Makaze

The examples are the things I'm talking about. I do not read below the trope definition. Also, I have never joined. I only read.

Gladly, I did not experience that. True. No matter what other junk it may have, no other site offers as many tropes as it does in such a well organized fashion. As long as it offers me the best tropes, I will use it for tropes. True. I have not found a page with false information in all my time there. That said, I do not read the references and instances sections pages thoroughly for fear of spoilers. I focus on the tropes themselves. I suppose so.

Two points... Why do they understand? Doing otherwise has everything to do with the ability to reflect. Given two options and two impulses, one for each, one would, by default, choose the one with the stronger impulse every time. In this scenario, the other option was not an option. They could not have done otherwise. The only way that they could make a decision out of line with their inherent reactions to the situation would be through reflection. Reflection also makes sense because it allows compatibility between soft determinism and hard determinism: As you say, ability to reflect does not make one ultimately able to choose outside of their confines. One's own reflections could be planned. I think this is the case. At least, a scenario where you are led to reflect and one where you reflect of your own will are indistinguishable. Thus, all choice is a meaningless concept. Choice, then, becomes a matter of scope. You might say that reflection itself defines choice or that when you reflect, you are making a choice. I can abide that definition for the sake of argument. I can observe that you do, in fact, reflect. Calling that reflection choice is a simple matter of perspective. I cannot observe the possibility that your reflection would have ended any other way, given the same environment. Yes. Using hate in the nurtured, long term resentment sense, it is possible to let go of your attachment to the past. You cannot choose not to be angry if it happens again*, but you can choose to let go of a stimulus that is long since past. *I may be able to make myself a more cool headed person over time, but I would not be able to reliably control my reaction in particular instances. Are you implying that if your body does something, you yourself consciously do it? I do not understand your scenario. Have another, I suppose. Say that I choose to kill you, but I miss and only wound you. I would argue that what "I" did was choose to make an attempt to kill you. To say that I chose to kill without qualifications would be stupid because killing you requires things from the environment that I do not have control over. My gun can fail to fire or my arm can spasm. These are not things that "I" do. When you say 'can do otherwise', do you mean 'can choose another option' or 'can create a different outcome'? Because the first relates to the will, but the second does not.

TVTropes is the best resource for tropes. It is not like they spread false information. I really do not understand where the animosity comes from.

I was going on the assumption that the ability to do otherwise is evidenced by the ability to reflect because there is no way to determine that someone chose to do 'otherwise'. The use of 'otherwise' implies there is a default action. How do you determine what the default action is? Do these defaults differ from person to person? How do you tell who is acting against which default impulses? Say I have a base impulse to hit you. Say I decide 'otherwise', and do not hit you. The impulse to resist was also a base, no? I say casual because they did not think about the specifics. They probably did not even know enough to call it soft determinism. Hence, casual. Does it matter at this point?

That Chiaki person is someone I can deal with.

You are letting the annoying person win, then. Don't let them spoil the fun.

Maybe. It's highly efficient so they probably do.

I thought I was careful to specify that the choice I was using was in reference to the casual soft determinism people were using in the thread. Personally, I think that choice is impossible. But in this thread, people are using a soft deterministic definition of choice. That means that when you reflect on something and recognize the possibilities before picking one, the end result is a choice. They also tend to believe there is a balance point between strength of feeling and ability to reflect, but it gets them by most of the time. There is a problem with that mentality, of course: But that has little relevance since soft determinism is being assumed. Think about why I set soft determinism aside for my answer next time I do it.

You are letting the trolls win.

Yes. Best kind of spoiler (except for images and walls of text).

Touché, Nightmare. Touché. Wait. Did you just say I was mean?

For someone who hates TVTropes so much, you always know when I reference it.

Do you play pool? I happen to know you do. Bad guys play pool.

Cigarettes are associated with bad boys.

You got me! Serious Discussion did not go as badly as expected...

Maybe it's the cigarettes.

Check aisle three with the rest of the posts. High shelf.

Not without rewriting the whole code. Sorry.

No Adblock... No userscript support... That's a dealbreaker for me. Ah well.

A shame to me, because we have one trait in common. I do not like being grouped with trolls and morons.

I am afraid I have never heard of them. Shame that people like that exist.

'Themselves'. This thread was in violation by outright calling out a specific user and saying that they sucked. Section 5 ('Forbidden Content'), Rule 4: Threads created for the sole purpose of trolling or harassing someone or a group of people by calling them out in a public thread are disallowed. If that rule can be waived for the purpose of a joke, then editing those same threads should not be a problem.

Which one wears shades?