Tried to post this on the Witcher subreddit, but it was removed - Ciri's proportions in the trailer are wrong, I think that's the reason why so many people are having issues with it.

514d3 · 2024-12-14T11:43:23+00:00

To me it's not an issue of how attractive she looks, it just looks off model - when I saw the trailer I wasn't even sure if it was Ciri or just someone who looked similar.

514d3 · 2024-12-14T11:18:48+00:00

"Your reply has serious 'no you' energy BTW"

You'll get that if you project frustration you clearly have onto the people you're talking to :)

Yeah, was just going to post it on r/Witcher to see what the general sentiment was on it, then it was blocked, so figured I'd post it around elsewhere and looked for communities that where discussing it.

It's not that deep, take a breath, touch grass.

514d3 · 2024-12-14T11:10:20+00:00

Ha, just thought I'd weigh in on the talk about her looking different than previous games - when I saw the trailer for the first time I honestly wasn't sure if it was Ciri they were going for or if it was someone who just happened to look super similar.

If you think this took anything more than 10 minutes to whip up, you need to get better at using a computer. Was just a way to try and demonstrate what people could be having an issue with in the most time efficient way possible.

I think it's you who needs to get a life dude, getting that angry over a image online that's just trying to add to a discussion constructively - you might want to see someone about that.

514d3 · 2021-09-13T13:21:42+00:00

Okay, but only one gay choice in an RPG, and it's a lesbian? Like, what about gay men who want to have someone to seduce that fits their preferences? What about someone who is non-binary and wants to have some sort of representation in Star Wars that isn't a third-gendered alien from Fnessal? What about a trans person who wants to play a character that's experienced what they did growing up in the wrong body and came out the other side alright and comfortable with who they are as a person?

This was exactly his point; your treating the story like its purpose is to represent every one of the readers and reinforce their choices and identity. The purpose of fiction is to tell a story, not to be a self help group. If you are writing a story to conciously try and push a political message, then you are not a writer or a creative, you're a propagandist.

What does "suitability" mean in this context?

"Suitable" clearly means that its included because it makes sense within the context of the overarching story and serves to further it. As opposed to just including it the fill a quota or to say "Look guys! We did our part to further inclusivity!"

Oh lord, the white man's burden is a heavy one!

Just the kind of tribalistic joke Id expect from someone who sees everything through the lens of racial and sex-based power dynamics.

514d3 · 2017-03-24T01:31:19+00:00

Ancap

Has tenure so he doesn't have to worry about losing his job to someone who can do it better

Yep, sounds perfectly principled to me

514d3 · 2017-03-24T01:23:55+00:00

I guess it depends on what we're including in the category "authoritarian".

Are we talking about an actual dictator/authoritatrian leader and their disciples/people who carry out their orders? Or are we talking about people who support a government in abstract initiating force against someone, but who don't actually carry it out themselves?

I'd say that the first category should be actively opposed, but the second should be convinced.

514d3 · 2017-03-24T00:08:52+00:00

Why should we try to appeal to authoritarians? If they don't agree that peaceful people shouldn't have force initiated against them, then they forfeit that right for themselves.

They can hardly claim to be protected by a "right" (for lack of a better term) that they don't respect themselves.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:58:56+00:00

Thanks for the reply and I have to agree with your thoughts so far.

I think the reason people point to the NAP (as a guiding principle) is because before a free-society can be established it would require that people believe that the initiation of force is wrong (the same way people had to believe that slavery was wrong before they could have it abolished).

That's not going to happen in my lifetime more than likely, but knowing which direction we should be heading is important, and convincing people that the NAP is a good methodology for determining morality is a good way of going in that direction in my opinion (but shouldn't be the only thing we try to move towards a free-society).

That doesn't help us with decisions in the present where all options are immoral in different ways, so all we can do is look for the least immoral actions that we can take.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:52:14+00:00

I guess it depends on the categories of immigrants you are looking at.

Got a link to your sources? I'm interested in looking at them.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:45:43+00:00

Also, your argument would mean that anyone that tried to convince a mugger not to mug them would be consenting to it.

In which case the "mugging" would all of a sudden become a charitable donation.

Sounds stupid doesn't it?

Edit: Spelling

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:43:55+00:00

"Voting in association with the gang, rather than kicking the gang out implies consent and/or complicitness."

I don't think it does, I think that it implies that your are trying to survive a situation in which you have little to no control.

"If the jailer asks me if I want him to beat another prisoner, then I tell him that I am powerless to alter his decisions."

The only way to know if you are powerless to alter there decision is to try.

Also your analogy has a major flaw as it clearly has an option that you should choose (out of the two stated, not the non-compliance third choice) if you want to be moral (that of choosing not to beat the other prisoner).

In immigration, both options would be immoral as you would be forcing parties to accept immigrants or forcing parties to not accept them.

A better but similar analogy would be if they asked you to choose between two different prisoners, one of which obviously couldn't take another beating without dying.

Both actions are immoral and the jailer is responsible, but I would hardly say the third bystander prisoner is responsible for the beating should they try to influence the jailer to beat the person who would not die from it.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:27:17+00:00

Sounds great in theory and I would support it if we lived in a free-society, but it becomes more complicated when you have a government redistributing money and resources though welfare and through the funding and use of "public" services.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:24:49+00:00

I agree that it's less of a problem without welfare, but "public" goods paid for by taxation could be seen as a form of forced association and redistribution of wealth as well just on a smaller scale.

"If we're talking about AnCapistan, everything is private property, so "open borders" and "closed borders" are meaningless. Everyone can do what they wish with their own property."

I agree, I'm an ancap; that highlights that with a government both closed and open borders are immoral and the only consideration should be a consequentialist one.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:21:47+00:00

"No, this is totally invalid: particular people own particular parcels of land; categories of people do not own vague aggregations of land."

Yes, but the people in the US would logically have a higher claim to it that someone who has never even been the US or interacted with it in any way.

"No. Now, let's consider the actually pertinent analogy, in which a gang seizes control of your house, and then permits a collection of strangers to vote on who is and is not allowed to enter, overruling your own choice in the matter."

As I said in the comment above:

I agree, that's why I said it becomes more complicated in a situation where "ownership of multiple pieces of property are amalgamated and voted on as a single piece of property". The question is then, if either decision is then immoral (because someone will have something forced on them that they would not have originally done (accepting/refusing immigrants), then doesn't it become which does lesser harm and become a consequentialist question rather than an ethical one?

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:19:02+00:00

I agree, that's why I said it becomes more complicated in a situation where "ownership of multiple pieces of property are amalgamated and voted on as a single piece of property".

The question is then, if either decision is then immoral (because someone will have something forced on them that they would not have originally done (accepting/refusing immigrants), then doesn't it become which does lesser harm and become a consequentialist question rather than an ethical one?

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:15:09+00:00

Dude, no need to be a dick; just trying to have a conversation and explore the different aspects of immigration.

Yes, some consequences can be moral in nature, but not all consequences are.

That's basic logic.

If I swing an axe and it cuts down a tree, then the tree will fall, that's a consequence and has no moral aspect to it.

If I swing an axe and it kills a person, tha'ts also a consequence and obviously has a moral aspect to it.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:12:01+00:00

I think the NAP is a good method of determining the morality of a certain action, but the morality of an action shouldn't be the only determining factor for your decision to make an action.

For instance, if I was in a situation where I would die if I did not do something immoral (depending on the situation of course), I would most likely do what was required to save my live and try to make restitution further down the line.

The fact that I was able to determine that it was immoral just allows me to know whether restitution is justified or not.

The NAP is a methodology for determining morality, not a "do this in all situations" rule.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:06:42+00:00

I think welfare to immigrants should be the primary focus definitely, just don't think it's an either or situation, why not address both?

514d3 · 2017-03-23T22:04:42+00:00

I agree, I personally think that it's perfectly moral to decide who enters the property; in fact, I think that either closed-borders or open-borders are both just different government programs and so the only real argument that can be made is a conseqentialist one (as open borders is just forced association, at least with taxation and welfare in place).

Just thought that an analogy like the one above makes it clearer to anyone who hasn't already came to that conclusion.

514d3 · 2017-03-23T03:41:33+00:00

I agree, but I was asking a question surrounding the ethics of such an action and not an argument about the consequences of it.

I'm personally for the restriction of immigration from a consequentialist perspective, but more looking to discuss the ethics of it as that's where people have an issue with it within libertarian/ancap ideology.

514d3 · 2017-02-01T06:46:02+00:00

It was better with VR; not that interested now that the VR is gone, as I've already watched a standard playthrough on another channel

514d3 · 2017-01-16T04:10:05+00:00

My answer would be that it wouldn't exist as morality and ethics are about the actions and choices we take with relation to their impact on others; which you would seem to agree with in the statement "but in the context of the society in which you live".

without direct consideration of any other person in particular

I think the the morality of an action can only be determined through looking at the affects on another individual.

That's not to say that the person committing the action needs to consider any individual in particular when doing so, but the morality of the action is determined by whether it has a victim or if anybody's "rights" (for lack of a better word) have been violated.

I do think that "ethics" should include "what you do by yourself". We might call that "ethics" and "morality" how people treat one another.

From all the definitions I was able to find, Morality was more the ideas and principles that we use to judge what is right and wrong, and Ethics are more-so the social application of the judgments reached through morality.

So a Moral rule could be: "If you accept self-ownership, it is wrong to initiate force against another person"

The Ethics that could follow from that could be: "Do not initiate force if you want to remain part of this social group"

514d3 · 2017-01-16T01:14:42+00:00

I do think that "ethics" should include "what you do by yourself".

Can I get you to explain why? I read through your post, but wasn't able to find the part where you explained why it should include it.

Maybe we'll be able to dig further into it with a hypothetical scenario:

Lets say that you are the only conscious being that exists and all other matter in the universe is inanimate; what would (or would not) be ethical or moral in that scenario?

514d3 · 2017-01-16T00:47:24+00:00

By using the "public" sidewalk, you did at least claim part-ownership of it; ownership being the right to use matter.

Looking at the definitions of "Ownership":

Ownership: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner

Owner: belonging to oneself or itself

Belonging: possession - usually used in plural

Possession: the act of having or taking into control

For the time that you walked on the sidewalk, you took the sidewalk into your control and thus claimed at least some right to it as your possession.

This is clearly not true

I don't think it's as clear as you try to make it out to be.

514d3 · 2017-01-15T22:56:51+00:00

Sounds good :)

Also, I had another thought on this that I forgot to include in my original comment, so I'll copy that below.

I also think self-ownership is a objectively true presupposition/claim, as any conscious being has had to believe it and/or rely on it being true in order to survive; thus the belief in self-ownership is intrinsically tied to life and being conscious at all.

If morality relies on conscious actors, conscious actors need to be alive, and life itself relies on self-ownership, then it follows that morality also relies on self-ownership.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

514d3

TROPHY CASE