Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[Kesh]

Actually, the act of reading something does imply that something was "worth reading". The choice may not have been made based on entertainment value, but it was almost certainly based on some kind of value judgement. To use Insight's example, you might have read the textbook, not because you found it interesting, but based on the value judgment that you'd prefer to get an A, rather than an F, in your class. Any choice that is resolved based on something other than a coin toss implies a value judgement on the part of the chooser.

Again, if that's how you're defining "value," it renders the word useless. Getting out of bed in the morning becomes a value judgement on how good the day is going to be. Answering the phone when it rings is a value judgement. Using the bathroom as opposed to holding it becomes a value judgement. Need I go on?

If you use a word in an overly-broad fashion, sure, you can claim that simply reading a book is a value judgement. But the value of your use of the English language is pretty worthless, IMO.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

While it doesn't account for much, but... There is this mention in the Fomorian article:

In the latter case, two opponents are given nonlethal but brutal weapons, such as lashes or staffs that emit a magical, low-damage dose of painful electricity or necrotic damage.

 

[warlockwannabe]

D&D without killing....hmmm...I dont think I have ever once had an adventure when someone didnt die.

 

[Ourph]

If you use a word in an overly-broad fashion, sure, you can claim that simply reading a book is a value judgement. But the value of your use of the English language is pretty worthless, IMO.

I've always thought that if you want to say something precise, it's better to use precise language than to narrowly define a single term and expect everyone to know what you mean. But that's just one man's opinion.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't see why everyone has apparently allowed you to define their positions in the way that you have, and then argue on your terms about what they're trying to say.

I allowed people to phrase their arguments in their own ways, then simply drove them over the cliff. Most of these arguments are well-worn on this forum, and do not make any more sense now than before. I used other people's definitions and accepted virtually every premise as potentially admissable.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't agree that all these notions are imbedded in one another in the argument presented. The claim is simply (i) that worthwhile judgement depends upon familiarity (which I think is plausible) and (ii) that familiarity with a book depends upon reading (which I think is implausible). There is no circularity.

The part that makes it circular is when it is claimed that you cannot judge if a book is worthwhile until you have read it. If you excise (ii), the argument simply ceases to exist. I already accounted for that several posts ago.

pawsplay says: I think the PHB will suck.
someone says: You can't make that judgment without reading it.
pawsplay says: why not?
someone says: Because you cannot judge its worth without familiarity.
pawsplays says: How can I become familiar?
someone says: By reading it.
pawsplay says: Didn't you just say that?

The argument was and is, "You cannot judge a book without reading it, because you cannot judge a book without reading it." That might be true, but it's not an argument.

 

[Thaniel]

That and "Sleep does damage", which is actually demonstrably wrong.

If all damage is abstract as a way of saying "wearing down the enemy", then why shouldn't Sleep cause damage?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

The argument that you can't judge a book without having read it is sound and common sense.

Similarly, no critics worth his salt would dare publish a critic of a movie based only on the preview.

The argument that you can get a fair idea of whether or not you will like a product based on a preview is also sound. It doesn't invalidate the previous argument, though. It doesn't even dent it. It's called having expectations.

Whenever I go see a movie after having first seen the previews, I have expectations. These expectations are then exceeded, met or disappointed. And then I pass judgement.

Why can't we do the Maxim school of RPG review?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/23/black-crowes-say-maxim-re_n_88101.html

 

[pemerton]

The part that makes it circular is when it is claimed that you cannot judge if a book is worthwhile until you have read it. If you excise (ii), the argument simply ceases to exist. I already accounted for that several posts ago.

pawsplay says: I think the PHB will suck.
someone says: You can't make that judgment without reading it.
pawsplay says: why not?
someone says: Because you cannot judge its worth without familiarity.
pawsplays says: How can I become familiar?
someone says: By reading it.
pawsplay says: Didn't you just say that?

This isn't really going anywhere, but I'll have one last go.

Yes, the argument falls over if you excise (ii).

Likewise for the following argument:

(i) All humans are mortal;
(ii) Socrates is human;
Therefore,
(iii) Socrates if mortal.

But the most famous of all syllogisms is not, therefore, a circular argument.

In your dialogue, someone asserts that you can't make that judgment without reading it. Pawsplay asks for a reason. Someone offers one, namely, that you cannot judge its worth without familiarity. Pawsplay asks how to become familiar, and is told that you can become familiar by reading it. There is no circularity. Each of the italicised propositions is a distinct proposition. The first such proposition is the conclusion of the argument. The second two are the premises. Each premise contributes to the argument, but neither entails the conclusion in isolation. What more do you want from an argument, besides the truth of the premises?

By the way, the answer to Pawsplay's final rhetorical question is No. That is someone's first assertion that familiarity depends upon reading. Now, if Pawsplay wants to dispute that reading is the sole path to familiarity, I'll agree. But there's still no circularity.

If Pawsplay had asserted that it was possible to be familiar without having read the PHB, there would still be no circularity, but at least there would be a begging of the question against Pawsplay (because the argument would depend upon an unsupported premise that Pawsplay has rejected). But Pawsplay not having asserted any theory of familiarity, there was no begging of the question either.

The argument was and is, "You cannot judge a book without reading it, because you cannot judge a book without reading it." That might be true, but it's not an argument.

No, the argument was and is, "You cannot judge a book without being familiar with it, and familiarity depends upon reading it; hence, you can't judge the PHB without reading it." The conclusion is (IMO) doubtful, but the argument is not circular.

 

[pawsplay]

No, the argument was and is, "You cannot judge a book without being familiar with it, and familiarity depends upon reading it; hence, you can't judge the PHB without reading it." The conclusion is (IMO) doubtful, but the argument is not circular.

That version is not circular, but has the faulty premise. Covered many posts ago.