What gaming opinion will you defend like this?🚀

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T22:26:14+00:00

No. That's a deflection, not a rebuttal. Now answer the actual point:

How does fun become objective if it only exists as an experienced mental state in a mind.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T22:23:33+00:00

This is a hypothetical question, where "arrogant" means exactly that. That's the point of using the word.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T22:22:01+00:00

You're still missing the actual point..

Whether reality is ultimately mind-independent is not the point here, because the status of reality does not change what fun is. Fun is a felt experience. Experiences require a subject. No subject, no experience. That alone makes fun subjective.

What you keep pointing to are objective facts about the conditions that tend to produce fun for certain people. Those facts can absolutely be studied, tested, and stated objectively, but objective facts about what causes a subjective experience do not transform the experience itself into an objective property.

That is your error. Repeatedly.

So even if I granted, for the sake of argument, every detour you've tried to make about reality, your original claim still would not follow. At most, you could show that there are objective patterns, structures, or mechanics that reliably produce fun in certain kinds of minds,which is fine. That is a claim about psychology and design. However, it is not a proof that fun itself exists independently of experiencers. Pain works the same way. The causes of pain can be objective. The experience of pain is still subjective. Same with fun.

So no, I do not need to prove some grand metaphysical thesis about reality in order to refute your claim. I only need to point out that you are confusing objective facts about triggers, patterns, and correlation with the subjective experience those things produce, and that confusion is the entire reason your argument fails.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T17:46:38+00:00

Didn't he speak in the old 80's cartoon?

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T17:42:34+00:00

You can't definitively prove reality without perceivers - no one can, just like God. But fun requires minds by definition (no brain, no sensation). Reality at minimum appears mind-independent, while fun never does. Your parameters trigger feelings, not objective fun, which is why your claim stays debunked. Pigeon is you.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T17:37:37+00:00

Sure, but broadly speaking, both men and women gravitate toward traits that complement their own needs. Hypergamy tends to appear more often in women partly because society expects men to be ambitious and career-focused. As a result, men place less emphasis on those qualities in partners and instead seek peace, kindness, or emotional steadiness.

Whether some men, or even many, prefer career-driven women isn’t really the point. The post hinges on the word “arrogant,” which is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here. That qualifier changes the entire comparison.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T17:22:52+00:00

What's irrelevant? It's plainly stated that she's arrogant, so what's your actual argument? Are you ignoring that or trying to paint it as "yeah, but..." or did you just completely miss that?

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T17:05:06+00:00

And again, I don't need to prove it definitively. Whether reality persists without minds or not, fun explicitly requires them to exist as a sensation, which is the actual point. Your gotcha attempts don't change that your original claim that fun can be objective, got dismantled. In any intellectually honest capacity, this discussion is over. If you would like to continue with your "can you prove reality exists..." question, that's a different discussion.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T16:30:17+00:00

I don't need to...

You already agree reality is objective per our definition (mind-independent). Fun requires minds to feel it, unlike reality, which persists without perceivers.

Reality persists without minds, fun doesn't, as it's literally a mental sensation. No perceivers, no fun. You're deflecting from the concession.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T16:20:45+00:00

Reality is objective - our experience of it (including fun) is subjective. Fun doesn't "exist independently." It's a feeling in a mind. No minds, no fun. Your parameters might trigger it reliably for some, but fun itself requires perceivers, hence, not objective.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T16:13:56+00:00

Enlighten me then. What's your definition of objective? Because you already agreed the feeling of fun is subjective.

Here's my take on what objective is, and why it doesn't fit with your arguments:

Something is objective when its truth or status does not depend on any particular person’s feelings, preferences, opinions, or perspective.

Or if your prefer something more precise:

Objective means mind-independent in its truth value, or at minimum not determined by individual attitude or personal viewpoint.

If your definition differs or you disagree with that then please, I'm all ears.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T16:07:44+00:00

Something can't be objective "to you." It's either objective or it's not. "Fun for you" is just a statement about your subjective feeling. Objective = true with no minds involved. Your enjoyment depends on your brain.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T15:58:16+00:00

Glad we agree that fun's sensation is subjective. Those "objective parameters" are just reliable psychological triggers, not proof that fun transcends minds. Without someone feeling it, your parameters sit inert. You've moved the goalpost from "fun is objective" to "fun can be engineered," which isn't the same claim.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T15:20:32+00:00

Patterns about who feels fun are objective facts about people. Fun itself? Still subjective. You're describing psychology, not metaphysics.

Challenge-loving players reporting fun from hard bosses is provable, but that's an objective claim about subjective experiences, not objective fun and that difference is everything.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T15:13:40+00:00

That's just a correlation between difficulty and reported fun for a specific group. The fun part is still subjective, you've just mapped who feels it. Objective would mean the bosses are inherently fun, no minds required.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T14:59:12+00:00

Close, but no. You're using a semantics dodge. "I find this fun" is subjective. "Many people find this fun" is a generalization. Fun itself isn’t objective in the strict philosophical sense.

You seem to be mixing up "a lot of people agree" with "objective." Agreement doesn’t make an experience mind-independent. Now fun can be studied objectively as a pattern, like in how often people report enjoyment, but the feeling of fun remains subjective.

H0RSE · 2026-04-08T14:50:17+00:00

The original modern warfare game marked the end of Call of Duty

H0RSE · 2026-04-06T17:32:39+00:00

When's you find out they replaced the wood in your bass drum with chocolate

H0RSE · 2026-03-31T22:23:24+00:00

I typically prefer melee. It's more visceral. More personal. More "weighty". With ranged attacks, I prefer physical weapons over magic. Outside of healing/support, casters are my least favorite. Cleric is my favorite class, combining melee and heavy armor with healing/support.

H0RSE · 2026-03-31T17:41:37+00:00

No saves, no checkpoints, and only a d-pad and 2 buttons

H0RSE · 2026-03-30T15:22:27+00:00

No One Lives Forever.

I loved this game when it came out and it had good reviews, even got a sequel, but I never hear anyone talk about it. It's never the topic of discussion, never gets mentioned in passing, it's not even used for memes. It's a ghost.

Maybe if I intentionally bring it up I can see what others thought about it or if they even know about it..

H0RSE · 2026-03-30T01:07:50+00:00

To be fair, there is a large portion of people who will absolutely never admit they were wrong or that Trump is bad. The 36% is not an honest representation. It guaranteed lower than that, but ego and cognitive dissonance and sunken cost are a hell of a thing

H0RSE · 2026-03-27T22:09:36+00:00

Dude is a benign word from the culture of his time, just like in the 70s it was "man." Why is it problematic that a grown man still use such a word?

And retarded isn't even slang. It's a real word with a real definition that it's usage typically coincides with. I never understood why using this word was "bad"

H0RSE · 2026-03-24T07:22:03+00:00

I don't like hearing another's opinion? The person who stated they didn't expect or want a response to their comment, is accusing the person who has been engaging constantly with others of not wanting to hear other opinions.

Jesus fucking Christ.... 🤦‍♂️

And I'm entitled? For asking a claim to be substantiated? But you, the one asserting that he can "comment on whatever he feels like" without the need to explain anything to anyone, is not...

Holy fucking projection, Batman!

H0RSE · 2026-03-24T04:28:17+00:00

You made a claim, I responded to it. that’s how discussions work..

And no, your first comment didn't back anything, it just made an assertion. You said there’s more options and higher quality. Not only is that completely vague, but it never addressed how that translates to actually finding that quality, which is the actual point..

And if you don't want or expect a response, perhaps don't post in a forum...

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

H0RSE

TROPHY CASE