wait I thought segura is the same person as tristan? I distinctly remember someone saying this.It's a time travel thing; he gave birth to himself.
That means literally the same thing as my actual post. If you feel offended by non-technical language, so be it.It feels like ErrinF and tristan had a love child but gave them their worst genes.
Heck, the Piratey cards of Plunder and Seaside point to the golden age of piracy, circa 1700, and Schwerin Cathedral, featured on Church, was finished in 1893.Not to mention that Captain depicts RTT, who probably wasn't even born until after World War 2!
But you can have enough Bridge Trolls in play to reduce the cost sufficiently for all cards except Debt and Potion costs. The only such card that cannot be gained with either Lurker or Treasurer is Vineyard, making it the sole ununtrashable card."Untrashing" this thread as there have been relevant changesNot all, only with cost maximum 6
And most impactful
Decemebr 2022: Plunder introduced Shaman, which makes you gain any card from the trash, with no restriction on type or cost. So now every card that can be trashed can be untrashed
Sir Pounce - $4
Action/Reaction/Liaison
+2 Cards
+1 Favor
-
When you spend a token, if you have more differently named cards in play than Sir Pounces, you may play this from your hand.
Thought about that but if you discarded your hand already you cant reveal royal hound anywayYou can keep Royal Hound with Coastal Haven.
But aren't you still concerned about valence to an extent? Otherwise what's the point of being a vegetarian -- or is it genuinely about animal rights in some sense that doesn't relate to suffering?I think my being a vegetarian has more to do with not wanting to impose my will on others than with a valence calculation. Also at this point I've been vegetarian for a while and the idea of eating animal corpses gives me a reaction of physical disgust, so I don't think I could return to eating meat even if my moral judgment on this were to change.
You mean explain why, historically, many different cultures have independently discovered non-utilitarian moral ideas?I suppose, though I see no need to add the restriction "non-utilitarian".
The formulation was a bit provocative, but ultimately it is a genuine answer, yes.Well, of course I'd argue that the philosophically correct position is to reject all valence (i.e. strife towards improving how good moments of consciousness feel), and realize that ultimately the way towards peace is annihilation.
is um this a joke or a genuine answer?
Human-independent was probably a poor phrasing; I was trying to get at the difference between moral realism and relativism. I.e., human-independent morality as in, there are moral truths we can discover, and human-dependent morality as in, morality is just preferenceI still don't really understand that difference. Sure, philosophically there is a distinction between "this is the objectively true perspective" and it being a preference, but even if it's just a preference, it's a preference that aligns in many cases across broad ranges of human experience and a theory of human consciousness should account for such a phenomenon in my view.
Well, of course I'd argue that the philosophically correct position is to reject all valence (i.e. strife towards improving how good moments of consciousness feel), and realize that ultimately the way towards peace is annihilation.This is quite interesting because I feel like this is the opposite of morality. A choice is only meaningfully moral insofar as it decreases how good a moment of consciousness feels for the person making the choice.
Well you can do things that decrease your personal valence but increase the valence of other people. Of course I'd further argue that this is ultimately not a real distinction because the philosophically correct position is to identify with all moments of consciousness equally, which removes the difference between valence egoism and valence utilitarianism.
I'm saying there are no moral rules or principles that exist human-independently and can be discovered.What does it matter whether morality exists human-independently? Certainly the economy does not exist human-independently and there is still value in analysing it and discovering the principles by which it works.
The one thing about my view of morality that's pretty new is the argument that if you look closely enough, most people's views are in fact tied to valence, even if on the surface it totally looks like they don't. I think you'd struggle to find a clean counter-example, although it's not impossible.This is more an indication that we, as a species, are not very good at morality than it is evidence for morality being what you say it is.
As far as morality goes, I just deny that this is a real thing. I think valence, which is how good any one moment of consciousness feels, is a real thing, and I think it makes sense to try to increase the valence in the universe. I personally try to do that. I think literally every other aspect of morality is a human invention and completely meaningless (except insofar as it correlates with valence, which actually it almost always does, so in practice a lot of morality tends to be great, but nonetheless I deny that it has any non-valence-related meaning).This is quite interesting because I feel like this is the opposite of morality. A choice is only meaningfully moral insofar as it decreases how good a moment of consciousness feels for the person making the choice.
This is a very intense convoy that's marching right into the river!
I've been thinking about this, and I like the concept, but I wonder if it's actually interesting to play. What even are the use cases for this?QuoteMonkstead -- Action/Victory -- 5$
Trash a card from your hand.
-
Worth 7VP if you have exactly 7 Victory cards in your deck (otherwise worth 0VP).
It's a major failure of game theory not to have a name for the 2x2 game in which both players have a dominant strategy that also leads to the best outcome for both (i.e., the game with only one nash equilibrium that's also the only pareto optimal result). This game is ubiquitous in real life, and it also describes the situation that the state should strive to achieve in basically every context. But no, we only have games where the situation is suboptimal and game theory has something to analyze.May I suggest the technical term "lame game"?
I can't tell if you're just nitpicking at phrasing or if there is some broader point here.Female is a sex term usually, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. As for "someone identifies as a man but wants to be a woman" - I don't know what that means.QuoteMy conception of a trans person is just "a person whose gender assigned at birth does not match the gender they perceive themselves to be". Whether this comes with dysphoria is not integral.
What if someone is born female, identifies as female, but wants to be male and starts transitioning -- but continues to perceive themselves as female a lot of the time (and hence continues to suffer). Is this person not trans?
Well, you ask the person "do you think you're a man or a woman" and they say "a woman". You clarify, "do you mean you feel like you're perceived as that socially, or do you feel like you are that", and they say "I feel like I am that". Then you ask "do you like being a woman" and they respond "no I hate it, I constantly suffer because I feel uncomfortable being a woman, I would like to be a man more than anything".
And we can additionally stipulate that they already took steps to transition.
According to your definition, this person is not trans. I think that's grossly wrong.
All else equal the left has compassion for everyone.I don't think the left has compassion for Blair White.
I'm not going to look up who this is, but what I meant to say is that all else equal the left obviously has compassion for trans people.
Female is a sex term usually, so I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. As for "someone identifies as a man but wants to be a woman" - I don't know what that means.QuoteMy conception of a trans person is just "a person whose gender assigned at birth does not match the gender they perceive themselves to be". Whether this comes with dysphoria is not integral.
What if someone is born female, identifies as female, but wants to be male and starts transitioning -- but continues to perceive themselves as female a lot of the time (and hence continues to suffer). Is this person not trans?
Well, you're not so much born trans as assigned a gender at birth that may or may not match your gender preference.How does this work if gender is just a social thing? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you're born trans?No; I think trans people are also only accepted if other people think they are born trans.it is also true that people can claim to be black, and this will get accepted
Only if other people think they're born black! It's not at all accepted for people to transition into another ethnicity or race, that's the point; do you disagree with this?
And no one born white can actually identify as black?
