I was heading to an opening of a restaurant, and they were letting the last batch of guests up the elevator, and then comes one guy that said he's late but then the elevator just so happens to be full when he steps in cus it's beeping and shit and everyone can hear it just fine. So most people tell him that he has to step out, even if that means he's gonna miss the opening because it's a closed opening and doors will close after the last batch of people go in, and they all know that because it says so on the invites. So one guy tells the poor guy it's sad but we can't like risk falling off or something, but another guy sympathizes with him and says hey we have space why not let him in and let him in anyways, and nobody else objected and the elevator went up anyhow at first even overloaded. But halfway the elevator was malfunctioning mildly and people panic and look to the poor guy and the good guy so then the good guy stops the elevator on one floor and says ok maybe now we really should let the poor guy out but then the guy who opposed letting him says ok you wanted to let him in and now that he's halfway there you can't just throw him out and he kept the poor guy in. Now luckily the malfunctioning went back to normal and we reached the restaurant floor and the manager learned of the incident and banned the "good guy" from the restaurant.
it's not a true story, it's an old story from an old chinese book, I just adapted it to a common modern day elevator scene so you can better relate to it as modern men, and no there's no real "good guy" or "bad guy" I mean can you say it's wrong for the guy to change his stance? Didn't the other guy change his too? Should the poor guy be let in or not in the first place and should he be kicked out in the middle or kept along?
Who's at a loss here? The "good guy" wanted to help one guy but by doing so put everone including himself to danger, and when danger arrives he realises the consequences and tries to bail himself and everyone else out of danger except the poor guy because he's the sacrifice, he's the bail, he's the original cause of danger, or is he? The good guy's logic does seem to speak for itself but why does it make the 'good guy" look bad and why does it get him bad personal consequences? And we look at the guy who opposes. He seems to be selfish at the beginning but well justified to be so, but later he seems to turn out selfless. What's his reasoning? Why didn't he uphold his objection in the first place and why did he feel like he should take responsibility for the "good guy"'s action? Who's really afraid of the danger? Who's really not? What are the motives of these 2 guys?
Look at it from the bystander perspective: ok at first they are going to not like the good guy and like the bad guy regardless of the fact that they consented with the good guy but still feels the same as the bad guy. Because duh utilitarianism says we sacrifice the minority for the majority. So that's already a commonground established. And then when the good guy turns out to not be so selfless, they are going to label him as non trustworthy on top of being hypocrite. And the bad guy they already liked now steps out like a hero so they like him more. It would be different if the elevator did crash and burn but then maybe they won't even have a chance to do jack shit to the "good guy". This perspective forms the result and the moral of the original story.
Comparing the different perspectives you see why most people's perspective doesn't mean the true justice even if -just by you having a hive mindset-it "makes so much sense" when you don't even need to be part of "most people" as you are just reading that story. You are already inserting yourself into the story as a bystander, aka "most people". Because again per original moral of the story, the crowd see virtue in promise, even if it's just a consent, promises as the original moral has it, reside and hold value in wider social relationships, and by that I mean a more stable social relationship requires not just mutual respect but holding on to the mutual respect for as long as the mutual benefits and concerns are relevant.
For both "most people" and "the good guy", they are acting on that principle, but the diference is, only the good guy and nobody else did what he did, and that makes him different regardless of what he did, and thus alienated from the rest, even if both are just trying to save themselves and benefit themselves. The good guy's promise is in fact to himself, his own well being. Yes, he wasn't threatened and he does look nice, god know what he thinks, by getting the guy in, and we've all consented to such things in real life, or otherwise consented to giving people the look as they fearfully obey the elevator rules and the social pressure and sacrifice their time. We know damn well that elevators gets stuffed everywhere all the time and we rarely see in the news that as many elevators gets crashed. What happens when it does malfunction though? I mean there ARE still accidents out there. There are unlucky people who experiences these things and may even die. What would they actually do? Would they really be the guy that helps till the bitter end? Does the " bad guy" actually exist? Who's gonna be the bad guy and uphold fucking justice for the majority like a fucking douchebag with no symphathy for the minority, and then after that just because someone conveniently denied him of his act by being a good guy, then he's given a chance to act all high and mighty and go against the silent majority's benefits, thus breaking that hidden promise, to get some kind of twisted recognition of keeping promises, all while nothing bad really happens to everyone? This is a really conveniently laid out shit story but that's ok cus it's old, and I've disected it as much as I could to the bare bones.
This is in fact a more complicated case of scapegoating, when you think of the fact that the bad guy doesn't really exist in the real modern world, but the "good guy" the hypocrites, they do exist, a lot. And I am not blaming him, nor "most people", they are all fucking hypocrites, but for me personally, whoever gets scapegoated deserves more kudos.
Of course I can't solve it, I am part of it. Of course you can't solve it, therefore you are naturally drawn to use that as an excuse to continue be bad when you want to cus everyone else does it too.
And the same way I can dissect the narrative of a famous old chinese story which in and of itself is already about the fallacy and limit of human kindness, you can dissect mine too, and please beyond the mmr and winrate.
Because if human kindness does NOT REALLY exist, then human beings don't deserve better world, less so fairness and dignity and all that. Dogs have no right to complain about their own shit
and to all the not even hypocrites but plain laughing at other people's miseries, please. you don't know what it's like until it happens to you, and believe me you don't want it to happen to you, and the more you don't want to the more likely it will hurt you when it does, and it will, everyone's in this cesspool of a world.
You can pretend to be ruler of the omniverse with a fart delete worm holes and universes but your own elaborate scheme will end up as a real fart in a higher reality, the one which governs you.
Nice way to to indirectly talk shit to me, but I know that's not you Lyrill, so i'm not even going to get mad. Just like last time when we argued, and you went ballistic, then I added you as a friend, that was the last thing you were expecting too. Have a good day my Chinese friend. :)
If you want to change the world you can start somewhere anywhere, it doesn't matter how much power you have as long as you are trying to make it a better place it's not trying to make it more shit. BUT beware with more powers as that's not a guarantee to easier change, it's a guarantee to easier corruption.
You do good not because it's something good or it results in something good--doing good deed is not a calling-- but simply because that is your intuition and choice of reason independent of the outcome, that's true moral.
Between morals, motives, choices, actions,outcomes, there are a million ways to corruption.
If you are without intuition and reason you are without humanity. You don't deserve to be included as part of humanity which we well know has widespread capabilities of intuition and reason.
at the beginning of the storyline, when CJ was driving Big Smoke somewhere, and he was talking about some philosophical stuff which he obviously didnt understand himself, the protagonist told him that he's "full of shit".
the amount of ppl who are just full of shit is a lil bit too high, but their desire to spread this shit is what hurts others most.
it's not a true story, it's an old story from an old chinese book, I just adapted it to a common modern day elevator scene so you can better relate to it as modern men, and no there's no real "good guy" or "bad guy" I mean can you say it's wrong for the guy to change his stance? Didn't the other guy change his too? Should the poor guy be let in or not in the first place and should he be kicked out in the middle or kept along?
Who's at a loss here? The "good guy" wanted to help one guy but by doing so put everone including himself to danger, and when danger arrives he realises the consequences and tries to bail himself and everyone else out of danger except the poor guy because he's the sacrifice, he's the bail, he's the original cause of danger, or is he? The good guy's logic does seem to speak for itself but why does it make the 'good guy" look bad and why does it get him bad personal consequences? And we look at the guy who opposes. He seems to be selfish at the beginning but well justified to be so, but later he seems to turn out selfless. What's his reasoning? Why didn't he uphold his objection in the first place and why did he feel like he should take responsibility for the "good guy"'s action? Who's really afraid of the danger? Who's really not? What are the motives of these 2 guys?
Look at it from the bystander perspective: ok at first they are going to not like the good guy and like the bad guy regardless of the fact that they consented with the good guy but still feels the same as the bad guy. Because duh utilitarianism says we sacrifice the minority for the majority. So that's already a commonground established. And then when the good guy turns out to not be so selfless, they are going to label him as non trustworthy on top of being hypocrite. And the bad guy they already liked now steps out like a hero so they like him more. It would be different if the elevator did crash and burn but then maybe they won't even have a chance to do jack shit to the "good guy". This perspective forms the result and the moral of the original story.
Comparing the different perspectives you see why most people's perspective doesn't mean the true justice even if -just by you having a hive mindset-it "makes so much sense" when you don't even need to be part of "most people" as you are just reading that story. You are already inserting yourself into the story as a bystander, aka "most people". Because again per original moral of the story, the crowd see virtue in promise, even if it's just a consent, promises as the original moral has it, reside and hold value in wider social relationships, and by that I mean a more stable social relationship requires not just mutual respect but holding on to the mutual respect for as long as the mutual benefits and concerns are relevant.
For both "most people" and "the good guy", they are acting on that principle, but the diference is, only the good guy and nobody else did what he did, and that makes him different regardless of what he did, and thus alienated from the rest, even if both are just trying to save themselves and benefit themselves. The good guy's promise is in fact to himself, his own well being. Yes, he wasn't threatened and he does look nice, god know what he thinks, by getting the guy in, and we've all consented to such things in real life, or otherwise consented to giving people the look as they fearfully obey the elevator rules and the social pressure and sacrifice their time. We know damn well that elevators gets stuffed everywhere all the time and we rarely see in the news that as many elevators gets crashed. What happens when it does malfunction though? I mean there ARE still accidents out there. There are unlucky people who experiences these things and may even die. What would they actually do? Would they really be the guy that helps till the bitter end? Does the " bad guy" actually exist? Who's gonna be the bad guy and uphold fucking justice for the majority like a fucking douchebag with no symphathy for the minority, and then after that just because someone conveniently denied him of his act by being a good guy, then he's given a chance to act all high and mighty and go against the silent majority's benefits, thus breaking that hidden promise, to get some kind of twisted recognition of keeping promises, all while nothing bad really happens to everyone? This is a really conveniently laid out shit story but that's ok cus it's old, and I've disected it as much as I could to the bare bones.
This is in fact a more complicated case of scapegoating, when you think of the fact that the bad guy doesn't really exist in the real modern world, but the "good guy" the hypocrites, they do exist, a lot. And I am not blaming him, nor "most people", they are all fucking hypocrites, but for me personally, whoever gets scapegoated deserves more kudos.
What does it matter you know more than all the gods of all the religions of the world, mr atheist. There's always someone knowing more than you, and even if you want to get there you still won't catch up, and you don't even want to try.
you make it sound like all you care about is status, well here's a status for you, as of now still, nobody in this thread except me isn't thread jacking with not a shred of honest conversation on topic, with you the king shitposter of this forum as the primary thread jacker blatantly going on and on about religion
start your own damn thread, and stop trying to tell me what I do in my thread, I won't visit your threads about whatever the fuck you want to talk about so you don't have to see me as if I made you to, thank you very much.
segments can be defined according to the pov, whatever's similar enough to be enclosed as one part, that is, segments have to be big enough for you to see them and small enough for you to realize they are segments not the whole thing. 4k is a segment for example, a bit too big but people use it, when in fact 4500 is the actual smallest segment(of mmr), which is as close as it gets to be considered one segment for the matchmaker.
Segments form status. 4k is likely better considered a status but then you see how a pov change wiill change the nature of something completely. When people talk about ranked status, is 4k even too small? yes, for a 6k+ for example, anyone under then is one segment, one status, lower.
(with current technology we can't completely go out of our pov, not even close, we got close with visual and pretty close with audio, other things are far off.)
Progress can be defined as the changes and positive directional patterns between segments.
with the similar line of thinking, if I were an ocean, or I aspire to be one, because, even if I am not an ocean, I do not aspire to be as lowly a stream as possible, I aspire not to be dust or stones or be tainted or turned by whatever dust or stones thrown my way, instead they get melted and washed away by me.
whatever the fuck this thread is supposed to be about you derail it yourself with your comments that are evasive from questions and mostly are made up of nonsense that you feel like writing at that said time.
i feel like writing some
if you want some "on topic", about life, here it is - life is not fair, but if you want to stay fair with yourself, true to yourself, you sometimes do something detrimental to yourself something that will make people give you "the looks", sometimes that something can make people hate you but you want to do it, and you still do it.
or you try to be the devil here and win, you do the tricks, do the shit that is sometimes immoral and at times illegal, but you win and in the end you can get respect and acknowledgement for the bad things that you've done, or disguise it as good things (like donations to cure cancer foundations from money made with colossal economical frauds or drugs and human trafficking) and get acknowledgement.
you can sometimes get the same amount of "win"/success through both ways but you can also fail on either of them, you decide what to do even and though some people get forced into certain circumstances, good things will come if you do good things.
one could make certain connections from me connecting dota fairness to philosophy ideas, to one famous anti meta dota figure;slahser, and him just now posting his last dota video/quitting dota(oh now there's a thread on reddit for that too lmfao), and instead continuing on his philosophy channel.
only if you still care, if you really don't care then no look in the world matters. an ocean does not even have to prove to any continental plate that he's right.
A predisposition I held for the justification of fairness in competitive esport games is that it elevate it from mere entertainment, makes it more respectful, and one might argue that it will then gain more real solid social influences or progress to something bigger better grander, something else. We all know that esport has risen, somewhat, but has it changed enough into a new phase? Not really. Why? is it simply that not enough people get paid doing it? NO, enough traditional sport people get paid, but with all the social respect they seem to get, are they elevated from mere entertainment? Do they need any serious respect?
What defines this game we play. What's special about this game and any competitive video games? Should it even try to go legit by following the same entertainment sporting route of traditional games? The answer is definitely not 100% yes.
I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone - if possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness - not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.
Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men - cries out for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.
To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. .....
Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!
In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within man” - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.
Then - in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will!
Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!
But you see what i'm saying right, my example was literally perfect.
I'm gonna tell a true story:
I was heading to an opening of a restaurant, and they were letting the last batch of guests up the elevator, and then comes one guy that said he's late but then the elevator just so happens to be full when he steps in cus it's beeping and shit and everyone can hear it just fine. So most people tell him that he has to step out, even if that means he's gonna miss the opening because it's a closed opening and doors will close after the last batch of people go in, and they all know that because it says so on the invites. So one guy tells the poor guy it's sad but we can't like risk falling off or something, but another guy sympathizes with him and says hey we have space why not let him in and let him in anyways, and nobody else objected and the elevator went up anyhow at first even overloaded. But halfway the elevator was malfunctioning mildly and people panic and look to the poor guy and the good guy so then the good guy stops the elevator on one floor and says ok maybe now we really should let the poor guy out but then the guy who opposed letting him says ok you wanted to let him in and now that he's halfway there you can't just throw him out and he kept the poor guy in. Now luckily the malfunctioning went back to normal and we reached the restaurant floor and the manager learned of the incident and banned the "good guy" from the restaurant.
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
it's not a true story, it's an old story from an old chinese book, I just adapted it to a common modern day elevator scene so you can better relate to it as modern men, and no there's no real "good guy" or "bad guy" I mean can you say it's wrong for the guy to change his stance? Didn't the other guy change his too? Should the poor guy be let in or not in the first place and should he be kicked out in the middle or kept along?
Who's at a loss here? The "good guy" wanted to help one guy but by doing so put everone including himself to danger, and when danger arrives he realises the consequences and tries to bail himself and everyone else out of danger except the poor guy because he's the sacrifice, he's the bail, he's the original cause of danger, or is he? The good guy's logic does seem to speak for itself but why does it make the 'good guy" look bad and why does it get him bad personal consequences? And we look at the guy who opposes. He seems to be selfish at the beginning but well justified to be so, but later he seems to turn out selfless. What's his reasoning? Why didn't he uphold his objection in the first place and why did he feel like he should take responsibility for the "good guy"'s action? Who's really afraid of the danger? Who's really not? What are the motives of these 2 guys?
Look at it from the bystander perspective: ok at first they are going to not like the good guy and like the bad guy regardless of the fact that they consented with the good guy but still feels the same as the bad guy. Because duh utilitarianism says we sacrifice the minority for the majority. So that's already a commonground established. And then when the good guy turns out to not be so selfless, they are going to label him as non trustworthy on top of being hypocrite. And the bad guy they already liked now steps out like a hero so they like him more. It would be different if the elevator did crash and burn but then maybe they won't even have a chance to do jack shit to the "good guy". This perspective forms the result and the moral of the original story.
Comparing the different perspectives you see why most people's perspective doesn't mean the true justice even if -just by you having a hive mindset-it "makes so much sense" when you don't even need to be part of "most people" as you are just reading that story. You are already inserting yourself into the story as a bystander, aka "most people". Because again per original moral of the story, the crowd see virtue in promise, even if it's just a consent, promises as the original moral has it, reside and hold value in wider social relationships, and by that I mean a more stable social relationship requires not just mutual respect but holding on to the mutual respect for as long as the mutual benefits and concerns are relevant.
For both "most people" and "the good guy", they are acting on that principle, but the diference is, only the good guy and nobody else did what he did, and that makes him different regardless of what he did, and thus alienated from the rest, even if both are just trying to save themselves and benefit themselves. The good guy's promise is in fact to himself, his own well being. Yes, he wasn't threatened and he does look nice, god know what he thinks, by getting the guy in, and we've all consented to such things in real life, or otherwise consented to giving people the look as they fearfully obey the elevator rules and the social pressure and sacrifice their time. We know damn well that elevators gets stuffed everywhere all the time and we rarely see in the news that as many elevators gets crashed. What happens when it does malfunction though? I mean there ARE still accidents out there. There are unlucky people who experiences these things and may even die. What would they actually do? Would they really be the guy that helps till the bitter end? Does the " bad guy" actually exist? Who's gonna be the bad guy and uphold fucking justice for the majority like a fucking douchebag with no symphathy for the minority, and then after that just because someone conveniently denied him of his act by being a good guy, then he's given a chance to act all high and mighty and go against the silent majority's benefits, thus breaking that hidden promise, to get some kind of twisted recognition of keeping promises, all while nothing bad really happens to everyone? This is a really conveniently laid out shit story but that's ok cus it's old, and I've disected it as much as I could to the bare bones.
This is in fact a more complicated case of scapegoating, when you think of the fact that the bad guy doesn't really exist in the real modern world, but the "good guy" the hypocrites, they do exist, a lot. And I am not blaming him, nor "most people", they are all fucking hypocrites, but for me personally, whoever gets scapegoated deserves more kudos.
Of course I can't solve it, I am part of it. Of course you can't solve it, therefore you are naturally drawn to use that as an excuse to continue be bad when you want to cus everyone else does it too.
#hivemind
And the same way I can dissect the narrative of a famous old chinese story which in and of itself is already about the fallacy and limit of human kindness, you can dissect mine too, and please beyond the mmr and winrate.
Because if human kindness does NOT REALLY exist, then human beings don't deserve better world, less so fairness and dignity and all that. Dogs have no right to complain about their own shit
#arewestillsavages (cus lord of the rings says we can't give up)
and to all the not even hypocrites but plain laughing at other people's miseries, please. you don't know what it's like until it happens to you, and believe me you don't want it to happen to you, and the more you don't want to the more likely it will hurt you when it does, and it will, everyone's in this cesspool of a world.
why
because if you don't care about the world, you don't deserve the world
because give you all the powers of the world and rip you off any shred of morality, you are the devil.
Lyrill mind, not hive mind.
I can pretend to be a raped and tortured north korean, and all the evil inside whoever comments here will burst straight out through internet data
I AM LYRILL.
You can pretend to be ruler of the omniverse with a fart delete worm holes and universes but your own elaborate scheme will end up as a real fart in a higher reality, the one which governs you.
Nice way to to indirectly talk shit to me, but I know that's not you Lyrill, so i'm not even going to get mad. Just like last time when we argued, and you went ballistic, then I added you as a friend, that was the last thing you were expecting too. Have a good day my Chinese friend. :)
If you want to change the world you can start somewhere anywhere, it doesn't matter how much power you have as long as you are trying to make it a better place it's not trying to make it more shit. BUT beware with more powers as that's not a guarantee to easier change, it's a guarantee to easier corruption.
You do good not because it's something good or it results in something good--doing good deed is not a calling-- but simply because that is your intuition and choice of reason independent of the outcome, that's true moral.
Between morals, motives, choices, actions,outcomes, there are a million ways to corruption.
Lol is this thread still going.
If you are without intuition and reason you are without humanity. You don't deserve to be included as part of humanity which we well know has widespread capabilities of intuition and reason.
Yo japanese trash 2k retard with negative sf and regular win rate can u please end urself thank u x
GTA SA was actually a very wise game
at the beginning of the storyline, when CJ was driving Big Smoke somewhere, and he was talking about some philosophical stuff which he obviously didnt understand himself, the protagonist told him that he's "full of shit".
the amount of ppl who are just full of shit is a lil bit too high, but their desire to spread this shit is what hurts others most.
it's not a true story, it's an old story from an old chinese book, I just adapted it to a common modern day elevator scene so you can better relate to it as modern men, and no there's no real "good guy" or "bad guy" I mean can you say it's wrong for the guy to change his stance? Didn't the other guy change his too? Should the poor guy be let in or not in the first place and should he be kicked out in the middle or kept along?
Who's at a loss here? The "good guy" wanted to help one guy but by doing so put everone including himself to danger, and when danger arrives he realises the consequences and tries to bail himself and everyone else out of danger except the poor guy because he's the sacrifice, he's the bail, he's the original cause of danger, or is he? The good guy's logic does seem to speak for itself but why does it make the 'good guy" look bad and why does it get him bad personal consequences? And we look at the guy who opposes. He seems to be selfish at the beginning but well justified to be so, but later he seems to turn out selfless. What's his reasoning? Why didn't he uphold his objection in the first place and why did he feel like he should take responsibility for the "good guy"'s action? Who's really afraid of the danger? Who's really not? What are the motives of these 2 guys?
Look at it from the bystander perspective: ok at first they are going to not like the good guy and like the bad guy regardless of the fact that they consented with the good guy but still feels the same as the bad guy. Because duh utilitarianism says we sacrifice the minority for the majority. So that's already a commonground established. And then when the good guy turns out to not be so selfless, they are going to label him as non trustworthy on top of being hypocrite. And the bad guy they already liked now steps out like a hero so they like him more. It would be different if the elevator did crash and burn but then maybe they won't even have a chance to do jack shit to the "good guy". This perspective forms the result and the moral of the original story.
Comparing the different perspectives you see why most people's perspective doesn't mean the true justice even if -just by you having a hive mindset-it "makes so much sense" when you don't even need to be part of "most people" as you are just reading that story. You are already inserting yourself into the story as a bystander, aka "most people". Because again per original moral of the story, the crowd see virtue in promise, even if it's just a consent, promises as the original moral has it, reside and hold value in wider social relationships, and by that I mean a more stable social relationship requires not just mutual respect but holding on to the mutual respect for as long as the mutual benefits and concerns are relevant.
For both "most people" and "the good guy", they are acting on that principle, but the diference is, only the good guy and nobody else did what he did, and that makes him different regardless of what he did, and thus alienated from the rest, even if both are just trying to save themselves and benefit themselves. The good guy's promise is in fact to himself, his own well being. Yes, he wasn't threatened and he does look nice, god know what he thinks, by getting the guy in, and we've all consented to such things in real life, or otherwise consented to giving people the look as they fearfully obey the elevator rules and the social pressure and sacrifice their time. We know damn well that elevators gets stuffed everywhere all the time and we rarely see in the news that as many elevators gets crashed. What happens when it does malfunction though? I mean there ARE still accidents out there. There are unlucky people who experiences these things and may even die. What would they actually do? Would they really be the guy that helps till the bitter end? Does the " bad guy" actually exist? Who's gonna be the bad guy and uphold fucking justice for the majority like a fucking douchebag with no symphathy for the minority, and then after that just because someone conveniently denied him of his act by being a good guy, then he's given a chance to act all high and mighty and go against the silent majority's benefits, thus breaking that hidden promise, to get some kind of twisted recognition of keeping promises, all while nothing bad really happens to everyone? This is a really conveniently laid out shit story but that's ok cus it's old, and I've disected it as much as I could to the bare bones.
This is in fact a more complicated case of scapegoating, when you think of the fact that the bad guy doesn't really exist in the real modern world, but the "good guy" the hypocrites, they do exist, a lot. And I am not blaming him, nor "most people", they are all fucking hypocrites, but for me personally, whoever gets scapegoated deserves more kudos.
philosophers don't understand things that's why they ponder. and that hurts you Mr. wise, because you resent the attempt to progress.
What does it matter you know more than all the gods of all the religions of the world, mr atheist. There's always someone knowing more than you, and even if you want to get there you still won't catch up, and you don't even want to try.
you make it sound like all you care about is status, well here's a status for you, as of now still, nobody in this thread except me isn't thread jacking with not a shred of honest conversation on topic, with you the king shitposter of this forum as the primary thread jacker blatantly going on and on about religion
start your own damn thread, and stop trying to tell me what I do in my thread, I won't visit your threads about whatever the fuck you want to talk about so you don't have to see me as if I made you to, thank you very much.
segments can be defined according to the pov, whatever's similar enough to be enclosed as one part, that is, segments have to be big enough for you to see them and small enough for you to realize they are segments not the whole thing. 4k is a segment for example, a bit too big but people use it, when in fact 4500 is the actual smallest segment(of mmr), which is as close as it gets to be considered one segment for the matchmaker.
Segments form status. 4k is likely better considered a status but then you see how a pov change wiill change the nature of something completely. When people talk about ranked status, is 4k even too small? yes, for a 6k+ for example, anyone under then is one segment, one status, lower.
(with current technology we can't completely go out of our pov, not even close, we got close with visual and pretty close with audio, other things are far off.)
Progress can be defined as the changes and positive directional patterns between segments.
kid u need some help..bad
with the similar line of thinking, if I were an ocean, or I aspire to be one, because, even if I am not an ocean, I do not aspire to be as lowly a stream as possible, I aspire not to be dust or stones or be tainted or turned by whatever dust or stones thrown my way, instead they get melted and washed away by me.
That is why all the unfairness in the world can smear and roll all they want but in the flow of history they are all but washed away.
"I'm gonna tell a true story"
"it's not a true story"
Jesus take me.
冰娃请原谅这个人怎么每次都要发表长篇大论？你这些哲学乱想和刀塔有什么关系？就算是你的理想和别人不一样，有必要跟这里所有人都产生矛盾么？
对于你提的问题：有人为了玩而玩，有人为了赢而玩，互相都有互相的理，没有什么对错。
you need some jesus dude
whatever the fuck this thread is supposed to be about you derail it yourself with your comments that are evasive from questions and mostly are made up of nonsense that you feel like writing at that said time.
i feel like writing some
if you want some "on topic", about life, here it is - life is not fair, but if you want to stay fair with yourself, true to yourself, you sometimes do something detrimental to yourself something that will make people give you "the looks", sometimes that something can make people hate you but you want to do it, and you still do it.
or you try to be the devil here and win, you do the tricks, do the shit that is sometimes immoral and at times illegal, but you win and in the end you can get respect and acknowledgement for the bad things that you've done, or disguise it as good things (like donations to cure cancer foundations from money made with colossal economical frauds or drugs and human trafficking) and get acknowledgement.
you can sometimes get the same amount of "win"/success through both ways but you can also fail on either of them, you decide what to do even and though some people get forced into certain circumstances, good things will come if you do good things.
how r we gonna close this thread? or do we not wanna close it?
one could make certain connections from me connecting dota fairness to philosophy ideas, to one famous anti meta dota figure;slahser, and him just now posting his last dota video/quitting dota(oh now there's a thread on reddit for that too lmfao), and instead continuing on his philosophy channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzoUeDARzaddHXQM5WNmYbQ/videos
Rofl guys! on page 4 I said "in b4 triplesteal replies to this thread again" after he said he was "out" ha ha ha ha!
only if you still care, if you really don't care then no look in the world matters. an ocean does not even have to prove to any continental plate that he's right.
A predisposition I held for the justification of fairness in competitive esport games is that it elevate it from mere entertainment, makes it more respectful, and one might argue that it will then gain more real solid social influences or progress to something bigger better grander, something else. We all know that esport has risen, somewhat, but has it changed enough into a new phase? Not really. Why? is it simply that not enough people get paid doing it? NO, enough traditional sport people get paid, but with all the social respect they seem to get, are they elevated from mere entertainment? Do they need any serious respect?
What defines this game we play. What's special about this game and any competitive video games? Should it even try to go legit by following the same entertainment sporting route of traditional games? The answer is definitely not 100% yes.
because it would be unfair for a non dota sport people to discriminate against dota players
Hey don't make fun of Lyrill's win rate, it's his trash teams that hold him back! Kappa :) XD
I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone - if possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness - not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.
Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men - cries out for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.
To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. .....
Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!
In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within man” - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.
Then - in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will!
Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!
I agree with what you said above, just not about humans wanting to help each other, or in democracy, democracy is a lie.
Presidents are selected, not elected.
oh and, by the way, Lyrill!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if your win rate is going to hit 46%, getting close there, almost. XD
yes thanks for reminding me again you are a realist that laugh at idealist, I get that. please move on with your realistic life. thank you very much.
CLOSE THIS HORRIBLE THREAD
MODS
Why do the worse trash threads always have most comments ffs...