IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,874
- 3,343
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
DontTalk and Eficiente haven't finished their conversation yet.What currently needs to be evaluated here?
@DontTalkDT @Eficiente@DontTalkDT @Eficiente
Can you try to reach a conclusion here please? We have waited for over 6 months now.
@DontTalkDT @Eficiente@DontTalkDT @Eficiente
Can you try to reach a conclusion here please? We have waited for over 6 months now.
@Eficiente I had a conversation with DT about finishing this thread. What do you think?Thanks for trying to have this thread be finished, but I had the last comments here, so please don't call me if I don't have responses.
I maintain that you can't make a sentience based criteria for fiction. Fiction could have as much sentience as reality. Or maybe not, but that isn't for us to decide.
@Eficiente I had a conversation with DT about finishing this thread. What do you think?
@Antvasima What do you think about this?I can't say I blame him for considering to close this for the reasons given but I'm not sure if it would be fair given that I would need to refamiliarize myself with the matter too, then grab everything that matters and rewrite it into a new thread, which is more work in my part.
On the last bit, I will more or less quote myself from my "last" comment: "something that seriously stuck to me from this thread was the
mindset. It's not that part written but the argument as a whole, it's contradictory and oppressive to argue that we can't decide on something while actually leaving as a standard a decided take on the manner."
So it's "offensive as to debate which religion one should adhere to" but it's not to, again, already have as a standard a decided take on the manner? No, that's nonsensical. The fact that we as a wiki need to have standards on what is or isn't fiction means that all topics that cover it can be up to debate, always, subject to potential change and reason & logic against it, not just leaving it at the rules already set in stone about it.
You can't seriously expect us to make a ruling on the matter "does free will exist".On the last bit, I will more or less quote myself from my "last" comment: "something that seriously stuck to me from this thread was the
mindset. It's not that part written but the argument as a whole, it's contradictory and oppressive to argue that we can't decide on something while actually leaving as a standard a decided take on the manner."
So it's "offensive as to debate which religion one should adhere to" but it's not to, again, already have as a standard a decided take on the manner? No, that's nonsensical. The fact that we as a wiki need to have standards on what is or isn't fiction means that all topics that cover it can be up to debate, always, subject to potential change and reason & logic against it, not just leaving it at the rules already set in stone about it.
Yes, portraying it as something outrageous doesn't mean that it is. I find your reasons for it terrible.You can't seriously expect us to make a ruling on the matter "does free will exist".
Not having a standard on something is a standard in of itself in this case. It means that it's always going to be win the decisions commonly agreed upon because that's normalized to be the right thing to do. Again, this something that isn't subject to potential change and to ever have reason & logic against it. I'm sorry but you're way over your head if you're not able to understand this. It's oppressive as I said before, even if I claim no intentional ill will from your part, in order to be honest it has to lay down the rules we follow on words in a page, like with any other thing.Contrary to what you say we don't have a standard on the matter and I don't intend to implement one either. We leave the existence of true free will and which consequences it has to each fiction to decide. Which is why we neither can have a rule based on the assumption that free will exists and works a certain way nor the assumption that it doesn't exist.
If the verse specifies that its own reasoning on the matter contradicts R>F that's another issue, but that is covered by the usual rules regarding verses explicitly contradicting themself or our assumptions.
@DontTalkDTYes, portraying it as something outrageous doesn't mean that it is. I find your reasons for it terrible.
Not having a standard on something is a standard in of itself in this case. It means that it's always going to be win the decisions commonly agreed upon because that's normalized to be the right thing to do. Again, this something that isn't subject to potential change and to ever have reason & logic against it. I'm sorry but you're way over your head if you're not able to understand this. It's oppressive as I said before, even if I claim no intentional ill will from your part, in order to be honest it has to lay down the rules we follow on words in a page, like with any other thing.
Whatever that may end up looking like, it may or may not be something I disagree with, since I basically believe that the relationship between reality & fiction is abused by people on how it's interpreted to get insanely high stats and that sensical rules on how sentience in fiction can be next to in reality would annihilate part of what they were doing so far. Even it ends up saying something I disagree with, that's fine, it means I don't have to debate verse by verse stuff that we as a wiki had already taken decisions over but kept to ourselves, and that in the future if I were to hypothetically have time or anyone with more resources wanted to tackle this, they could. It doesn't even matter if that would do something.
@Antvasima @Eficiente Given how DT genuinely doesn't want to keep engaging here and wants to make a new thread to tackle the unaddressed points, but nobody seems to want to summarize it all for us, what should we do?Yes, portraying it as something outrageous doesn't mean that it is. I find your reasons for it terrible.
Not having a standard on something is a standard in of itself in this case. It means that it's always going to be win the decisions commonly agreed upon because that's normalized to be the right thing to do. Again, this something that isn't subject to potential change and to ever have reason & logic against it. I'm sorry but you're way over your head if you're not able to understand this. It's oppressive as I said before, even if I claim no intentional ill will from your part, in order to be honest it has to lay down the rules we follow on words in a page, like with any other thing.
Whatever that may end up looking like, it may or may not be something I disagree with, since I basically believe that the relationship between reality & fiction is abused by people on how it's interpreted to get insanely high stats and that sensical rules on how sentience in fiction can be next to in reality would annihilate part of what they were doing so far. Even it ends up saying something I disagree with, that's fine, it means I don't have to debate verse by verse stuff that we as a wiki had already taken decisions over but kept to ourselves, and that in the future if I were to hypothetically have time or anyone with more resources wanted to tackle this, they could. It doesn't even matter if that would do something.
I think that DontTalk makes sense above.You can't seriously expect us to make a ruling on the matter "does free will exist".
Contrary to what you say we don't have a standard on the matter and I don't intend to implement one either. We leave the existence of true free will and which consequences it has to each fiction to decide. Which is why we neither can have a rule based on the assumption that free will exists and works a certain way nor the assumption that it doesn't exist.
If the verse specifies that its own reasoning on the matter contradicts R>F that's another issue, but that is covered by the usual rules regarding verses explicitly contradicting themself or our assumptions.
Yes, we have applied everything before efi came and disagreed with some of its aspects.Have we applied all of the accepted revisions here? If so, I think that we can likely close this thread now.