MTG Salvation

Quote from Danica »

But... regardless... yes, it's my birthday today... I like how facebook and various messaging services on various organizations remember that my birthday is today It's nice to come into work, especially when feeling a bit down, that people are remembering my birthday today I wonder if anyone at work will remember

It's a little depressing having my birthday be on a day I have to work, and look for a new job... but hey, I'm going to have an awesome party on Saturday, so I guess I just need to hang on to that thought

Oh, I know how you feel about working on your birthday.

Happy Birthday, Danica. Have fun on Saturday.

Quote from Mr. Stuff

Genesis being literal is incidental...?

That's right. Not incidental to many peoples' eyes, but that's not what I said. I said it was incidental to the validity, or lack thereof, of the Christian religion. Or any religion.

If an evolutionary model of the development of life is true, it is no real way a threat to any religion's premises. I am perfectly aware of the controversy, but this is a matter between different groups of people - it's ultimately not relevant to the theism debate. People think it is, but it's not.

When it comes to Dawkins, I personally don't find it hard to understand the motives for how he acts, but it goes both ways. It always does. If it's not okay for atheists to be mistreated and for bad reasoning to come from Christian figures, then it's not okay for someone like Dawkins to wig out or say fossils disprove religion. At the very least, it just shows that the people in the debate don't know what they're really debating.

The scholarship about this, on both sides, needs to be better than it is.

It's not as though the preacher is going "haha, I don't believe this crap, but it's an awesome way to make lots of money and gain power". Perhaps some are, but I believe the majority genuinely feel they are doing the right thing by trying to spread and privilege their belief system. That's why the belief system's got to go, because it's flat out scientifically and morally untenable and unhealthy for society.

The christian belief system? It's actually not too shabby as moralities go, and scientifically it's perfectly unobjectionable.
Fundamentalism is untenable, however, and that is not the same thing.

Quote from Kraj »

Ah, the Coffeehouse. It's like the Debate forum except people actually debate here.

Quote from Taylor »

Except you're breaking the rule you're using with it. You're saying "everything must have a cause, therefor there must be a first cause without a cause."

Paradox.

If it's logically necessary that all "things" have causes, and if the first thing that is the prime cause doesn't have a cause, then according to your assertion that the first thing is alogical, then the paradox is not especially problematic, yes?

Math is logic. If you don't (know this)/(accept this), hit the back button now. ty

Okay, now do more than say it and add "if you don't accept this, hit the back button." Explain why mathematics and logic have no effective differences whatsoever. This sound more like your personal definition rather than a formal definition.

Now, I accept, (I can't prove) that reality is based on math. "Math is the language of the universe" and all that.
So, based on that statement, reality itself would be subject to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which to paraphrase to the point of being almost wrong, would mean that there needs to be some base Axiom that all of reality is based on.
There is some statement that is TRUE for all of reality, that is not supported or provable in reality, but that all of reality is based on.

Since its not supported or provable or bound by the rules of the system, it could be illogical or random.

Will you clarify what you mean when you say that reality is "based on math"?

You seem to be saying that if reality is based on math, then reality is math. You call upon the incompleteness theorem and its relation to any consistent formal system and its complete provability, and then draw a comparison to a truth that, beyond not being provable by reality's laws, is also not part of reality at all. In other words, you're plugging in "reality" as a synonym for "math," and saying that the incompleteness theorem proves that there is a mathematical axiom that is not "part of math," and that there must be a truth that is not part of reality nor subject to reality's laws.

If one accepts that the laws of existence and the laws of math are identical, it doesn't necessarily follow that a formal, systemic theory (to which the theorem applies in mathematics) equates to all of existence in the comparison you're using.

Also, just for clarity, when you use the word axiom, do you mean merely a postulate statement, or a tautologically true statement?

Quote from turquoisepower »

IMPORTANT ADDENDUM TO MY ORIGINAL POST:
Somebody asked "what is randomness?"
Say we are talking about a particular thing. I mean randomness as in "has no reason for being the way it is, or for possessing the specific attributes that it has." This is what I mean by "randomness" when I state that randomness is a big problem that is inherent in many people's assumptions about the initial conditions of the universe (and let's just say that the initial state is assumed to be the Big Bang), a problem that is due to the fact that they do NOT assume that there is a reason or cause for these conditions (such as God). If there is no reason for the universe to be the way it is, it is just randomnly what it is. And I think there is something wrong with all these people's critical thinking if they just accept that randomness as a fact of the universe. I am among those who don't accept that it is true.

Right. It seems you and I are on the same page.

"Randomness" by some definitions is very real - sometimes when we say something is random, we mean we find it to be practically unpredictable, or that its patterns are hard or practically impossible for us to discern. Or we may mean something is coincidental, that there isn't a special connection between events even if we may have thought there is. These forms of "randomness" are ostensibly real.

In this kind of discussion, though, randomness is typically used to mean just what you pointed out. True chaos - rather than practically indiscernible patterns, no patterns at all, no organizing laws. This state is theoretical, and much like a state of "nothingness," doesn't make sense in practice. Everything has some pattern, because everything has a set of definite and constant properties.

Like you, I think there really can't be absolute chaos or a point at which reality was just without any order.

Quote from Mr. Stuff

*yawn*

Harris is the quickest on his feet and most articulate of the bunch, if you ask me, but I still wouldn't call Dawkins "stupid". Prone to more emotional arguments than he should be, I'll buy. Sometimes he just comes across as insulting, and other times he'll come up with something brilliant. The fossils are where he's really got it going on, so to speak. It's his area of expertise.

Just for kicks, before I sleep:

I didn't mean that he was a stupid person so much that he makes the publically viewed "atheist point of view" suspect because he defends it with kind of bad arguments (I'm sure there are good arguments, too, of course).

For instance, almost any argument to do with evolution and religion is off base. While many fundamentalists believe in a literal-historical view of the story of Genesis, it's not even the orthodox view or likely to be the most popular view of Christians worldwide. It's basically incidental to the religion's foundations.

It's the flip-side of anthropic principle cases a la Way of the Master, like the argument that since a banana has a shape that is easy for a human hand to hold, it must have been designed by an intelligent being to be eaten by humans.

Although, I wish it weren't so easy for folks to stereotype large groups based on the behavior of a small number of people.

EDIT: Sorry, peeps, for the bit of derailment.

It doesn't make it worse. If we knew that whatever consciousness is is the "original substance," that can change a great deal about our analysis. For instance, it would preclude the model that phenomenal, conscious experience is a byproduct of preexisting phenomena.

Saying it doesn't mean anything is like saying there is no difference between a reductive model and a nonreductive model.

It's understandable that bringing consciousness into it is daunting, because we don't really understand consciousness. It does complicate things, but that's true whether we ignore it or not. Intelligence, however, is a different matter. It's much easier to talk about intelligence.

Anyway, what is randomness? Lack of pattern, lack of logical relationships? What's the argument for there being or ever having been any randomness by that definition, or randomness even being possible?

Quote from Mr. Stuff

Insensitive and with no patience for religion, perhaps, but not stupid. If you're looking for stupid, though, Ray Comfort would be right up your alley. That guy...

I'll respond in a bit. I'm tired right now... my sleep schedule's all screwed up, and it's nearly 6:00am. 'Night everybody.

No, I mean that as an icon of atheists all over the world, he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Not as much as he needs to. Insensitivity isn't disconnected either, since it makes for terrible exchanges and things being generally poorly thought out and considered. Looking/being stupid is, like, insensitivity's illicit mistress. Srsly.

Not quite the level of the way Fred Phelps is for Christians, but then again that's quite a bar to reach.

Turquoisepower is correct. What we're talking about, simply, is ontology. There can't be acceptable blind spots. If we want a consistent and rational analysis of reality's properties, then selectively ignoring some of those properties (like persistent laws of logic) is the last thing we do.

Okay. Ooookay. I just did it.

I went into Debate and made a post.

Hooooooo whatwillhappennow?

EDIT: @Mr. Stuff: Gah, Richard Dawkins makes the atheist community look stupid. The equivalent of ... well, of people who makes other communities look stupid.

As someone said before, Brotherhood is closer to the manga, both in story and even in how it is animated.

The big shift in story is around where the second half of the original anime began, around the first time they reach Rush Valley. The differences before that point aren't as large.

The characterization is pretty different, too. If you were a fan of the manga at any point, you should enjoy Brotherhood.

A simple distinction is that philosophy is more analytical compared to science, and science is more synthetical compared to philosophy. Liken it to the relationship between the logic and observation aspects of reason.

As such, I see them as different dimensions of a united process, which is learning and exploration. Learning involves not only discovering data, but also organizing and absorbing data, making relationships between them, and checking these methods.

That said, calling them two parts of a united process can be misleading because science and philosophy don't do the same things. Both deal with creating and refining explanations, but it's easy to make the mistake of thinking that a philosophical explanation has the same goals and strictures that a scientific explanation would have.

In simple terms, philosophy is less about finding things out and more about understanding what we do know. In that regard, there are profound differences.

Quote from Mr. Stuff »

I think we're arguing about different versions of philosophy here. Philosophy to answer the question "Where did the universe and everything come from?" and "Why am I alive?" and etc is useless, and is better left to science. Philosophy to answer the question "How should I live my life?", the whole question of politics, and etc is still pretty valid. Science helps philosophy out, providing basic facts to work with.

I would almost call "Buddhism" a philosophy of life rather than a religion (almost). I do call Humanism a philosophy, and it is how I choose to live my life. The thing is, where possible, philosophy should be based on logic and facts, and science provides those facts. The science of psychology and neurobiology plays an important role in this. By understanding what governs our actions and emotions, we can better learn to control those actions and emotions.

I recommend everybody read the introduction to philosophy that is stickied in this very forum.

I don't agree that those philosophies you mentioned are useless. As I mentioned before, the question "why am I alive?" is a different question if you ask from a scientist's point of view (like "what processes led to my life?") and a philosopher's point of view (like "is there an end purpose to my life? what is the significance of my life in terms of value?"). You can't ask one discipline to take over the other's job in the same way you can't use chemistry to translate a text.

I wouldn't say facts/evidence/etc. don't interact with philosophy at all but it's not "power by facts," if you will, in the way that a scientific discipline is. This is what I meant about it being more to the analytical than synthetical side. Philosophy also helps science out, as a structuring agent and providing different scopes by which to assess facts.

Buddhist philosophy pervades more philosophical spheres than do those of most other religions, but it's also a good example of how there is a difference between a religion and a philosophy contained in a tradition. Buddhism is a psychological religion, and is among a relative few, and so it often stands out compared to other religions. It's still a religion - the philosophy is deeply connected to the personal and social dimension, which includes not only a morality and a worldview but a shared psyche, with connected attitudes and experiences.

I think this is what I was trying to communicate earlier when we were talking about this topic.

Here we are again!

Wow, already feeling like I have too big a list of comments to reply to. ;p
Thanks for the big welcomes, group. 'S a nice thing to walk back into.

*waves at Zazzy (nice) and Itinerant Soldier*

Quote from Craigster »

Not only a few pages back... As long as they're all careful with the glomping. I don't want to have to find the old implements of Coffeehouse torture in order to dole out punishment for a bruised Mamelon.

And I know you would.

Quote from Kraj »

Geez, when it rains it pours. Hunter, Photon, Crimson (sorry, you'll always be the Avatar to me ), Mamsies. It's like a flashback sequence!

Only hopefully without unpleasant hallucinogenic-y side effects. Long time no see, Greg. Although I think I saw you on Facebook a couple of times.

Come to think of, I dunno who all from here would know my Facebook.

Quote from Mr. Stuff »

Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit, if it isn't our old friend.

*blinks* If you insist. Does it matter to you which order I do it it?

I couldn't stop watching that animation. Now I'm a little sad it's gone, hee.

Also - grr, where were you when I tried to start a talk about interfaith stuff and atheism/agnosticism here in Debate that one time?

Quote from Photon »

Maybe next time I disappear and then return, I'll come back with hooters and see how you respond, mister.

Hooters, my ass.

Hm. I guess that could be it.

That sounds like a horrible idea for me, as I am much more competitive at sex than I am at Magic.

Well if you're going to be good at something ... ;p

By the way, I had played Cube before. It was pretty fun actually. I did it over MWS, and we drafted cards like Ancestral Recall. Ha. Okay, that was crazyish.

I think he still won that one. Not sure.

Which brings me right back to competition and sex.

Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »

Wow, Mamelon welcome back!

Hey, Starr! Howzit goin' these days?

I've been a lot more into D&D and tabletopping (ha) lately as opposed to Magic. What have you all been up to anymore?

As for what makes an RPG stand out - I think aesthetic counts for a whole lot, only it's sort of in an intangible way, because there's much subjectivity to it. A game can have a really consistent, well constructed and deep style and feel to it, and that can make the difference even when all else is equal.

Play mechanics that help a feeling of interactivity is big and I think it's part of the style, too. If the mechanics feel immersive it adds to a game in multiple ways, by creating flair and being fun to use.

People have different tastes and levels of tolerance for difficulty and challenge, but I think it's easy to agree that challenges should have the effect of being exciting or thought-provoking rather than being annoying with hindrances that are otherwise pointless. If a section of a game requires skill and preparation, this is much better than if success feels random and like you have no control in achieving it.

I personally like games to have an element of breadth, where you can go in more than one direction at once or choose from multiple storytelling paths. This can mean a game with a story that is nonlinear to an extent, or a game that has a few different ways of playing, such as some games which let you do things like make choices in running a kingdom or raise animals or something in addition to completing the game's central and story-related tasks.

Alacar, you booger, I see you on Facebook. Kinda. *pokes* Thanks anyhow. ;p
Zazirik, I recognized the text, but was wondering if it was indeed you.

Well, I just got glomp-ambushed. *dusts* Hi to you too, Yukora.

I was wondering who all still posted here. I see Craigalicious a few pages back.

*waves at Craigers*

Quote from Photon Eater

Since we're reporting on stuff, I managed to find some people to play Planechase EDH against last night. I put together 2 decks, both of which were probably not great- my card pool is pretty crappy by Legacy and Vintage standards. I have a lot of old crappy cards from the Fallen Empires/Legends era, a smattering of Urza's Block cards, a crapload of 6th-10th edition junk, nothing particularly exciting, and then box after box of random stuff from Mirrodin through Planar Chaos. I decided to build two decks, one with Teysa, Orzhov Scion, and the other with Ib Halfheart, Goblin Tactician. Played 3 games, 2 with Teysa, 1 with Ib.

Teysa was... eh. Maybe it is just that it has been a while since I have played, but it just didn't seem to get going, and I kept getting mana flooded. The planar effects were probably the only thing that kept my interest in the entire game. I didn't win with her, and I didn't like it, especially after eating it in Krosa when I was 3 damage away from a victory on my next turn.

Then I played Ib, and lost with him, but the game was perhaps the most fun game of Magic I had ever played. Granted, if I had been a bit more focused on playing aggressively instead of giving all my goblin tokens names and making Ib say vulgar things to my opponent, I probably would have done better. Also, letting myself get hit in the face for 9 damage from my own Lightning Storm, and then following it up with a Chain of Plasma targeting an opponent with 9 cards in his hand and nothing to lose probably didn't win me any Player of the Year awards, but the ensuing chaos gave me so much infantile enjoyment it didn't matter. So I think I'll stick with Ib, drum up some multiplayer nonsense cards like the ones listed above, and just go for a quirky goblin deck that can win, but can also just be used to make mischief in 4 player brawls. Any suggestions?

Also, a question- let's say I have Furnace of Rath in play (oooh, sorry, I mean, "on the BATTLEFIELD"), Akki Lavarunner is flipped, and we're in the Stronghold Furnace plane, and I Shock someone. How much damage do I actually do? When do I double, when do I double the double (if I double the double at all), and when do I add 1 to the damage? Does the 1 get doubled? Or is it added afterward? And would it be bad sportsmanship to exploit this sort of rules confusion to distract a player so I can cheat?

It was a pretty relaxed game, and I think you were right to think that silliness and fun were encouraged more by the planes shifting.

I played Experiment Kraj, and even though I didn't up having very many creatures that had activated abilities that would be beneficial to copy, at least the +1/+1 counters were nice and I always appreciate that big gooey mound of pink delight.

P.S.: Hi, everybody.

Quote from Magic Mage »

To start this on a good note, hi Mams.

Hallo! *waves at Miss Mage*

Quote from Nai »

Please, please don't compare anything to the PMs that TIBA sent out. There are very few things that anyone could do with words to be more hateful or bigoted.

What? I read the PMs sent by TIBA. They were harsh, and they were inflammatory, but they were not these masterpieces of blackhearted cruelty they're getting hyped as. He wrote them as an attempt to get himself banned, for one thing. I know TIBA, and it's hard to call him bigoted. In fact, he's one of the few people I've met who, when confronted with the reality that he may be doing or saying something prejudiced, promptly changed his ways.

I also think it's a bit mindblowing that TIBA's comments are being made out as some Dark-Lord-of-Mordor behavior in light of the hateful and disgusting things that have been said and are surely still being said, in the Gutter or Modlounge or otherwise, related to the recent drama. I'm not just talking about Sakura, although that's a pretty good example. It's getting excused as long as it's "venting." Very nice.

Quote from Kijin »

Actually, it does matter how you slice it. The Gutter itself isn't some watershed where we mastermind schemes against other users. Some users do this and use it for that. Which is the problem. Some users.

I'm not talking about whose fault it is. That has nothing to do with it. I said the Gutter is a source of drama. In no way does that necessitate that "Gutter members is making trouble." That's just what you're reading into it.

You're blaming the whole for the fault of the part. The only way to do this is by not actually knowing what happens there. Therefore, it is not beyond >.< for assuming you have no idea what you're talking about, because you blame the actions of the few as the course of the many.

I'm not blaming anything on any group of people, at least some ambiguously defined "Gutter troublemakers." I'm saying that with all the nonsense that goes on here, a good deal of it is centered around the controversy of the Gutter - whether it's about Gutter bannings or paranoia of non-Gutter members or the defensiveness of self-appointed Gutter advocates is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who's stirring up isolated incidents.

If I blame anyone, it's either the community at large or those among the staff who should have been able to deal with it better.

You could just choose to ignore it (not you specifically, I just mean the people that start threads like these who don't know heads from tails) and go on your daily life instead of indulging some masturbatory impulse to stir the pot and put and ear to a cup on the floor in hopes to hear some stirring on the floor below. There are far easier, more recreational and less detrimental methods of feeding a masturbatory impulse and more often than not they won't have a detrimental effect on anyone else in the process.

Yes. Yes, one certainly could. And should. But people don't. I'm not saying that it's necessarily the fault of whatever is under the floor. But when the response to interaction between the two levels is always reduced to "there's nothing under that floor!" then it's a problem.

Another part of it is this: one can't expect what one says in the Gutter to not have consequences. Just because there aren't flaming and trolling rules there doesn't mean that those actions no longer have effects, both on people and social interactions. It's the same way that if you say something scathing and offensive on the telephone and someone overhears you, that's going to lead to something. While you can say whatever you want in your own time to your own friends, you can't just demand that time be rewound and step aside from consequences.

If you wanna be able to say anything you want in the Gutter, and you know at least some people can see you, then own up to it and take care of the debris that you generate. If you wanna jab at someone who annoys you or use as many minority slurs as you like, don't expect the "no flaming rules" thing to protect you if it blows up. Again, to whom it may concern.

Here's the thing that I've been saying but I'll say it again: people who do skirt the rules, take "drama" in the gutter outside of it, and generally do unkind things to the forums are penalized for it. Whether the result of this is a bunch of people talking over AIM, making a thread on 4chan, starting a forum called "forums.lets-make-fun-of-mtgs-members.com," or posting in the gutter is irrelevant because they're separate entities from the MTGS forums but can bring undesirable things to the forums.

I'm aware of that rule. But that's not what I'm talking about. Gutter drama isn't strictly a result of some Gutter member deciding to get trolly on the main site, or info leaks. It's about the tension that exists between the Gutter and the main site. It doesn't matter who causes it.

It really doesn't, though. If I made an internet forum called "The Gutter" where we just talked about what, for example, Mamelon or some other poster on MTGS did, then came on here and made a SYM thread that said, "People with the word Melon in their usernames smell bad lol" you'd still be inciced and eventually you may even trace it back to "forums.thegutter.com." I don't see the difference and, considering you don't use the gutter, neither should you.

That's not the point, though. If you want to get precise, the fact that the Gutter isn't actually off of the site (like, say, a LiveJournal community or other private forum would be), this makes a difference psychologically and sociologically. Even if Gutter members are uniformly good about keeping the line distinct, they aren't in control of it. The line isn't as distinct as it's supposed to be, and it's not the fault of any one group or person.

It isn't. In fact, it's been stated across posts across threads on this very same subject, so I'll just reword it so even the *DRAMABARONS who frequent roundabout discussions like these can "get it": U DO BAD U GET IN TRUBLE, LOL KK, bb? This is true of KCW and FLCL as it is your friend and theinfamousbearassassin. But thanks all the same for 3 extremely wordy, extraneous posts that implore the staff and gutter members to do what already occurs.

Yeah, and it's working out so well for you, isn't it? Because y'all told everybody "don't talk about the Gutter on the main site," that solves it really tidily, doesn't it? Hello. Elephant. Middle of the room.

And please, whine some more about my post length. I'm interested in that from someone who just did a point-by-point on what's basically the idea that I'm being a meanie for calling Gutter members troublemakers and it's all taken care of, tsk tsk. Yeah, too bad it's got zero to do with anything I said. So do call me rambly, I've never heard that one before. Meanwhile. I'm actually being concise compared to these epic, impassioned speeches about how "no one understands!"

Quote from god child »

These two then come outside and start stirring up trouble re: the gutter, and then people like mamelon blame the gutter for these threads.

Hmm.

Quote from Mamelon »

I'm not speaking out against the Gutter.

Quote from Mamelon »

largely unaffected by what the Gutter's intent is, what it's rules are, and whether or not Gutter members are all vicious baddies or sweet angels.

Quote from Mamelon »

I have no problem with the existence of the Gutter.

What a ***** I'm being!

I'm getting tired of this persecution complex. The Gutter is fine if you don't turn away and ignore any problem that bubbles up around it. The problem is actually the poor management of the Gutter's place on the site.

Quote from \m/ >.< \m/

This happens all the time: as in, people complaining they got removed from the gutter
KCW problems were of his infraction based on the color txt font he would use after being told by seds not to( among other things)

Friend: Sakura, we all know you post in gaymers and are a transgender individual, and that is the only reason you are posting here, since lately the Gutter is being blamed for banning a troll.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, as you have proven my point by assuming, so stop posting about this. You have no reason to speak out against the gutter as you know only what people are saying, until recently I bet you didn't even know it was there.

Nice. Recap.

I'm not speaking out against the Gutter. Do you seriously not realize that? Turn your autopilot off, I don't care to muck through your outrage at your subforum getting attacked. I don't want to deal with it, and I'm not going to hold your hand reassuring you that I'm not badmouthing your recreation. I don't want to hear about how I'm being so mean to the poor, persecuted Gutter members. I have no problem with the existence of the Gutter.

I'm saying that if you make a mess, you clean it up. That's not complicated, it's not hard, it shouldn't come as a radical revelation to anybody. If you don't want there to be drama - whether it's about Gutterbans or what get's posted in the Gutter or just what non-Gutter members come to believe about the Gutter - then stop being so damn defensive and start doing some actual damage control. Otherwise, stop whining. To whom it may concern.

And yes, tell me that I'm only interested because I'm defending Sakura. Interesting how I haven't mentioned Sakura yet, haven't said a word about bannings or moderation or anything, and yet it's so obvious that I'm hear out of a sense of transgender-comraderie. That must be it. Sakura got criticized for bringing her transgender status up too much and using it as a defense. What I see is that it's being constantly brought up by people who try to "tell it like it is" about Sakura's actions - or, in this case, mine. Stop trying to make it relevant when it's not and then pegging it on someone else. I'm not interested in your entitled-minority conspiracy theory.

Keep fighting that good fight.