Well, I believe in a thing called love. You'll thank me later.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly but, anyone can actually post here. I see girl gamers around all the time. Saying or calling someone homo-gamer is kind of offensive possibly, I'm not sure what your angle is there. It's still about Baldur's Gate, where have you been? :P And Dues Ex.

First: No moderation.
Second: No moderation.

The best community creates its own rules and standards in the largest possible frame. (this is based on real life experiences e.g. in refugee camps).

I'm sorry you find/ found me to be brutal.
As to being kind or unkind. I try to be kind, but sometimes the truth is more important. Where to draw the line? Difficult to agree.

I am unsure what you are referring to as "lack of assumed fora excitment". What I can say is the forum has not been to my ideal at least since GG happened in / to gaming communities.

More egoistically the way serious threads get derailed has always been an irritant. But I adapted to GOG's irreverent culture.
First just to clarify, then I will read very carefully all the rest.
The hypotheticals I ignored were these:

If I jump from a 20 story building, can I say the ground kill me? No I kill myself.
Can I say you who is standing near me kill me by your inaction to stop me? No I kill myself.
Can I say the workers that build the building kill me? No I kill myself.

:)

sunshine understood the hypothetical is mine, and therefore I am defining it as such that there is more than correlation involved. There is a choice to not act. To me that implies causation, to you maybe not.

As you point out by mentioning dictionary and something being "a easier word" there is some semantic alignement required so we do not confuse each other.

This is true, but does not make it false that my inaction hurt her. Actions / inactions and their consequences do not map perfectly one to one. The world is messy and interconnected. You even imply this with all your examples later on.

More critically, higher up you had written:

This here is you avoiding the question I asked earlier? Ignoring Jane hurts her AND she is hurt because I did not act "in way that cater to her". You make it appear as if the two are incompatible - an either / or logic.

They are compatible, they indeed correlate, and can both be true at the same time. Heck, they obviously are both true IMO.

So despite agreeing with much you wrote after this. Right here is where you IMO are making the logical error. Correlation does not imply causation, but causation does imply correlation. Finding a correlation therefore does not prove nor disprove causation. We need to look deeper than the obvious correlation. Did my ignoring cause or not the hurt?

These are IMO irrelevant hypotheticals.

The only relevant to answer the bolded question higher is:

Lets say you do not ignore her but take action by accepting her. Will she see that and feel happy?

The answer is - because it's my hypothetical, and not unrealistic: Yes of course. That is precisely the point. The scenario is rather that I chose to not act, and that hurt her. If I had chosen differently she would not have been hurt. That's what I mean by the hypothetical being mine.

A different hypothetical where she is hurt regardless of my acting or not is not interesting.
Another hypothetical where she is happy regardless of my acting or not likewise is not interesting.

My hypothetical is the interesting one, at least to consider the question we are discussing: can inaction cause harm?

So considering only my hypothetical, what do you argue about my inaction NOT having caused (partially) harm to Jane?

It seems to me what I am calling now partial causation, is exactly what you have called negligent causation... it's still causation, it's not just correlation.


And actually, I will stop quoting you here. You followed up with a number of different examples about all the conditions involved for Jane to hurt: light, lack of sound, electrochemistry, being alive, her parents having her, their ancestors having them, society being as it is, the universe existing.

I would argue not all of these are necessary - if you consider my hypothetical.
For example, I can tell you Jane was blind and deaf. So light or sound were irrelevant, the electrochemistry of her eyes as well.
But that's just a provocation and a bit of humor.

Let's assume all of your points are necessary. Are they sufficient?

My inaction is the sufficient cause, and so is Jane's need. Nothing else really matters to change the dynamics. You don't need to complicate it by looking at all the secondary conditions, or obvious preconditions, or whatever you want to call them.


Ok, I think and hope that should help us continue. Let me know if you want me to clarify anything or if I misunderstood you.

Hm? Who can't post here?
Two of the most active users (and two of my favourites nonetheless) here are a devoted christian and a bisexual guy and there are some girls too, so I wonder where you did get this picture that seems to be so far from the reality I encounter here. Maybe it's because the people that don't constantly bitch around and don't feel categorically offended by contrary opinions are more popular regardless of their private life?
Can't say anything about Witcher 2 since I haven't even played the first one yet.

I've never seen Brasas being brutal, he is usually direct but polite and without insults or unfair words. Could you give an example or is it just his general openness that you deem to be brutal?
As an aspie I wasn't even offended by his statement about the lack of interpersonal skills in aspies in this thread because he as usual knows what he is talking about and sometimes you just have to look at things how they are, which is the better way anyway imho.

Is your definition of Correlation different then my own?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Correlation refers to any of a broad class of statistical relationships involving dependence, though in common usage it most often refers to the extent to which two variables have a linear relationship with each other. Familiar examples of dependent phenomena include the correlation between the physical statures of parents and their offspring, and the correlation between the demand for a product and its price
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because the parents are white, their genes cause their offspring to be white too.
Because there is a high demand for I Phone, it cause the price of the phone to increase.

As I try to understand your statement, our difference is that I think by ignoring it is a negligent cause for Jane to be hurt and the 99% cause is Jane herself. Hence I think it is so negligible that we can use correlation. I see correlation that it is one factor that cause something, but the object that cause something is not responsible for the things happened. Using cause directly seems to imply responsibility.

You think it is sufficient cause for Jane to be hurt? Like 10%? 30%? Am I right in this?

Well, the alternative would be to act like a jerk in front of Jane to manipulate her feelings and kill off her crush which would mean sacrificing honour (as in "honesty") as well as reputation to make her life easier and spare her a lesson although this lesson would probably help her handle social problems in the long run and get more empathic towards someone who might be on the other side next time.
Of course this wouldn't work if Jane is (like so many others) into jerks but there you go.

I personally think that honesty is the way to go.

Sometimes. I'm brutally honest with friends sometimes and they're less accepting of what I say because of it. I find it better to dish out truth in small doses, like one would sprinkle ghost pepper extract on food. Surround the truth with enough bullshit and you'll find that people will digest it better. They might even believe they understood it on their own.

Inception

Well, yes. But you don't actually have to go into their dreams or watch a movie that's pretty bad except for its very cool special effects.

We need another GOG vs Steam thread going. People haven't been butt hurt for a while .

Wait what?

I have but that's because I sat on a thumb tack.

I sat on a thumb once.
Tacky.