Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Folks, we are living in a matrix. There is no God controlling what goes on here.
If there is a God, what makes you love him and think he will favor you because you have faith? Shouldn't he be treating all of his children the same?
You have posted this as though it's a quote but I have serious reservations that anyone except you could manage to say something so unfathomably incomprehensible.
And I thought it was only me who couldn't make sense of his post.
chez's posts are responsible for the rise in self-diagnosis of early onset dementia.
You could be a grandad now, apart from the implausibility of anyone wanting you to impregnate them.
This response to the PoE seems inadequate to me, because people in heaven don’t suffer, so what’s the point of putting people on Earth to suffer before they go to heaven. And anyway whatever you do on earth surely doesn’t justify eternal torment or privation, whatever your preferred concept of hell is.
Let me give a little context for the rational non "solver bro" folks. The Eagles were down 15 with a little over 3 minutes left. They scored a TD and they decided to go for two. They failed and now were down by 9 forcing them to go for an onside kick which is successful 5% of the time. I argued that they should have kicked the extra point and made it a one possession game down
Sounds like an equivocation and neither of you mean the same thing by a one possession game. Seems like they are affixing the definition of one possession game to expected value of each possible action taken and you are affixing it to bare logical possibility. So of course if you have a logically possible view of one-possession and they have a statistical view of one possession you may be talking past each other.
Let me give a little context for the rational non "solver bro" folks. The Eagles were down 15 with a little over 3 minutes left. They scored a TD and they decided to go for two. They failed and now were down by 9 forcing them to go for an onside kick which is successful 5% of the time. I argued that they should have kicked the extra point and made it a one possession game down
This is just semantics. No matter what words you use, it's still a math problem, albeit a math problem that is hugely dependent on assumptions.
This is just semantics. No matter what words you use, it's still a math problem, albeit a math problem that is hugely dependent on assumptions.
This is over analysis. I live in the real world where a team that is 8 points down knows on one possession they can tie the game with a TD and a two point conversion. Do you ever hear broadcasters turn this into a math problem when discussing it as a one possession game? No, if Philly kicked the extra point they would have said "Now it's a one possession game". For somebody to get angry at me like several posters did for calling it a one possession game is petty.
Sounds like an equivocation and neither of you mean the same thing by a one possession game. Seems like they are affixing the definition of one possession game to expected value of each possible action taken and you are affixing it to bare logical possibility. So of course if you have a logically possible view of one-possession and they have a statistical view of one possession
The "logical possibility" is the version the vast majority of people in sports are going to take. Taking the "expected value" approach may be fun for statistical nerds but is beyond the scope of what a rational person would consider in this situation.
I get that we are talking past each other. I just think their argument is petty and unnecessary.
I don't actually think I am defending religion*, but instead pointing pointing out how anti-religious arguments are often lacking. I don't think you'll ever find me commenting about someone saying "There is no proof for god so I don't believe there is one". What I sometimes comment on is when people basically say "That's not how a god would act, therefore there is no god". Talk about begging the question.
*By religion I mean the belief in a god (or gods). Organized religion on the other hand has lots of problems. (The Roman Catholic Church for example.)
The "logical possibility" is the version the vast majority of people in sports are going to take. Taking the "expected value" approach may be fun for statistical nerds but is beyond the scope of what a rational person would consider in this situation.
I get that we are talking past each other. I just think their argument is petty and unnecessary.
And why exactly would a rational person not consider what plays have the highest chance of their team winning?
This is over analysis. I live in the real world where a team that is 8 points down knows on one possession they can tie the game with a TD and a two point conversion. Do you ever hear broadcasters turn this into a math problem when discussing it as a one possession game? No, if Philly kicked the extra point they would have said "Now it's a one possession game". For somebody to
Sportscasters call 8 points a "one possession game" because they want it to seem exciting. Just like in baseball when a team is down by 4 runs with two on the announcers will say "One more base-runner and our local heroes are within slam range". The game's not actually close but they need to keep people interested.
I don't actually think I am defending religion*, but instead pointing pointing out how anti-religious arguments are often lacking. I don't think you'll ever find me commenting about someone saying "There is no proof for god so I don't believe there is one". What I sometimes comment on is when people basically say "That's not how a god would act, therefore there is no god". Talk
Well your counterargument led you to a trap that was expounded upon over 2000 years ago by Plato in the Euthyphro dialogue.
Edit: and to be clear most scholars that affirm divine command theory would hold that God can’t violate his nature, which is maximally good, so your answer would just push it back to how torturing babies for not being baptized would be maximally good.
This is over analysis. I live in the real world where a team that is 8 points down knows on one possession they can tie the game with a TD and a two point conversion. Do you ever hear broadcasters turn this into a math problem when discussing it as a one possession game? No, if Philly kicked the extra point they would have said "Now it's a one possession game". For somebody to
I doubt they got mad at you for calling an 8 point deficit a one possessioni game. I imagine they simply pointed out that the Eagles should do what maximizes their chances of winning, not maximize their chances of not losing by more than 1 possession.
Are you suggesting that an entity that created the universe (if there is one) doesn't control how that universe works?
It is unsurprising to me that you can't see the difference between pointing out a poor argument and actively being for the other side. If you were judging a debate on which color is better, red or blue, I'm sure you would say the red team wins regardless of their arguments just because you like red.
