Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hit… mores like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hit… mores like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hit… mores like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hit… mores like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
I agree with this post, on many vague ways. Carver was totally right about someone having the other walkie talkie. He wasn't just threatning on a whim. Or I agree, no little girl could've been in that cabin alone. Oh yeah, he was right about the location of the cabin group, such tracking skills.
This thread is stupid, I'll grant you guys that. But why post on such a thread to begin with? Instead of "hey mods come shut this down!", you yourself have the power.
Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hit… mores like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hit… mores like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
To be honest this thread is semi-serious, If I wanted to troll, than I would at least make the question so absurd that it's hilarious.
BTW You forgot a crapload.
Is Gregor Jon Snows Mother
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/102352/is-gregor-jon-snows-mother#latest
Will Gryff Marry Arya Stark?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99926/will-gryff-marry-arya-stark#latest
Is Ryon Azor Ahai?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99402/is-ryon-azor-ahai#latest
Will Ryon turn into a dragon?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99875/will-ryon-turn-into-a-dragon#latest
Is Ryon the chosen one?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99401/is-ryon-the-chosen-one#latest
Are you getting sick of these Ryon questions?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/102356/why-is-everyone-on-the-forms-so-butthurt#latest
I'm going to include Ryon in this question again just to annoy you?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/109903/how-to-become-a-moderator/p1
Do you like getting trolled?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Don't comment in this discussion.
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/110031/dont-comment-on-this-discussion#latest
What would you do if? (Beware, this question may disturb people, there has been reports of people going blind from witnessing this questioned, Be warned)
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/112557/what-would-ypu-do-if#latest
I had more but they were so disturbing that they were deleted, A damn shame, those questions were works of the most pure art.
Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hit… mores like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
I agree with his general philosophy and Social Darwinist beliefs. He realizes what the world is and what was required to survive in it, Despite that he did have his flaws, He failed to realize that ruling his community through fear would eventually lead them to rebel, secondly even if Rebecca was pregnant with his child he should not have allowed it to interfere with his judgement, the amount of effort and resources made just to capture them would not be worth it, while you could argue that he did so just to make an example to everyone that you cannot escape, but he was relatively merciful with them, plus It appears the cabin group had been on there own for a long time before being recaptured, and also, it seems Carver's only real motive is to get his child back.
I would love to, but unfortunately I have been warned by a mod that continuing to do so would result in a permanent ban, though I guess that doesn't matter that much now since telltale is shutting down. Despite the fact that i cannot post Troll threads anymore, that does not mean that anyone else can't, I'm not encouraging anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that anyone reading this has the ability to post further troll threads and laugh at everyone's confused state.
I would love to, but unfortunately I have been warned by a mod that continuing to do so would result in a permanent ban, though I guess that… more doesn't matter that much now since telltale is shutting down. Despite the fact that i cannot post Troll threads anymore, that does not mean that anyone else can't, I'm not encouraging anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that anyone reading this has the ability to post further troll threads and laugh at everyone's confused state.
Well, I'll give a serious answer: he's wrong, and his philosophy is unsustainable and destructive.
From a purely ethical perspective, it is reprehensible, and from a utilitarian perspective, it's not efficient.
For the first post, I'll provide an ethical argument for why it's reprehensible and destructive (though some may be already convinced of the un-ethicality of Carver's philosophy, and are more unsure about the utilitarian aspects of it). I might write another post for the utilitarian argument, which I'm working on.
Before I address the ethical problems with it, I should set out what I consider ethical and unethical, since there are numerous ethical systems. I believe in ethics that are objectively derived (logically), universal, and individualistic. I find any other ethical system that contradicts any of these to be inconsistent and as such must necessarily defend their blatant contradictions as valid, even though those contradictions necessarily falsify the ethical system. In other words, I do not believe in subjective, relative, or collectivist ethics, because they cannot exist without logically justifying their contradictions, which make the ethical systems themselves not consistent, and thus cannot serve as such.
Now, stemming from this, every individual human being owns their own person, and as a corollary, what physical action they do with their person (i.e. labor). If this was not the case, then it must mean another individual must own this individual's person; however this must mean that there exists a system of ethics that applies to superhuman slave owners, and a different system of ethics that applies to subhuman slaves, and that these two systems of ethics can exist without contradiction. But then this begs the question of what qualifies one human as a superhuman slave owner, and one as a subhuman slave owner. The issue, then, would be that there would have to exist an objective and universal criterion binding to all individual human beings that necessarily makes some human beings slaves and others masters, and must exist outside the realm of opinion. But any such criterion serving as a judgement of master or slave status must necessarily be an opinion based on the subjective value judgement of any individual human, since judgements, by their very nature, cannot be objective. Thus, the only logically consistent position on a person's ownership is that any individual person is the sole owner of their person, and consequently the sole owner of their labor.
As a result of being the sole owner of their labor, any resources that have not been appropriated by another individual, which an individual mixes their labor with to appropriate, including land, fall under their ownership. In other words, private property. If the individual is not the sole owner of the newly appropriated resources, then it means that another individual, or a group of individuals, own them. But this is just an example of the problem with assigning some individuals as being able to own other individuals (or the products of their labor) -- it leads to an ethically inconsistent system. Thus, an individual must be the sole owner of previously not owned resources they have appropriated through their labor.
Thus, it follows that any action that violates any individual's right to self-ownership or their private property (initiations of force) can be described as unethical. Examples of these actions would include murder, assault, slavery, theft, trespass, conquest, and fraud.
Carver violates many of these principles, many times.
1) Trespassing through the Cabin group's house.
2) Tortures Carlos, and forces him to assault his daughter by slapping her.
3) Murders Walter for Kenny killing Johnny, not Kenny (not the aggressor and not done in self-defense).
4) Murders Alvin for Kenny attempting to kill him, not Kenny (not the aggressor and not done in self-defense).
5) Enslaves the entire Cabin group, along with the Ski group, and plants them at Howe's, and subjects them at gunpoint to forced labor.
6) Murders Reggie for perceived incompetence, not because Reggie killed anyone.
7) Likely ripped off Reggie's arm for helping the Cabin group escape (once again, Reggie did not physically rip off a limb from anyone at Howe's).
8) If Not 2, beats up Alvin for (consensually) possibly impregnating Rebecca to the point of almost death, and it seems Alvin dies anyway from the excessive beating. So, he murders Alvin nonetheless.
9) Beats Kenny to a near pulp for theft of a radio, and possibly intended to kill him. Too excessive a retributive action for theft.
10) It seems to be implied he raped Rebecca (a form of assault).
Ethically, he's a reckless monster that deserved a brutal death many times over, not a divine guider of Humanity from God.
Now, instead of looking at his individual actions, if we look at his philosophy, which appears to be a form of social Darwinism--the idea that the weak need to be killed because they hold back the strong and weaken society. Well, this blatantly suffers an obvious problem: 'weakness' and 'strongness' are entirely subjective value judgements to any individual, and thus cannot serve as an objective, universal, and logically consistent way to guide any ethical actions. After all, by virtue of being judgements, they must necessarily be subjective. Moreover, many of the actions prescribed under social Darwinism involve automatically assuming that the weak, categorically, are somehow tangibly violating the rights of self-ownership and private property of those of the strong, without any form of proof for every individual member that belongs to the weak group. Thus, members of the weak group are being assumed guilty of violating the rights of the strong without any proof, and thus being subject to unjustified retributive action, which can be murder (genocide at a large scale), slavery, seizure of their property, etc. Therefore, as a philosophy, social Darwinism is logically inconsistent, and not an ethically defensible philosophy, even for the conditions of the apocalypse.
Carver was right about one thing: lambs to the slaughter.
The rest of season 2 is the group all dying off in stupid ways. You can't argue with him there.
Well, I'll give a serious answer: he's wrong, and his philosophy is unsustainable and destructive.
From a purely ethical perspective, it … moreis reprehensible, and from a utilitarian perspective, it's not efficient.
For the first post, I'll provide an ethical argument for why it's reprehensible and destructive (though some may be already convinced of the un-ethicality of Carver's philosophy, and are more unsure about the utilitarian aspects of it). I might write another post for the utilitarian argument, which I'm working on.
Before I address the ethical problems with it, I should set out what I consider ethical and unethical, since there are numerous ethical systems. I believe in ethics that are objectively derived (logically), universal, and individualistic. I find any other ethical system that contradicts any of these to be inconsistent and as such must necessarily defend their blatant contradictions as valid, even though those contrad… [view original content]
I like to think of Carver as the epitome of everyone who read The Prince wrong.
"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated."
Well, I'll give a serious answer: he's wrong, and his philosophy is unsustainable and destructive.
From a purely ethical perspective, it … moreis reprehensible, and from a utilitarian perspective, it's not efficient.
For the first post, I'll provide an ethical argument for why it's reprehensible and destructive (though some may be already convinced of the un-ethicality of Carver's philosophy, and are more unsure about the utilitarian aspects of it). I might write another post for the utilitarian argument, which I'm working on.
Before I address the ethical problems with it, I should set out what I consider ethical and unethical, since there are numerous ethical systems. I believe in ethics that are objectively derived (logically), universal, and individualistic. I find any other ethical system that contradicts any of these to be inconsistent and as such must necessarily defend their blatant contradictions as valid, even though those contrad… [view original content]
Jokes aside, I waste a lot of time online writing Internet essays. I have a lot of essays on this forum, lol. I guess I get some bizarre satisfaction out of it.
Comments
In terms of what?
Good thread. Best in a long time.
ok.
Nice.
Me too. Killing Kenny would have been the best move. Oh, well.
Egh.
Carver had done screwed up stuff, but he was technically right about everything he pointed out.
We're hitting rock bottom nowadays
Unfortunately, this thread is rather lackluster compared to some of your other classics, such as
or
As well as the sleeper hits like
Or the critically polarizing
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how you haven't gotten a permaban for this history of posting yet
Maybe everyone is just too confused to do anything
I honestly blanked on any of that actually having existed.
~says an actual mod.
Oooh its that guy again
I didn't realize it cause he had a different profile pic
I can see your confusing and random threads have mindfucked the mods into a state of confusion. Thus posting troll threads with impunity
K, Have Day
What ?
Carver is hot af. I'd smash.
Speaking of why hasn't anyone tried to recreate Carver in ANF using his pancaked face model?
Yeah I've wondered that myself to be honest. They could have just reused Rufus' face
Because he's a stock archetype who you can't get that much out of.
Oh man, I think you might be right.
?..
I kinda miss the old man.
This is a very interesting thread I’m curious if it will eventually get shut down
savage post
Is it a troll post if no one takes the bait?
I agree with this post, on many vague ways. Carver was totally right about someone having the other walkie talkie. He wasn't just threatning on a whim. Or I agree, no little girl could've been in that cabin alone. Oh yeah, he was right about the location of the cabin group, such tracking skills.
This thread is stupid, I'll grant you guys that. But why post on such a thread to begin with? Instead of "hey mods come shut this down!", you yourself have the power.
...
Says someone who is banned, lol.
....
To be honest this thread is semi-serious, If I wanted to troll, than I would at least make the question so absurd that it's hilarious.
BTW You forgot a crapload.
Is Gregor Jon Snows Mother
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/102352/is-gregor-jon-snows-mother#latest
Will Gryff Marry Arya Stark?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99926/will-gryff-marry-arya-stark#latest
Is Ryon Azor Ahai?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99402/is-ryon-azor-ahai#latest
Will Ryon turn into a dragon?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99875/will-ryon-turn-into-a-dragon#latest
Is Ryon the chosen one?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/99401/is-ryon-the-chosen-one#latest
Are you getting sick of these Ryon questions?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/102356/why-is-everyone-on-the-forms-so-butthurt#latest
I'm going to include Ryon in this question again just to annoy you?
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/109903/how-to-become-a-moderator/p1
Do you like getting trolled?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Don't comment in this discussion.
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/110031/dont-comment-on-this-discussion#latest
What would you do if? (Beware, this question may disturb people, there has been reports of people going blind from witnessing this questioned, Be warned)
www.telltale.com/community/discussion/112557/what-would-ypu-do-if#latest
I had more but they were so disturbing that they were deleted, A damn shame, those questions were works of the most pure art.
I agree with his general philosophy and Social Darwinist beliefs. He realizes what the world is and what was required to survive in it, Despite that he did have his flaws, He failed to realize that ruling his community through fear would eventually lead them to rebel, secondly even if Rebecca was pregnant with his child he should not have allowed it to interfere with his judgement, the amount of effort and resources made just to capture them would not be worth it, while you could argue that he did so just to make an example to everyone that you cannot escape, but he was relatively merciful with them, plus It appears the cabin group had been on there own for a long time before being recaptured, and also, it seems Carver's only real motive is to get his child back.
Yo Lenny I mean -Kenny make more entertaining threads like this cuz this shit is furiously funny.
I would love to, but unfortunately I have been warned by a mod that continuing to do so would result in a permanent ban, though I guess that doesn't matter that much now since telltale is shutting down. Despite the fact that i cannot post Troll threads anymore, that does not mean that anyone else can't, I'm not encouraging anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that anyone reading this has the ability to post further troll threads and laugh at everyone's confused state.
Fuck I thought u were in the clear it's okay tho your trolls were fine dandy ?
Well, I'll give a serious answer: he's wrong, and his philosophy is unsustainable and destructive.
From a purely ethical perspective, it is reprehensible, and from a utilitarian perspective, it's not efficient.
For the first post, I'll provide an ethical argument for why it's reprehensible and destructive (though some may be already convinced of the un-ethicality of Carver's philosophy, and are more unsure about the utilitarian aspects of it). I might write another post for the utilitarian argument, which I'm working on.
Before I address the ethical problems with it, I should set out what I consider ethical and unethical, since there are numerous ethical systems. I believe in ethics that are objectively derived (logically), universal, and individualistic. I find any other ethical system that contradicts any of these to be inconsistent and as such must necessarily defend their blatant contradictions as valid, even though those contradictions necessarily falsify the ethical system. In other words, I do not believe in subjective, relative, or collectivist ethics, because they cannot exist without logically justifying their contradictions, which make the ethical systems themselves not consistent, and thus cannot serve as such.
Now, stemming from this, every individual human being owns their own person, and as a corollary, what physical action they do with their person (i.e. labor). If this was not the case, then it must mean another individual must own this individual's person; however this must mean that there exists a system of ethics that applies to superhuman slave owners, and a different system of ethics that applies to subhuman slaves, and that these two systems of ethics can exist without contradiction. But then this begs the question of what qualifies one human as a superhuman slave owner, and one as a subhuman slave owner. The issue, then, would be that there would have to exist an objective and universal criterion binding to all individual human beings that necessarily makes some human beings slaves and others masters, and must exist outside the realm of opinion. But any such criterion serving as a judgement of master or slave status must necessarily be an opinion based on the subjective value judgement of any individual human, since judgements, by their very nature, cannot be objective. Thus, the only logically consistent position on a person's ownership is that any individual person is the sole owner of their person, and consequently the sole owner of their labor.
As a result of being the sole owner of their labor, any resources that have not been appropriated by another individual, which an individual mixes their labor with to appropriate, including land, fall under their ownership. In other words, private property. If the individual is not the sole owner of the newly appropriated resources, then it means that another individual, or a group of individuals, own them. But this is just an example of the problem with assigning some individuals as being able to own other individuals (or the products of their labor) -- it leads to an ethically inconsistent system. Thus, an individual must be the sole owner of previously not owned resources they have appropriated through their labor.
Thus, it follows that any action that violates any individual's right to self-ownership or their private property (initiations of force) can be described as unethical. Examples of these actions would include murder, assault, slavery, theft, trespass, conquest, and fraud.
Carver violates many of these principles, many times.
1) Trespassing through the Cabin group's house.
2) Tortures Carlos, and forces him to assault his daughter by slapping her.
3) Murders Walter for Kenny killing Johnny, not Kenny (not the aggressor and not done in self-defense).
4) Murders Alvin for Kenny attempting to kill him, not Kenny (not the aggressor and not done in self-defense).
5) Enslaves the entire Cabin group, along with the Ski group, and plants them at Howe's, and subjects them at gunpoint to forced labor.
6) Murders Reggie for perceived incompetence, not because Reggie killed anyone.
7) Likely ripped off Reggie's arm for helping the Cabin group escape (once again, Reggie did not physically rip off a limb from anyone at Howe's).
8) If Not 2, beats up Alvin for (consensually) possibly impregnating Rebecca to the point of almost death, and it seems Alvin dies anyway from the excessive beating. So, he murders Alvin nonetheless.
9) Beats Kenny to a near pulp for theft of a radio, and possibly intended to kill him. Too excessive a retributive action for theft.
10) It seems to be implied he raped Rebecca (a form of assault).
Ethically, he's a reckless monster that deserved a brutal death many times over, not a divine guider of Humanity from God.
Now, instead of looking at his individual actions, if we look at his philosophy, which appears to be a form of social Darwinism--the idea that the weak need to be killed because they hold back the strong and weaken society. Well, this blatantly suffers an obvious problem: 'weakness' and 'strongness' are entirely subjective value judgements to any individual, and thus cannot serve as an objective, universal, and logically consistent way to guide any ethical actions. After all, by virtue of being judgements, they must necessarily be subjective. Moreover, many of the actions prescribed under social Darwinism involve automatically assuming that the weak, categorically, are somehow tangibly violating the rights of self-ownership and private property of those of the strong, without any form of proof for every individual member that belongs to the weak group. Thus, members of the weak group are being assumed guilty of violating the rights of the strong without any proof, and thus being subject to unjustified retributive action, which can be murder (genocide at a large scale), slavery, seizure of their property, etc. Therefore, as a philosophy, social Darwinism is logically inconsistent, and not an ethically defensible philosophy, even for the conditions of the apocalypse.
The man was for certain a wholesome individual. Definitely the type you'd want at the dinner table.
Carver was right about one thing: lambs to the slaughter.
The rest of season 2 is the group all dying off in stupid ways. You can't argue with him there.
Can you write my English paper for me?
I like to think of Carver as the epitome of everyone who read The Prince wrong.
Sure, why not?
Jokes aside, I waste a lot of time online writing Internet essays. I have a lot of essays on this forum, lol. I guess I get some bizarre satisfaction out of it.