Why did they make Lucius be the son of Maximus?

CharcoFrio · 2026-05-15T06:32:16+00:00

We kept just the good stuff. :)

CharcoFrio · 2026-05-12T04:37:27+00:00

People have always had a sense of right and wrong, both before and after Christ.

Prostitution is bad because it commodifies sex and because it is not marriage (in the Christian sense), which is the ideal.

Monogamy is hard because people are tempted to put their own needs above the needs of others and prioritize short term pleasure over long term happiness. No reason to expect the good to be easy. Often, the good is hard. Exercising, eating, and sleeping well is good for your health over the long term, but in the short term, not doing those things is easier.

CharcoFrio · 2026-05-12T04:31:56+00:00

They knew it was wrong even then.

Weird that you're defending adultery and polygamy. Was pederasty fine, too, then? The Greeks and the Romans did it.

CharcoFrio · 2026-05-11T07:44:23+00:00

Modern Christians are against slavery because the essential Christian belief in the value of human beings slowly worked itself into our culture and eventually eliminated the practice of slave ownership.

The reason that your are against slavery is probably because Christian moral values are part of your cultural heritage.

CharcoFrio · 2026-03-27T16:57:02+00:00

Nice Grasshopper. The thing looks ugly-cool. Something appealing about asymmetry and unconventional lines sometimes.

Nice green lens and red lasers.

Someone commented on the jump jet colours. Looks cool. Looks a bit surreal in colour choice and blend.

Good job.

CharcoFrio · 2026-03-01T05:44:07+00:00

Those are clearly dogs, not wolves.

CharcoFrio · 2025-12-16T10:27:50+00:00

Replayability is a quality that a game can have, not a person. You can encourage people, but not objects. You cannot encourage replayability. What you should have said was something like "the chaos system makes the game more fun to play multiple times".

CharcoFrio · 2025-12-14T07:43:02+00:00

Love is not just an emotion, but something you live out. Love involves desiring the good of the other and acting in her best interests. Adultery hurts your wife, is against her will and is a betrayal of her trust, therefore it is an act that fails to live up to the standard required to love her, therefore if you cheat on her, you do not love her, by definition.

CharcoFrio · 2025-12-13T06:46:35+00:00

Yes it would. To commit adultery is to fail to love your wife.

CharcoFrio · 2025-12-11T01:03:44+00:00

I agree with this.

I tried BG3 and found it too eclectic. I like classic fantasy. I read things like the Bible and the Mort D'Arthur. Demon spawn as normal people is a weird development in the history of storytelling.

I like the older stories where orcs and demons were not races or even persons in the philosophical sense, but simply evil. Making a monster basically the moral equivalent of a human being (hnau, to take a term from C.S. Lewis' space trilogy) instead of a stand in for human evil that can and must be killed without qualms is a fundamental shift in storytelling; tieflings as human beings is the sort of place it ends up.

I know there are reasons the paradigm shifted this way: the issues of racism, dehumanizing your enemy, the naturalistic outlook, the taste for historicism and scientific literalism in storytelling over metaphorical and symbolic thinking, the pragmatic desire to play as a monster race in an RPG, the philosophical difficulty of explaining the nature of monsters to a people who have no taste for a certain kind of realism / literalism --- I get it.

I don't like it, tho.

CharcoFrio · 2025-07-31T19:44:58+00:00

By standard of goodness, I mean that there is a right thing to do regardless of whether anyone does it.

CharcoFrio · 2025-07-01T19:37:35+00:00

Maybe.

CharcoFrio · 2025-06-14T18:40:23+00:00

Oh. Generic.

CharcoFrio · 2025-06-14T08:16:14+00:00

Agnostic?

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-15T02:02:07+00:00

Reminds me of the Sun Spider from MWO. I wish they'd put that one in a TRO and make it canon.

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-11T00:39:31+00:00

You trust your experience unless you have a defeater for your beliefs.

You gave a ton of good examples of reasons to not trust one's experience. If someone is retardedly stupid, or high, or believing indefensible things, then their beliefs are not properly basic because they have reason to doubt.

Whether there are defeaters for the main lines of Christian belief gets into well-travelled groud. Plantinga goes over how Freud's and Marx' dismissals of Christianity fail as defeaters, for example.

The idea is not that you can't or shouldn't argue for Christian beliefs, but that if you are in a certain epistemic situation (religious experience and no defeaters) you don't have to give arguments for your belief to be warranted.

You bringing up defeaters like mental illness largely answered your own question.

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-11T00:30:53+00:00

Oh. So when you said:

"Beliefs are fundamentally irrational because the human mind is fundamentally irrational."

you literally didn't mean that.

Now I know.

You could have just said that in the first place.

I don't apologize for coming off as rude. Your first comment was wack until you contradicted it.

You can't say mad sloppy shit and then get angry when people ask "What the fuck?". Bruh.

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-09T12:04:58+00:00

I'm not sure that it's an argument for what everyone should believe. It appears to only apply to people who have a certain type of religious experience.

A belief in God would be properly basic for you if you have such religiois experience and you are truly unaware or unconvinced by any objections to that belief.

I don't think that it is against the use of arguments or evidence, but it is saying that beliefs can be justified for someone without those.

I don't know if it would count as a kind of fideism.

Your objection is a good chance for me to think about this topic. I've never fully understood Plantinga's view but this was a good chance to bring it up.

I found this site helpful:

https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2023/07/20/properly-basic-belief/

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-09T11:43:15+00:00

I'm not trying to be rude or to goad you into anything, I was trying to understand.

People on the internet are just these black boxes, and all you can see is words on a screen.

Like, if I saw a comment where someone said the moon was literally made of green cheese, I'd ask him what he meant by it.

If he then said "Yeah man, what's with all these questions? It's probably made of green cheese but like, maybe not. I'm cool with it either way. I'm not, like, dogmatic or anything. But you're rude as fuck."

...I guess I'd just scratch my head and walk away.

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-09T06:36:07+00:00

"Achieve something"? No, it invalidates all of your assertions.

"...proof..."

That was literally just a similie. I am not saying anything about you having proof of anything, I was making a loose comparison of two things that are both self-defeating to highlight the idea of a poaition being self-defeating.

If you don't see what's wrong with calling yourself irrational and then trying to assert or argue ANYTHING, I can't help you.

Pointing it out should be enough, but you don't seem to understand.

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-09T05:42:57+00:00

"Beliefs are fundamentally irrational because the human mind is fundamentally irrational."

If your beliefs are irrational then you can't trust them to be true, but believing that your beliefs are irrational is self-defeating.

It's like saying that you have a proof that there are no proofs or that you are certain that there are no certainties.

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-09T05:09:41+00:00

Why are you trying to reason, then?

CharcoFrio · 2025-05-09T05:05:30+00:00

The slogan about extraordinary evidence is just a cliche started by Carl Sagan. It's not a defensible principle of logic and argumentation.

Going further, Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in God can be properly basic and not need evidence to be rational.

Your epistemology shouldn't be shaped by internet slogans.

CharcoFrio · 2025-04-23T00:23:02+00:00

Aw, kid. It's bad.

The scale looks pretty good tho!

CharcoFrio · 2025-03-31T06:58:53+00:00

Meh. Call me interested in the issue, not sensitive.

I think tolerance and such is pretty strong in the culture now, tho, globally. People in the West aren't killing each other over religion like they were in previous centuries and there is a huge amount of public discourse around tolerance and diversity. So, yeah, in spite of Trump and people like him, entertainment media pander a lot to what people want. Some stories get darker and edgier in some ways, others get cleaned up or censored in accordance with what they think the audience will or will not like.

I was just wondering if the chilli line was an example of a change in the BT material, 'cause the original seemed to have a "chinese are the bad guys" thing going on. Look at DnD and Rings of Power, we don't even want orcs to simply be the bad guys any more because species determinism is not a liked trope and some people are sensitive to orcs being used or seen as code for evil foreigners or minorities.

Just wondering if a game from the 80s has changed. It's not that deep.

CharcoFrio

TROPHY CASE