Book 2 – Page 67

[Housellama]

Housellama:What if Hamster could've sacrificed himself to Charlie to save his side instead of blowing them up himself? did he even stop to think about that?

Also, you realize that you just called firefighters, cops, soldiers and everybody else who risks grave injury to save lifes suicidical right? Well my opinion of you has already been reavaluated.

Now you just pissed me off.

And altruism, although commendable, becomes indistinguishable from suicide at a certain point.

Let me restate. This time with particular emphasis. "And altruism, although commendable, becomes indistinguishable from suicide at a certain point."

There's a difference between running into a burning building to try to save a little boy and blowing your own brain up with a spell when you know you could prevent it.

And because I'm pissed off, that's all I'm going to say. You can say whatever you want in return, because you're now on my ignore list.

[Dr Pepper]

It's your fault Rob. You go too long between feedings and the animals start snapping at each other.

[Chit Rule Railroad]

Just so I understand your position, you're saying that a civilian that was kidnaped and asked to fight with a psycho necromancer that butchered countless lifes just to get some oversized pliers, should desert in the face of inevitable death and allow himself to be captured by the only person in the new world that seems to don't seem to be a fanatic of sorts, and that if he does not then he must therefore be a bloody minded bastard with the low morals to subscribe to the foolish and naive position of "Give me victory or give me death!" Is that an accurate summation of your philosophy?

Fixed that for you.

Parson's preference was irrelevant: Duty.

[multilis]

And altruism, although commendable, becomes indistinguishable from suicide at a certain point.

Let me restate. This time with particular emphasis. "And altruism, although commendable, becomes indistinguishable from suicide at a certain point."

There's a difference between running into a burning building to try to save a little boy and blowing your own brain up with a spell when you know you could prevent it.

Sounds like you are being annoyed at which "shade of gray" is white or black.

Eg your own example: If a firefighter runs into a burning building that is likely to collapse... doesn't it depend on the chance of getting killed? One person might call it suicide if estimated 50% chance of dying, another might call it suicide if 80% chance, another if 95% chance. (Firefighters, police, etc all can face "heroic" choices some might call suicidal)

If there was only one kid in house then a firefighter might not risk life at 50% odds (on average less people live if he takes risk), but if 3 kids, then feels worth it. (Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few)

A different firefighter might be willing to risk for 50% odds a single kid feeling if he dies, it is a heroic death that pleases his god, or gives him better place in afterlife or might inspire others to be better people.

There are also options: eg given a 50% chance of dying by entering the house, a firefighter may instead stand near door and keep yelling for kid to run to him. That only puts his life at 5% risk of dying, but gives kid only 20% chance of living rather than 50%. "not suicidal this way" from a certain viewpoint.
"blowing your own brain up with a spell when you know you could prevent it." - by not entering the burning building the firefighter reduced risk to himself but also increased risk to others.

[Kreistor]

And altruism, although commendable, becomes indistinguishable from suicide at a certain point.

Let me restate. This time with particular emphasis. "And altruism, although commendable, becomes indistinguishable from suicide at a certain point."

There's a difference between running into a burning building to try to save a little boy and blowing your own brain up with a spell when you know you could prevent it.

Sounds like you are being annoyed at which "shade of gray" is white or black.

Eg your own example: If a firefighter runs into a burning building that is likely to collapse... doesn't it depend on the chance of getting killed? One person might call it suicide if estimated 50% chance of dying, another might call it suicide if 80% chance, another if 95% chance. (Firefighters, police, etc all can face "heroic" choices some might call suicidal)

Not

Even

Close.

The difference is simple and basic.

Attitude.

A suicidal person kills himself out of despair and hopelessness.

Someone that dies while trying to rescue a trapped child does so out of hope, faith, and a knowledge that only one person in the world might succeed.

There is simply no way to compare the two, unless you're asociopath with no sympathy, empathy, or kindness in your heart.

[multilis]

Not

Even

Close.

The difference is simple and basic.

Attitude.

A suicidal person kills himself out of despair and hopelessness.

Someone that dies while trying to rescue a trapped child does so out of hope, faith, and a knowledge that only one person in the world might succeed.

There is simply no way to compare the two, unless you're asociopath with no sympathy, empathy, or kindness in your heart.

Example: Firefighter has less than 1% chance to succeed in saving a boy, in a house that is about to collapse. He rushes in anyways. Others call that "suicidal" action as "not worth the risk"/"insane"/"foolish". You feel everyone who calls it suicidal is a "asoicopath"?

definition of suicide - "Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, "to kill oneself") is the act of a human being intentionally causing his or her own death. Suicide is often committed out of despair..."

The word "often" does not mean "always".

Many arguments are over really different legitimate definitions of the same word, both sides can be 'right', language allows many shades.

(common plot in movies to have a bitter hero "lost his true love, etc" who risks his life recklessly over and over again in middle of story for "heroic" reasons, and have his peers consider him "suicidal" as result.)

[Kreistor]

Basic flaw:

The firefighter doesn't know he'll die. Nor does he know the chances of death.

I don't care what your dictionary says. All I know now is that you lack the empathy to place yourself in a position where someone's life depends on YOU and YOU ALONE, and you'll watch them burn rather than risk your life.

Because of that, I don't care what your opinion is.

[multilis]

Basic flaw:

The firefighter doesn't know he'll die. Nor does he know the chances of death.

I don't care what your dictionary says. All I know now is that you lack the empathy to place yourself in a position where someone's life depends on YOU and YOU ALONE, and you'll watch them burn rather than risk your life.

Because of that, I don't care what your opinion is.

Basic flaw: many methods of "suicide" do not have sure success. Eg people survive sleeping pill attempts, poison, etc.



"Nor does he know the chances of death." - Obviously given lots of experience with burning buildings and witnessing a building starting collapse and a child to try to rescue on second floor, a firefighter could guess odds were really bad, perhaps only 1%. Most fighters in such a situation would not take the risk, a few would.



Flaw 2: " All I know now is that you lack the empathy to place yourself in a position where someone's life depends on YOU"

You do not know that, you do not know if I would more readily risk my life compared to you or not. Being able to see/understand many viewpoints is what "empathy" is all about. You seem to get angry too easily.

(Given a field of land mines from a left over war, and a risk of 90%+ of ending ones life by sweeping them non stop for rest of life, compared to a reasonable chance of stopping someone else from dying, the vast majority of people do not sweep land mines all their lives... There are many parts of world with lots of landmines that haven't been swept. We all probably could be lots more "heroic" in our lives, we spend much of our time in silly arguments on Internet rather than finding some way to reduce risks to others)

[multilis]

On risking life: I remember a discussion 20 years ago with a group of other people.

A 20 year old girl gave a situation: "guy being mugged at knifepoint, possibly going to be killed, would you risk life for him." An older lady previously suggested answer was "not worth it as a 'good' person, as you could do more good for others in your life if you continued to live then risking it for this one person", and this girl sort of seemed to agree with that opinion. The girl asked our thoughts...

I asked if it was a lady being raped rather than guy being mugged, would she risk her life? She said yes, and seemed like my "point was taken" and discussion ended... idea(/excuse) of not risking life was not so simple.

...

One of the factors in both saving lives or taking lives is the example or authority of one person can have big impact on others. If people see one person risk his life they are more likely to follow. If a person has someone else claim responsibility for the murder, then apparently up to 2/3 of people will contribute to the murder for silly reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment We see lots of parallels to milgram_experiment in erfworld so far.

from the article:

Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment.

[Chit Rule Railroad]

Basic flaw: many methods of "suicide" do not have sure success. Eg people survive sleeping pill attempts, poison, etc.

Basic flaw: Suicide is defined by the intention of dying, not by the odds of dying. You have been confusing intention with causation.

If Joe's action has a 99% chance of killing him, it is a suicide attempt if Joe has a 99% chance of succeeding at dying and not a suicide attempt if Joe has a 99% chance of failing to survive. People might look at Joe's action and describe it as "suicide", but if they believe that Joe does not prefer to die and are fluent in English, they are speaking figuratively.

I'm using the following definitions, for what it's worth:

Definition of SUICIDE
1a : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind

Definition of FIGURE OF SPEECH
: a form of expression (as a simile or metaphor) used to convey meaning or heighten effect often by comparing or identifying one thing with another that has a meaning or connotation familiar to the reader or listener

[Feyrauth]

I suspect your in for a big disappointment when she turns out to be from the dark side.

We all liked Annie at first. Even when we knew what he was going to become...

... a really terrible actor?

I dunno. He started out a pretty terrible actor. But in the second film, he became Canadian.

[BLANDCorporatio]

... Dude, if Oberon and I are agreeing that you're full of it and for the same reasons, then you're WAY off the reservation.

Holy shit what happened, did the Old Ones rise? Is it time to get into the funky robes and relishes and get in line to be eaten among the first?

Well my opinion of you has already been reavaluated.

you're now on my ignore list.

Because of that, I don't care what your opinion is.

Basic flaw:

Basic flaw:

Basic flaw:

This. is. Annoying!

But hey, annoyance to some anonymous dumbass on teh intarwebz is no reason to reevaluate the use of cheap trump cards, lazy dialogue shutters, and (again) cheap shots at superiority. I do them all the time, come to think of it. Carry on.

On the topic of "suicidal" firefighters and the like,

If Joe's action has a 99% chance of killing him, it is a suicide attempt if Joe has a 99% chance of succeeding at dying and not a suicide attempt if Joe has a 99% chance of failing to survive. People might look at Joe's action and describe it as "suicide", but if they believe that Joe does not prefer to die and are fluent in English, they are speaking figuratively.

is the only conclusion worth taking out.

Worth remembering that this started by comparing Maggie to a firefighter. She should have taken some risk, oslecamo2_temp said, so as to save the others in the Seer linkup. Now, much as this answer is unsatisfying, we have nothing better: we don't know how backlash works. Maybe it's like a charge that built up and will go kablamo, whatever someone inside the link does. You can only hope casters from outside dissipate it, or redirect it to the others.

Just a hypothetical situation, yes, but not too distant from hypothetical situations in firefighter, or lifeguard, or whatever, training manuals, about which is said "it's ok to let go if this happens". Because I'm sure that training manuals do include such risk management provisions, just as I'm sure that people go beyond the call of duty, and many more who don't- and neither is to be blamed.

I'm totally in the Marie fanclub now. Serene and friendly but action-oriented and decisive despite that. I'd hit it.

I suspect your in for a big disappointment when she turns out to be from the dark side.

We all liked Annie at first. Even when we knew what he was going to become...

I know, right? First Anakin Skywalker was this uber menacing dude in a cool black suit with a voice God would kill for, and then he was this kid who desperately needed his molecules rearranged into puffs of smoke. What da?

[Sieggy]

Sigh. Absolutely none of this is even remotely applicable in Erfworld. Units are popped and know their duty. Kill or be killed. Prisoners are not taken, except in the case of those units which might prove useful to their captors. Why bother? It's easier and cheaper to simply croak them and pop new units - turning them would take too long, and they'd probably have low loyalty anyway, so why take the risk?

All sides on this argument keep taking Stupidworld situations, morals, & ethos, and trying to fit them into a game-like reality where croaking violently is simply the norm - in a world where no one seems to die of disease or old age, being croaked by an enemy is simply accepting the will of the Titans. There is nothing else really imaginable to them by the very nature of the reality in which they live.

All units that we have encountered thus far are designed to fit into a wargame reality. We have seen no farmer units, peasant units, merchant units, fisher units, thief units, and so forth. Everyone in Erf has a combat role to play, and as combat units (even if casters are too valuable to risk in front line battle), they are popped with the awareness that the overwhelming likelihood is that they will croak at the hands of another, most likely while trying to croak them first.

[effataigus]

How sweet would it be if Maggie manages to talk them out of it before Parson comes back up...

[drachefly]

And it would be sweet if Sylvia were dusted by falling debris, but that's not going to happen either.

[MarbitChow]

And it would be sweet if Sylvia were dusted by falling debris, but that's not going to happen either.

I could totally see Sylvia getting dusted by falling debris. She scowls, brushes it off her shoulder, and continues the attack. Dust really stands out on a black uniform, after all, and you want to look your best when you're an instrument of destruction

[gazes_also]

I suspect your in for a big disappointment when she turns out to be from the dark side.

We all liked Annie at first. Even when we knew what he was going to become..

... a really terrible actor?

I dunno. He started out a pretty terrible actor. But in the second film, he became Canadian.

That's the one I meant. The kid in the first one was just sickeningly cute, but Hayden Christensen was truly awful.

[gazes_also]

Worth remembering that this started by comparing Maggie to a firefighter. She should have taken some risk, oslecamo2_temp said, so as to save the others in the Seer linkup. Now, much as this answer is unsatisfying, we have nothing better: we don't know how backlash works. Maybe it's like a charge that built up and will go kablamo, whatever someone inside the link does. You can only hope casters from outside dissipate it, or redirect it to the others.

I thought of the links as big rubber bands which store some psychic energy, so that if one person (the thinkamancer being the one in control) cuts the link it will snap back on the unsuspecting person holding the other end, and it isn't their fingers that get hurt. The opposite analogy would be the link is like the roots of a plant infiltrating into the linked individuals minds. If the link is cut suddenly then its like pulling out a weed by the roots, a lot of the surrounding material gets pulled out with it. That might fit better with Maggie, Sizemore and Wanda having to have their link "untangled" in TMK.

[DevilDan]

I just want more Cardinal Biggles.

[Renion]

I suspect your in for a big disappointment when she turns out to be from the dark side.

We all liked Annie at first. Even when we knew what he was going to become..

... a really terrible actor?

I dunno. He started out a pretty terrible actor. But in the second film, he became Canadian.

That's the one I meant. The kid in the first one was just sickeningly cute, but Hayden Christensen was truly awful.

Hayden is a great actor. I've seen him in a bunch of different movies and always liked his performances.

George Lucas is a terrible writer and director. He also put that guy in front of, like, a million green screens with no references to act with.

Was Hayden miscast? Absolutely, but it's not entirely his fault that episodes 2 and 3 were garbage. Blame Lucas.