Afraid of getting banned? fite slicer here! Only for EE suitable topics.

[super_slicer]

I wasn't aware? Jokes aside, same goes for me. 'the tougher a nut is to crack, the less hollow it must be'... Or so I'd indulge thinking. Not that shrinking heads is the goal - the opposite, would I argue.
I'll edit this later after a while. Most arguments call for a separate answer. As much as heated rhetorics are all the rage, I also like to think thoughts are better left to sit out for a while, like one would do for a good compost... if only in hopes to prove my allegories wrong.

PS / Basically replying to say this before I forget I won't, will I?: sorry for my out-of-line request in the Strive2 thread. Order mods around, will you? Some fries with that, kiddo? 'please'? Ah! I'll edit this out with the later reply, no need to reply to this bit.

Might want to make a new post, not sure if I'll get an alert from new quotes being edited into a post.

Lol, I didn't even read your post in the strive2 thread. Just habit to pounce on new threads and review/lock the OP.

 

[Strange]

Our views aren't incompatible, nor do they exclude each other. If anything, we'd sharpen our own thougths in the process. But this discussion would certainly steer further away from SA. I know my arguments would.

It doesn't really need to be, just enough to move something from an absolute to requiring certain circumstances. Would it still not be possible if one was wielding an angelic weapon say... Micheal's sword?

Good point with using a holy artifact. There are tons of them, and that one sword is quite relevant. I'd argue that, in that case, you'd be wielding a power which isn't your (human) own. So you're not exactly doing the killing, rather you become the vessel of something that can.
The rank/power is of little relevance. I'd argue, on the contrary, it's easier to thrust a spear at God, since he's everywhere; while the lowest imp from Hell might be sipping cocktails on some remote island you've never heard of.
Actually, my SA-relevant gripe, would be related:

Spoiler: SA

you're invited into a Succubi' dream. As such, you should have access to a fraction of a similar power. Even in your worst nightmare, there's always some wriggle room; heck even turning the tables completely is not out of the question, especially when you face the same nightmare on another night.
In SQ you had part of the Demon King's power. In SR you'd play by the Succubi' rules - pleasure for pleasure! (yay!)
But in SA, PFKS totally rigs the gameboard, in a way I find unsatisfying. We learn from our first kiss, or the first boob we touch. I'd argue you're way less of a virgin, after you 'raped' 68 Pixie throats. But no? Your Michael's Sword is still a wet noodle? Illogical. RPG = progression, from knave to king!

Eh. this kind of discussion is exactly what I like to promote. This forum was never meant to be an rss feed for updates on games, a sharing hub for pirated games, saves and translations, nor gamefaqs. Those things are allowed because they enable more in-depth discussions of games.

I'd have come to say the above (again) in the SA thread eventually, and this would go against the game's intended audience (Male Ms, says SQDT). Not a cool, community-friendly, promotion-helping thing to do. That's also why I knew I had to take this elsewhere. I don't kink-shame... unless the kink gets in the way of learning/self-improvement, in which case I'm often tempted... Hell is paved with good intentions!

>Would it matter if nobody knows the idea? We can apply tense to existence because it has a beginning and an end; dinosaurs existed in the past, phasers will exist in the future.
[...]
Destroying history is relatively easy compared to making a microscopic organism extinct, since history requires the conscious attempt to preserve and impart information. Now it doesn't mean that those events never happened but if nobody knows they happened it achieves the same effect. Can you tell me what I was doing at 5:30 PM Thursday 3 weeks ago? I don't remember and I didn't write it down. That information is gone forever and while nobody would consider it of enough significance to be history, the same logic applies.
(+ some later bits and pieces)

That's where we'd disagree. 1st, what you were doing at 5:30PM 4 weeks ago, was burned into your cells. Your body remembers, even if you don't think you do. 2nd, that doesn't change whatever you were doing happened - so it exists. The simple fact you were alive 1 minute later is enough. It's as much a biological fact as anything which exists in the past. And it is not unordinary for information thought to be 'lost and forgotten', to come back with sharp teeth.

Future things also exist, not only in imagination, but also by continuity. In retrospect, the M16 already 'existed' when muskets were a thing. All its components, and most concepts were there - just, unrefined.

The question of existence, is ultimately just a matter of choice. Or convenience? When you think of 'something', chances are someone already thought 'it' before - 'it' already existed. Yet your understanding is no less your very own.
And when you've really thought up something genuinely 'new', it's not a big scretch to say 'it' was always there - just, unseen.
It's interesting to think about, is all. The 'something new' is that new, tangible notch on 'your own understanding' - this much is hard to argue against.

Put all the information there is to know into a computer system and connect all sentient organisms to the system via instantaneous neural link that forcibly downloads relevant information in some kind of horrid hive-mind. Ignorance ded XP.

The Zerg-like Hive you're proposing, actually doesn't change much. Picture the Collective: there are still things it doesn't know, and room for it to learn. You haven't solved Ignorance - you've made everyone equally ignorant!
...but that's playing on words, at this point xD

Not to harp but; you've gotta provide some evidence that a story can exist beyond thought or records. Failing that you'd need an example of a reaction which once provided with an initial investment of fuel can continue infinitely of it's own accord, no longer requiring additional fuel as a sort of 'proof of concept' which you can base your theory upon. Without that the step further is just too far of a leap to be plausible.

Well, this is the most fun part. Usually, humanity discovers stuff, invents things... And then bothers providing an explanation!
It's the whole 'egg or chicken first?' paradox. Like I've said, there's no right view, just the one you find most convenient at one time and one place.
I'll try to find a few amusing examples of 'ehhhh? but wasn't this always there!?'. Don't expect them anytime soon, though, I'll find them when I stub my toe on one

edit: actually, the 'fuel' part is the biggest (only?) issue. You've read a book twice, at a different ages? The characters 'grew up' alongside you. Yet you don't remember actively pouring energy to make them grow. That'd be what I'm referring to. You could also picture tales from mlllenias ago, still alive today - and 'grown' in so many different forms you can't tell what the original was (*cough* bible *cough*).

edit2: also, your argument can be used against you. When you supposed something exist because 1M persons believe it, what of Succubi? How would you kill one in a dream, when you have no way to harm the other 999.999 persons you'd need to either kill or convince? You could harm the Succubus in front of you, but her existence wouldn't be at risk at all.

 

[super_slicer]

Good point with using a holy artifact. There are tons of them, and that one sword is quite relevant. I'd argue that, in that case, you'd be wielding a power which isn't your (human) own. So you're not exactly doing the killing, rather you become the vessel of something that can.

The rank/power is of little relevance. I'd argue, on the contrary, it's easier to thrust a spear at God, since he's everywhere; while the lowest imp from Hell might be sipping cocktails on some remote island you've never heard of.

Given it's form I find it much more likely that either the material's properties or the method of construction grant it the ability to harm angels than it simply being imbued with holy energy. Even then, wouldn't that require the energy to have a will of it's own to be responsible? In stories it's fairly commonplace for humans to direct power which isn't generated from within their body in order to defeat malign forces and they are no less responsible for the victory. A silver bullet can't fire itself at a werewolf, the legendary sword can't swing itself at the dragon tyrant. I'd counter with; identifying useful structures/materials and discerning effective methods for utilizing them is in itself power.

Actually, my SA-relevant gripe, would be related:

Spoiler: SA

you're invited into a Succubi' dream. As such, you should have access to a fraction of a similar power. Even in your worst nightmare, there's always some wriggle room; heck even turning the tables completely is not out of the question, especially when you face the same nightmare on another night.

In SQ you had part of the Demon King's power. In SR you'd play by the Succubi' rules - pleasure for pleasure! (yay!)

But in SA, PFKS totally rigs the gameboard, in a way I find unsatisfying. We learn from our first kiss, or the first boob we touch. I'd argue you're way less of a virgin, after you 'raped' 68 Pixie throats. But no? Your Michael's Sword is still a wet noodle? Illogical. RPG = progression, from knave to king!

That's why I called it contrived earlier in the thread. There's an innate balance of forces in the universe, when a story ignores that it feels like it's disregarding a fundamental fact in order to create an artificial situation.

I'd have come to say the above (again) in the SA thread eventually, and this would go against the game's intended audience (Male Ms, says SQDT). Not a cool, community-friendly, promotion-helping thing to do. That's also why I knew I had to take this elsewhere. I don't kink-shame... unless the kink gets in the way of learning/self-improvement, in which case I'm often tempted... Hell is paved with good intentions!

It's not like they don't know what they are XD that's why they react so poorly when poked ever so slightly. But I do understand, it's the same reason I decided not to truly debate the contrivance or the ranking of fetishes ( pro-tip; fetishes ARE ranked ) in the thread despite ample provocation.

That's where we'd disagree. 1st, what you were doing at 5:30PM 4 weeks ago, was burned into your cells. Your body remembers, even if you don't think you do. 2nd, that doesn't change whatever you were doing happened - so it exists. The simple fact you were alive 1 minute later is enough. It's as much a biological fact as anything which exists in the past. And it is not unordinary for information thought to be 'lost and forgotten', to come back with sharp teeth.

At best you'd only be able to retrieve general information from cells; resources intaken and expended. Outside of a few specific circumstances that wouldn't allow you to reconstruct any real record of activities for a specific day. I'm not arguing that a record of events is necessary for them to have happened, or for some of them to affect the future, simply that knowledge and by extension thoughts are temporary by nature.

Future things also exist, not only in imagination, but also by continuity. In retrospect, the M16 already 'existed' when muskets were a thing. All its components, and most concepts were there - just, unrefined.


The question of existence, is ultimately just a matter of choice. Or convenience? When you think of 'something', chances are someone already thought 'it' before - 'it' already existed. Yet your understanding is no less your very own.

And when you've really thought up something genuinely 'new', it's not a big scretch to say 'it' was always there - just, unseen.

It's interesting to think about, is all. The 'something new' is that new, tangible notch on 'your own understanding' - this much is hard to argue against.

We're going to have to part ways here. Purely from a technical standpoint the process of manufacturing a modern firearm is incomparable to that of a musket; forgetting cartridged ammunition, standardized parts or precision machining, they didn't even have rifling in the barrel. Given detailed diagrams and an explanation of the manufacturing process nobody in that era would be able to complete a functional M16. Claiming the desire for a rifle that hits what you're shooting at and can fire a bunch without taking a minute to reload predetermined the M16 is rather far-fetched.

That said, you've just chosen a poor example and I'm not going to fault you for it, not everyone is as interested in weapons technologies as I am. Knowledge being cumulative and mixing with desire for improvement does not predetermine technological advances because what works in fiction or daydreams seldom translates to reality. A good example of this is the transporter (yay another trek reference) while we are on the cusp of being able to print organic structures from cultured DNA and may even be able to accelerate the process to near instantaneous as well as instantly transmit information across large distances we have no way of converting matter into energy, sending it miles away then reverting that energy back to the matter it once was and reconstituting a human. It's very likely that it is indeed impossible to achieve this and what we end up with are fancy execution chambers on one end and clone printers on the other. Or, a more relevant possibility is we discover a technique for joining two points in space before we learn how to "energize" matter and we never bother with developing transporters. Worse yet we could nuke each other into ash over pronouns before we get to either.

I can't quite finger the concept I want to express here, that the rules of our universe being fixed constrains what devices can come into being but it doesn't mean there are those that HAVE to come into being. Maybe it's just my disdain for fate but the idea that anything is destined just doesn't sit right with me.

The Zerg-like Hive you're proposing, actually doesn't change much. Picture the Collective: there are still things it doesn't know, and room for it to learn. You haven't solved Ignorance - you've made everyone equally ignorant!

...but that's playing on words, at this point xD

Oh no, I meant EVERYTHING there is to know. Literal omniscience. Yes, I cheated.

Well, this is the most fun part. Usually, humanity discovers stuff, invents things... And then bothers providing an explanation!

It's the whole 'egg or chicken first?' paradox. Like I've said, there's no right view, just the one you find most convenient at one time and one place.

I'll try to find a few amusing examples of 'ehhhh? but wasn't this always there!?'. Don't expect them anytime soon, though, I'll find them when I stub my toe on one

Doesn't the modern theory of evolution answer that though? Something a little less like a chicken laid a chicken egg, the chicken outperformed the thing a little less like it and thus took over it's place in the world. So the egg came first but it was laid by something that wasn't quite a chicken.

edit: actually, the 'fuel' part is the biggest (only?) issue. You've read a book twice, at a different ages? The characters 'grew up' alongside you. Yet you don't remember actively pouring energy to make them grow. That'd be what I'm referring to. You could also picture tales from mlllenias ago, still alive today - and 'grown' in so many different forms you can't tell what the original was (*cough* bible *cough*).

In the first instance psychology ( psychiatry? IDFK mind medicine ) tells us that it's not the story that changes but the reader; as you grow and experience different things they change the way you perceive or interperate, though I've never experienced this personally so I can't speak from experience. The second is due in large part to the inconsistency of word of mouth transmission and of course artistic license.

edit2: also, your argument can be used against you. When you supposed something exist because 1M persons believe it, what of Succubi? How would you kill one in a dream, when you have no way to harm the other 999.999 persons you'd need to either kill or convince? You could harm the Succubus in front of you, but her existence wouldn't be at risk at all.

Well, 'starving' them is just the attack vector we can predict to be the most likely to succeed. We've no reason to believe that there aren't other vulnerabilities that have yet to reveal themselves that I'm unable to explore with the limited information about the setting I have. Though were I to find myself in that situation my initial objective would be to remove their control of the environment, by escape if possible so I can find a battlefield where my opponent isn't a mary-sue. Magic's a thing humans have access to in SQ yeah? Maybe try overloading the dream by summoning in a bunch of other consciousnesses, perhaps an eldritch monstrosity or two.

 

[Strange]

identifying useful structures/materials and discerning effective methods for utilizing them is in itself power.

I preach for the same church. However, an 'artifact', per definition, is named as such only if we are clueless about the manufacturing method and/or most of the principle behind it. They are 'untraceable traces', until they're not any longer.
On that note, have you ever wondered why, in most stories, it was always a clueless and ignorant nobody who was granted this or that artifact? Or how any and all engineer behind the Pyramids or the Greek fire died young with no written trace left behind? I believe that's no serie of coincidences.
Fighting against the 'thou shalt not knoweth' is not something you need to convince me of xD


>There's an innate balance of forces in the universe, when a story ignores that it feels like it's disregarding a fundamental fact in order to create an artificial situation.

That's the paradox behind any story. As much as you disagree with Cinderella's or Snow White's conduct, it won't change the 'fate' that's already written. When humans turn concepts into words, they die hard. What's spoken, flies, what's written, stays. Like the Sun turning around the Earth, or bacterias actually being tiny devils.
You're touching the core of the issue at hand.


>It's not like they don't know what they are XD that's why they react so poorly when poked ever so slightly.

I can relate. I'm pretty angsty when my butt hurts or I have a sore throat. Although, the frequency and my reasons would considerably differ.
Show some sympathy! (or not, I seldom have the patience myself xD)


>I'm not arguing that a record of events is necessary for them to have happened, or for some of them to affect the future, simply that knowledge and by extension thoughts are temporary by nature.

That'd be the point on which we disagree the most. I'm convinced you underestimate how much is 'known' without any active 'fuel' added to it. Many ideas and concept seemingly 'died', only to rise from their ashes and burn even stronger. I could mention debatable examples, but I'll stick to Leonardo's flying machine; it stuck as a madman's ravings until the technical possibilities reached the point that 'dream' could come true.
But well, it doesn't matter much for the discussion, as:

>you've just chosen a poor example

I'm glad I didn't xD The faults were maybe the most important part of it.
I wouldn't call myself knowledgeable on the topic, but you actually understood my point exactly like I wanted you to. Our difference in thinking things lies right here - none of us is right or wrong btw. I meant the 'possibility' existed in the pool of Earth's resources and men's imagination. There's as much a difference between the Romans' Spatha and the European Panzerstecher. Refinement of the materials, of the processing and of the theories behind them, simply hadn't evolved enough at the time - yet the 'ideal' existed, and perhaps tales, schematics or treaties were written about the future version. Per extenso, it already existed, yet not in solid form, unlike the base materials.
Sometimes, stories exist before reality is able to catch up. I'd even argue, that's where and when they're at their strongest.


>I can't quite finger the concept I want to express here, that the rules of our universe being fixed constrains what devices can come into being but it doesn't mean there are those that HAVE to come into being. Maybe it's just my disdain for fate but the idea that anything is destined just doesn't sit right with me.

I think I know what you mean. 'Destiny', 'Fate', 'Fatality' are just handy words we throw around, when we feel the unease that come with the 'I dunno and I dunno what I can do about it'. It's OK to use them when good stuff happens, though.
That's where I suppose the future already exists; that certainly doesn't mean my actions are irrelevant, on the contrary. Whatever you teach your children might have cataclysmic consequences a few generations later. 'How would I know?' is not an excuse. I'd rather go with 'as long as I can do things right and it doesn't prevent me from acting, I'll try to look forward as far as I can'.
Fatalists and utopists are one thing, but the reality right here and now, does shape the future - a fact most of us conveniently forget on a daily basis. Exceptions like Da Vinci, would be an edifying example. Or we all know we'll die, yet are we really really struggling every day to give our own life a meaning? Wouldn't that also relate to SA's DIEDIEDIE scheme? It's very interesting to note how one's perception, of Death and sexuality, are very closely related. Food for thoughts!


>So the egg came first but it was laid by something that wasn't quite a chicken.

I'll just smile and remark: God "wasn't quite a chicken" then.
As this is the same route that leads to supposing a primordial creator necessarily exists. Just a fun twist of words. No answer but brainteasers here.

>psychology ( psychiatry? IDFK mind medicine )

Lemme help:
- psychiatry is the mind's mechanics. Like, what does that gear pushes and why is your cerebral oil level not always a constant.
- psychology, is the science of how to make money out of the former
I hope the definitions'll come in handy for your next discussion. I'd favor headbutts over headshrinking though, they are the more practical, efficient, history-proven therapy.


>[about things] I've never experienced this personally so I can't speak from experience
>the inconsistency of word of mouth transmission and of course artistic license.

We're not referring to the same things. You're referring to the 'records'. When you'll wonder, 'what more is there to the story than this?', is when we'll be talking about the same thing.
But if you're supposing what you suppose, well yes you've made stories mere mortals like you and me.
But there's more to them! you yourself admit they've taken from the 'lifeforce' of many of us, first the writer and his inspiration sources', then the readers. I daresay you're looking down on mere 'stories'; I daresay that fable or that old lullaby, have changed more lives in subtle ways, than I'll ever be able to in my lifetime. You'd see my point now, right?
If I were to look at the opposite - the source - then I wouldn't want to kill it to begin with. We'd be talking about the capacity to imagine, for one to think about things greater than his own. Definitely not something I'd willingly bridle or help bridle anytime in my lifetime. Would you?


>'starving' them is just the attack vector we can predict to be the most likely to succeed.
>try overloading the dream by summoning in a bunch of other consciousnesses, perhaps an eldritch monstrosity or two.

I'd rather the first vector, but I'd keep what I said before in mind. You're well-read enough to understand why. But pitting up Lovecraft's creations with Succubi sounds like a bundle of fun, can't deny that. I choose you, Chubby-Nigguri!
Actually, 'starved succubi, ended up disconnected to the human world' is a concept that's been brewing in my head for over ten years. But nowadays, I doubt the gaming audience (whose quality went down along with the H-games) would appreciate it, though that might just be an excuse among others not to make my own game, in the end. I'll re-think that when LM (praise His name - edit: when written right ) releases his new game xD

My own take on it? I'd gather 10-20 of the useless chums hanging about, not yet 100% corroded by the dreamworld. I'd abduct and restrain a weakling, like a Pixie. Then I'd experiment, with always some backup/security behind. What happens if I lose my virginity (just the tip!), then the other guys forcefully pull me out? Does PFKS get a blue screen? Why can't nobody but me satisfy the Pixie enough so she flies away? What's the difference and how to overcome it? I have a long list, and no rush to mingle with Ayumu.

SA's concept is unfair by design, BUT they bothered to explain every step, to make it sound as credible as it could be. Honestly, there's no room to even compare with most, if not all, devs focusing on femdom. SQDT's vastly superior, and they weren't even much femdom-y back then. I hope to see another angle next game they make, but they dealt this this one as well as it can be, as far as my (limited) imagination goes.

 

[Strange]

Lol, I didn't even read your post

(quote be for funzies)
I don't mind if I don"t get an an answer, but I'd like one about the M16 part. I've had a lot of fun reading your answer, after I've completely gambled on the example, judging by the W4K quotes. If that makes any sense? I had a great laugh regardless

I'm amped up about my current project so I don't need your answer in any way, but it'll be amusing to answer you when I'm done, so I can keep going for other things. So don't answer if you don't feel like it I'm just plotting forward my next victim bwahahah.

 

[super_slicer]

(quote be for funzies)
I don't mind if I don"t get an an answer, but I'd like one about the M16 part. I've had a lot of fun reading your answer, after I've completely gambled on the example, judging by the W4K quotes. If that makes any sense? I had a great laugh regardless

I'm amped up about my current project so I don't need your answer in any way, but it'll be amusing to answer you when I'm done, so I can keep going for other things. So don't answer if you don't feel like it I'm just plotting forward my next victim bwahahah.

Honestly I've been procrastinating pretty hardcore, I've got something in mind but your last post had given me pause, it became clear that I didn't understand the basic premise of your argument; the proposed mechanics of existence. So I spent wasted alot of time trying to reverse engineer that when I should have just asked: Are you asserting that existence is a spectrum where something can be said to exist at any percentage above 0?

 

[Strange]

Honestly I've been procrastinating pretty hardcore

Np, take whatever time you like. I doubt we'll reach world-changing revelations, or that we'll make reality cave in and summon Chtulu and his croonies by mistake.

As for your question (actually I already thought something along the same lines, so my answer was already ready, if unwritten):

Spoiler: I am a nameless spoiler

Not really; probabilty would be both irrelevant, and strangely related. As you know, an exact probability does not exist in this world, not without omniscience and omnipotence. There's no dice and no caster with an exact 1/6 chance to roll a 6.
I'd say, the 'existence' premise I was referring to, probably lies in that 'fringe' around the 1/6. That which we can guess, or imagine, but not grasp. Still it does exist, as it has undeniable influence on reality and we'll never reach that 1/6, given we can never reach a infinite number of throws even should the perfect materials exist.
Stories, Succubi, angels and demons would be like this. Just having an influence on reality - like that lullaby you heard as a kid or this book's protagonist that sprung to mind for no apparent reason - is proof they exist. Though not in the usual down-to-Earth sense, yet a very similar one (you'd often assume existence through your never-100%-certain senses and perception, after all).

Other examples from different angles? The pyramids had a flat 0% chance to ever exist at the time, yet here they are in Egypt. From a different point of view: Leonardo's flying machine had a flat 0% chance to fly, yet it "evolved" into very real Apache helicopters.
Back to the M16, its future coilgun, laser or potato-powered version might already exist - in the sense that if they will, some parts or just concepts behind the M16, will be part of them. This is what I meant, by "continuity". My point would become clearer if you think short-term: like about the very much existing schematics and parts, that will likely be used for the next M16 generation.

Although far-fetched when it comes to very material objects, the concept comes much more naturally when you apply it to the Yeti or Goblins, since they don't need a physical body to "exist" as they have an influence, however tenuous and subtle, if only through us humans as a medium, over the physical reality.



I could also have taken the easy, boring example of a baby. When does this new life begins to exist? In the family planning counselor's office? In the maternity? 23 minutes 5 seconds after the coitus? Or since the last incarnation? same goes here for the end/death side, oc.
The more you think and suppose, the more you can scretch "existence" ad nauseam. We usually get around the vertigo by hacking the concept into mouth-size pieces. Butchery, I say! - would sum up my whole angle.

As for relevance, I would say the edge this gives me, is 'This cannot be' isn't a sentence I've ever left creep in my brains willingly. In exceptional circumstances, fraction-of-second life-or-death decisions, this undoubtedly helped me. At least twice. Luck plays a part, and one isn't likely to experience many of these in a lifetime, if one at all. Yet this makes me convinced I preach for the right doctrine, however light-hearted and idle this fairies-and-unicorns conversation may seem.
Even with that much, I'd still get eaten when the zombis invade. Probably

 

[super_slicer]

It really seems like that's where you're coming from though, that a yeti exists because it can have an indirect effect on reality even though it has no mass, form, color or any of the other qualities one could use as evidence of it's existence is the same as saying having any % of them is enough to be considered existent. That a future invention exists because a contemporary item influenced or is directly involved in it's construction.

We need to work out exactly where the difference in our positions lies.

My position is that existence is an absolute, a binary if you will, something exists or it doesn't ( with a temporal modifier e.g. will exist, had existed). For a physical object to exist it must be quantifiable, interactable and it must accurately fit the definition of it's noun ( for example a ship needs to be able to transport people and or goods, it is only a ship when it can do both of those things ). If it does not fit the definition of it's noun then it is not that thing but another separate but possibly related thing (using the example of a ship, a shipwreck is a ship that can no longer transport people and or goods).

For an idea or concept to exist it must either be currently being thought about or recorded in some decipherable form, whether that be memory, a book, cave paintings or a hard-drive and it must be finite, clearly defined. An idea of a weapon that achieves X ( where X is say... a big explosion ) without the necessary knowledge of how to create the mechanisms that would achieve X is not the idea of nuclear bombs.

I'll handle the other things now so they don't keep adding up.

That'd be the point on which we disagree the most. I'm convinced you underestimate how much is 'known' without any active 'fuel' added to it. Many ideas and concept seemingly 'died', only to rise from their ashes and burn even stronger. I could mention debatable examples, but I'll stick to Leonardo's flying machine; it stuck as a madman's ravings until the technical possibilities reached the point that 'dream' could come true.
But well, it doesn't matter much for the discussion, as:

I think you're mistaking my position on that. Leonardo's flying machine and the ideas behind it were never dead, because they had been preserved in records, so even though they might not have received 'fuel' for a long time they were still able to eventually.

I think I know what you mean. 'Destiny', 'Fate', 'Fatality' are just handy words we throw around, when we feel the unease that come with the 'I dunno and I dunno what I can do about it'. It's OK to use them when good stuff happens, though.
That's where I suppose the future already exists; that certainly doesn't mean my actions are irrelevant, on the contrary. Whatever you teach your children might have cataclysmic consequences a few generations later. 'How would I know?' is not an excuse. I'd rather go with 'as long as I can do things right and it doesn't prevent me from acting, I'll try to look forward as far as I can'.
Fatalists and utopists are one thing, but the reality right here and now, does shape the future - a fact most of us conveniently forget on a daily basis. Exceptions like Da Vinci, would be an edifying example. Or we all know we'll die, yet are we really really struggling every day to give our own life a meaning? Wouldn't that also relate to SA's DIEDIEDIE scheme? It's very interesting to note how one's perception, of Death and sexuality, are very closely related. Food for thoughts!

It's more rooted in my abhorrence of being given orders I think. Being told I'm the chosen one and I must save the world really just gets me to sit on my ass and do nothing out of spite. IF I choose to save the world it's because I either felt like it or rationalized why to myself, not because some cosmic force decided that would be the outcome

I'll just smile and remark: God "wasn't quite a chicken" then.
As this is the same route that leads to supposing a primordial creator necessarily exists. Just a fun twist of words. No answer but brainteasers here.

I have no clue what you mean, I always thought it was referring to a literal question.

Lemme help:
- psychiatry is the mind's mechanics. Like, what does that gear pushes and why is your cerebral oil level not always a constant.
- psychology, is the science of how to make money out of the former
I hope the definitions'll come in handy for your next discussion. I'd favor headbutts over headshrinking though, they are the more practical, efficient, history-proven therapy.

I've been told before XD Brain just doesn't want to hold that information it seems.

We're not referring to the same things. You're referring to the 'records'. When you'll wonder, 'what more is there to the story than this?', is when we'll be talking about the same thing.
But if you're supposing what you suppose, well yes you've made stories mere mortals like you and me.
But there's more to them! you yourself admit they've taken from the 'lifeforce' of many of us, first the writer and his inspiration sources', then the readers. I daresay you're looking down on mere 'stories'; I daresay that fable or that old lullaby, have changed more lives in subtle ways, than I'll ever be able to in my lifetime. You'd see my point now, right?
If I were to look at the opposite - the source - then I wouldn't want to kill it to begin with. We'd be talking about the capacity to imagine, for one to think about things greater than his own. Definitely not something I'd willingly bridle or help bridle anytime in my lifetime. Would you?

Shouldn't the story encompass everything within it? If there's more it's already part of the story.

I could also have taken the easy, boring example of a baby. When does this new life begins to exist? In the family planning counselor's office? In the maternity? 23 minutes 5 seconds after the coitus? Or since the last incarnation? same goes here for the end/death side, oc.
The more you think and suppose, the more you can scretch "existence" ad nauseam. We usually get around the vertigo by hacking the concept into mouth-size pieces. Butchery, I say! - would sum up my whole angle.

Fertilization. The oft described "mass of cells" has it's own DNA instantly. That is the moment that it can be clearly identified as a distinct organism. Though it's not a baby yet it's life has begun.

As for relevance, I would say the edge this gives me, is 'This cannot be' isn't a sentence I've ever left creep in my brains willingly. In exceptional circumstances, fraction-of-second life-or-death decisions, this undoubtedly helped me. At least twice. Luck plays a part, and one isn't likely to experience many of these in a lifetime, if one at all. Yet this makes me convinced I preach for the right doctrine, however light-hearted and idle this fairies-and-unicorns conversation may seem.
Even with that much, I'd still get eaten when the zombis invade. Probably [/SPOILER]

It think it's more the ability to accept what's happening and react even if you can't understand it that's important. Too many people have 'deer in the headlights' syndrome.

 

[Strange]

Sooo, I've left these few words in a quiet place, fed them bits and pieces every now and then... Lo and behold, now I have a chtonian WoT abomination rampaging around my notepad++ backyard ... Oh whatever, I'll C/P off the tentacle that looks most relevant to our discussion. Most tentacles were aiming for the same place anyway, in the fittingly hentaii way

For the fun(?) stuff:

Spoiler: fun until proven otherwise

[re:Are you a chicken? Or were you an egg?]I have no clue what you mean, I always thought it was referring to a literal question.

'Nothing but brainteasers here': Poor questions have no answer, regular ones have just one, best questions have few/many (but not an infinity, that would the same as none).
'Did the egg or chicken comes first?' is simply intellectual onanism - its seeds doomed to fall on unfertile grounds. Amusing, good for training for the real thing, maybe, but that's all. This is as much a literal question as "All Cretans are liars, said that Cretan" is an useful statement. They're not tautologies, but "a philosopher's fleshlight" would be an accurate description. Kinky Aristotle had quite the collection of these.

Actually, it's merely a piece of evidence that our definitions of "a chicken" and "an egg" are lacking. That's remotely related to our current issue.

I've been told before XD Brain just doesn't want to hold that information it seems.

Here's a mnemo-aid: "psy -> headbutt". Works wonders for me, but please don't quote me in the court.

Shouldn't the story encompass everything within it? If there's more it's already part of the story.

Yes, but more. A story isn't just the sum of the words in the book. It would be for a computer (at our point of technology at least. edit: actually, also wrong. That's why some computers work 24/24 on infinitesimal numbers) but not for us.
You can't 'encompass' Cinderella; were you to read it to 1 billion persons/year, you couldn't record exactly what the listeners thought of it, or how much the reader him/her/itself influenced the result. Even less, what they'll remember 10y later and how much/little it changed their lives.

At this point, faced against infinity, I give up and just consider stories are a no-physical-body lifeform sharing symbiotic ties with humans.

The shortest definition I can come up with for "a story" would be "a starting point". That's very compatible with "an idea" like 'a weapon that achieves X'. But still lacking, since that very starting point is likely to evolve, if only through/because of new means, ideologies, concepts, etc. And that evolution is very life-like, can be puzzling, to the point considering them having free will is a mere stone's throw away.

...but let's set this aside, lest we wander further astray into the endless rift between realities.

As for the core of the matter:

Spoiler: tentacle#7 "Chuckie"

We need to work out exactly where the difference in our positions lies.[...]
My position is that existence is an absolute, a binary [...]
[about my previous example:]
- a yeti exists because it can have an indirect effect on reality [even though it has no mass, form, color or any of the other qualities one could use as evidence of it's existence]
- any % of them is enough to be considered existent.
- a future invention exists because a contemporary item influenced or is directly involved in it's construction.

The 1st is similar to any other 'story' - that includes holy books, mangas and fairy tales.
The 2nd is incorrect. The % is irrelevant, although the un-measurable 'margin of error' definitely is.
The 3rd can be left aside for now, because it refers to a very much alive-here-and-now imagination, which will shape the future. What I refer to as, continuity, in a cause -> consequence logic. But these are temporal matters which are not relevant for the simplest definition.

We're better off restricting the size of the playfield. So I'll try and explain the 'cut into mouth-sized bits' part.
So, let's stick to the "now and then". I'll keep Bigfoot as the family-friendly, cuddly example it is.


- lightning strikes a tree. You saw it and the tree started burning. You've assesed the existence of lightning, correct? Afterwards, you could read more about meteorology, elecricity, etc. and make that existence 'stronger' in your mind. Also, someone who never saw a lightning strike, could also say 'lightning exists' even though he only does so through third parties he hasn't verified.
In any case, you'd usually agree 'lightning exists' after seeing, imagining and/or understanding the phenomenum's direct effects on reality.

- a small expedition set off to some remote mountain to find the Yeti. Instead, they end up discovering a rare ore deposit, or maybe a cave with out-of-place ancient pictographs. This discovery also has a direct, somewhat quantifiable impact on reality, if only in the local country's economy.
Maybe the (unfound) Yeti was actually 10%, and 80% was trying to get into that accompanying female's pants. Who knows? Yet there's not much of a difference between the tree taking fire, and the country having 7% more tourists this year. Both are facts which "assess the existence of the cause".

I'd conclude both the Yeti and lightning exist, without much of a distinction. If anything, I would admit lightning does have more impact on reality than the Yeti. Maybe one is 0.997, the other is 0.00016. There's still a (small) chance we completely misunderstand elecricity, or that the Yeti is alive in flesh and blood somewhere; who said Bigfoot needed be from, and on Earth?

We lack the omniscience to have an "1:0", "TRUE:FALSE", we can only get close.
It sounds pointless to me, to define 'something exists' when this ratio is above 0.995. In a thousand years that ratio would be 0.99995 and they might laugh at such poor standards the men-monkeys had back in the 2000s. Using modifiers: "probably", "maybe"... doesn't cut it either, as it's the same as saying: 'I dunno'; consequently anything you'd try to build upon such a flimsy assessment, is bound to crumble.

From another angle, electricity is rather well-understood, but there was a time we thought it was Zeus having been nagged by Hera that morning, or Thor having had too much ambrosia the night before. For that much, you wouldn't say lightning didn't exist, even back then?


That'd be why I'm not cutting the definition into 'mouth-sized bits'. It cannot be 0 or 1, and yes it's a bit of an headache dealing with the infinity of fractions in-between; so I just go with 'whatever, it'll be 1, period. I'll deal with it'.
On your side, you'd be doing what Maths do. You're creating a whole system that's convenient for you, to calculate and assess reality with 'ideal values' that do not exist outside your imagination, and get a binary in return.
Don't get me wrong, I like maths, but they are an artificial set of laws and rules created for just that: convenience's sake. Nothing wrong with using them right, but I'd frown a little if I was told 'They're the whole Truth'. They're not, they are 'True, provided the lemma is absolutely correct'.
That's a world of difference - from one artificial, man-made, hence limited by definition; to one in which both void and infinity, both the material and immaterial, could possibly exist.

I'm not making a poem out of this xD but would that point "exactly where the difference in our positions lies"?


Not saying your stance is wrong; but I might call it unsufficient, when you have to deal with non-corporeal objects and concepts. That includes the Seven Dwarves or the Queen of Hearts, which you could only possibly perceive as static entities from that point of view - or the sum of the words in the book, maybe.
If anything easily verifiable, you'd be limiting your imagination and forbidding the characters to grow freely - along with the former. I'm not even sure you'd be able to prevent that altogether, were you to try to. A lobotomy, maybe? I doubt you'd be a huge fan.

And if you were a deer, it would be harder for you to 'think ahead' what it'd be like if that truck came straight at you in the middle of the night - simply because the statement "this can't happen, this situation cannot come to exist" will ring stronger beneath your antlers.
The 'deer in the headlights' reacts like this because the "unkown, which supposedly did not exist" invaded its reality. And hit it in the nose... The edge my stance would give, wouldn't be much, but wouldn't be 0 either. And there's also the risk of overthinking, or losing the otherwise necessary time to learn other new things instead.

In the end, it would depend on the individual and the way he shaped his mind/psyche to begin with. So there wouldn't be much point into proselytizing and getting prosaic about it - selfish insight and perhaps, amusement? excluded.

 

[super_slicer]

Spoiler: space saver

One can engage in a debate without needing to pad their arguments with insults, problem with gatekeeping especially in a environment like this is that there is no authority on the matter so its a reductive, if you view futa with balls as men with tits then that's your prerogative doesn't mean that others don't define it as something else. You have no objective basis for this stance other than the subjective opinions of others. You can draw a line in the sand but its just that, nothing else to stop people from walking over it.

We come from VERY different places it seems. When I'm insulting you it won't be roundabout and it will be vulgar. It's important to examine the motivations of anyone attempting to convince you of something as should their proposed change directly benefit them it is most likely to someone else's detriment ( usually your own ), weighing those outcomes is key to achieving what you believe to be fair.

If it doesn't have a vagina, but does have cock and balls then; it's a man, anyone who disagrees with that is factually wrong and loses their credibility on the topic. Definitions are not subjective; varying from person to person like emotions, if they were communication would become impossible as words would have no static meaning. I have given you the objective basis for this stance, you've got to actually refute it with something of substance before you can dismiss it.

Spoiler: space saver

No idea where you got that from, that's just an assumption you made. Regardless i only decided to reply to you because as you previously stated you are gatekeeping and speaking with such certainty on a term that is ambiguous from its conception. The joining of futa and transgender fetishes is something that has happened, on what i agree, is a misconception/ misunderstanding of the terms and it has probably been deemed by most simpler to join them under an umbrella category. However the specifics what you claim only accounts for 2 types of futa, whereas i can think of several different characters all classified as futa with a different biology.

Even after i say all that is still haven't given you my opinion on how i define the term other than saying that futanari are mythological creatures.

Language used argument structure. I'm getting a much better idea now.

Spoiler: space saver

What I am saying here is that internet terminology develops and evolves quite rapidly and quite often IS done with intent, by virtue of you posting on the internet in a comprehensive fashion its fair to assume that you are aware of this to some degree, which in itself contradicts the whole statement. Unless you are solely talking about the dictionary or any of its counterparts, in which case I don't believe futanari is a featured word.

I am not a part of any spaces where this occurs on any sort of regular basis, the closest thing I've seen come to this is people making up entirely new words.

It is in many Japanese dictionaries, without an entry in our own it falls to reason that the definition in the Japanese dictionaries takes precedent. English may beat up other languages in dark alleys to steal whatever loose words they have in their pockets but it's rare to see it disassociate those words from their original meaning.

Spoiler: space saver

Had I more reputable sources for this subjective opinion based discussion than wikipedia, I would be happy to share them, unfortunately I can only present the knowledge I have gained via interest in gender, sex and fetishes. I wish I could recall every source medium I have experienced. That being said I will note that one of the books on that wiki entry is one I have read extracts from before and would recommend to anyone interested in japenese ero-culture

You must be registered to see the links

As for the tag definitions for ehentai is not a particularly useful for a source for how a singular website choose to divide up their tags, and it certainly was not the first to introduce the concept, it may be the longest standing but definitely not the first.

Not to mention that using tags as justification at this point in the discussion into exploring terminology is reductive, which I believe is what your assumption of my 'agenda' was.

Then unfortunately I cannot confirm anything you're saying, I don't want to be particularly uncharitable here but you could be pulling all that out of your butt and I'm not so charitable that I'm willing to allow someone to lie to me then base their argument on that lie. About an objective fact.

I think it'd be overly dismissive if we weren't to view exhentai as an authority in the subject matter of hentai. They maintain the largest collection of hentai anywhere I know of and have remained remarkably consistent through the years. This would be akin to not viewing the military as an authority on weapons.

You've mistaken what I said, I could have been clearer though; manga and doujinshi were what brought the concept from Japan to the rest of the world.

It isn't reductive. Practical application far outweighs intellectual theory any day of the week.

Spoiler: space saver

Never said it shouldn't be contested here, despite us both probably being in breach of the rules right now. It was a remark on where we are having this discussion but if you don't understand the implication or just don't care for it that's fine, doesn't really have any bearing on this little joust.

It just doesn't make sense to me. If this is where you come to get fap material and nothing else why even bother reading posts or commenting on them. Now I know a great many people are very desperate for the threads on this site to be filled with nothing more than download links or +1's , but they never engage with the content of an argument in their rebuke.

Spoiler: space saver

You have misunderstood what I'm saying here, transsexual actors can create futanari content same as a female actor can create futanari content, obviously we are once again talking about fantasy being here so prosthetics and whatever else they use to attempt to sell that illusion is on them.

I'm not going to complain about an avengers porn parody because the hulk was just a guy spray painted green and not a radioactive mutant. Its entirely up to you to chose how much you want to allow yourself to buy into that fantasy. You wouldn't go to the cinema to watch (sticking with it here) avengers and then complain that they didn't have real magic or that iron man's suit isn't real, or maybe you would (I don't know you) in which case, more power to you. you must get at least double the films out of the world.



But for the sake of this lets say we are both talking about drawn/3d/animated content because the alternative is too far out there to have a reasonable expectation of.

They can create whatever content they want, but labeling it futanari is a misrepresentation of the content. Using your example, you go into a theater to see Avengers XII but what's playing on the screen is a new trolls movie. Though it is relevant that persons in the real world are labeling themselves futanari because it comes up in my search results; whatever, people do dumb shit and I can't hold all that specifically agianst your particular misuse of the term.

Spoiler: space saver

Unless you can provide something to the contrary it is, no matter how much you shake your head. If you have another origin point of the word I would be very interested in seeing or hearing about it.

Again, not to be too uncharitable but you haven't provided a source for the information you are presenting and thus basing your conclusion off of. I have provided sources which support my conclusion. It seems you are the one shaking your head.

Spoiler: space saver

This is petty and avoiding/missing the point, which is very easy to do when you break every paragraph up into and individual sentence in spite of what a paragraph is.

There's no need to stoop to insults ;P Yes, it's unfortunate that I have to do so but I've never been overly verbose and it makes things much easier for everyone to respond to. Also you tend to assert an argumentative point and then fill the paragraph with subsequent assertions that require the initial one to be true, if I were to respond to it as a whole I'd have to cede that point and also the framing which I am neither willing nor reasonably obligated to do.

Spoiler: space saver

Yes it is entirely up to the creator what race they call their character and how they define that race as per the rules of their world.



But lets humour what you are putting forth using your link (again not very useful sourcing), according to ehentai in order to use the dickgirl tag the futanari tag is required the difference between them being that one does not specify sex but requires both sexual organs whereas the other requires the character to be primarily female. Both the futa and dickgirl tag are slave tags of the female tag with futanari having a disambiguation of hermaphrodite.



If you read what I wrote "the most common emergence", which is true. Show me a popular vein of futanari content with a masculine character, I'll wait.

Not really, they cannot for instance claim an organic mass consisting of only flesh and blood is a cyborg. We aren't dealing with impressionistic or abstract art pieces at some NY gallery. I'd argue that an artist who needs to describe their art with words or explain it to the viewer has failed.

I think it's excellent sourcing, but I'm biased, I probably should have framed it and drew a conclusion instead of leaving that open though. Actually it's a mutual dependence, it must be either both the dickgirl tag and the futanari tag or both the dickgirl tag and the shemale tag.

I was never arguing against your posit that that was the most common emergence, this was a mistake in formatting on my part as I didn't intend to respond to the quoted part seperately but when I've got to break up an essay into responable chunks I do sometimes make a mistake or two.

Spoiler: space saver

One does not have to visit twitch to understand why I would use it as an example but the specifics aside the notion stands, ask someone else to verify it for you if you don't believe me.


And an eggplant is what you are when you breakdown multiple paragraphs and omit context to push your point across

I don't really consider fluff meant to armor or obfuscate a lynch-pin assertion to be context.

Spoiler: space saver

How do you think definitions come into being?

Some are self evident, I imagine. Never put much thought into it. Don't really care either, but attempting to pervert or skinsuit something to suit my ideology has never been something I wished to do. ( not accusation aimed specifically at you )

Spoiler: space saver

Your citations conflict most your argument

How so? Both say Futanari =/= shemale as definitive statements. The poll is the only conflict which says Futanari =/= dickgirl either which I'm more than willing to have be the case.

Someone will roll through eventually, get offended or annoyed and report us soon and then all this will be sent to aether



this thread


1637650749892.png



people checking to see if these notifications are about an update


1637650912206.png

I'm sorry but if anyone thinks that game is getting updated they're delusional or intentionally ignorant to a degree near criminal negligence. ( Can emotional self harm be criminally negligent? )