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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D
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="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8502742" data-attributes="member: 6778210"><p>Are you seriously comparing that to Orcs of Thar? Because slippery slopes live and die on their likelihood: Italy invading more places was likely because they were a warlike power. Do you really think we're in danger of banning everything here?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, there's no reason to take it to an absurd level without proof that we're actually on that track. You're making alarmist slippery slope arguments with no evidence that we'll go that far. This is why the slippery slope is often used as an unofficial fallacy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If something is "mixed", that means there's something to both sides. If you have nothing to the other side, then... it's not mixed. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but I also have to take your words at face value.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We judge everything individually within its individual contexts. This is just a continuation of the slippery slope: what do we judge and what not? How do we know we won't put it on everything?</p><p></p><p>Well, how about we try it first. There's no reason to fear action here, otherwise how will you know? You figure things out by trying them and seeing what works, not fretting and doing nothing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I think that we come to that when we come to that. Orcs of Thar is Orcs of Thar and you can take it individually. You don't need to plan out every step in a journey, and there are certainly no pitfalls so bad that it is worse than no action at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, and I just don't see that here. I've been in plenty of these arguments on these boards, and I just don't see that. People don't get called racist, people don't get hit for not expressing the proper level of outrage. I see way more absurdities about "banning everything" from the other side.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't work in "overall views" because the specific is what I care about because that's where I can actually judge the values and justifications, hence why I've made a values judgement on the arguments of the other side. If you remove all context from that, yes, it looks worse than when I specific spell out why I think the other side is not really expressing themselves rationally.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>That's why I'm being specific</em></strong>. I don't think we need to talk about upper-level stuff because I think that strips away all the useful information. That I think I'm rational is predicated on the specific facts of the situation and not some vague, general idea that I'm right and they are wrong. Fun fact: I don't think everyone that holds a different view to me is necessarily irrational or wrong. I judge them as they come. But in <strong><em>this case</em></strong>, yes I find the other side to more emotional in their argument because I <strong><em>specifically </em></strong>find them to be. That's not cherry-picking, that's justifying one's view to the specifics we are talking about.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justice and Rule, post: 8502742, member: 6778210"] Are you seriously comparing that to Orcs of Thar? Because slippery slopes live and die on their likelihood: Italy invading more places was likely because they were a warlike power. Do you really think we're in danger of banning everything here? Again, there's no reason to take it to an absurd level without proof that we're actually on that track. You're making alarmist slippery slope arguments with no evidence that we'll go that far. This is why the slippery slope is often used as an unofficial fallacy. If something is "mixed", that means there's something to both sides. If you have nothing to the other side, then... it's not mixed. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but I also have to take your words at face value. We judge everything individually within its individual contexts. This is just a continuation of the slippery slope: what do we judge and what not? How do we know we won't put it on everything? Well, how about we try it first. There's no reason to fear action here, otherwise how will you know? You figure things out by trying them and seeing what works, not fretting and doing nothing. And I think that we come to that when we come to that. Orcs of Thar is Orcs of Thar and you can take it individually. You don't need to plan out every step in a journey, and there are certainly no pitfalls so bad that it is worse than no action at all. Yeah, and I just don't see that here. I've been in plenty of these arguments on these boards, and I just don't see that. People don't get called racist, people don't get hit for not expressing the proper level of outrage. I see way more absurdities about "banning everything" from the other side. [I][/I] I don't work in "overall views" because the specific is what I care about because that's where I can actually judge the values and justifications, hence why I've made a values judgement on the arguments of the other side. If you remove all context from that, yes, it looks worse than when I specific spell out why I think the other side is not really expressing themselves rationally. [B][I]That's why I'm being specific[/I][/B]. I don't think we need to talk about upper-level stuff because I think that strips away all the useful information. That I think I'm rational is predicated on the specific facts of the situation and not some vague, general idea that I'm right and they are wrong. Fun fact: I don't think everyone that holds a different view to me is necessarily irrational or wrong. I judge them as they come. But in [B][I]this case[/I][/B], yes I find the other side to more emotional in their argument because I [B][I]specifically [/I][/B]find them to be. That's not cherry-picking, that's justifying one's view to the specifics we are talking about. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D
Top