aluminiumtrioxid

[citation needed]

Ehh not really. So they really love gamers, but fail to conduct the message in positive way like a bunch of tsunderes? They're profoundly disgusted by a certain subsegment of gamers (a feeling I can actually relate to), but a/ obviously don't see said subsegment as "their audience" (the original Alexander article was published in a website geared towards developers, not gamers, and the ones following it were mostly reporting on said article and the reaction surrounding it, not repeating the same sentiment), and b/ their reason is not hatred and bigotry.

Ehh not really.

So, I've managed to get to tier 3! I'll pick up Mind Reading now and Skill With Attacks (light bladed) next time I have 4 xp so I can get more use out of my Sword of Stone. Speaking of which, what special ability do you guys think it shall possess? I'm not too fond of the "it can shoot people" angle, because that's what I have my dagger/lightning whip for. How about "it can break apart into really small shards that can get under regular armor and shear apart the soft flesh beneath"? (Mechanically, it could ignore worn armor, but not forcefields or naturally thick skin.)

And I think it's not unreasonable to be very suspicious of such sentiments from a utilitarian perspective. Okay, I'm not sure I understand you. Would a collectivist society be immoral, being built on a philosophy you deem immoral, or would the fact that it's an "abstract and subjective ideal which has no conscience" negate the immorality? Also, immoral based on which ethical system?

Which is why I originally asked the reason why he values the abstract principle of "one should follow through with plans" (as you put it) over human lives, the question which the whole discussion stemmed from.

I count "the correct response on part of a person thinking they should commit suicide is to act on it instead of thinking it" as encouraging people who think of suicide to commit suicide. Technically, it's blurring the lines a bit, but I don't think stating "killing yourself is the correct thing to do in this case" is meaningfully different from actively encouraging it. At least from a deontological standpoint.

On the other hand, while you can argue that the total of all obtainable knowledge is infinite, the total needed to make any given decision is very much not; also, there's a case to be made for diminishing returns after a certain amount of information has been gathered.

The advantage is people decide for themselves. It the biggest advantage you can get - deciding about yourself. But you can let people decide for themselves without actively encouraging them to commit suicide. I'll ask again: what advantage is gained by encouraging people having suicidal tendencies to act on those tendencies instead of seeking professional help? Remember: you're not actually forcing anybody to do anything by giving them advice.

I think you are very much of the mind that people should be free to **** up their own lives. Which, I guess, is certainly a point of view. But you seem to be going for more than this: you think that people have a moral obligation to **** up their lives if it seems like a good idea to them at the moment. What advantage is gained by this (both for the individual, and on a more generalized, societal level)?

I said no such thing. I think in the stance of "people know best whether suicide is the best option for them or not" it's implied that they're possessing all relevant information when making that decision. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Example: 1st Person have 100% of all relevant information and wants to commit suicide - 213374U claims that his decision is wrong because he doesn't have all the information. 2nd Person have 0.000001% of all relevant information and claims suicide is not the answer - 213374U claims that person have all the information in the world. ...But who gets to decide what counts as "relevant" information? It's irrelevant, just an abstract example. I was just pointing out 213374U is full of **** But that's the whole point, you assume people who want to commit suicide are possessing all relevant information, when in reality, they're generally not. What gets labelled as "relevant" is just way too nebulous for this to be helpful. Creationists are also convinced that they know all relevant information; that doesn't mean their views are any less stupid from an outside perspective.

Example: 1st Person have 100% of all relevant information and wants to commit suicide - 213374U claims that his decision is wrong because he doesn't have all the information. 2nd Person have 0.000001% of all relevant information and claims suicide is not the answer - 213374U claims that person have all the information in the world. ...But who gets to decide what counts as "relevant" information? I mean, just going by the fact that, say, 1st Person in this example thinks having the relevant informations of: I'm fat being fat in our current society comes not only with its associated health risks - ie. a high chance of developing Type 2 diabetes which sometimes comes with the attractive side orders of blindness and having to amputate a few limbs -, but a whole lot of social baggage, too, and I've tried Diet X, Y and Z with Exercise Programs A, B and C, yet I failed to get any slimmer means suicide is just an overall cleaner way to get out than living 20 more years of being shat on by society while developing those sweet-ass health complications doesn't really mean he's also aware of, say, the countless ways diabetes can be managed and doesn't have to result in living as a blind multiple amputee hooked up on a dialyser, which, I'd say, is a pretty big factor in the cost-benefit analysis involved in reaching the conclusion that suicide is better.

Yeah, this. But the rampant misconceptions about how psychiatric help works, and the fact that people with mental health problems tend to be stigmatized mean that people are, by default, strongly disincentivized from seeking help in dealing with mental health issues. Therefore, in the specific cultural context of our world right now, advising people to seek professional help when having suicidal thoughts instead of acting on said thoughts is pretty much an objectively better choice.

You missed the point. It's not that you can't talk about how you follow your own advice because you are James Bond. It's that you cannot possibly follow your own advice because it's unrealistic; it's not advice. It's feel-good mumbo jumbo designed to feed your übermensch fantasies. On second thought however, I may have been wrong. Hypocrite is he who chooses not to follow his own advice when applicable. I think the proper term for someone who heartily hands out and believes in advice that cannot be followed is... insane. ...Let's not do the thing where we insult the people who disagree with us; it's not gentlemanly. Also, the problem with the advice he gives isn't that it's bad advice. It's perfectly good advice! With a very limited field of applicability. Incidentally, it's also a very MRA-sounding advice, a movement which has huge problems with taking perfectly good advice and observations and spinning them into completely insane diatribes by trying to apply them outside of their proper context. Given Mr. Sharp's fondness to, ahm, "choke a b*tch" from time to time, I think these two facts may be related. Neither. We're talking about whether it's moral to advise somebody who has suicidal thoughts to kill themselves instead of seeking professional help first.

In all fairness though, he really doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer, based on this video. Still, yay for him being hyped about PoE!

He'd work pretty much unchanged in Exalted as a Sidereal. I even stole the name from one.

I can sense an intent to create pointed satire, it just... points nowhere. Puzzling.

And that's a perspective I'm 100% behind, provided two requisites are met. To wit, that the subject in question has his cognitive abilities absolutely unimpaired and that he is aware of all available alternatives and can choose between them freely. Unfortunately, with overweight people, this usually isn't the case, from my experience at least. When the alternative is suicide, almost anything is better. If only because you cannot rectify and try different things after committing suicide, and you can always kill yourself later if literally everything else has failed. People consider suicide when they see no way out of the situation they are in. That doesn't always mean there is no way out, and in this particular context there very much is a way out that is attainable for just about anyone with adequate guidance and support. Exactly this. The core problem with the implementation of libertarian ideals like "people have a right, hell, a moral obligation to kill themselves if that's what they feel would improve on their situation" is that they're entirely dependent on the idea of human beings as rational actors motivated purely by enlightened self-interest, which, as cognitive science has repeatedly shown us, is laughably false. Who on earth knows better than adult person X what's good for adult person X other than adult person X? Yes, people retroactively regretting their choices or thinking they were behaving like idiots and, with their newfound hindsight, would take a different course of action is completely unheard of and not at all an integral part of growing up. (Not to even mention the countless number of seemingly-innocuous and absolutely trivial ways people's decision-making can be manipulated. But surely that's because they're Untermensch and Wusses Who'd Rather Take Painkillers Instead Of Toughing It Out Like Real Men.)

People like you that think people have no law to decide for themselves and need to be governed throughout their lives and if they don't obey they should be put to place by force. I love how this accusation has no relation to anything I ever said, but even if we disregard that, I think we can all agree that people who "think people have no law to decide for themselves and need to be governed throughout their lives and if they don't obey they should be put to place by force" are acting on what they're thinking, once again proving that "people doing things instead of thinking about doing things" is at least as likely to be a source of problems as the opposite. Two can play this game. Unless you can prove that if everyone acts on their believes most people would impact the world negatively then your statement is just a pile of your stinking verbal diarrhea and not a fact. Would be a valid line of argument if I was arguing for "most people acting on their beliefs will, without a doubt, make the world a worse place". But if you read back, you'll see I did no such thing; I merely pointed out that it's an exceedingly optimistic attitude to assume that all the world's wrongs would be magically corrected if people just took action, and it relies on the idea that there are more people whose workings would do good than the opposite. Which I find statistically unlikely. English is not my native language. I mixed up two names, not a big deal I admit that. It doesn't change the fact that this branch would fall off in favor of surgery, so I will stay skeptic and label that topic as a competition between two medical branches. English is not my native language either; I still know the difference between the two, because I am studying medicine, unlike you. Hence, I feel like I am a bit more qualified to make statements about the wider medical community than you are. I would not presume to know more about selling large volumes of cargo than you do; it would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy towards me in my area of expertise. So by your logic if human beings are not rational actors motivated purely by enlightened self-interest then no one should in their right mind act on your advice's because you are a human being! Well, if I were a rational being purely motivated by enlightened self-interest, then people should act on my advice even less, shouldn't they? After all, enlightened self-interest would require me to ensure I have as little competition as possible, which is the easiest to achieve by keeping other people in the dark regarding the ways of enlightened self-interest; handing out good advice on the matter would rather run counter to that purpose, wouldn't it? Rational thinking is a skill that can be learned. I would indeed not entrust important decision-making to people who are not consciously aware of their own biases and how they shape the way they're thinking, but then again, I'd also not entrust the task of, say, growing crops to a tailor. That's not me oppressing tailors, that's me pointing out that tasks should be done by people who are more likely to achieve a fruitful outcome at them. That said, the idea of appointing an anointed decision-maker class that's above the unwashed masses to guide them because they're too stupid to make choices on their own is also undesirable (due to this approach being counter-productive, not to mention immoral). It's also worth considering whether it's a good idea at all to place people who are solely motivated by self-interest in charge; I'm leaning towards "**** no". Human beings have a right to make informed decisions. By encouraging people to make a decision, any decision, with the only criterion being them making said decision instead of reviewing all options at their perusal, you're effectively decreasing the amount of options they have at hand, and therefore, their freedom.

Well, to truly understand what it was all about, we'd have to go back to the first edition of Rogue Trader in the '80s; back then, the game made no secret out of it being very pointed satire built around the idea of a universe where fascism is objectively good. (Your point about uncreative thievery still stands, though; the source being 2000AD.) Later writers have diluted this theme to the point of it being almost unrecognizable in the current incarnation of the game (well, some of it; I still maintain that Only War has strong satirical elements baked into it), but yeah. When even the next generation of your own line writers is fooled, it's time to salute on a job well done.

...That too.

I think you dislike it as your kind is the target of it, rather than because of its quality. It should be almost passable as something produced from the one the attacker is trying to take the piss out of, but needs a bit of absurdity to give it a cutting edge - not a perfect example. I disagree; to me, the Warhammer 40K universe is the perfect example of successful satire exactly because so many people are playing it straight nowadays.

Yeah, this is why I really dislike people's attempts at mockery using the same phrases their (usually left-leaning) opponents use. Words have meanings, and it's immediately apparent to anybody in the know that the string of words in question makes zero sense whatsoever. Good satire is supposed to also double as a perfect example of the thing it's satirizing, after all.

As an aside, I don't even know what "bourgeois apathy" is supposed to mean in this context.