My group did a multi-shot where we played ourselves, and we each set each other’s stats. Each of us took a turn being DM so we could each play ourselves.
Mine was something like 8, 9, 8, 14, 12, 8
I’d have to dig up that ancient sheet to know for sure.
Then I spent a decent chunk of the campaign trying to build a phone charger out of random things you’d find in Chult.
deleted by creator
if morality were dictated to rational agents through an external source, we could not be sure of its objectivity (i.e., universal and necessary validity). Moreover, the notion of an external source that dictates morality conflicts with our being free moral agents. Hence we must legislate ourselves through our own faculty of reason such that the moral law holds objectively for rational agents such as us.
I agree with everything here until the “must” of the last sentence, as it seems to be based on the implication that said free agents care. There are people who do not care for their own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others. On a subjective basis, they lack the values that objective reasoning would be built on.
To them that “must” is meaningless. Or worse, they view statements such as that as being dictated to them from an external source.
On top of that, we aren’t completely rational, or able to make completely rational conclusions at all times. We can make attempts, sure. But we have biases, we fall into fallacies without realizing, and like I said some of us just don’t care.
Morality can’t be objective if we can’t be objective.
but I’d rather not recapitulate the entire work. If you’re interested, I would read the following entry page on the issue.
I understand not wanting to do that, so all good.
Though. I’m more interested in a discussion than anything else.
Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.
What is the evidence that this thought is true? How do you objectively prove this?
Kant thought that the moral law is a duty that is imposed upon the self by reason.
So how do you evidence that this value is objective?
if everybody lied all the time, then lies would lose their effectiveness.
How does effectiveness of lying have anything to do with the morality of lying?
If I am ineffective at providing for my family (disability/sicknese/other means for which I cannot control), is that immoral?
yeah im just saying one show does not mean anything.
Nor have I said so. I was giving an example of how the boomers have valued cops, and how they view them.
heck andy griffith was more a small town show than a cop show
Sure, but the underlying effect and message of the show was “hey cops are the good guys, they’ll look out for your family”
I would say cop vs general emergency responder vs hospital/doctor show ratios are not that different today than back when boomers were the main television audience
That’s far better argument. Though I’d say it still misses the mark because even modern cop shows are still meant for an older group. Gen Z isn’t watching those shows. The closest is Brooklyn 99, which is closer to pornography than reality, or an attempt at reality. There’s also true crime, but often the value there is morbid curiosity, not “cops are good”.
Sorry i misread the description of emergency. Let me start over.
Emergency showing how boomers value other emergency services doesn’t negate the point that they value the police, whereas newer generations tend to reject the police.
That’s a nearly 50 year old show. Not exactly the best choice.
If folks got promoted by working hard then folks would value it now but it does not happen
Hence why they loathe it.
Honestly I don’t think the police were valued over firemen or emts.
Things like The Andy Griffith Show seems to suggest otherwise.
How do you ensure people give up their turn?
How do you handle the complexity of providing for millions?
Again I agree. This has been a long time coming, and the two party system isn’t the only cause.
But by and large, the failures of checks in balances within the U.S. has been a result of the failure of implementation, not the core idea.
That’s where they fucked up the implementation. It’s being ignored because 1 party controls all 3 branches of the federal government.
They implemented a voting system that naturally devolves into a two parry system. Checks and balances don’t work when you are the one checking yourself.
Agreed
Culture itself is a system maintained by force, in its particular case it’s social force, peer pressure, pressure from family, etc.
It breeds opposition within itself, which is why it constantly changes.
And I think you’re wrong in that cultural longer. A good example of this is the values of the boomers. They valued the nuclear family, working hard to get promoted, the police, the american dream, etc. It’s now the complete opposite, the nuclear family is regarded as a joke, people loathe the idea of staying at a job longer than a few years let alone the decades the boomers would do. The police are hated, and the american dream is dead.
Only by ensuring that there are numerous power bases with the ability to effectively restrain one-another, and relatively free entry/advancement in each, can a free equilibrium be maintained in a society.
Agreed. Any system is going to require a strong system of checks and balances. That’s one of the few good ideas the founding fathers had. They gloriously fucked up the implementation obviously. But the core concept is critical.
Of course, we have quite a few regulations and regulatory bodies nowadays, so the only real question is in the details of it, rather than the general concept. The concept is obviously workable.
For now we do.
Culture isn’t static. It drifts over time and newer generations of people will cease to value what their parents did. Any system maintained by culture will die rather quickly.
Then i think we’re largely in agreement. People should always be free to form small groups to follow their passion.
Though there is another concern. Co-ops that get larger than (guessing here) around 100 or so employees will start to act in the selfish greedy ways of current corporations. Even an employee owned co-op will eventually try to do everything in their power to make a buck. They’re directly incentivized to do so.
So aside from the outright regulation from the social democracy, I’ve been toying with the idea of a requirement for a publicly appointed employee(s) that have power over major decisions. They’d probably need to be appointed via sortion, recallable by the public, and their wages independent of wellbeing of the co-op.
Another concern is the prioritization of common goods, and the actual mechanisms for welfare and social safeguards. Some number of co-ops would need to exist as contractors of the state, providing critical needs paid for by the state.
How do you equitably manage and distribute the cost of critical systems like water sanitation for hundreds of millions of people without a hierarchy?
Not a film, but a novel:
Starflight 3000 by R.W. Mackelworth
If I remember, it was about this asteroid called “The Biosphere” that got hollowed out and sent on relativistic speeds through deep space to seed other solar systems with human colonies. The inside of it was set up like a giant rural town with massive skies, and a foot print the size of New York. And that’s a cool ass premise.
But the book was so fucking milquetoast and bland. I could not tell you anything about the protagonist, their challenges, or anything.