These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
 

Off Topic Discussions

Author
#281 - 2017-05-19 15:46:55 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Che Biko wrote:
I think Ms. Jenneth was not referring to Ms. Tsukiyo's concience.


It's a pretty easy mistake to make though. 'Nothing' and 'Nothing' get confused a lot.
Here's a funny quote from some flavor text for a game item named Null Rod, that both Achura mentioned above may enjoy:
Quote:
"But it doesn't do anything!"
"No---it does nothing."
Goonswarm Federation
#282 - 2017-05-19 15:48:58 UTC
Morgana Tsukiyo wrote:

No need for better, worst, flaw, perfect, just different.


Let's try this in simple terms: you have two sets of genes, and 2 environments.

One of these environments is the open water, at depths of about 500-2000m. The other is a temperate rain forest.

One set of genes makes a fish. The other makes a marmoset.

Each of these sets of genes is better for producing a viable life form in one of those environments than the other is. Conversely, each of these sets of genes is worse for producing a viable life form in the other environment.

Alternately:

Two sets of human genes. Each makes a human being. One of these sets of genes will, inescapably, result in a malfunctioning heart valve that will require pre-natal surgery, or the human being cannot survive outside the womb.

That's a genetic flaw.
#283 - 2017-05-19 15:50:56 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Morgana Tsukiyo wrote:

No need for better, worst, flaw, perfect, just different.


Let's try this in simple terms: you have two sets of genes, and 2 environments.

One of these environments is the open water, at depths of about 500-2000m. The other is a temperate rain forest.

One set of genes makes a fish. The other makes a marmoset.

Each of these sets of genes is better for producing a viable life form in one of those environments than the other is. Conversely, each of these sets of genes is worse for producing a viable life form in the other environment.

Alternately:

Two sets of human genes. Each makes a human being. One of these sets of genes will, inescapably, result in a malfunctioning heart valve that will require pre-natal surgery, or the human being cannot survive outside the womb.

That's a genetic flaw.


That is characteristic that will most likely not be perpetuated.

A flaw? Only in your artificially created conception.

Join Project Transcendence.

Applied technology for the enhancement of human experience.

Goonswarm Federation
#284 - 2017-05-19 16:03:55 UTC
Morgana Tsukiyo wrote:

Only in your artificially created conception.


Welcome to engineering.

Engineering is an endeavor. It requires purpose—even if potentially unintended. Purpose means the capacity for evaluation: 'does this serve the purpose, or no?' This engenders the relative qualities of 'better', 'worse', as well as other relative qualities as 'flawed'.

As for your little attempt at being dismissive: my framework is no more artificial than yours—and no less. 'Artificial' and 'artifice' simply mean 'made by people'. And every thought you have is made by a person: you.
#285 - 2017-05-19 16:09:52 UTC
Arrendis wrote:

Welcome to engineering.

Engineering is an endeavor. It requires purpose—even if potentially unintended. Purpose means the capacity for evaluation: 'does this serve the purpose, or no?' This engenders the relative qualities of 'better', 'worse', as well as other relative qualities as 'flawed'.

As for your little attempt at being dismissive: my framework is no more artificial than yours—and no less. 'Artificial' and 'artifice' simply mean 'made by people'. And every thought you have is made by a person: you.


And there we go again.

I don´t project a purpose, so i can´t grasp any flaws or perfections because there is no reference point to it. You do. I try to show to you that if you look away from this reference you´ll not see anything, you put your googles on to avoid seeing what couldn´t be clearer.

I can understand that your mind created a reference, i can understand that by these parameters you can articulate whatever it is that you articulate, i can understand that is appears hard to let go of it otherwise you won´t have any ground to build upon and this feeds your fear.

And since this is how it is, all is fine.

=*

Join Project Transcendence.

Applied technology for the enhancement of human experience.

Goonswarm Federation
#286 - 2017-05-19 16:24:00 UTC
Except, of course, that by inserting yourself into a discussion that had a specific context, you take on that context. And within the context of the discussion, genetic markers for poor vision qualify as flaws.

But as I said: your general inability to grasp anything comes as no surprise to any of us.
#287 - 2017-05-19 16:28:17 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Except, of course, that by inserting yourself into a discussion that had a specific context, you take on that context. And within the context of the discussion, genetic markers for poor vision qualify as flaws.

But as I said: your general inability to grasp anything comes as no surprise to any of us.


Even within that framework you can look at it without pre-conceptions.

A characteristic that is not perpetuated. You can reduce the description to this sentence.

If you put more into it, it is you that is putting, then it becomes about you,not the characteristic. "I Arrendis think due to my concepts and memetic framework that not being able to be replicated is a flaw, hence, this characteristic is classified as such."

Join Project Transcendence.

Applied technology for the enhancement of human experience.

Goonswarm Federation
#288 - 2017-05-19 16:32:42 UTC
Morgana Tsukiyo wrote:

Even within that framework you can look at it without pre-conceptions.

A characteristic that is not perpetuated. You can reduce the description to this sentence.


Except, of course, that that's not the case at all. Congratulations, you've gotten hung up on the later example of the viability of life forms, and lost the fact that what was being discussed is that capsuleer training screens for genetic markers for poor vision. It has nothing to do with whether or not the characteristic is perpetuated, only that the characteristic, by nature of screening, es evaluated and found to be a defect, or 'flaw', that renders that genome unacceptable for capsuleer implants.

Soooo... no, you can't, because you're not talking about perpetuating the genome, you're talking about whether or not the genome is acceptable.
Mercenary Coalition
#289 - 2017-05-19 16:35:41 UTC
"no u"

"no u"

Repeat.

There, I just summarized the next few pages of the thread. Can we skip it?
#290 - 2017-05-19 16:36:13 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Morgana Tsukiyo wrote:

Even within that framework you can look at it without pre-conceptions.

A characteristic that is not perpetuated. You can reduce the description to this sentence.


Except, of course, that that's not the case at all. Congratulations, you've gotten hung up on the later example of the viability of life forms, and lost the fact that what was being discussed is that capsuleer training screens for genetic markers for poor vision. It has nothing to do with whether or not the characteristic is perpetuated, only that the characteristic, by nature of screening, es evaluated and found to be a defect, or 'flaw', that renders that genome unacceptable for capsuleer implants.

Soooo... no, you can't, because you're not talking about perpetuating the genome, you're talking about whether or not the genome is acceptable.


Not having an arbitrary sight index excludes you from being a capsuleer.

How many adjectives did this sentence need?

Join Project Transcendence.

Applied technology for the enhancement of human experience.

#291 - 2017-05-19 16:37:51 UTC
Halcyon Ember wrote:
[quote=Aria Jenneth]If my not agreeing with you is a disappointment I suppose that's something you'll have to live with. A shame.

The disagreement isn't why, Ms. Ember.

The attempt to manipulate me by implying you think I am or should be seeking your approval: that is why. That, and the suggestion I should silence myself.

I'm a bit childlike in certain ways, maybe, and approval's nice. There's only one person I really care strongly about it from, though.
Goonswarm Federation
#292 - 2017-05-19 16:38:38 UTC
Mizhara Del'thul wrote:
"no u"

"no u"

Repeat.

There, I just summarized the next few pages of the thread. Can we skip it?


Eh, fair enough. I think I've made my point anyway.
Goonswarm Federation
#293 - 2017-05-19 16:39:58 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:

the suggestion I should silence myself.


All things considered, Aria, I don't know you've got much room to be aggrieved by that, right now.
#294 - 2017-05-19 16:45:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Halcyon Ember
Aria Jenneth wrote:
Halcyon Ember wrote:
If my not agreeing with you is a disappointment I suppose that's something you'll have to live with. A shame.

The disagreement isn't why, Ms. Ember.

The attempt to manipulate me by implying you think I am or should be seeking your approval: that is why. That, and the suggestion I should silence myself.

I'm a bit childlike in certain ways, maybe, and approval's nice. There's only one person I really care strongly about it from, though.

You misunderstand me. You misjudge the level of investment I have in you as well. Not surprising, I'm sure you know very little of me beyond the reputation that I am aware of. I'm stating that I found your behaviour disappointing when so many have spoken so highly of you. I stated what I felt would be a better recourse than encouraging a lunatic. You can do whatever you like. It's one of the wonderful freedoms we have as capsuleers.

Unlike many, I'm not delusional in the belief that my words will have an impact on the behaviours of people that I barely interact with.

I leave manipulating people to others.

Like Nauplius.

Queen of Chocolate

#295 - 2017-05-19 16:48:36 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Aria Jenneth wrote:

the suggestion I should silence myself.


All things considered, Aria, I don't know you've got much room to be aggrieved by that, right now.

You really didn't like me asking you to stop, I guess.
Goonswarm Federation
#296 - 2017-05-19 16:50:23 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:

You really didn't like me asking you to stop, I guess.


I'm just pointing out that having more or less pulled the 'please be silent' card, getting upset when someone does it to you less than 36 later on the same topic...

Not your best moment, my friend.
#297 - 2017-05-19 16:58:46 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
Aria Jenneth wrote:

You really didn't like me asking you to stop, I guess.


I'm just pointing out that having more or less pulled the 'please be silent' card, getting upset when someone does it to you less than 36 later on the same topic...

Not your best moment, my friend.


... okay. Well, if you sincerely think they're comparable ...

... maybe I'll shut up for a while.
Goonswarm Federation
#298 - 2017-05-19 17:09:32 UTC
Aria Jenneth wrote:

... okay. Well, if you sincerely think they're comparable ...


I think, as you yourself have said: a) this matter involves your homeworld, b) you feel somewhat responsible, and c) you are somewhat less dispassionate about, as a result.

If I didn't understand that, I wouldn't have agreed to let go the specific topic you asked about.

I can certainly understand bristling when someone suggests you should shut up. My own reply to you on the topic was not my originally-drafted one. I think it was about my seventh.

What I'm saying to you now is: you are emotionally invested, and reacting emotionally. It's all very understandable, but that doesn't make for the kind of consistency in position you generally like to take.

Should you be quiet? That's entirely up to you to decide, and I think you're more than capable of making a considered, informed decision when you're thinking about it, and not just reacting. Should you be offended when someone asks something of you that you've asked of someone else? That's where the issue of pots and kettles comes in. If you don't feel this is a matter where you can be silent, then don't. But if you're listing 'please be quiet' as an offense against you, then you need to evaluate your own actions as well. That's all.
#299 - 2017-05-19 17:32:05 UTC
I see my attempt to lighten up the discussion in this thread has been mostly in vain.
Cry
#300 - 2017-05-19 18:07:05 UTC
Miss Tsukiyo,

Get ******...

By me, over a period of several months. You might actually achieve transcendence then.
I'm serious. I've done it before.

Well, I did more than *******, obviously, but still.
Makes me kinda wish Nauplius had a thing for me instead of my friends.
Forum Jump