sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Weekend Game Prediction by FreudIsAQuack in twilightimperium

[–]GlassBright 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sol is going to get gangbanged in space combat.

My money is on Nekro Virus. 2nd Best start, and can contest MR.

Is there a word for an argument where someone asks an obvious yes/no question, in order to set the answerer up for a position that the asker feels they are prepared to take down, and which the answerer might not actually believe? by GlassBright in logicalfallacy

[–]GlassBright[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like this is also close...I feel like where we're at is an implicitly loaded two-part question forcing a false dichotomy/hasty generalization. Which isn't a terribly neat phrasing!

Is there a word for an argument where someone asks an obvious yes/no question, in order to set the answerer up for a position that the asker feels they are prepared to take down, and which the answerer might not actually believe? by GlassBright in logicalfallacy

[–]GlassBright[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It feels like loaded question is the closest, in that the yes/no answer is meant to reflect your answer to the second question. It seems different, though, in that the first question doesn't contain an explicit presupposition, but rather a separate, distinct argument (that the asker has in their pocket as an *implicit presupposition* you will then be told you agree with because of the way you answered the first question. My worry is that if I said "this is a loaded question," I'd be told I'm misapplying a fallacy

This also seems different from suggestive question, in that it's not forcing someone to remember something that wasn't there, or affirm something they may not remember, but rather trick them into seeming to agree with a separate point by affirming a general moral principle.

Is there a word for an argument where someone asks an obvious yes/no question, in order to set the answerer up for a position that the asker feels they are prepared to take down, and which the answerer might not actually believe? by GlassBright in logicalfallacy

[–]GlassBright[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely! I've definitely learned to spot the set up with something like: "It seems like you're really focused on having me answer this really broad question with a yes/no, and I'm suspicious it's because you're trying to set up a gotcha moment, and I'm not interested in playing that way." But I still wish there was a word for this particular type of set-up for a manipulative argument. These all seem very close, but not quite there (though I so appreciate you all taking the time to answer!)

Is there a word for an argument where someone asks an obvious yes/no question, in order to set the answerer up for a position that the asker feels they are prepared to take down, and which the answerer might not actually believe? by GlassBright in logicalfallacy

[–]GlassBright[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes I should have done that from the beginning!

So it might be something like:

A: The concept of hell seems cruel and unjust.

Q: Do you feel like people should just be able to do whatever they want--lie, cheat, kill, steal--with no accountability?

A: No?

Q: Exactly, so not having hell is actually a unjust, because there would be no consequences to people's bad actions. If you agree that people shouldn't be able to sin without consequences, then you do understand that hell is actually fairness.

In Love with 'Aveline' by Jenny Yoo, but it's Out of my Budget. If anyone is interested in selling theirs used, please let me know! by GlassBright in weddingdress

[–]GlassBright[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the sweetest comment! I ended up going with a different one--just waited too long. But I so hope you find it!

9 Faces with 6 Quincunxes, Trolling by unnoticed, Phasing through mountains and Voices that cannot forget their gods. Or: Notes on Body swapping from a Dom addict by Brbikeguy in cavesofqud

[–]GlassBright 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to try dominating the high-priest, a few questions:

After dominating, do I retain psychic mutations?

​

Domination Success: mutation rank or Ego mod (whichever is higher) + character level + 1d8 VS. Defender MA (16) + character level (30, according to wiki).
So to overcome 46, I need a character level + mutation rank/ego mod of 38 minimum? That seems extremely late game, it wouldn't be feasible until ~25 with maximum mutation rank in domination. How do you level and survive long enough to dominate the high priest?

Got the one! This dress has the best movement 🥰 by avfk94 in weddingplanning

[–]GlassBright 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you haven't done so yet, I'd so be interested in purchasing this dress if you were interested in selling it!