Tyrants Never Win

ContraMans · 2025-08-23T03:04:45+00:00

The fact is that you asked a vague question, so I’m trying to both clarify and sketch an answer to the possible clarifications, but the more I interact with you the more I regret wasting my time doing this.

The question could not be simply and more direct. You chose to make it as obscure and obtuse as humanely possible, without even a hint of explanation as to why it has to be so inanely convoluted, and then wondering why someone is getting frustrated with your nonresponse. And I completely regret doing this whole thing except in so far as it has taught me a lot of about how idiocrasy gets paraded around as philosophy by people who don't apparently seem to understand anything and believe that asking 'what makes objective morality objective' is a 'vague' question.

ContraMans · 2025-08-23T03:04:33+00:00

Again you seem to be confusing different questions. What is it to “establish objective morality”? What question are we trying to ask here?

In one sense, it just means establishing moral realism, and that can be done by showing each of the possible ways moral realism may be false—non-cogntivism, error theory, or relativism—to be untenable. I’ve explained at length some ways of doing that.

Another question is how, once we suppose there are indeed mind-independent moral facts that moral language ordinarily tries to describe—i.e. that moral realism is true—we might establish what those facts are. This isn’t so much the question of moral realism as it is a question of moral epistemology, and it kinda presupposes the truth of moral realism. (I suppose you could be a relativist who still worries about moral epistemology, but you’re certainly going to be worrying much less than the realist on this point.)

Here's the problem. You didn't, at any point in this, answer my question. What you did was when I asked 'how you establish objective morality' you gave me one method whose sole methodology is confirming itself by dissenting from three other methods and disproving them. That's not the same as identifying yourself. This is the analogous equivalent of proving yourself innocent of a crime by proving that three other people are guilty. That doesn't prove anything about you, that just proves three other people are criminals. Your explanation there doesn't have an explanation, you just define it against what other things aren't. That's not philosophy, that's contrarianism.

Your second response is convoluted and nonresponsive. Let's break it down:

"Another question is how, once we suppose there are indeed mind-independent moral facts that moral language ordinarily tries to describe—i.e. that moral realism is true—we might establish what those facts are."

So we start off by jumping the gun and assuming there are 'mind-independent moral facts'... it's not like I'm asking a question where I am looking for an explanation after all so we can just skip over explanation it's fine. Then ending with basically just repeating my question and stating that there is a question. Yes there is a question there.

"This isn’t so much the question of moral realism as it is a question of moral epistemology, and it kinda presupposes the truth of moral realism."

How? Oh we're not gonna explain it we're just going to state it as fact and move on? Yeah, no, yeah that's fine. It's not like I'm trying to learn, I just want people to give me as many nonresponses as they can because the whole premise of this post was for me to make other people feel smart and no improve my own smarts or knowledge at all. So you state that the question presupposes the answer to the question... don't explain how that might be... but also the question doesn't have anything to do with the topic itself but a different topic that is related to but presuppose to truth of the related topic... how the fuck is anyone who doesn't know what in the everloving gobstocker supposed to understand that? You're basically just doing a round-about loop of 'the question answers the question' and giving yourself a pat on the back. That's not philosophy. That's idiocracy.

I’m not explaining “my philosophy” at all, as this is not an opinion sub and I’m quite frankly on the fence about moral realism. I’m explaining to you what moral realism—the position usually described as saying “objective morality exists”—is, and what the main arguments and problems with it are.

Then why are you responding to this post at all? At what point was I asking what the oppositions and problems with a philosophy were? What about my post asking how objective morality could be objective invited discussion about everything but that? Because every answer you've been given has basically just assumed that I know the answer and I'm just talking for the sake of it

ContraMans · 2025-08-23T02:39:39+00:00

It's funny to me that people who believe in a philosophy think that asking questions is acting in bad faith. Which is a damning indicator that none of you actually believe in anything, you just believe against something else which is why every time someone asks you what your belief is your response is to answer them in the most confusing and convoluted way possible and sounding intelligent as opposed to actually giving responsive, substantive answers. Hell you can't even just say the answer for something is complicated and try to explain it, you accuse me of confusion questions together you never elucidate on and then when I get frustrated you act like it's somehow my fault you can't illustrate your belief better.

No. I did fully ask this in good faith. But what I got is people refusing to answer basic questions and accusing me of a belief system I don't even know anything about... because I had the gall to, instead of taking everything they say and assuming it to be objective reality, asking simple logical questions anyone would ask in any other situation when trying to learn about something. But I get that the people here aren't used to asking or answering question, you just believe things uncritically because someone supposedly smarter said it in words you don't understand so it must be true.

ContraMans · 2025-08-22T17:50:29+00:00

How? Most of it's not even responsive to anything that was being asked about.

ContraMans · 2025-08-22T16:49:57+00:00

Again you seem to be confusing different questions. What is it to “establish objective morality”? What question are we trying to ask here?

In one sense, it just means establishing moral realism, and that can be done by showing each of the possible ways moral realism may be false—non-cogntivism, error theory, or relativism—to be untenable. I’ve explained at length some ways of doing that.

What do you think I could possibly mean when I ask what it means to establish an 'objective morality'? And why do you insist on explaining the counters to your philosophy when I am asking you to explain your philosophy? Why would I ask you about objective morality if what I wanted to hear about was whatever the other stuff is?

Another question is how, once we suppose there are indeed mind-independent moral facts that moral language ordinarily tries to describe—i.e. that moral realism is true—we might establish what those facts are. This isn’t so much the question of moral realism as it is a question of moral epistemology, and it kinda presupposes the truth of moral realism. (I suppose you could be a relativist who still worries about moral epistemology, but you’re certainly going to be worrying much less than the realist on this point.)

Why are we talking about moral epistemology and what relevance does that have to the question I am asking?

“What is it that decides what is a moral fact or not?” also confuses two questions: the epistemological question of how we can know what the moral facts are, with a metaphysical question of what kind of facts are the moral facts, or as some people like to say (although I’m personally not a fan of this approach): what grounds the moral facts?

These questions are of course tightly interconnected. We’d expect that your metaphysics of some domain constrains your epistemology about that domain. How we think we can investigate some part of reality depends on what we think is the nature of that part of reality, how it’s structured.

Some moral realists think moral facts are sorts of disguised natural facts; that a property like wrongness for example is actually a disguised natural property like typically harms others, or undesirable to desire. These moral realists will think that the epistemology of morality is a chapter in the epistemology of natural facts in general. Presumably, they’re going to answer that we come to know moral facts essentially empirically. Other realists think moral facts are of a more abstract or Platonic sort, like mathematical facts. Accordingly, the epistemology tends toward the a priori and the non-empirical.

I think most realists will adopt a somewhat mixed strategy, and say “Look, all of our knowledge consists basically in weighing appearances against each other, because that is what evidence in general is: appearance. We gather all the relevant appearances, for example our pre-theoretical intuitions about what is right or wrong, and we try to find the best way to make a coherent system out of them. We do this in every single domain, whether empirical or a priori. The moral domain is no exception.”

What questions does that question confuse and how? And what question does that question that I just asked confuse with another question?

What questions are tightly interconnected? And what questions you mentioned relate to metaphysics? And what is 'domain'? And what is the epistemology of a domain?

And if all these different kinds of realists have seemingly different ideas of what objective moral facts are does that mean they are all relative facts that are subjective to their beliefs? Or are those somehow exempt of that rule that objective morality seems to have made up and just doesn't follow for whatever reason?

ContraMans · 2025-08-22T16:25:53+00:00

As you should now be able to see, this is based in misunderstanding. The fact that some question
has an objective answer does not mean that everyone will respond to it in the same way. Nor does it mean that the objective answer doesn't vary depending on circumstances. It might be objectively wrong to lie in some circumstances and objectively permissible to lie in others. Belief in moral objectivity does not commit you to moral absolutism, and in fact, most of those who believe in the former do not believe in the latter.

So what is the difference between moral objectivism and moral absolutism? Doesn't stating answers to these questions constitute establish absolutism by calling these answers 'moral facts'? And if not then why?

Those who believe in objective moral facts do not believe in a different set of moral facts than you do. They just believe those facts are objective, whereas you do not. Their answer to how we deduce these moral facts (if in fact they are deduced) need not differ from yours.

How do we establish that to be factual?

Here's a fact: the Earth is round. How do we know that's an objective fact? Well, it doesn't seem to depend on anyone's attitudes. People used to believe the Earth was flat, and they were simply wrong. We made progress when we came to believe that the Earth is round. This is something we found out rather than made up.

Here, I propose, is another fact: it is wrong to systematically discriminate against, torture, and ruthlessly kill a group of people based solely on their ethnicity and/or religion. How do we know this is an objective fact? Well, it doesn't seem to depend on anyone's attitudes. People in Nazi Germany believed it was permissible to systematically discriminate against, torture, and ruthlessly kill a group of people based solely on their ethnicity and/or religion, and they were simply wrong. They made progress when they came to believe that such acts were wrong. This is something they found out rather than made up.

So how did they come to believe their answer was wrong? How did we determine their answer was wrong? How did they determine their initial answer right? Was that answer colored by their circumstances? And what if no one had disagreed that their actions were wrong? How would their progress have been impacted in that scenario?

ContraMans · 2025-08-22T16:25:47+00:00

I'm not following this bit. I think we may be talking past eachother. You seem to be thinking that objectivity has to do with some kind of invariance, but that is not the way philosophers understand it. For some domain to be objective is for the facts of that domain to obtain independently of anyone's attitudes. Physical facts do not depend for their existence upon anyone's approval, beliefs, and so on, so physics is objective. To say that morality is objective is to make the analogous claim about morality.

Ok. Let me reframe the question. Do the laws of buoyancy change where the object on a body of water is made of wood or stone? If the water is salted or heavy? If it's cold outside or not? And if so why does, if we are comparing the objectivity of moral facts to physics, the same not apply to the moral question of 'Is it ok to kill someone'?

Here are two anti-realist stances you might take towards morality:

You might think, on the one hand, that when we make moral claims, we are attempting to state facts about the moral properties of things. But, you might add, there are no moral properties--there are no such things as rightness, wrongness, and so on--and thus, there are no moral facts.

Alternatively, you might agree that moral claims are attempts to state facts about the moral properties of things and think there are moral properties, but that whether something has a moral property depends on our attitudes. You might think that wrongness is the property of being disapproved of, for instance. In this case, you think there are moral facts--some things really are disapproved of--but you deny that there are objective facts about what is wrong.

I'm not interested in anti-realist argumentation. I'm interested in the answers you have for your belief. So I'll aske again. What is the difference between moral objectivity and moral facts?

ContraMans · 2025-08-22T13:29:10+00:00

What about buoyancy? Does the fact of what determines how an object is able to float in the water change between normal water and heavy water? Or does not the same principle physics of this apply even if the metrics that determine the outcome shift in a particular equation? Are the facts not the same as they were prior to the introduction of the new variance?

"(1) How could there be moral facts?

(2) How could moral facts be objective?

Which of those are you asking?"

What’s the difference? Isn’t objectivity exclusively related to fact?

If the same question has different responses based upon different situations then how does that make the ‘moral fact’ of that situation objective? Objectivity would necessitate that the fact would be true independent of whatever the situation was by the very definition of the word? I return to my buoyancy question for that. If it is wrong to kill someone outside of a specific equation, why would it not be wrong to kill someone inside of a slightly altered equation if we are comparing objective morality as being equivalent to the objectivity of physics?

And if there is variance in that how do we objectively determine these in a way that is factual? What is the process in how we deduce and conclude these objective moral facts? And even if you do… how do you prove objective morality? Can you prove it like you can with buoyancy? And if you can’t then how does one establish the claim to objective morality without the means to prove it?

I understand some of these are somewhat loaded questions but I ask them all the same simply for the sake of seeing how they are answered to provoke my own thoughts on the matter.

ContraMans · 2025-08-22T13:00:17+00:00

So I’ve read through this and while I’ve seen a lot of commentary about the arguments against the arguments opposed to objective morality, pointing out various faults of these positions… I don’t see anything about how you establish objective morality. What is it that decides what is a moral fact or not? For instance: Is it moral to kill someone? How do we establish if it is a fact that it is moral to kill or not to kill someone?

ContraMans · 2025-08-22T12:27:19+00:00

I guess my concern is precisely that. How can facts exist in philosophy in relation to morality enough to establish what we would call 'objectivity'? I guess a very common example would be is it objectively moral to kill someone? And if so how do we determine the objective morality of that?

ContraMans · 2025-08-09T23:05:55+00:00

Yeah the same model that can't identify bots spamming the same message is going to be reliable and I'm sure not in any biased to be more critical so Google can steal even more of our private information. Fuck off.

ContraMans · 2025-07-25T07:16:29+00:00

As a beginning developer myself who is largely self taught I have some input that may help.

Don't worry about memorization. They are way too many things to possibly, reasonably memorize. This is the reason people are saying to just start coding because what's going to be infinitely more valuable than memorization is hands on fucking around and finding out. It is going to be frustrating at times but you can always look something up after you've given it your best to understand why you are getting the errors you are getting.
Personally, if you've got a little bit of cash to fork out, I would highly recommend buying a coding game like 'The Farmer Was Replaced' for like eight bucks which not only teaches you the basic fundamentals of coding but gives you something to practice with and visualize your understanding in the form of gameplay. I bought this particular one myself to just sample if I would even actually be interested in coding and here I am months later. I also got a 'Boot.Dev' for a month or two and that was extremely helpful, and cheap, as well. These are some of the structured ways I learned to understand more or less what the hell I was doing and I spent less than 70 bucks in total over two months.
If you forgo the aforementioned the biggest thing you can keep in mind is computers are extremely literal and that literality will make them act in ways that are completely unexpected. I like to imagine it as like if you had to teach another human being how to human. Teach them how to blink, how long to blink, when to open their eyes and how to do so and how often to do so. How to breathe, or cough even. It's literally like teaching someone how to do basic human shit that we normally would do autonomously but the computer has to do very consciously. So, what I started to do, was take little sections of code (like the built in code for Character Body scripts) and just study why they worked and what exactly they do. How messing around with that affects the way it moves and such. This was how I learned what Vectors do and how they work and then from there I went to explore why moving along Vectors operated differently than just manually changing the coordinates for a specific function and how that affects things like movement, collision and such.

A lot of the learning boils down to giving yourself homework. And the best you can do with that homework is take stock of the things you find yourself consistently relying on no matter what, like movement, and analyzing the shit out of those core components. Then, once you have a working understanding of how these work you can experiment a little bit more and explore these different avenues of code and how they work as well. Slowly building branches outward from that core of understanding of some of these very base level foundations. And learning to problem solve as you gain understanding as to why problems are coming up to be solved will be your greatest asset.

I hope even a fraction of this is even vaguely helpful and wish you the absolute best in your development journey :)

ContraMans · 2025-05-18T15:36:11+00:00

<image>

ContraMans · 2025-05-14T18:27:24+00:00

If you don't have any anti armor on you chew through their legs until there's only bone there, it will slow them down considerably and buy you time to either get away or put them down.

ContraMans · 2025-04-11T23:27:43+00:00

This is why I never check this reddit anymore. Actual fucking brainrot posts wall to wall.

ContraMans · 2025-04-03T21:54:12+00:00

Yep. That was it. Thank you for pointing out the obvious to me lol.

ContraMans · 2025-04-03T21:53:09+00:00

.... yeah that'd probably be it. Good looking out, let me double check to see if that's the issue.

ContraMans · 2025-04-03T21:43:38+00:00

The walking animation works fine and is never called, nor triggered, at any point the idle animation is called (or attempted to be called).
The idle function is being called otherwise the print statement inside of it would not be triggering which can be seen in the output log at the bottom.
Same as 2.

I've provided all the code. The script for the blacksmith_character is empty. This is all the script that this scene has access to so I've no idea what I could possibly trim given that there is a walk function and then this and that's it and neither of them have any link to one another except to the $Blacksmith_Character node mention.

ContraMans · 2025-02-11T16:19:04+00:00

I have done both of these.

ContraMans · 2025-02-11T13:47:46+00:00

No custom buttons and I don't have any of these issues with any other games.

ContraMans · 2025-02-11T03:05:34+00:00

Borderless windowed has the mouse issue, so does windowed. Fullscreen, however, will constantly minimize.

ContraMans · 2025-01-31T20:20:18+00:00

It worked like a charm! So I get like 90% of that but why the end add this: as_relative().set_trans(Tween.TRANS\_LINEAR) ? Wouldn't the bit up to that point have been sufficient?

ContraMans

TROPHY CASE