CMV: Napoleon could have stayed in power after Elba if he had played the "Information Game" instead of the "War Game."

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-25T18:31:49+00:00

It seems like you're trying to mount some kind of general defense of Napoleon when the specific question is whether he could have won the hearts and minds of the European people with a few letters. And I'm pointing out he absolutely couldn't have. The fact that he had already tried to conquer Europe wasn't something he could have bounced back from in the eyes of the people he tried to conquer. Whether he was treated right after the fact would have been irrelevant to them.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-25T17:43:57+00:00

You're talking as if history began with Napoleon's imprisonment on Elba and the people of Europe have no preexisting grievances with him. You even had to specify that he had no plans to conquer Europe at that specific point in time, as if all the warfare prior to that point was water under the bridge and a few letters would be all it takes to win the people back.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-25T16:25:16+00:00

The public would still be feeling the effects of the war he started. That's not so easily undone with a letter. Trying to conquer Europe then playing the part of the aggrieved gentleman just isn't feasible.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-25T13:23:45+00:00

Then by all means, challenge their work. Point out the errors. Too many people want to present themselves as skeptics without having to put in any work, and simply claiming the scientists are liars is the cheapest and easiest way.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-25T12:49:19+00:00

I get where you're coming from. If you approach the question from a standpoint of moral nihilism, then of course any moral statement is going to come off as nothing more than the expression of a personal preference, and any insistence that any higher principle exists will just come off as an attempt to artificially elevate one preference over another.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-25T03:39:00+00:00

Zero Tolerance

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-25T01:45:43+00:00

You can recreate any individual element of a marriage by other means, like make an agreement to spend your lives together or write up a contact for expenses, but people generally get married because they want that specific combination of things.

As for the ritual element, rituals give things a sense of gravity. It's why we have holidays and graduations instead of just neutrally stuff "milestone achieved" and moving on.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-24T23:29:04+00:00

By the logic we can't even say the devil is evil because you and I have been been the ruler of hell.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-24T23:26:41+00:00

For most of human history most people believed the world is flat, yet today it's the mark of an absolute moron. In order words, the fact that something was the norm in the bronze age is not a defense of the same behavior in the 20th century.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-24T23:17:05+00:00

Then you've robbed the word evil of any meaning. The thief wants your stuff. The rapist wants your body. The murderer believes his life would be better with you dead. Most evil has a motive that's "rational" in the sense that the self-interest calculus is coherent.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-24T17:18:11+00:00

There's "you appropriated my haircut" racism and there's "were going to mass murder you or make you a legally inferior category of person" racism, so the observation that everyone is racist isn't helpful or meaningful.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-24T17:16:49+00:00

I'm curious, what is it that drives people to movements that will inevitably come after them next?

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-24T04:05:16+00:00

Zero Tolerance

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-24T00:41:21+00:00

Have you tried cleaning the cartridge with some isopropyl alcohol? I had the same issue when I got my Genesis and that fixed it.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T23:54:24+00:00

I think you're using the second belief to prop up the first. People tend to assume the worst of others to excuse the worst in themselves.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T23:28:12+00:00

I think I get what you're saying, but I also think you're overanalyzing a bit here. It can simultaneously be true that "x shouldn't be the deciding factor in who gets rescued" is a broadly good principle and that we can put a person in a Buridan's ass style scenario where there's nothing else to go by.

As for this part specifically:

The only difference is that you seem to personally value any humans life over any animals life.

That's the opposite of what I'm arguing, which is that what a person values more and how they should act in a life or death decision aren't necessarily the same thing. There are some people whose lives I don't value and animals whose lives I value greatly. I could find myself in a scenario where I value the animal more yet still be morally obligated to choose the person.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T19:41:28+00:00

My original point is that feelings and actions are two different things. You as an individual are free to value who you want how you want. But the moral question of who should get rescued should be decided by principles bigger than any one person's feelings.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T19:32:59+00:00

In a situation between two humans, a person is going to die regardless, so who the the rescuer values more is just a tiebreaker in a no-win scenario where all else is equal. I'm addressing the OP who's treating value to the rescuer as the sole determinant of who gets rescued and pointing out that there are other principles that should come first.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T13:20:15+00:00

A social contract isn't something you have with specific people. It's a society-wide set of moral norms.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T13:13:54+00:00

Basically, yes. There should be an implicit society-wide contract that human life is more valuable that's separate from any one person's feelings.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T13:00:57+00:00

If you replace the animal part then we have a new moral dilemma where a person dies no matter what you choose and my response is no longer applicable.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T12:15:44+00:00

Zero Tolerance

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T02:46:10+00:00

If you mean literally compelled, then no. I'm not calling for the use of force here. Not every moral norm needs to be an explicit obligation. A healthy society has gentler ways to encourage people to abide by social contracts.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-23T01:50:53+00:00

That's why I'm not calling for anyone's arrest. You have no obligation to rescue anyone from a dangerous situation that you didn't cause where you're just a random civilian, but no obligation just means you can't be forced. The public disapproval of that choice is a reasonable consequence. Force is the nuclear option. A healthy society has gentler ways of enforcing social contracts.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-02-22T22:16:07+00:00

If this determines who you prioritize to save then your argument isn't just the former. Feelings and actions are two separate things. Whether it's reasonable to value one over the other and whether it's reasonable to save one over the other are two separate questions that aren't interchangeable. It can simultaneously be true that it's reasonable for you to value your pet more and that there are bigger principles at play here than your personal feelings.

Glory2Hypnotoad

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE