A new child board please (vote in the poll!)

[BD_Guard_Bane]

Hello moderators of these wonderful forums.

I'm requesting a new child board called 'Existentialist Dilemmas and Gaming'. I would like to use it to discuss existential dilemmas (also existential dread, existential confusions, and existential absurdity/and or bemusement), and how those aforementioned topics relate to gaming (by which I mean playing games, an example of which is cRPG).

This sort of discussion doesn't belong in the General Off Topic thread (it's too specific), nor does it belong in the spam section (it isn't spam, it's very serious), and it doesn't belong in the Historical Discussion area.

I feel that many of the players of cRPG will have something valuable to contribute to this topic. In fact, I think that it would be so popular that it needs it's own separate section.

Thanks in advance!

P.S: If this isn't possible, there is a good chance that I will either send threatening PMs (to randomly selected users, three per day) or go on a meaningless posting spree.

   

[Thomek]

+1

[BD_Guard_Bane]

In addition, I think it's unfair that people who like history get their own special section, while the (literally) thousands of players who want to discuss existentialism (and gaming) don't get anywhere to do it.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

Bump.

I tried sending threatening PMs but I accidentally chose three very angry people, and their replies were disheartening/sickening/scary. Now I'm put off of the whole PM idea. So:

Post spam incoming unless this happens! And if that doesn't work I'll sue based on violation of people's human rights - specifically the right to have access to a forum that discusses existentialism (and gaming).

[Yenward]

You have my support in this. Child board now, pwease!

[Alex_C]

Existentialism is a Humanism.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

Existentialism is a Humanism.

No it isn't. Elephants cry at bones!

Also, don't spam in my thread. It's rude. I've already reported you to a moderator.

[Alex_C]

Elephants cry at bones!

Bah! No they don't, you're just putting anthropic characteristics on them 'cos you're sad and lonely.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

Bah! No they don't, you're just putting anthropic characteristics on them 'cos you're sad and lonely.

Grief is universal, this is obvious. Don't get all Nagel.

So if we take your wild accusations to another stage - does a lion (for example) misinterpret human activities with it's own species bias? HUH?

[Alex_C]

Grief is universal, this is obvious. Don't get all Nagel.

So if we take your wild accusations to another stage - does a lion (for example) misinterpret human activities with it's own species bias? HUH?

Possessive apostrophes are your friends.

And yes, I'd imagine that a lion believes that humans are competition for the deer or whatever that it wants to eat etc.

Grief is clearly not universal, does a stone feel sad when its partner is erased? Of course not.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

Possessive apostrophes are your friends.

And yes, I'd imagine that a lion believes that humans are competition for the deer or whatever that it wants to eat etc.

Grief is clearly not universal, does a stone feel sad when its partner is erased? Of course not.

It's a grammatical affectation, not an error. See?

So if yes, then there is a universal, right? So there is no need to accuse me of anthropic attributions. Why is grief one, and not empathy (since empathy is what is involved in the imagination and speculation of the other creature's motives)?

And I'd say that yes, a stone would feel sad if it was particularly fond of the erased stone. I can't imagine spending millennia with another stone in a river bed and then not feeling loss if it was erased. 

[Alex_C]

So if yes, then there is a universal, right? So there is no need to accuse me of anthropic attributions. Why is grief one, and not empathy (since empathy is what is involved in the imagination and speculation of the other creature's motives)?

And I'd say that yes, a stone would feel sad if it was particularly fond of the erased stone. I can't imagine spending millennia with another stone in a river bed and then not feeling loss if it was erased.

Err... no. Empathy != false attribution of motivation. I would argue that these lions lack Philosophy of Mind and therefore see not others as separate beings from themselves. Therefore others in their view must share their motivations etc.

Also, your lack of imagination is not my issue to address.

[Centurion]

What does your conversation have to do with M&B?

[Alex_C]

What does your conversation have to do with M&B?

What does M&B have to do with our conversation?

[BD_Guard_Bane]

Err... no. Empathy != false attribution of motivation. I would argue that these lions lack Philosophy of Mind and therefore see not others as separate beings from themselves. Therefore others in their view must share their motivations etc.

Also, your lack of imagination is not my issue to address.

No, attribution of motivation (false or not) doesn't necessarily follow from empathy. Your definition isn't right.

Also, your argument about a lion's lack of empathy is just as much a species bias as my argument that they have it.

The problem here isn't in the definition of empathy - that's easy to establish. It's about the capacity for it - in which case please explain where a human differs from a lion in that regard. Is it biological, or?

What does your conversation have to do with M&B?

What do you have to do with our conversation? 

Anyway, how can you begin to work out if the people you're playing M&B with are people, or people who are similar to you, if we don't discuss this sort of thing? How can you know that when you press Attack the other players can understand it?