Roman Catholics, when they go to heaven, will be glad that some people are suffering in eternal hellfire.
This is doctrinally enforced joy at seeing others suffer. — baker

This is incorrect. In Heaven, Earth and its resulting consequences are of no consequence.

If, as a homeowner, someone breaks into your house while your family is home, and kills someone, then gets caught, would you not be glad the man who murdered a member of your family is in jail? What about as a neighbor or just someone reading about it in the paper. Should they too not be glad a dangerous person can no longer bring harm and misery to others?

Your move

I think that is his point, so not sure where the disagreement. — schopenhauer1

The disagreement is that "nothing in this world" implies the entirety of existence as opposed to the environment in which we dwell in. I suppose, notwithstanding, the freedom, time, and ability to complain and be heard about "there being nothing" is a world of difference from an earlier world where such liberties were not to be found.

It's more to me about motivations. The feeling that there is "nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know". — schopenhauer1

He conveys the depressive mindset well, I see. Does he not make any attempt to bring good to what he himself deems as "bad" ie. depressive? There is always something to do, someone to be, and someone to know, if one's wants and expectations are realistic, or even adamant enough.

So much for beginner's luck. :lol:

I've played chess before. Not often but I know what piece does what, save for things like "en passant" and castling lol.

Well if you don't get another participant I'd go again.

See, if they threw in some other bit like "offre de rachat" where you can sacrifice a pawn for the king.. we'd still be playing. Just think about that.

Your move

Your move

I missed that in the lateness of the hour.



Your move

I did learn something there, thanks.

(nothing happened here)

Your move

Yeah yeah, I know what directions are.



Your move

On your part.. the queen can move diagonally? So, could've ate my king from the previous position. Or no? Either way.



Your move

That's a check, is it not?



Your move

Your move

An allegedly smart person who holds that reputation, has to wage daily battles with wannabes. — god must be atheist

Did a sufficiently advanced smart person not "want to be" smarter some point in their life if not throughout its entirety? Perhaps not. But, it's worth explaining otherwise..

Interesting.



Your move

Am I missing something here?

Your move

Your move

Your move

but the emphasis on intellectual prowess in Western society seems over-the-top and to the exclusion of other attributes that would seemingly provide for a better (more balanced) life — synthesis

Modern? Like today? Lol. Hard to argue with that OP.

Your move

Your move

Was asked this recently, and am now curious about how my definition varies when compared to others. — Gordon Jones

And now, so are we. Considering you've neglected to share yours.

That's.. interesting. If not an interesting philosophical commentary on the times in which we live. Always associated a crown with the king and also the tallest piece, etc, etc... Let's re-do from your move before my most recent one. After all, you did forget to say "check" ... :p

I thought he could attack people in an immediate diagonal quad space. As in, you could attack the queen and that's your move then its mine. Hmm.. I'm going to Google that but in the mean time give me a few moments.

Your move

Your move

Your move

Your move

Was messing with him some. Like I said needs some stricter coding to prevent such occurrences.



Your move

Your move

Whoops. Good move btw. Haven't played in a while but it's basically logic and analysis in a game format so.. no excuse really.



Your move

Oh I could've written something like that. Well, here's my backseat critique of points I deem critique-able. Which is just about all of it.

This is the great lesson the depressive learns: Nothing in the world is inherently compelling. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Well of course not, "the world" its just rocks, dust, and chemicals interacting with one another in various states and mediums.

Nothing is either good or bad, desirable or undesirable, or anything else except that it is made so by laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we live. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Whatever it may be, emotions, thoughts, etc if it's "on which we live" .. that's called life. You can call a mountain a molehill while your standing atop of it but if it really were you'd be singing a different tune.

And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

So, he's using wisdom, thought, philosophy, all of which were largely impactful of and impacted by, emotion. So there is something predating if not validating emotion, which is logic or at least whatever he expects us to assume gives this sentence any value, purpose, or yes even coherence than if I just mashed my keyboard and posted it. Otherwise, what the heck is he even talking about? We know what he's talking about. Therefore, meaning exists.

There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Sure there would. Chemical processes are never static, always dynamic. Entropy and negentropy. Heat rises. Water evaporates. Without heat, vapor turns to liquid, liquid turns to solid, and with heat it's the opposite. There's no "standstill" chemically or biologically.

The alternatives are clear: to live falsely as pawns of affect, or to live factually as depressives, or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Nice save there on his part with the caveat "or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive". Not much to explain with 5 seconds of cross-examining his statement without this bit, really.

One look at human existence is proof enough that our species will not be released from the stranglehold of emotionalism that anchors it to hallucinations. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Again with the "nothing has meaning yet for some reason this does" paradox. I'm done :lol:

Your move

(or anyone reading feel free to start a new game from the second post)

Your move...

Actually, you're wrong. There's a 0.00000000000000000001 percent chance someone invented a time-freezing machine, and decided to "bring" a couple hundred or so people with him into this technically new world of frozen time. And decided to swap out every single die mid-roll with a die that has a number 7 instead of 6. Just to mess with people who go on about probability. Kudos to them. It's unlikely, to say the least. But it's not impossible, so technically, you cannot say never nor always...

Ok.. you gotta.. baby it. This site needs some major JavaScript overhauling.. could even do it with basic HTML links. Just gotta hash the coords. That or create a unique ID for each "new game"

Here.



Edit: As well as manually flip the board and provide a link so the person doesn't have to spend 5 minutes moving every single piece back and forth, breaking concentration or having to keep the page open. I've done it manually for you, or anyone who wants to make the next move.

Your move...

Seriously though, I love the idea of this, but it's (clearly) not working properly for me..

slave morality — Ross Campbell

What is "slave morality"? Sans religion, we're all- each of us- slaves to our bodies. Hunger, thirst, exposure, injury, etc. We're also all bound (or enslaved) to social truths/workings ie. if you go around making enemies and being despicable, it'll probably come back to bite you.

The argument behind religions that dictate morality is something along the lines of they show you the chains you think you're not bound to, as well as give you the key you think you don't need. Essentially, the freedom you think you have is really just enslavement to the least of what life has to offer (impulse, petty desire, negative emotion) and while it may seem the opposite at times actually restricts you from ever reaching the best life has to offer which transcends material gain, petty emotion and even pettier squabbles. That's what they say at least.

Bearing in mind I'm not a geneticist I'd say there's a good chance for some rather intelligent tendencies and ability... along with some not so intelligent ones. It'd be safer to say it would be more of a random mishmash then trying to say for certain whether the entirely random series and facets of traits, inclinations, disinclination, and inherent cognitive ability that we attempt to summarize with a single term (ie. intelligent or dull) is more or less likely to coincide with one social term/definition than the other.