Pathfinder 2E Paizo drops use of the word phylactery

[J.Quondam]

I'm pretty firmly deontological so the "who" and the "relative power dynamic" are completely irrelevant to my analysis. A moral rule either holds in all cases, or none. So if phylactery = bad because religious reason then -> religious-adjacent-thing = bad because religion reason no matter what we fill the formula terms in with.

You do realize there are no mathematical proofs going on here, right? People are allowed to comment as they see fit, without first running it through a battery of logic tests. Your specific demands for "truth" are irrelevant to someone else's concerns and opinions.
Especially in a forum post.
About a game.
On the internet.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I'm really only concerned with truth values. Either the things I say are true or false. What role does empathy play in determining the truth of a proposition?

Well, since humans aren't robots, empathy can help us understand that each person's concept of "truth" is personal and subjective.

If I say "I am angry" or "this makes me sad," there's literally no way you can prove or disprove the truth of those statements. In fact, my own expression or experience of anger or sadness may be far different than yours!

Paizo is choosing to no longer use a word derived from a religion to describe an evil artifact in their game. This isn't really a situation in which there is one truth... It's a situation that requires empathy, and maybe even being okay with not understanding.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Paizo is choosing to no longer use a word derived from a religion to describe an evil artifact in their game. This isn't really a situation in which there is one truth... It's a situation that requires empathy, and maybe even being okay with not understanding.

They are choosing to [do a thing] for [a reason]. That reason applies to [other things]. Therefor, to be logically consistent, they need to apply that standard in all cases, not just apply it selectively.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

You do realize there are no mathematical proofs going on here, right? People are allowed to comment as they see fit, without first running it through a battery of logic tests. Your specific demands for "truth" are irrelevant to someone else's concerns and opinions.
Especially in a forum post.
About a game.
On the internet.

I'll make a personal note that you don't have any interest in dealing with the truth or falsity of claims or propositions. As far as you're concerned, 2+3=4 is completely legitimate arithmetic. (Then you're going to say that opinions are subjective where mathematics is objective, but you're just begging the question).

I wonder if you would apply that same level of discourse tolerance to vaccine denial or election misinformation. After all, "People are allowed to comment as they see fit, without first running it through a battery of logic tests."

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

They don't claim to be logically consistent. They only claimed they felt they had to do that for a long time. Obviously, they didn't feel it with regard to golem (another appropriation of Jewish folklore done badly) or with Baba Yaga, but that doesn't make the claim that they felt something concerning phylactery.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

They don't claim to be logically consistent. They only claimed they felt they had to do that for a long time.

Fair enough.

 

[J.Quondam]

I'll make a personal note that you don't have any interest in dealing with the truth or falsity of claims or propositions. As far as you're concerned, 2+3=4 is completely legitimate arithmetic. (Then you're going to say that opinions are subjective where mathematics is objective, but you're just begging the question).

I'm more than happy to deal with claims of truth and falsity-- in the appropriate place.
A forum about gaming on the internet, where people should feel free to just speak their mind without being confronted by academic jargon, is not really that place.

 

[BookTenTiger]

They are choosing to [do a thing] for [a reason]. That reason applies to [other things]. Therefor, to be logically consistent, they need to apply that standard in all cases, not just apply it selectively.

So I guess the answer is:

Sometimes people and companies are not logically consistent.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

So I guess the answer is:

Sometimes people and companies are not logically consistent.

Hypocrites*

 

[Cadence]

They are choosing to [do a thing] for [a reason]. That reason applies to [other things]. Therefor, to be logically consistent, they need to apply that standard in all cases, not just apply it selectively.

And if there reason involved portraying something positive in a negative way, or relative power dynamics, then that could be consistent?