Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7774606" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I wasn't implying anything. If you'll follow my posts through the thread, you'll see that I have made formal statements and that further, I even anticipated this particular argument and addressed it before you offered.</p><p></p><p>Of course I believe that the beliefs and practices I have are generally superior to the beliefs and practices of other people. If I didn't, I'd adopt those beliefs and practices. And of course I am therefore concerned when people who may or who do share beliefs and practices with me, change and adopt different beliefs and practices that I disagree with because I believe that there is something wrong with that. I have never denied any of that.</p><p></p><p>And likewise, of course I recognize that other people hold beliefs and opinions because they are convinced of the correctness of them for reasons that seem good and valid to them.</p><p></p><p>What's particularly silly is that you seem to think you are an exception to this general rule. You offer some pabulum about how one cannot say that one belief or practice is better than another, yet in doing so you are at the same time saying that everyone that thinks that their belief or practice is superior is wrong, are themselves wrong and the one true system of thought is your own. This is incoherent at the formal level, illogical in application, and in practice I think we'll find that you don't have the conviction to act on that belief. There will surely be things that you hold as true that you think I ought to believe, and modes of behavior you think are correct which you think I ought to engage in.</p><p></p><p>Let's consider why the belief logically contradicts itself.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First of all, that's not a "slippery slope". A slippery slope is when it's easier to continue following a path than it is to reverse course. I won't offer examples because that would surely multiply the number of things we would be arguing about. A slippery slope fallacy is when you assert that a slippery slope exists, and therefore that some undesirable thing B will naturally follow from A without first proving the connection between the two. But your use of "slippery slope" isn't either of those things. </p><p></p><p>Of course the member of religion Y will say of my religion, that is incorrect and these are the valid reasons why I think so. But the existence of an argument does not prove the members of the argument are equally correct, or even that either are correct. It only means at most that the questions being addressed are difficult and reasonable people might disagree over the answers. What is unreasonable and irrational is to assume that since coming up with an answer is difficult, that all answers are equally valid and there is as you put it "nothing wrong with X". One of the most obvious ways that is wrong is that belief systems X and Y generally don't disagree over trivial matters, but have fundamental and opposite takes on the same questions. Without going into the details, because doing so will surely multiple disagreements, it cannot be possible that Satanists and Christians are both equally valid in their claims, since they make opposing claims. They may be both wrong, but on many things they will be wrong in the way that saying the Earth is a sphere is wrong. It's wrong, but it's not nearly as wrong as saying the Earth is flat. One claim will be vastly less valid than the other.</p><p></p><p>This is reality. You'll need to deal with that. If you can't deal with that, I'm afraid you're tolerance is going to be really weak, because tolerance doesn't require merely that we act in humility toward people who hold equally valid opinions as ourselves, but that we act in humility toward people even when they hold beliefs which we find really wrong and offensive. (And not unsurprisingly, whether we have any real obligation to be tolerant is one of those things that people disagree over.)</p><p></p><p>And again, I suspect if we dig it will turn out that you don't actually have the strength of conviction to believe what you've just said. For one thing, you are busy trying to correct my assertion of moral absolutism with the claim that your moral relativism... is absolutely correct.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7774606, member: 4937"] I wasn't implying anything. If you'll follow my posts through the thread, you'll see that I have made formal statements and that further, I even anticipated this particular argument and addressed it before you offered. Of course I believe that the beliefs and practices I have are generally superior to the beliefs and practices of other people. If I didn't, I'd adopt those beliefs and practices. And of course I am therefore concerned when people who may or who do share beliefs and practices with me, change and adopt different beliefs and practices that I disagree with because I believe that there is something wrong with that. I have never denied any of that. And likewise, of course I recognize that other people hold beliefs and opinions because they are convinced of the correctness of them for reasons that seem good and valid to them. What's particularly silly is that you seem to think you are an exception to this general rule. You offer some pabulum about how one cannot say that one belief or practice is better than another, yet in doing so you are at the same time saying that everyone that thinks that their belief or practice is superior is wrong, are themselves wrong and the one true system of thought is your own. This is incoherent at the formal level, illogical in application, and in practice I think we'll find that you don't have the conviction to act on that belief. There will surely be things that you hold as true that you think I ought to believe, and modes of behavior you think are correct which you think I ought to engage in. Let's consider why the belief logically contradicts itself. First of all, that's not a "slippery slope". A slippery slope is when it's easier to continue following a path than it is to reverse course. I won't offer examples because that would surely multiply the number of things we would be arguing about. A slippery slope fallacy is when you assert that a slippery slope exists, and therefore that some undesirable thing B will naturally follow from A without first proving the connection between the two. But your use of "slippery slope" isn't either of those things. Of course the member of religion Y will say of my religion, that is incorrect and these are the valid reasons why I think so. But the existence of an argument does not prove the members of the argument are equally correct, or even that either are correct. It only means at most that the questions being addressed are difficult and reasonable people might disagree over the answers. What is unreasonable and irrational is to assume that since coming up with an answer is difficult, that all answers are equally valid and there is as you put it "nothing wrong with X". One of the most obvious ways that is wrong is that belief systems X and Y generally don't disagree over trivial matters, but have fundamental and opposite takes on the same questions. Without going into the details, because doing so will surely multiple disagreements, it cannot be possible that Satanists and Christians are both equally valid in their claims, since they make opposing claims. They may be both wrong, but on many things they will be wrong in the way that saying the Earth is a sphere is wrong. It's wrong, but it's not nearly as wrong as saying the Earth is flat. One claim will be vastly less valid than the other. This is reality. You'll need to deal with that. If you can't deal with that, I'm afraid you're tolerance is going to be really weak, because tolerance doesn't require merely that we act in humility toward people who hold equally valid opinions as ourselves, but that we act in humility toward people even when they hold beliefs which we find really wrong and offensive. (And not unsurprisingly, whether we have any real obligation to be tolerant is one of those things that people disagree over.) And again, I suspect if we dig it will turn out that you don't actually have the strength of conviction to believe what you've just said. For one thing, you are busy trying to correct my assertion of moral absolutism with the claim that your moral relativism... is absolutely correct. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Momo is Still Not Real (But Memes Are)
Top