Search results

Internal logic, yes. The existence of magic or mutants in no way precludes the existence of logic. Without logic, suspension of disbelief, and hence successful fantasy, is impossible.

I misspoke. It was not an implication. It was simply logically incorrect. Or a lie. She tells him exactly why this absolute point can’t be changed: because it will mean Strange never becomes the Sorcerer Supreme. The word “paradox” comes out of Strange’s mouth, not hers, but he is clarifying...

The Ancient One explicitly tells Strange that the reason he can’t change the absolute point is because it would result in a paradox. (She actually implies it can’t be changed at all for that reason, but that can’t logically be true, because if she did it, it wouldn’t result in a paradox.)

Two different timelines will have different absolute points. Why? As I understand it, absoluteness of a point is reletave to the person trying to change it. In the case of this episode, it was absolute because Strange was the one trying to change it. Which is impossible, because: paradox. But...

Especially since that government was

I never said anything about “unlimited care.” Nor implied it. It all depends on context. You know if the words you are about to say reveal a twist. Others don’t know. Unless someone, somehow tells them in advance. Does this mean we have to filter everything we say? This is a public forum. We...

Context matters. You know if the thing you are about to say could potentially ruin something for someone. Without warning, they do not. This gives you power over them. We agree that others do not have unlimited rights to your energies. This is simply about social decency. You can choose to...

Why should that matter? You cannot know when someone will be exposed to something. It may be old to many – even most. But it isn’t old to everybody.

Of course it is not your call! Deciding that the degree of harm you are about to inflict on someone who cannot do anything to prevent it is too minor to stop you necessarily comes at the expense of their autonomy. You can do it. But you can’t do it without robbing them of something. Many people...

@Gradine and @Wicht The ingredients for your championship match have been posted.

Round 3, Championship Match: Gradine vs Wicht @Gradine and @Wicht, you have 48 hours to post your entries to this thread. Please limit your entry to a title, a list of the ingredients used and 2000 additional words. Be aware: if you include descriptions of your ingredients with the ingredients...

The degree to which it is harmful is irrelevant. And not your call, frankly.

The absoluteness of the Absolute Point is in relation to the timeline it is in. It is obviously not absolute within all timelines, because we’ve already seen one in which it didn’t occur. The “sacredness” of the timeline was never a real thing. It was only a label the TVA used to excuse the...

That is an impossible bar to meet for someone who doesn’t have any way of knowing you might be about to spoil something, especially in a conversation that was not previously talking about that particular something. Which is to say, without any kind of warning. Is your solution that simply not...

@el-remmen and @Neurotic The ingredients for your 3rd-place match have been posted.

Round 3, 3rd-Place Match: el-remmen vs Neurotic @el-remmen and @Neurotic, you have 1 hour (until 5:30 PM EDT) to post your entries to this thread, using the ingredients provided. You do not have a word-count limit, but all ingredients must be used and judges are free to penalize late entries as...

Why would you assume willful ignorance? There are plenty of ways that ignorance would not be willful. Most ways, probably. Not that that is particularly important. This is a pretty black-and-white issue: • There are people who will not know the things you spoil (the reasons are irrelevant). •...

The difference is, TheSword’s desire does not rob you of your autonomy.

But you know better, now. You are participating in this thread, so you know that there are people who do not wish for you to bypass their autonomy in deciding whether or not to see a spoiler for something you arbitrarily think they should have experienced before you started talking. Nevermind...

For what it’s worth, @Neurotic, I have found everything you’ve written prior to the round 2 entry very easy to understand – to the point that I can not tell if you do not speak English natively. The difficulty in parsing that entry seems to me obviously a byproduct of it’s hasty writing and...