonym for “objective.”
I have never talked to god and seen no proof that anyone else has so I have no idea what he/she/its opinions are on anything
Okay what makes a moral or opinion objectively true
Where does Sam Harris assert objective morality comes from? He literally states in a tweet that we can determine that something is objectively bad by considering that we can all agree that touching a hot stove is bad. What makes this objective? The fact we all subjectively agree that it’s painful and pain isn’t good? I thought you said we can’t appeal to popularity?
If you actually gave an effin dam you’d have read the wikipedia link I gave you a few posts above. If you think I’m going to summarize a 300 page book for you because you can’t be bothered to do even the slightest amount of research you’re a bigger moron than your posts so far are evidence of. But because there are some people here who aren’t as brain dead as you and since these ideas should get a wider audience I’ll include a brief passage for those not intellectually stunted.
Harris contends that the only viable moral framework is one where “morally good” things pertain to increases in the “well-being of conscious creatures”. He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, moral questions have objectively right and wrong answers grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish. Challenging the traditional philosophical notion that an “ought” cannot follow from an “is” (Hume’s law,) Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using not just philosophy, but the methods of science, because science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing.
Objective: Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.
It’s a clearly observable phenomina tested by almost every one generation after generation for millennia that touching a hot stove is bad. That’s how science works and at it’s foundation every discipline starts with such simple truths building on them to reach more and more complex understanding of the world
