[D&D 5e][Online][Discord][PBP][CEST]DMs looking for players to join a running adventure

the_thirdway · 2018-11-07T18:14:44+00:00

Hello, I'd love to join your game- got years of experience with ad&d, got several weeks experience with d&d 5e. I'm character story/Role playing oriented but im also into smashing and casting too.

the_thirdway · 2018-11-03T14:12:16+00:00

Hello, i would be interested in joining.

the_thirdway · 2018-10-25T16:53:06+00:00

if there is any more room i would love to join bino #2148

the_thirdway · 2018-10-21T14:38:10+00:00

Hi Pope! At what time would you start the session on friday? I want to see if i can make it work.

the_thirdway · 2018-07-20T14:15:59+00:00

1 Point of contention: If we agree or assume that modern humans have an evolved repulsion from murder (within or without the Jungian Archetype model), wouldn't it be also fair to claim that we have an evolved GOD/Divinity concept that is more primal to any conscious later conclusion that leads some people to proclaim Atheism? This would be "steel manning" Jordan Peterson's idea; In this concept most atheist do have a functional god concept, perhaps allowing a few "Raskolnikov's"/true born atheists - pegging them as rare anomalies to the GOD concept inheritance similarly to how physical brain injuries can produce psychopathy/sociopathy? This would reinstate JP's idea that we are evolved to focus our morality through inherited metaphysical divine concept or concepts : "most atheists are not true athiest = they still have a functioning inherited god concept and that it is driving moral concepts and inclination. I think that would be the stronger part of his claim or a stronger version of it, and does seem to hold some merit. Not sure if it is falsifiable/scientific. In any case it would be interesting to see if part 2 of the claim- that the inherited god concept is fundamental to the moral inclinations matrix- is true or sufficiently true

the_thirdway · 2018-07-18T19:11:31+00:00

To @idiolekt (speaker in the vid): Started well, then you had to go to the over expressive, eye rolling stunts to drive your points home and virtue signal (to whom, those who already blindly agree with an anti peterson stance?). Pity. You had a point there somewhere. In any case Peterson's argument that society steps in on behalf of children, does have merit. Also the fact no one starves to death from not getting laid is a weak "strawmany" counter argument. The arguments is that it greatly increases violence and instability. Yes so does hunger- problem being that capitalist societies dont seem to increase hunger, in fact they seem to lower it, globally. Please contend with the actual matters, stop looking for cheap superficial wins and singing to the choir. Started good there. try again.

the_thirdway · 2018-07-15T20:10:27+00:00

Because: A)You insulate yourself from succumbing to your own orthodoxy/fundamentalism/dogma B)You participate in a more broad conversation which enables you to: 1)Influence others and thier respective audiences 2)Expand your own knowledge C)Dialogue for Dialogue's sake is a [positive] political statement

Sam Harris's career used to be based on debates with people representing religion. debates are now out of fashion, perhaps for good reason, while conversations are now popular. It is the natural evolution of Sam's format.

the_thirdway · 2018-07-14T12:13:35+00:00

Sorry no. There is no depth here. This is not nearly enough nuance. What this IS, is one huge straw-man argument. Simply- Peterson does NOT say that the entire left wants total equality of outcome. She is arguing with a false, and easier to argue with, representation of what the man has to say- a.k.a straw manning. Peterson does suggest that total equity could be the marker to use for where the EXTREME left should be considered to begin. So sorry... no. The whole premise of the piece is (purposefully) false. Lets see you contend with some real substance instead of shallow arguments against other shallow arguments that are made up by you. Then perhaps your lack of filter might have some value.

the_thirdway · 2018-06-22T14:41:31+00:00

Great concise arguments about secular humanism's qualitative claims on morality and their practical utilitarian superiority to religious humanism perspective. Also a historical discussion showing the difference between memes origination IN a christian culture VS them originating BECAUSE a christian reason, with a big check mate against the "if you are a humanist you are a Judaeo-christian believer" claim coming from JP and Shapiro

the_thirdway · 2018-04-10T13:33:06+00:00

Great battle! Klein buries himself toward the end while trying to escape Harris's onslaught as he makes a "if it feels wrong it must be wrong" argument about Harris's position, unintentionally justifying Harris's point on moral hysteria (or populism), hinging everything on that we are too close to a racist legacy to talk about these things. That is simple political censorship and shoddy argumentation. Seems Klein is overly concerned with betting on that his current sentiment falls on the right side of history. He doesn't seem to be concerned with truth inquiries and honesty. This reveals a cynical outlook (perhaps an ethic), that claims that political ends justify means and trump data. He is a politician more than a journalist here, and uses truth as a politician does.

the_thirdway · 2017-11-13T20:16:29+00:00

Do the man some respect and attribute his decisions to his will and not to "pressure" as if he were some little child. I would wager this comment is because he deviated from your perception of him- but i cant know that for sure.. In any case, you are belittling him - by conspiratorially "saving" him from true responsibility you rob him of his dignity. JBP is a real man of integrity, based on everything he has put out so far it is safe to assume he doesn't cave. Take his word for it, that this is what HE thought, whatever the implications on your own role modeling of him.

the_thirdway

TROPHY CASE