OOTS #1134 - The Discussion Thread

[Ironsmith]

Perhaps in the States. Mitch Hedberg had a routine about how in the UK they have "Smacky the Frog" instead;

Is it bad that I ended up thinking of a different frog altogether?

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought Smokey was pretty universal. At least in the States. He says in a heavily forested state.

In the 1960's, Smokey the Bear was a national meme/figure. So too were, I think, Rocky and Bullwinkle.

[Emanick]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

And his "appearance" around Lirian's Gate doesn't convey much if you didn't already know about Smokey...though it's a heck of a lot funnier if you do know of Smokey, I imagine.

Best joke in the book, I thought. I couldn't stop laughing.

[Ruck]

Yeah, Mitch is why I tossed in that disclaimer.

I'm looking at Jasdoif's avatar below yours and I'm thinking, "And purple means, where the **** did you get that banana?"

[Peelee]

I'm looking at Jasdoif's avatar below yours and I'm thinking, "And purple means, where the **** did you get that banana?"

Dude. You gotta give me time to guess. If you’re gonna quiz me, you must insert a pause in there.

[Caractacus]

No such thing as Smacky the Frog in the UK.

At least regarding forest fire prevention.

Might be the nickname of a very, very addicted wild-eyed loon somewhere in Nottingham...

[Peelee]

No such thing as Smacky the Frog in the UK.

At least regarding forest fire prevention.

Spoiler: That does explain some things...

Show

[Shining Wrath]

We are approaching unified field theory.

Thor wants to talk to Durkon about how Smokey the Bear oppressed the various flora which require forest fires for germination, e.g., fireweed, and therefore releasing the Snarl to destroy only the souls of dwarves who died honorably but had evil alignments but weren't chaotic followers of Loki will lead to Hel finally being happy, which will turn her into a gentle, kind, loving goddess who disdains to send pestilence upon the demesne of the Northern Pantheon.

I've figured it out! Come at me!

[KorvinStarmast]

We are approaching unified field theory.

Thor wants to talk to Durkon about how Smokey the Bear oppressed the various flora which require forest fires for germination, e.g., fireweed, and therefore releasing the Snarl to destroy only the souls of dwarves who died honorably but had evil alignments but weren't chaotic followers of Loki will lead to Hel finally being happy, which will turn her into a gentle, kind, loving goddess who disdains to send pestilence upon the demesne of the Northern Pantheon.

I've figured it out! Come at me!

I'll use a pointed stick. I am fresh out of raspberries, and the tiger's on lunch break.

[Snails]

Snails is, unsurprisingly, quickly proven right.

Should have tried to win back some of those quatloos I owe Peelee. But I doubt there would have been any takers.

[Snails]

We are approaching unified field theory.

Thor wants to talk to Durkon about how Smokey the Bear oppressed the various flora which require forest fires for germination, e.g., fireweed, and therefore releasing the Snarl to destroy only the souls of dwarves who died honorably but had evil alignments but weren't chaotic followers of Loki will lead to Hel finally being happy, which will turn her into a gentle, kind, loving goddess who disdains to send pestilence upon the demesne of the Northern Pantheon.

I've figured it out! Come at me!

Hel would have had a much easier time if only she worked an Alcoholism Is Fun themepark into the afterlife schtick.

[woweedd]

*Looks at the "Only YOU can prevent forest fires" sign*

But... But I NEVER ASKED FOR SUCH RESPONSIBILITY!!! Why ONLY me??? And not anyone else??? In the entire world? UNIVERSE??? NOOOOOOO!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

[The_Weirdo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

How DARE you call me generic and impersonal? NOW you made it personal!

[woweedd]

How DARE you call me generic and impersonal? NOW you made it personal!

Thanks for the blue text, because you're the kinda person whose rela views are os shocking, I can't tell when you're joking.

[Fish]

In order for the battle to be equal, the weak party has to have moral access to every means necessary to react or retaliate. And sure, it is possible for someone to be both oppressor and oppressed, in which case their oppressors should get their affairs in order and so should they.

And who decides which is the weaker party? Who decides who is oppressed?

Yeah, your reasoning is not so convincing when you get down to cases. An omniscient person may be able to know, in the abstract, who is entitled to do what; in the real world, every person can feel aggrieved and entitled to "every means necessary." As a philosophy for sorting out moral behavior, this is the worst thing I have ever seen.

The only thing that matters here is who started it.

Here we go again. Who decides who started something? The Roman soldier is a soldier by accident of birth: as a Roman citizen he is therefore conscripted into the army, and would be beaten to death for attempting to desert. In every sense, the soldier can claim to have started nothing — neither asking to be a citizen nor asking to join the army, powerless to refuse to participate — and yet, by your reasoning, that Roman soldier ought to be killed, targeting the only person in the conversation who can reasonably claim not to have started anything.

Your "system" is broken.

[hroþila]

Snails had done a terrific job shutting this down. It'd be a shame if we let that effort go to waste.

[Peelee]

Should have tried to win back some of those quatloos I owe Peelee. But I doubt there would have been any takers.

I'll bet you ten quatloos that you'll eventually get those five back.

Snails had done a terrific job shutting this down. It'd be a shame if we let that effort go to waste.

Seconded. Also, ignore that I didn't help at all.

[The_Weirdo]

as a Roman citizen he is therefore conscripted into the army, and would be beaten to death for attempting to desert. In every sense, the soldier can claim to have started nothing — neither asking to be a citizen nor asking to join the army, powerless to refuse to participate — and yet, by your reasoning, that Roman soldier ought to be killed, targeting the only person in the conversation who can reasonably claim not to have started anything.

Your "system" is broken.

Nope. The only people in the equation that didn't start anything were the INVADED. What are they supposed to do? Roll up and accept the invasion just so the precious life of legionnaire Epluribusunum is spared? Unacceptable. Why should an invaded party care about what fate befalls the invaders?

[woweedd]

And who decides which is the weaker party? Who decides who is oppressed?

Yeah, your reasoning is not so convincing when you get down to cases. An omniscient person may be able to know, in the abstract, who is entitled to do what; in the real world, every person can feel aggrieved and entitled to "every means necessary." As a philosophy for sorting out moral behavior, this is the worst thing I have ever seen.

Here we go again. Who decides who started something? The Roman soldier is a soldier by accident of birth: as a Roman citizen he is therefore conscripted into the army, and would be beaten to death for attempting to desert. In every sense, the soldier can claim to have started nothing — neither asking to be a citizen nor asking to join the army, powerless to refuse to participate — and yet, by your reasoning, that Roman soldier ought to be killed, targeting the only person in the conversation who can reasonably claim not to have started anything.

Your "system" is broken.

I think who decides is obvious: The_Weirdo decides. It's a very neat philosophy. Anyone The_Werido likes is oppressed, and therefore can do no wrong. Anyone The_Werido dislikes is opressor, and, therefor,e ca have anything done to them free of moral consequence. Your problem is that you're looking at the system as if he decides who is oppressed, THEN decides who to support, when the evidence is that it's the other way around: He decides which side he likes more, then declares them to be oppressed. It's a neat little trick for someone who has no concept of nuance.

[The_Weirdo]

I think who decides is obvious: The_Weirdo decides. It's a very neat philosophy. Anyone The_Werido likes is oppressed, and therefore can do no wrong. Anyone The_Werido dislikes is opressor, and, therefor,e ca have anything done to them free of moral consequence. Your problem is that you're looking at the system as if he decides who is oppressed, THEN decides who to support, when the evidence is that it's the other way around: He decides which side he likes more, then declares them to be oppressed. It's a neat little trick for someone who has no concept of nuance.

Not really.

I side with Hilgya over her family because most people agree - sadly only most! - that forcing a woman to marry is wrong.
I believe that Thor owes the dwarves an apology because, on a drunken bet, he forfeited their souls. Most people here likely see betting other people's souls drunkenly as a Bad Thing.
I believe that Redcloak deserves redress, redress he would not have gotten by asking nicely, because the Sapphire Guard killed his family and destroyed his village. Most people here see attacking villages filled with innocent people as a Bad Thing, and one for which the perpetrators should be punished.
I believe a side that gets invaded gets to react because, well, it is getting fricking invaded. Most people have no issue with the right of, say, Azure City to defend itself.

None of these beliefs are outside the norm. Likewise, none of them depend exclusively on taste.

[woweedd]

Not really.

I side with Hilgya over her family because most people agree - sadly only most! - that forcing a woman to marry is wrong.
I believe that Thor owes the dwarves an apology because, on a drunken bet, he forfeited their souls.
I believe that Redcloak deserves redress, redress he would not have gotten by asking nicely, because the Sapphire Guard killed his family and destroyed his village.
I believe a side that gets invaded gets to react because, well, it is getting fricking invaded.

None of these beliefs are outside the norm. Likewise, none of them depend exclusively on taste.

I agree with all of those things. I just don't agree with "therefore, you have the right to kill anyone even vaguely connected to the crime."

[The_Weirdo]

I agree iwht all of those things. I just don't agree with "therefore, you have the right to kill anyone even vaguely connected ot the crime."

So you agree that it's not about "which side I like best".

[Snails]

Nope. The only people in the equation that didn't start anything were the INVADED. What are they supposed to do? Roll up and accept the invasion just so the precious life of legionnaire Epluribusunum is spared? Unacceptable. Why should an invaded party care about what fate befalls the invaders?

No. You are contradicting yourself.

Those invaded Gauls have no rights because they oppressed innocent Roman merchants. The Roman Senate weighed the problem and decided to take action, as is their absolute right under the rules as explained by The Weirdo. The Gauls are part of an oppressive group. All of them. Men. Women. Children. Goats. All deserve death.

NOW the Gauls are whining that some of them are innocent. Well, boo hoo. That is not the Romans' problem. The innocent Gauls' blood is 100% on the hands of the mean Gauls who cheated the Roman merchants. That the mean Gauls might be all dead by now, well, that is still not the Romans' problem. According to you.

You have spelled this out to us here on this forum over and over and over. Are you having cold feet when the inevitable and unavoidable results of your own logic are spelled out for you? Or are you going to change the subject and run away?

[The_Weirdo]

No. You are contradicting yourself.

Those invaded Gauls have no rights because they oppressed innocent Roman merchants. The Roman Senate weighed the problem and decided to take action, as is their absolute right under the rules as explained by The Weirdo. The Gauls are part of an oppressive group. All of them. Men. Women. Children. Goats. All deserve death.

NOW the Gauls are whining that some of them are innocent. Well, boo hoo. That is not the Romans' problem. The innocent Gauls' blood is 100% on the hands of the mean Gauls who cheated the Roman merchants. That the mean Gauls might be all dead by now, well, that is still not the Romans' problem. According to you.

You have spelled this out to us here on this forum over and over and over. Are you having cold feet when the inevitable and unavoidable results of your own logic are spelled out for you? Or are you going to change the subject and run away?

Eh. You have a point, but I really dislike ancient Roman-style characters and groups thereof.

There. Argument conceded.

To be sure, though, the Gauls are way looser a "group" than the Romans ever were.

[woweedd]

So you agree that it's not about "which side I like best".

So, remind me: You're still advocating for killing civilians, even though they have no real say in what their government does, and are, if anything, oppressed in their own way? I'd argue the ideal solution would be to find Roman civilians sympathetic to your cause and have them help you as you throw off ALL the shackles.

[The_Weirdo]

So, remind me: You're still advocating for killing civilians, even though they have no real say in what their government does, and are, if anything, oppressed in their own way? I'd argue the ideal solution would be to find Roman civilians sympathetic to your cause and have them help you as you throw off ALL the shackles.

Well, I'm thinking strategy. Or, rather, tactics. Your idea does make sense from a strategic point of view. From a tactical one - as in, faster - mine creates chaos behind their lines...

[woweedd]

Well, I'm thinking strategy. Or, rather, tactics. Your idea does make sense from a strategic point of view...

I'm talking morally, and I was under the impression you were too. That would be the Chaotic Good option. You seem to be advocating for a morally-dubious and riskier option merely because it's easier, which is textbook Not-Good.

[The_Weirdo]

I'm talking morally, and I was under the impression you were too. That would be the Chaotic Good option. You seem to be advocating for a morally-dubious and riskier option merely because it's easier, which is textbook Not-Good.

Ah, well, yes, sure.

[Ruck]

I think who decides is obvious: The_Weirdo decides. It's a very neat philosophy. Anyone The_Werido likes is oppressed, and therefore can do no wrong. Anyone The_Werido dislikes is opressor, and, therefor,e ca have anything done to them free of moral consequence. Your problem is that you're looking at the system as if he decides who is oppressed, THEN decides who to support, when the evidence is that it's the other way around: He decides which side he likes more, then declares them to be oppressed. It's a neat little trick for someone who has no concept of nuance.

Eh. You have a point, but I really dislike ancient Roman-style characters and groups thereof.

There. Argument conceded.

To be sure, though, the Gauls are way looser a "group" than the Romans ever were.

Well, we're not getting a more clear concession than this, I think.

[woweedd]

Ah, well, yes, sure.

So you agree with me that targeting civilians, even if they may be part of an oppressive system, is Not Good? That "turning the world into an FPS" is actually not a morally-Good, or, I would argue, morally-Neutral idea?