Makaze

JavaScript: Hide 'Favourite Fire Emblem Game' in Miniprofile 1.0.0 Like it says on the tin. How to Install

Nominations for #35 are open. Nomination ends next Tuesday.

12-hour is more intuitive because it's what I learned growing up (using analog clocks).

After much deliberation, shinpichu is up. SF Interview #34: shinpichu Interview ends on 9/8/2015.

Done. Who is Yari? I did. My work is making remembering this difficult. Nominations: 10: shinpichu 9: Draco 5: Glac 2: Sorin 2: Shezzy 2: Shadowfrost65: Boron 2: Anacybele 1: Yari 1: Saskules 1: Poly 1: Nobody 1: Carmine Sword

In.

What part did Kitty play?

Monde was not a member of the conspiracy and was surprised by it, but later wrote to the conspirator Euklyd that he wished he had been "...invited to that superb banquet." He believed that the Liberatores should also have killed kirsche. The conspirators had decided, however, that the death of a single tyrant would be more symbolically effective, claiming that the intent was not a coup d'état, but tyrannicide.

Shootout to Agape for fooling me, kirsche for routing me out and Mitsuki for making things interesting.

<3~ Others to people who allied with me: We are oft to blame in this, 'Tis too much proved that with devotion's visage And pious action we do sugar o'er The devil himself.

5b. Other than you, silly.

Disclaimer: I sold no one out after my post. All anyone got was who I had, not their alias, role, or anything. I managed to gain five aliases and roles after that but I never sold anyone out. It would have been fine if it weren't for you meddling kids.

Thanks. When did you first want me dead?

Do I look good?

How did you get my alias, out of curiosity?

1. First and current impressions in and out of Mafia? 2. What are your strong and weak points in Mafia? 3. What about in life? 4. What is your ultimate criteria for belief? 5. Who is the fairest of them all (all interpretations welcome)?

Nominations for #34 are open. Nomination ends tomorrow.

Congratulations, my friends. I will share my info before I die next time.

[1:27:45 AM] Kitty: where did Cesare come from btw [1:29:43 AM] Makaze: The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari [1:30:05 AM] Makaze: My first alias was Caesura Cesare is Italian for Caesar [1:30:41 AM] Kitty: but caesar ends dying with a shit ton of stabs [1:30:49 AM] Kitty: well hopefully you do not end in the same fate my friend [1:31:00 AM] Makaze: that is a foreboding thing to say

Impressions? Feelings about what happened in Mafia?

The claim to be backed up is "it has properties that are not defined by observers". You did frame it that way. I offered the explanation that you were arguing for it in spite of yourself. That could be the case, but either way, what you are doing is creating the frame. Saying "not to compare you to x" was the tipping point. Backfired big time. I'm confused about the "basic reasoning" defense. You expressed doubt about a claim I made about my own personal history ("I doubt you truly doubted reality at a young age"), undermined my state of mind ("it wouldn't happen without other factors or problems"), backtracked ("I did not assert that there was definitively a reason linked to your upbringing or mental wellbeing that caused it, I simply postulated it"), and when I gave you the full story, you arrived at... What conclusion? Why postulate that? Why shouldn't I believe your goal was to undermine me? At this point I just want you to own what you've been doing. At least acknowledge you've been handling yourself in a bad way.

Can you back up that claim? You completely sidestepped what I asked. Why is it a negative factor, if it exists? You have now directly implied that seeing a non-existent distinction between reality and perception is mentally healthy and not seeing it is unhealthy.

Pretty much this, the part about errors especially. Extreme learning curve.

You could say, "If I am right, then I am right". "If I am not right, then I am not right" works too. They assume opposite conditions, but they are both true. There's a problem. (Logical if-then statements do not assert that their conditionals are true. If they did then one of the statements would have to be invalid to resolve the explicit contradiction of p AND !p.) If you meant that logical if-thens are true regardless of tangible truth, then yes, that's true... But why are they true? To borrow from Chiki, "If someone is a bachelor, then that person is not married" is true. But what if humans didn't exist? The concept of a bachelor wouldn't exist. That concept is something we made up. It is neither true nor false unless we say it is. We make up the definition of a universe, too. A universe is a universe because we say it's a universe. We draw the lines that form all truth, even logical truth. In conclusion, all truth, including logical truth, only exists relative to the observer. Specifically, I felt I was dreaming a lot of the time. I experienced what we call derealization. I wasn't paranoid or obsessed with waking up or anything, but I felt disconnected from it all and thought, "This is a weird dream." There were memories I had that none of the other people involved remembered, or blocked out. I came to convince myself I dreamt those things, despite the fact they were real (I was able to confirm it later in my life). I had several lucid dreams when I was younger (very rare now that I'm older), which didn't feel weird to me when it happened. I had trouble distinguishing between the two since I was about six. (I say "real" here because they can meaningfully be treated as a part of everyone else's perceptions instead of what you'd call a dream. It's the one I can rely on to stay around. In my head it's kind of like I woke up into another dream, but this is the one I consider home: That's what real means to me. Real is just a better word to explain the difference than "most consistent stream of perception". This might be similar to the intuition others experience or it might not, I can't say. I can say it is learned as I grow used to the consistency, not something I always lived with.) I have a problem with your approach to the subject. You explicitly stated that my having a different intuition was evidence of a problem. No take backs on that. You would never have used that word even as an alternative unless you thought it was a negative. You can't skirt around the fact that this asserts majority intuition is correct. Even if you do not think that the majority intuition is correct, you are consistently slipping into arguing for it in spite of yourself. If you do think so, please explain why. You seem to have accepted that there is no meaningful distinction between reality and perception. If they are identical, then on what grounds is not seeing a difference evidence of a negative factor?

SF Interview #33: Chen Interview ends on 26/7/2015.