One Hour One Life Forums

I think the key takeaway for the 'truthiness of premises affects the validity of an argument' is that as soon as you assert that a premise is false you have introduced a new premise and hence have a new argument. Assessing the validity of this new argument (it will always be valid because we introduced a contradiction) says nothing about the validity of the original argument. This is why validity is assessed under the assumption that all premises are true, and it's only structural contradictions that are important from a contradictions point of view.

Let's look at an argument with a structural contradiction:

A is TRUE
A is FALSE
therefore X is TRUE

This is a valid, unsound argument, as it contains contradicting premises.

Now we have an invalid argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premises:

A is TRUE
if A is TRUE then B is TRUE
therefore X is TRUE

If we assert that the second premise is false we get a new argument:

A is TRUE
if A is TRUE then B is TRUE
if B is TRUE then A is FALSE <-- this is our new assertion
therefore X is TRUE

We now have a valid argument because of the contradiction, but of course it is unsound.

These were fun! 100% on all

Hear, hear!

My concern with griefing is actually about the boars being released. That's also why people kill them - to stop them from being released by a griefer once the farmer dies or goes to work on something else.

The theory would be that if you have a locked property pen, inside a non-decaying fence, you protect against both griefers and neglect. Griefers can't get in to steal the boar and release in town, and even if the property fences decay the boars won't escape on their own. Property fences now take forever to decay in any case, so I doubt it's an issue in practice.

Quibbling is the exact right term for what is going on here, as in many other threads. Thank you Destiny for finding the word I needed when trying to find the name for the equivocation fallacy! I hadn't considered that equivocation and equivocation fallacy need to be carefully used (I had _assumed_ that it was obvious we were talking about the equivocation fallacy throughout, but alas I think that was a poor assumption); quibbling is a far better term.

It's ok to use both meanings of the term 'argument', both as a discussion between two people, and as a set of statements that follow logically from each other (meanings 1 and 2 at https://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument) but of course it helps to be clear about which one you mean. Let's not quibble over the meaning!

The thing that you're missing here is that the second person will incorporate, often implicitly (ie without restating), one or more of the premises or conclusions of the first person. When they do that, they don't get to change the meaning of the words in just because they interpreted it differently to the intent of the first person.

In this thread when responding to Destiny about the 'afraid' statement you implicitly included that statement as a premise in the argument you were making.

1. DestinyCall claims that they are "afraid [Spoonwood is] not very good at recognizing the weaknesses in [their] own reasoning." <---- this is where you include Destiny's phrase, and misinterpret the word afraid.

2. There is nothing 'real' here to fear.

3. Therefore DestinyCall shouldn't be afraid.  <---- this is where you use a different meaning of the word 'afraid' to what Destiny used. It may be consistent with your misinterpretation, but you don't get to redefine their meaning.

Stew has the benefit of not requiring animals. It is certainly hard to starve when surrounded by stew pots.

What a rollercoaster!

I wonder if the king's decree to dedicate the limited remaining water to berry and carrot based pies is the right choice in general.

A varied diet is the most efficent use of water (due to YUM bonuses) but that needs to be balanced against the work required to produce different foods (in addition to water) and the proclivity of the town folk to eat poorly.

So my question: assuming a severe lack of food and limited water, what is the best food-production order a leader can give that will maximise time-lived for their followers? What other orders should they be giving in addition to this food-production order?

I think Mutton Pies might be a good answer to the first, and the second is to make sure everyone has clothing - wooden shoes at the least!

You've probably seen it already, but if you haven't, the first stop in your healing-the-head tour should be onetech.info

The game is designed to have an inordinate number (hah!) of crafting recipes, so a searchable database is extremely useful.

Love the stories, thank you.

If you don't know, every time you pick a kid up you use one pip of your own hunger bar, regardless of if the child is fed or not.

The child is only ever fed if they have two or less pips in their hunger bar - if they are hungry. Picking them up while they have three or more pips will not feed them, but will drain a pip from you.

Experienced players with say 'F' when they are at two or less pips, but they will also get a hungry emote so you can see they are hungry.

Knowledge.

I value the thoughts and ideas that people like Spoon bring to the community, and I have personally noticed Spoon becoming better at communicating those ideas.

I personally love a good debate, but unfortunately there are too many bad debates.

Too many conversations that devolve into a high-school 'debate', a kind of sporting competition where it's more important to score points than understand each other.

Instead we should always strive towards 'scholarly' debates, where the primary goal is to understand what the other person is trying to communicate; one of the greatest joys in the world is the realisation that other people have thoughts and ideas that you would never have on your own, and that you can enrich yourself by incorporating those ideas into your own world view.

If you care about avoiding 'point scoring' debates the best thing you can do is make sure you understand the other person's point of view before arguing against it. I find it useful to try and restate what I think the other person is saying, in my own words, before stating why I disagree with it. This can be tricky (the person may think you're weakening their position, for example), but if you both approach the conversation from trying to understand each other it is a lot easier to get to the point where you understand each other's view.

We're talking about an annotation tool that would let you draw on Wondible's map. TTP is a legitimate concern for people who host user generated art, and my point was simply that having local only annotations, that could be shared, avoids that problem entirely.

Personally, I am very in favour of representations of penises, in all their wonderful forms.