Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Sorry, this one is on me, "prove the OP wrong" was poor word choice. People merely demonstrated that they could use the scenario he proposed to do good in ways he thought his scenario prevented because he was not sufficiently specific - then he bitched about people doing just that.

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Aquarium post asked for, aquarium post given!

Shot of our 29 gallon aquarium featuring an albino bristlenose plecostomous. These fish reach an average adult size of 5 inches, while the one visible is a juvenile at less than 3 inches.0

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

That is the best solution.

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

If it were that inconsequential, why are so many people insisting on wasting their entire night defending its integrity rather than just letting me scream into a void of non-responses?

Seems like y'all actually have something invested in this.

2

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

I didn't have to do any epic lawyer tricks. Nor did anyone else. We just pointed at glaringly obvious holes in his terms & used them to fuck capitalists.

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Really? Is that what I did in my answer to the question?

Go back to when I originally answered the question, in a manner that I'm certain would be rejected by OP, and tell me that it's about "[beating a hypothetical opponent] instead of engaging with what the game actually is".

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Wow, you really need to read the rest of the conversation.

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

And as many people have pointed out, you can gamify the definitions of these terms to actually accomplish good.

That's not a bad thing!

You should genuinely be celebrating the fact that you've weaponized insanity to improve human flourishing, instead of whining about people playing with semantics!

doctober @docseuss.bsky.social · 1d

Because one of the rules of the game is that you cannot do any good with the money. It has to be ridiculous. It can only be ridiculous. Going "I would sacrifice my sanity for the world" ignores that the brain damage makes you into an insane world destroying billionaire. It's already in the rules!

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

No, I actually love roleplaying. What I don't appreciate is doctober's insistence that anyone who manages to come up with a solution to his contrived problem must not be taking the game seriously or within the spirit of what he intended.

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Those are words you can say without ever having to prove the truth of them.

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Which many people did in a manner that proved the OP wrong & his complaint was a response to precisely what you're saying people ought to do.

Pick one - defend the poster, or defend the respondents.

3

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Then you should really read the thread before you comment.

2

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

And then he bitched when people offered better ideas. Ideas that weren't silly or stupid. Ideas that would actually help people.

And you & he have the audacity to be offended that people would want to improve lives.

2

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

"Anyone" is not the same as "everyone". What the fuck are you talking about?

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Not at all, my position is that there exist solutions that the OP didn't imagine & he's pissed off that other people were creative enough to find them.

2

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Is it really so bad that someone outwits him?

Can no one possibly come up with a way to possibly create an alternative solution that's better than his no-win assumptions?

Why are we forced to accept that he must be the single smartest person in the universe?

4

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

No, I actually love roleplaying. What I don't appreciate is doctober's insistence that anyone who manages to come up with a solution to his contrived problem must not be taking the game seriously or within the spirit of what he intended.

3

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Ah yes, the ad hominem instead of actually demonstrating your point.

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Smart people can, in fact, be outsmarted. This is a fucking trivial position to take & not a hill anyone would ever have to die on.

The smartest people in the world have been outsmarted in specific circumstances. WTF!

doctober @docseuss.bsky.social · 1d

sure

1 1 2

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

How is saying that other people outsmarted you equivalent to saying you're stupid?

Can only stupid people be outsmarted?

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

1. Generally.
2. Yes.

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Can you quote-tweet where I said you were stupid? Or did you read into something I said what you wanted to hear to make it easier to reject what I was saying?

I'll be honest, given some of what you've said, I could see calling you stupid, but I can't find it.

doctober @docseuss.bsky.social · 1d

says I'm stupid, doesn't realize 'doctober' is my halloween name

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

What, specifically, didn't I understand about doctober's requirements?

Point it out, don't just insinuate it.

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Then you shouldn't have any problem summarizing it.

1

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Yes, please, tell me.

doctober @docseuss.bsky.social · 1d

...should we tell 'em

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Then you legitimately don't know how to read human beings.

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

Yes.

InaneDragon @inanedragon.bsky.social · 1d

There are entire philosophical frameworks based around the notion that nothing has utility. So it's pretty easy to say that nothing has utility. This is why definitions matter.

1 1