Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

Why not have an underground base nearly indistinguishable from the surface if one did not know what to look for?

I think the better question is why join a server if you're just going to build your crap where no one else can reach you.

Underground bases take a lot longer to build, and caves keep getting in the road. I was actually just about to start a backup underground base when the griefer hit.

As for building where others can't see, first is because it's always fun to screenshot and send it to others on the server, quite a few people do. Next is that after you have been on the server for several months and proven yourself to not be a griefer or idiot they put you on the whitelist, which allows you to teleport to a whitelist only area where you can build much closer together. From what I hear their is even a zone above that, where only those long term players from the whitelist can go to.

[RedKing]

Got told to stand down from a brewing fight at work yet again. I understand why they're doing it, but daaaaaaaaamn.

I'm the kind of person that, if I can prove I'm right and the other person is wrong (and especially if they're being belligerently wrong), I will storm the fucking gates of Heaven.

Especially when said person is more or less constantly wrong, constantly incompetent and wields their little bureaucratic power like a petty tyrant. Those sort of people need to be brought low whenever possible.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm the kind of person that, if I can prove I'm right and the other person is wrong (and especially if they're being belligerently wrong), I will storm the fucking gates of Heaven.

I would like to live in a world where people do not think in terms of "I'm right and you are wrong." It makes it almost completely concrete - even obligated for the wrong to remain so indefinitely.

[Nadaka]

I'm the kind of person that, if I can prove I'm right and the other person is wrong (and especially if they're being belligerently wrong), I will storm the fucking gates of Heaven.

I would like to live in a world where people do not think in terms of "I'm right and you are wrong." It makes it almost completely concrete - even obligated for the wrong to remain so indefinitely.

How so? The point of proving something unquestionably wrong in an argument is to change the mind of the person defending the wrong.  The only way for the person to remain indefinitely wrong is if they choose to ignore the proof.

[Lagslayer]

I'm the kind of person that, if I can prove I'm right and the other person is wrong (and especially if they're being belligerently wrong), I will storm the fucking gates of Heaven.

I would like to live in a world where people do not think in terms of "I'm right and you are wrong." It makes it almost completely concrete - even obligated for the wrong to remain so indefinitely.

How so? The point of proving something unquestionably wrong in an argument is to change the mind of the person defending the wrong.  The only way for the person to remain indefinitely wrong is if they choose to ignore the proof.

The truth is ultimately subjective, being based on one's perception. Yes, it's a circular argument, but it's important to know that it is circular and also why it is circular, even though you may just have to pick a side anyways.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm the kind of person that, if I can prove I'm right and the other person is wrong (and especially if they're being belligerently wrong), I will storm the fucking gates of Heaven.

I would like to live in a world where people do not think in terms of "I'm right and you are wrong." It makes it almost completely concrete - even obligated for the wrong to remain so indefinitely.

How so? The point of proving something unquestionably wrong in an argument is to change the mind of the person defending the wrong.  The only way for the person to remain indefinitely wrong is if they choose to ignore the proof.

Which is very easy for them to do - unless they had no personal attachment to the information/opinion they defended. When the whole point of the argument is proving that someone is wrong and someone is right, there will be someone defending their opinion because suddenly it is about them being right/wrong, not their opinion.

The truth is ultimately subjective, being based on one's perception. Yes, it's a circular argument, but it's important to know that it is circular and also why it is circular, even though you may just have to pick a side anyways.

Axioms! Wonderful axioms! Reliable interpretations! It extends to perceptions that are closest to reality! Surety!

[ChairmanPoo]

...when taken to the extreme postmodernism is self-defeating. And pointless. If you don't rely in your own senses what are you left with?

[Nadaka]

Only an irrational actor will make the argument that "someone" is wrong, without regard to the argument that person is putting forwards. In this case, the assertion that "someone" is wrong, rather than the specific argument they are making, can never be proven by any rational process.

[Loud Whispers]

Only an irrational actor will make the argument that "someone" is wrong, without regard to the argument that person is putting forwards. In this case, the assertion that "someone" is wrong, rather than the specific argument they are making, can never be proven by any rational process.

Also posit the situation where both parties sincerely believe they are right. Then you both crash and burn.

[cerapa]

Also posit the situation where both parties sincerely believe they are right. Then you both crash and burn.

I believe this is known as every argument ever.*


*Hyperbole is fun. Obviously not every.

[Nadaka]

Only an irrational actor will make the argument that "someone" is wrong, without regard to the argument that person is putting forwards. In this case, the assertion that "someone" is wrong, rather than the specific argument they are making, can never be proven by any rational process.

Also posit the situation where both parties sincerely believe they are right. Then you both crash and burn.

Not when proof is provided. If you can produce proof, then one person, or perhaps both will have to change their position or demonstrate their irrationality.

[Loud Whispers]

Only an irrational actor will make the argument that "someone" is wrong, without regard to the argument that person is putting forwards. In this case, the assertion that "someone" is wrong, rather than the specific argument they are making, can never be proven by any rational process.

Also posit the situation where both parties sincerely believe they are right. Then you both crash and burn.

Not when proof is provided. If you can produce proof, then one person, or perhaps both will have to change their position or demonstrate their irrationality.

Unless they refute the proof, because they are defending the position they have been thrown into.

[Nadaka]

Only an irrational actor will make the argument that "someone" is wrong, without regard to the argument that person is putting forwards. In this case, the assertion that "someone" is wrong, rather than the specific argument they are making, can never be proven by any rational process.

Also posit the situation where both parties sincerely believe they are right. Then you both crash and burn.

Not when proof is provided. If you can produce proof, then one person, or perhaps both will have to change their position or demonstrate their irrationality.

Unless they refute the proof, because they are defending the position they have been thrown into.

A correct proof can not be refuted. That is why it is a proof.

[Loud Whispers]

A correct proof can not be refuted. That is why it is a proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

Humanity has an astounding gift for the rejection of proofs.

[Nadaka]

A correct proof can not be refuted. That is why it is a proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

Humanity has an astounding gift for the rejection of proofs.

Thus demonstrating their irrationality.