- Registered User
Member for 9 years, 6 months, and 28 days
Last active Mon, Feb, 5 2018 10:18:16
- 8 Followers
- 5,231 Total Posts
- 222 Thanks
Sep 14, 2016Stairc posted a message on Wizards finally has a way to implement Tribal as a standalone card type!The problem with tribal isn't the frame. It's the fact that Goblin Grenade isn't a goblin card.Posted in: Custom Card Creation
Aug 7, 2016I've noticed an easy formulae for predicting what Trump will lie about next. Just check what people are criticizing him for. He was never more correct than when he said he still has the same temperment he did as a first grader. His media strategy is when someone calls him a <blank> can be summed us, "Nuh, uh, YOU'RE a <blank>."Posted in: Debate
He's on trial for racketeering? Goes after "crooked" Hillary.
His mental stability is questioned? Instantly calls Hilary unstable.
He's accused of shady financial ties to Russia? Accuses Obama of shady financial ties to Iran by inventing a "ransom" payment.
The list goes on. I hope the Ivanka thing doesn't come up in the press again. We could probably expect him to accuse Clinton of being hot for her own daughter.
Aug 5, 2016Libertarianism is highly disorganized, but the anti-drivers-license thing is mainstream enough to be a major point of debate in the last Libertarian convention in which Gary Johnson was nominated. When he meekly said he's not entirely against drivers licenses, there were loud boos from the crowd. He still won the nomination, but not without severe opposition from many libertarians on that and similar issues. Even that extreme position absolutely exists.Posted in: Debate
Aug 3, 2016Posted in: DebateQuote from Blinking Spirit »
Freedom is not the ultimate good, but it is the closest thing to an ultimate good that a society can pursue as a general project. This is because there is no one ultimate good -- everybody has their own, be it family or fame or wealth or Pokémon. So society can't say, "Let's help everybody raise a family, and then we'll be doing good", because not everybody wants to raise a family. But society can say, "Let's make sure everybody is free to pursue their own goals, and then we'll be doing good".
Key word there; "everybody". Conflicting freedoms mutually annihilate. The right to speed through an intersection without a traffic light is illusory, because it unacceptably increases the risk of somebody's death, possibly yours. People have been pointing this out at least since Hobbes. (Well, not with traffic lights specifically...)
It seems that you are arguing how free a society is is measured by the percentage of people able to pursue their desires. Therefore anarchy is less "free" than instituting a formal government with traffic laws and meat inspectors. This is a very odd use of the word 'free' in a discussion about libertarianism. It might be an effective tactic to get the freedom-obsessed on your side, but it's not what I"m talking about. It's not what most libertarians are talking about. When a libertarian argues that they should be allowed to drive drunk, they are coming at this from an "this would increase my freedom" angle. They're referring to freedom from official government controls, which they usually only are okay with as punishments for actions rather than preventative policies. I often hear, "let people drive drunk, then jail anyone that kills someone for any reason - drunk or not".
I agree that creating a society where people can be happy is a good thing. But you're shifting the definition of freedom away from how most libertarians like to use it. You're saying, "No, drivers license requirements increase freedom rather than restrict it". If we change to your version of the word, then sure. I'd pick apart some further details, but for the purpose of an internet forum discussion I'd of course agree. When you expand "freedom" to such a broad definition there's basically nothing left to talk about.
Curious about one thing though: Seatbelt laws. Freedom or infringement on freedom?
Aug 2, 2016Libertarianism has a vast amount of conflicting ideas inside it, so I don't like to speak of it monolithically.Posted in: Debate
That said, the basic issue is pretty simple. The movement values "Freedom" because "freedom" because "freedom". If something increased freedom, good. If something decreases freedom, bad. Why freedom good? Because freedom. Is anything else good? Not if it reduces freedom. Because freedom is good.b
When you state it that simply, it's pretty clear why the philosophy results in absurdities like people arguing you should be allowed to juggle vials of smallpox in the middle of an urban center - and no police officer should be allowed to stop you... But the private citizens can naturally stop you, because they're acting in self defense. I've seriously run into normally quite smart people arguing this (after I posed the scenario to reveal the isseus with their line of thought).
It's better to ask, "what makes society better" not, "how do we get as free as possible without everyone dying". Traffic lights make society better. It's a net win.
While a lot of self-named libertarians might be pro traffic light, that seems to be more a product of fortunate common sense than anything you could credit to the ideology itself.
Jul 10, 2016Posted in: DebateQuote from bravesbaseball »
If a black defendant claims that a judge is racist because they are handing out disproportionate sentences to blacks than to other races, the defendant is not being racist.
Quote from Trump »If he was giving me a fair ruling, I wouldn't say that
You just made the same argument Trump has made. This ain't complicated. You continue to ignore the other factors, unfortunately you are arguing against reality.
Lol, nope. Blaming the act on the judge's heritage is being racist. For Trump to be copying the second defendant like you want, he'd have to be saying, "The judge ruled against me because I'm white". He isn't.
Trump is claiming the guy is being unfair *because he is mexican*. This is racist.
Let's swap things around for the amusement of the crowd.
Person 1: This guy is lazy. It's because he's Mexican.
Person 2: Wow. That's a racist thing to say.
Person 1: No it isn't, because I wouldn't have said that if he wasn't lazy!
Person 2: Yes. If he wasn't being lazy, you wouldn't blame his laziness on him being Mexican. That blaming is racism.
You're just digging yourself in deeper. Ironically, you're doing so good a job you probably won't need to hire extra help.
Jul 10, 2016@bravesbaseball - Your problem is that you're confusing a person making racist comments with a person accusing someone ELSE of racism.Posted in: Debate
If a black defendant claims that an asian judge is biased against them because the judge is asian, that is a racist statement. Just like Trumpy.
If a black defendant claims that a judge is racist because they are handing out disproportionate sentences to blacks than to other races, the defendant is not being racist. The defendant is not making a judgment of the judge based on the judge's race. The defendant is saying that the judge's sentences demonstrate the *judge's* racial bias.
This ain't complicated. Racists like to try and paint the act of complaining about racism into the real crime. Good luck with that.
Jul 10, 2016@Crash Stating higher rates of crime among a specific race isn't racist, because you aren't claiming their race is the reason for their crimes. That's just a correlation. While some people like to hid behind correlations to imply racism to a willing audience while dodging accusations, that isn't what you're doing here. If you said, "Black people are naturally less moral and more violent than white people" - that's a racist statement. Also a despicable one.Posted in: Debate
Jul 9, 2016Same old song. Person makes a racist statement, making a judgment of someone based on their race. Others call them on it. They try to defend themselves by basically saying, "it's not racist, it's true. [Race here] really IS [racist statement here]."Posted in: Debate
This isn't doing a good job of convincing people you aren't racist. You're just arguing that being racist isn't bad. Good luck with that.
Jun 9, 2016Posted in: ReligionQuote from magickware99 »Quote from rockondon »The idea of changing one's mind is an interesting thing.
It seems that when someone is told something absurd, ridiculous, and without any evidence, and the person believes it (often because they trust the person telling them the lie or believing it serves their own interests), these are the people who are the most unwilling to change their beliefs. If you show them evidence that proves them wrong, they continue pretending to believe the lie.
And the ones who learn something based on evidence and logic, despite the valid body of support for believing it, they are generally far more willing to adjust their beliefs in light of new evidence.
In short, if you have no reason to believe something, you are unwilling to stop believing it.
If you have great reasons to believe something, you're far more willing to alter those beliefs.
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that people who base their beliefs on science are more willing to change their views based on new evidences.
Also, your post is downright insulting towards people who believe in religion.
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that your article provides a relevant objection. It's ironic that you quote a single authoritative study as iron-clad proof for your position when your article is all about how that exact mentality is delaying progress in science. But in any case, it's irrelevant. You're trying to refute the claim that people who base their beliefs on science are *more* likely to change their views based on new evidence than religious thinkers.
To simplify things, this is what just happened.
Person 1: Cheetahs are generally faster than sloths.
You: That's not true. Some cheetahs actually move slowly.
Person 1: But Cheetahs are still generally faster than sloths.
To be a real refutation, you'd need to compare how fast people adapt to new evidence basing their thinking on science vs. religion. One data point does not make a comparison.
Oh, and if you aren't basing your views on evidence then you aren't basing them on science to begin with.
May 14, 2016Posted in: ReligionQuote from theazurespirit »
And religious believers don't use 'faith' to mean 'belief without evidence' either. Most religious believers believe that they have evidence for their belief (whether that evidence is valid or decisive isn't a discussion I want to get into here). The only times I've seen people define faith as 'belief without evidence' is in the case of people criticizing religious faith.
Believers don't usually like to say they believe without evidence, because when you put it like that it's transparently silly. What they do often like to say is that they believe without needing proof or so on. Or, when you ask for proof, they say "you just have to have faith... But there's totally reasonable evidence. You just wouldn't consider it reasonable, and neither would I if any other religion advanced the same evidence." That's the same thing, they just don't like putting it that way often. No one likes to admit their beliefs aren't justified or don't make sense.
Similar to someone saying, "I'm not a racist, but [race here] people are genuinely dangerous. That's not racism, that's just a fact." Them believing it's a fact is the racism.
Also, "Believing something on faith" or, "taking something on faith" is different than, "having faith in a friend". Similar to saying, "I trust my friend" vs. "I believe X because I trust my friend."
Apr 7, 2016Stairc posted a message on To atheists and agnostics: what makes Christianity unappealing or unacceptable to you?You ignored my question. It should be simple to answer.Posted in: Religion
In the mean time I'll answer your argument.
Your argument is basically this:
NOTHING could have ALWAYS existed. However, this would create an infinite regress, which is impossible. Therefore, SOMETHING must have ALWAYS existed after all.
This isn't even a circular argument... It's more like a serpent eating its own tail. The argument destroys itself.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
May 6, 2015Cantrips are powerful and fun. "Mystery Box" ones are merely reasonable, but we do have some of those in the form of cycling cards. Ones that let you choose the card, like ponder, are extremely dangerous. In general though, we've kept most of the card draw in our auction block at moderate power level - or require jumping through hoops (like Ordeal of Thassa). This is because we like to mostly have control over the auction, so that each player has a chance to buy the game-winning cards. With a lot of card draw, you get fun surprises that can feel awesome - but you lose control over the skill-based experience.Posted in: Articles
That said, we love the card draw effects and always try to snap them up. It just depends on the experience you're looking for. I have a hunch we'll be making a second auction block that plays very differently from the one in the article too.
As for going to 0, yes - it's super dangerous. You can afford to do it when bidding on a creature (because the auction ends after a creature is purchased and you'll get 3 gold at the start of the next turn, before the next auction) but if you do it while it's not your turn and bidding on a non-creature, your opponent can pick free cards off the top of the deck. If you do it while it's your turn, they only have to pay 1 gold per card (because they still have to raise your bid of zero). It's an added layer of risk/reward strategy.
May 6, 201515% means that answers are rather rare. You usually only get 1 or 2 each game. Our auction block is built around that, with few creatures being must-kill targets. If you run a higher power block, or just one with higher variance of power (more must-kill creatures compared to the other ones in the block), 25% could absolutely be the correct number.Posted in: Articles
Also, yes, if you run out of cards in the auction block you shuffle both graveyards in and use them as the new pile.
May 4, 2015Absolutely, there are lots of great things to discuss here.Posted in: Articles
The situation where all players have 0 gold while the auction is continuing has not ever showed up in testing but it does need an answer. The reason it almost never happens is because when one player is at 0 gold, the other player only has to spend 1 gold to buy each card that shows up. The auction is probably going to end before one player runs out of gold.
The current rules about neither player bidding, which say to auction again, are designed as a safety valve so that if a designer includes a useless card in his block - players have an inbuilt way to say "let's not play with this card". However, it does create problems when both players have 0 gold. I'd either suggest either immediately ending the auction if both players are at 0 gold, or change the rules so that bidding "0" is a legitimate first bid - and that if no one raises the bid the player that bid "0" gold gets the card for free. Both would solve the problem, though the second is more elegant (since it just tweaks an existing rule rather than adds a brand new rule).
For constructing an auction block, there are no limits whatsoever. You can build a block however you like. You can build it singleton, like Commander, or you can put in 10 copies of a card you like. You can also shuffle several booster packs together and try playing with their contents. The only limits are what you think will make the best experience for your players.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.