Personally I've never really liked barbarians. The concept of rage being a source of power is just very contrary to what I consider true, verging on offensive.
Science doesn't care about your considerations. It would help you to learn what it means for something to be true, and for you to learn to not be verging on being offended by reality.
And it's ironic that in a game where there are magical spellcasters, that you're worried about what you "consider true." Druids can shapeshift into animals, and Wizards can fly or turn invisible, but you're almost offended by how inaccurate it is for rage to be a source of power?
I find it ironic that you would think I was talking about factual accuracy when talking about offense. That doesn't much match the context.
I wasn't talking about truth in a factual sense. I was talking about truth in the sense of values, personal truth. What did I offend in your values to provoke a defensive reaction? It would seem to imply a non-instrumental value in truth, a axiomatic value. That's a bit foreign to me, care to elaborate?
I find it ironic that you would think I was talking about factual accuracy when talking about offense. That doesn't much match the context.
I wasn't talking about truth in a factual sense. I was talking about truth in the sense of values, personal truth. What did I offend in your values to provoke a defensive reaction? It would seem to imply a non-instrumental value in truth, a axiomatic value. That's a bit foreign to me, care to elaborate?
You're not using the word truth correctly. You're also not using values correctly either.
Truth is for things that are either true or false. It's not for things which are subjective. For example, hamburgers taste better than hot dogs is an opinion. The statement is neither true or false.
Whether or not being in a rage gives a person increased strength and decreased sensitivity to pain is not a subjective question. It is the type of statement where it is either true or false. And scientifically, it is true. There is no room for opinions or personal values when evaluating a question that can be answered scientifically. For example, you may feel that the Earth is flat, and you might incorrectly call it your "personal values" to believe that the earth is flat, but the truth about whether or not the Earth is flat is not affected by your feelings or your "personal values." It's incorrect to reject science and call it "personal values;" that's not what personal values are. It's the same way with whether or not Rage is being fairly accurately represented by D&D. You may not like the fact that rage does indeed make a person stronger and less affected by pain, but your feelings have no bearing on the truth. And if you're verging on being offended by scientific truth, that's especially pathetic.
I'm not offended by people believing stupid things, and not being able to cope with reality. I'm offended when these ridiculous feelings and this rejection of science causes them to do things which negatively affect other people. A good example would be the anti-vax community that reject the science behind vaccines and insist on elevating their personal values above scientific fact. I grew up in a Christian Scientist family, and I had an anti-vax mother and a father that was more reasonable and thankfully I did get my vaccinations. When I see the damage that people who replace scientific truths with "personal truths" do to society, I feel the need to defend truth from their attacks. Especially due to having a degree in mathematics and being raised in an anti-vax religion.
I am offended by people that misuse the word truth. If you want to say "I believe that the Earth is flat", I will agree with you that you believe that the earth is flat, and I support your right to believe such a stupid thing. But if you want to say "My personal truth is that the Earth is flat," then I'll correct you for misusing the word truth. The misuse of the word "truth" has caused an incredible amount of damage in the world, and I do believe that it is appropriate to defend the word from those that misuse it.
TLDT: You're not entitled to your "personal truth" on a scientific question.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Science doesn't care about your considerations. It would help you to learn what it means for something to be true, and for you to learn to not be verging on being offended by reality.
And it's ironic that in a game where there are magical spellcasters, that you're worried about what you "consider true." Druids can shapeshift into animals, and Wizards can fly or turn invisible, but you're almost offended by how inaccurate it is for rage to be a source of power?
I find it ironic that you would think I was talking about factual accuracy when talking about offense. That doesn't much match the context.
I wasn't talking about truth in a factual sense. I was talking about truth in the sense of values, personal truth. What did I offend in your values to provoke a defensive reaction? It would seem to imply a non-instrumental value in truth, a axiomatic value. That's a bit foreign to me, care to elaborate?
You're not using the word truth correctly. You're also not using values correctly either.
Truth is for things that are either true or false. It's not for things which are subjective. For example, hamburgers taste better than hot dogs is an opinion. The statement is neither true or false.
Whether or not being in a rage gives a person increased strength and decreased sensitivity to pain is not a subjective question. It is the type of statement where it is either true or false. And scientifically, it is true. There is no room for opinions or personal values when evaluating a question that can be answered scientifically. For example, you may feel that the Earth is flat, and you might incorrectly call it your "personal values" to believe that the earth is flat, but the truth about whether or not the Earth is flat is not affected by your feelings or your "personal values." It's incorrect to reject science and call it "personal values;" that's not what personal values are. It's the same way with whether or not Rage is being fairly accurately represented by D&D. You may not like the fact that rage does indeed make a person stronger and less affected by pain, but your feelings have no bearing on the truth. And if you're verging on being offended by scientific truth, that's especially pathetic.
I'm not offended by people believing stupid things, and not being able to cope with reality. I'm offended when these ridiculous feelings and this rejection of science causes them to do things which negatively affect other people. A good example would be the anti-vax community that reject the science behind vaccines and insist on elevating their personal values above scientific fact. I grew up in a Christian Scientist family, and I had an anti-vax mother and a father that was more reasonable and thankfully I did get my vaccinations. When I see the damage that people who replace scientific truths with "personal truths" do to society, I feel the need to defend truth from their attacks. Especially due to having a degree in mathematics and being raised in an anti-vax religion.
I am offended by people that misuse the word truth. If you want to say "I believe that the Earth is flat", I will agree with you that you believe that the earth is flat, and I support your right to believe such a stupid thing. But if you want to say "My personal truth is that the Earth is flat," then I'll correct you for misusing the word truth. The misuse of the word "truth" has caused an incredible amount of damage in the world, and I do believe that it is appropriate to defend the word from those that misuse it.
TLDT: You're not entitled to your "personal truth" on a scientific question.