I believe that was one of TinyE's many tentacles. You may want to sterilize and properly clean the affected region before reuse.

Maybe we should start using tags on topics so people who don't want to read can avoid if they want. Another possible way to do it is by keeping everything in its own subforum, but that'll probably split the community and be really annoying to navigate.

Ah yes, auto correct failed me.

I would agree that ignoring / inaction cannot stop harmful consequence caused by another factor.

Like a tree cannot do anything but ignoring the lumberjack. Hence harmful consequence like the lumberjack cut down tree happen. If green peace intervene or the tree magically turn into a treeman, RAAWWHHH, lumberjack runs and tree is saved.

Rather than ignore / inaction cause the harm, mostly it is some other party cause the harm and we do nothing to stop it.

To put it clearer, we will use example of action cause harm too.
In a kidnapping case, a captive decide to be a hero and fight against his captors. Hero fails and the captors in a bad tamper decided to kill even more captives to set an example. Then police / army / government have a successful negotiation by paying some price the rest of the captives go free. The dead captives family rage and blame on the "Hero" for their love ones death.

In the same kidnapping case, the hero succeed, evil is defeated, no captive is harmed and government do not need to pay any price. Everyone praise the "Hero"

Why the hero in the first case is condemned?
He just choose to do the same thing the second hero choose, but fail due to luck or skill.
The party to be blamed is the kidnappers, but humans (like you and me) with their weird mentality just want an excuse.

It does not matter what the hero does, or do not do, or fail. The blame is on the kidnappers, but since the kidnappers is from a powerful organization and revenge is hopeless, they blame the easy target.

In the case of Jane, even if there is no Brasas, there is sasarB, or Jack, or Tom. Or someone else that match closely to the ideal must have man in Jane head. Even if she does not meet him now, she will meet him tomorrow, next month, a few years later. If she see a man with better qualities than the man in her head, she will update the man in her head into a man that possess such qualities (muscle size, wallet size, house size, heart size, patience size......) When she grow older and her value plummet, she will update the man in her head into a lesser man to increase her odds of finding one.

You just happen to be here at the right time and the right place with the right qualities.

Is it possible that she love you for who you are and no matter what you become? Sadly other than fairy tale I never see that.
I only see it in husband and wife that been together for a long time, or Parents to their kid. No matter if the kid is able or disabled, healthy or sickly, intelligent or mentally challenged. Straight or not. agreeable or disagreeable, I see a huge number of such case
From the more famous Edison the inventor mother home school him when the school called him mentally ill. To the more common parents donating kidney for their children. Granted there are a few bad apples, or there are parents that use methods they thinks best, even the methods may be wrong. But most of them love their child all the same, regardless what the child become.

I hope to be wrong, but mostly likely Jane just love the man in her head and thinks you may be that man. It can be any other man that resemble the man in her head.
50% responsibility seems ridiculous to me. Your responsibility is just as heavy as the kidnapper captive hero wannabe. But you are a easy target and we as human like to point to an easy target. To make it easier to for you what happen if Jane is an animal / robot (I guess nobody get offended with these reference)? I just program a robot to act like a human and fall in love with you. Does it make you 50% responsible for the robot hurt if you do not reciprocated?

Edit: corrected several auto correct mistakes.

By definition, inaction is not action. Therefore it is impossible for inaction to act, which means it can't start anything on its own.

But as we have been talking, partially the inaction can cause consequences.

So the sentence: Because I ignored her, Jane did X. Is logical and true, for some X we can define at will. It does not remove Jane's agency. It does not mean I am moraly responsible. It only indicates that my inaction was determinant in the consequence happening. If I had not ignored Jane, she would not have done X. X was determined - it was because, it was caused to some extent - by my ignoring Jane.

Now, this is semantics to some extent, but the meaning of because seems clear to me. My ignoring - my inaction - caused some consequence X. It is not the only cause, but it is a contributing cause.

Can you point what exactly you disagree in what I wrote?

Tsk tsk. Reading replies like yours, maybe?;-) If you wish to dismiss my experience of it, it does not greatly bother me, but I feel no need to do alike.

The breadth and width of opinion, per my perception at least, was more pronounced scroll back a few years.

And I shall stand corrected if anyone really is offended by the notion of homo-gamer while standing in solidarity with them - because it is a very non-offensive concept indeed, in my mind at least.

I shall not be surprised if "General discussion" here will be atrophied into rather self-selecting and formulaic threads of the likeminded, yet I am still here, ever the optimist.

I think it would be a pity, truly. I did in fact, not too far back, get outright criticism that my "general" topic was not "gaming" related. Not anyone will bother. They could, of course.



Edit: lapsus.

As I said before, while we both acknowledged ignoring may allow consequence X to happen, our difference is you think ignoring bear 50% of the causes while I think it may be 1%.

My ignoring - my inaction does not stop X from happening because of Y.
If there is no Y, my ignoring will not make X happen at all.
If there is no me, but there is Y, X is very likely to happen because of Tom, David, Harry......
Thus for X to happen Y is the major factor, my ignoring only play a very small role.

I suspect the parable:

"First they came for the group a, and you stood by; then they came for the group b; and you stood by; and then they came for you, and there was none left to stand up for you" would be the point about inaction. Or action.

But is the actual morality of the said parable really so hard to understand?

So if as you say, our difference is only the number then I will actually consider we are in agreement that inaction can cause harm. Harm being just another X.

The number I gave was qualified heavily - I recall using words like maybe and expressions like I don't know. I gave it because you asked, and I did my best to answer. I don't consider the number important - it does not change the dynamics, nor the logic.


Moving on and letting you choose to engage or not further. I fear this will become somewhat personal.

It seems to me - but maybe I am wrong - you are taking your deeply held belief that inaction is morally neutral, or even a good in itself, as a kind of implied starting point. I see this as related to your ascetism and life choices regarding participation in society. It seems to me you then transport those conclusions back into the premises - to kind of try to prove inaction cannot be a major cause of something "bad".

To me the causation and the moral responsibility are divorced. My smuggled assumption is around free will being true - which is probably no surprise. The actual split of responsibility or of causation between contributing factors is a separate discussion very conditional on details and context. Even in pure statistics determining such values is very complex and requires numerous controls.

If you wish, we can transfer this to a more abstract teological level, and argue about omnipotence and responsibility. Maybe that will permit more distance?

Alternatively we can go even more personal and look into our own lifes for real examples, not imagined ones, and how choice inevitably involves guilt, remorse and pain. Afterall, you might remember I did say earlier your inaction IMO causes you harm, not others.

So I can change the hypothetical from me and Jane to myself choosing to not eat, and that inaction resulting in my painful death. Tadah... inaction caused harm, and with close to 100% atribution even. But of course, despite my using myself as example, I assume you would remember my earlier comment, and maybe understand I am not really talking about myself, but about you.

Regardless what you choose, I might be somewhat less available until the weekend.

Much respect gnostic. Talk to you soon.

So we are agreeing on the same thing but use different words?
Your causation divorced from responsibility and my negligible cause / correlation.

For me it is hard to divorce cause from responsibility so sorry for the long string of posts.



As for not eating causing me a painful death, therefore harming me. I never deny that.
Remember how we started this discussion? It is about how you say how we should act as a community and I claim that ignoring others can be tolerance.

If me and X is in a disagreement and both of us are rooted in our conviction and unable to convince the other. How can by ignoring X harm me?

I never once said I can ignore something I valued in (like my life) cannot harm me.

Is it because I grew lazy and use "ignoring" instead of "ignoring other people which I disagree with and is not making any progress in the discussion and degrading into....."
that you thought I can ignore anything and everything and not be harmed?

Well gnostic :)

I think it started a bit earlier, when I posted this back in post 187

Ignoring works as alternative to worst situations. However ignoring in a way is the antithesis of communing, and therefore precludes the better outcome of a tolerant and fluid community. No man is an island and all that jazz.

I already agreed with you that ignoring can be good back there. But I also said ignoring is not the best. Because ignoring precludes community. I was implying community is better than isolation. And I think you reacted to that...

So yes, on the topic of ignoring sometimes being tolerant - I think we agreed a long time ago.
On the topic of ignoring sometimes being harmful - I think we also agreed but as you say the word choices camouflaged that to some extent.

And then on the topic of you and isolation...

I look at the above and I wonder to myself:
Why the focus on what he values? Is it an implication that ignoring what he does not value cannot harm him? That would be tragic...

And I see your final point as divorced of context. No gnostic, it is not how you speak here and now.

It is everything I know of you, of your character and personality - by your own admission and sharing in the forum - that you live your life in a kind of self imposed reclusion.

Your motives for that I do not know - maybe it is fear of being harmed, maybe it is fear of harming others. Maybe it is not fear at all... but it kind of seems like it might be? I think you might be happier if you made different choices, but maybe I'm wrong.

You see my point? You take part in the GOG community, and I assume it is rewarding to you. But it seems you choose to ignore broader communities - on purpose. And I think that is perhaps misguided and doing you more harm than good.


You're a nice fellow to talk with. I appreciate you quite a lot. :) I am sorry if this is disturbing and I know I can be confusing - I often have multiple goals in what I do. When I started replying to you I always had in mind that the conversation could get to you and how you live your life...

And now that it kind of got there, I do it here and not via PM, because I keep in mind that this is an example of what I consider participating in a community - not ignoring each other, but engaging and sometimes challenging each other - but in a kind manner. At least I hope it's kind...

Well it is a bit confusing, so I will response to what I think you mean.

I have finite time and energy, so obviously I will focus on things I value in and spend minimal effort in thing I value less.
Even if there is a thing I value, but if the odds of attaining it, time and effort cost is not worth to me, or beyond my ability. I will ignore it.

I want to be rich, but the odds of striking the lottery is not worth it, Buying all possible combination of lottery cost more then the prize. The initial investment of buying so much lottery combination is beyond by ability. So I ignore the lottery.

I'd hope this is how most people think. Why waste your time on things you don't really value? I mean your lottery example is the same reason I ignore it myself.

Your economical point is true. There are opportunity costs and investment costs to everything you do. Not doing something also has opportunity costs, just it has no investment costs.

But are you implying forming or finding a place in a more real life community(ies) would be too high effort or beyond your abilities?

what we want has no influence to what we actually have here. about gog community i love the fact it is international.
im not being member of another such a community.
thinking of people from different countries is more interesting for me than matters about games here. i only regret that my english is so shitty to join fully the community.