The Vicious Cycle (Now with Science!)

[No Longer Exists]

Ladies and gentlespoons, I am specifically looking for factual input leading to a resolution in this thread. I do not want nor will accept conjecture such as opinion on the matter. If all you have to bring to the table begins with these words, please do not post. These words are as follows:

 

I feel....

 

It was my assumption....

 

I assume/d....

 

I am of the opinion that....

 

I look at it this way....

 

The goal of this is to use science and rationale, not emotion and opinion, to find a conclusion to the following quandary. Think of it like a math problem, with words.

 

"I have the right to play how I want to."

"Yes, you do, but don't judge."

"But I have the right to play how I want to."

"Yes, you do, but don't judge."

"But I have the right to play how I want to."

"Yes, you do, but don't judge."

 

Consider the following:

 

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

 

Judge

verb (used with object), judged, judging.

 

to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically:

You can't judge a book by its cover.

9.

to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge:

The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.

10.

to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess:

He judged her to be correct.

11.

to make a careful guess about; estimate:

We judged the distance to be about four miles.

 

Using these definitions. How does one have the right to play how they want to IF they cannot judge?

[Hammersmith]

Do you want me to start with the social contract and Locke and Hobbesian interpretations to the question or do you want me to go with flat "Only with tools presented" and state you've given a Gordian Knot?

[Verad]

You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.

[Brynhilde]

We have the right to play as we wish and we have the right to judge.

 

We have the right to judge, but there is no obligation on the part of others to heed or respect our judgements.

[Edda]

You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.

This.

 

 

There is not a single human being on this earth that does not make judgements. Condemnation is an entirely different ballpark.

[No Longer Exists]

Do you want me to start with the social contract and Locke and Hobbesian interpretations to the question or do you want me to go with flat "Only with tools presented" and state you've given a Gordian Knot?

 

I'm intrigued by the social contract and interpretations, that might be a good place to start. I walked into this with the understanding that it's a Gordian Knot.

[No Longer Exists]

You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.

This.

 

 

There is not a single human being on this earth that does not make judgements. Condemnation is an entirely different ballpark.

 

As it was written in the definition options that I provided, there is nothing obtuse about it. 

 

9.

to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge:

The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.

[GloryRhodes]

 

Hat, as it was posited in your OP, it has no meaning or relevance to the actual discussion you want to have.  If you want to have a discussion about being nonjudgmental, or being judgmental, about RP, then please rephrase the prompt in such a manner so as to promote productive conversation instead of condemnation.

 

This mostly feels like a bait thread, honestly.

 

Verad said it better.  See below.

[Verad]

You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.

This.

 

 

There is not a single human being on this earth that does not make judgements. Condemnation is an entirely different ballpark.

 

As it was written in the definition options that I provided, there is nothing obtuse about it. 

 

9.

to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge:

The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.

 

You will note in the definition, and not in the example chosen, that "To decide or settle authoritatively" does not indicate the quality of the decision beyond its authoritativeness. It does not include positive or negative categories.

 

You will also note the absurdity of presuming that when people say "You are free to roleplay what you want, but do not judge," that they are implying, "Do not positively judge the roleplay of others" or "Do not judge the roleplay of others regardless of whether the judgment is positive or negative."

 

The statement is used to advocate avoiding condemnation in general practice. The notion that people would use it to advocate avoiding the condoning of roleplay concepts, or the avoidance of condemnation or condoning roleplay concepts, is so bizarre that you are clearly arguing in bad faith.

 

If you wish to point out the linguistic contradiction between the two statements as written, congratulations. Give it 5-6 pages and some cites and your PHIL101 professor will give you a B.

[No Longer Exists]

We have the right to play as we wish and we have the right to judge.

 

We have the right to judge, but there is no obligation on the part of others to heed or respect our judgements.

 

That is an excellent point, thank you! I counter with this. If there is no obligation, does one have a right to play as one wishes if they are expected not to judge.

 

I know it sounds cyclical and it will be cyclical, just bear with me.

 

Remember:

 

rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

[Domri Blackblade]

You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.

This.

 

 

There is not a single human being on this earth that does not make judgements. Condemnation is an entirely different ballpark.

 

Why is there an apple on the cover? Do apples poop?

[No Longer Exists]

You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.

This.

 

 

There is not a single human being on this earth that does not make judgements. Condemnation is an entirely different ballpark.

 

As it was written in the definition options that I provided, there is nothing obtuse about it. 

 

9.

to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge:

The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.

 

You will note in the definition, and not in the example chosen, that "To decide or settle authoritatively" does not indicate the quality of the decision beyond its authoritativeness. It does not include positive or negative categories.

 

You will also note the absurdity of presuming that when people say "You are free to roleplay what you want, but do not judge," that they are implying, "Do not positively judge the roleplay of others" or "Do not judge the roleplay of others regardless of whether the judgment is positive or negative."

 

The statement is used to advocate avoiding condemnation in general practice. The notion that people would use it to advocate avoiding the condoning of roleplay concepts, or the avoidance of condemnation or condoning roleplay concepts, is so bizarre that you are clearly arguing in bad faith.

 

If you wish to point out the linguistic contradiction between the two statements as written, congratulations. Give it 5-6 pages and some cites and your PHIL101 professor will give you a B.

 

It is not meant to qualify, it is a literal interpretation of text. Essentially, as stated above, a math problem using words. You are bringing conjecture into the discussion. 

 

Also, your statement of presumption appears to be a restatement of your first paragraph. Would you expand on that?

[Verad]

 

It is not meant to qualify, it is a literal interpretation of text. Essentially, as stated above, a math problem using words. You are bringing conjecture into the discussion. 

 

Linguistics are conjecture.

[GloryRhodes]

You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.

This.

 

 

There is not a single human being on this earth that does not make judgements. Condemnation is an entirely different ballpark.

 

As it was written in the definition options that I provided, there is nothing obtuse about it. 

 

9.

to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge:

The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.

 

You will note in the definition, and not in the example chosen, that "To decide or settle authoritatively" does not indicate the quality of the decision beyond its authoritativeness. It does not include positive or negative categories.

 

You will also note the absurdity of presuming that when people say "You are free to roleplay what you want, but do not judge," that they are implying, "Do not positively judge the roleplay of others" or "Do not judge the roleplay of others regardless of whether the judgment is positive or negative."

 

The statement is used to advocate avoiding condemnation in general practice. The notion that people would use it to advocate avoiding the condoning of roleplay concepts, or the avoidance of condemnation or condoning roleplay concepts, is so bizarre that you are clearly arguing in bad faith.

 

If you wish to point out the linguistic contradiction between the two statements as written, congratulations. Give it 5-6 pages and some cites and your PHIL101 professor will give you a B.

 

It is not meant to qualify, it is a literal interpretation of text. Essentially, as stated above, a math problem using words. You are bringing conjecture into the discussion. 

 

Also, your statement of presumption appears to be a restatement of your first paragraph. Would you expand on that?

 

You can't STEM a philosophical or linguistic argument.  There's no such thing as a definition engineer.  This entire argument is semantical and should probably be locked before it explodes.

[Dravus]

I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb. 

 

>_>

[Branson Thorne]

I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb. 

 

>_>

Nope I'm right there with you.

[Warren Castille]

I think it's asking for objective proof of... something? We're discussing art, in essence. There's nothing objective about art.

[Verad]

I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb. 

 

>_>

 

An attempt to use strictly formal logic with a set of presupposed axioms to resolve an apparent contradiction between two halves of a commonly-stated piece of roleplaying advice.

[Edda]

I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb. 

 

>_>

Fear not, you are not dumb.

[No Longer Exists]

 

Hat, as it was posited in your OP, it has no meaning or relevance to the actual discussion you want to have.  If you want to have a discussion about being nonjudgmental, or being judgmental, about RP, then please rephrase the prompt in such a manner so as to promote productive conversation instead of condemnation.

 

This mostly feels like a bait thread, honestly.

 

Verad said it better.  See below.

 

I gladly accept that it appears to be a bait thread, difficult topics tend to be perceived as such. I can assure you that it is not, which is why I asked for rationale instead of emotional responses. It is quickly becoming an illustration of perceived intent though, which I find fascinating as the post itself was written as literally and directly as possible; but is being received as if it is intentionally incendiary. I had the same feeling about your popularity post, but felt no need to pass judgement (see what I did there) on it openly.

 

I will reiterate the purpose though, to attempt to find a rational, empirical conclusion for a looping statement. That is all it is for.

[Harmonixer]

I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb. 

 

>_>

 

I thought that when I read the OP I was being fucked with, but as this thread continues it's becoming quite clear what this is.

 

You aren't dumb here, quite the opposite actually.

[FreelanceWizard]

I have to confess, I'm not entirely sure what the topic of this thread is. I will say, though, that we're going to be watching it and will lock it if it gets out of hand or starts going... crazy, I guess?

 

To the OP, could you clarify what you're trying to do or what you're asking? I think that'd help get things on track.

 

#magicAdminHat

[No Longer Exists]

I do hope I'm not the only one who doesn't really understand this thread. I sort of get what's being said but it seems to be put forward in a needlessly complex manner. Or maybe I'm just dumb. 

 

>_>

 

An attempt to use strictly formal logic with a set of presupposed axioms to resolve an apparent contradiction between two halves of a commonly-stated piece of roleplaying advice.

 

Correct. And it is overly complex, that is also correct.

[Verad]

The looping argument only exists within the context of your presuppositions, relying strictly on the set of definitions you've given for "rights" or "judge." That these are the correct definitions for these two statements is as much conjecture as anything prefaced by the use of the first-person. Remove or change the suppositions. The argument ceases to loop.

[Warren Castille]

There are four lights.