In response to Fascists and Rakes
Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 07 January 2014 12:52:44PM 21 points [-]

Related

Here's another example of "failing to notice the subjectivity of what counts as social convention". Many people are annoyed by aggressive vegetarians, who think anyone who eats meat is a bad person, or by religious people who are actively trying to convert others. People often say that it's fine to be vegetarian or religious if that's what you like, but you shouldn't push your ideology to others and require them to act the same.

Compare this to saying that it's fine to refuse to send Jews to concentration camps, or to let people die in horrible ways when they could have been saved, but you shouldn't push your ideology to others and require them to act the same. I expect that would sound absurd to most of us. But if you accept a certain vegetarian point of view, then killing animals for food is exactly equivalent to the Holocaust. And if you accept a certain religious view saying that unconverted people will go to Hell for an eternity, then not trying to convert them is even worse than letting people die in horrible ways. To say that these groups shouldn't push their morality to others is to already push your own ideology - which says that decisions about what to eat and what to believe are just social conventions, while decisions about whether to kill humans and save lives are moral facts - on them.

Comment author: ikrase 13 January 2014 01:13:39AM 0 points [-]

One thing worth noting is that these all describe cases where if the sides took things seriously, they would act much more harshly and heroically. For example, there are very few people using either coercion or effective-altruism-like schema to save animals (and those who do have major scope insensitivity, or pick sympathetic victims).

Comment author: Velorien 13 December 2013 09:00:05PM 2 points [-]

But it is unblockable and precludes the target being revived in the first case or recovering their wand/grabbing someone else's/running away in the latter. In particular, HPMOR makes a very big deal out of any decent wizard being able to put up a dozen different shields, sometimes all but instantly, so unblockable spells are an extremely big deal.

Comment author: ikrase 17 December 2013 08:03:32PM -1 points [-]

In HPMOR, it also penetrates at least some thickness of cover, according to Moody, who also suggests that it does need significant mana. (How much mana? I'm getting the impression that Stupify is acceptable for Auror-level combat despite being castable by top first-years.)

It also cannot be countered. We don't see much of countering in HPMOR, but we do see Susan try to counter an extremely powerful bully's spell in the SPHEW.

Comment author: jaime2000 13 December 2013 07:13:03AM *  14 points [-]

A nausea was in his stomach, a churning sensation that, looking back in memory, seemed both like and unlike a sense of guilt, as though it had the sensations but not quite all of the emotion.

Heh, so Quirrell doesn't know what guilt feels like.

Centaur spears can block many spells, but no one tries to block if they see that the spell is a certain shade of green. For this purpose it is useful to know some green stunning hexes.

This reminds me, if you can make a homing version of the stunning spell, can you make a homing version of the killing curse? Sounds like that would be useful.

The chapter endings for 100 and 101 are a little odd. They stop very abruptly, specially 101. Usually you would get an extra sentence or paragraph to give the chapter a sense of closure.

The reason Quirell and Harry cannot interact magically is supposed to be so Quirrell cannot read harry's mind, memory charm him, confound him, or outright imperio him. But this feels a little weak to me. What's stopping Quirrell from threatening, bribing, tricking, imperiousing, etc... a third party to do it on his behalf?

Comment author: ikrase 13 December 2013 08:44:10AM -1 points [-]

IDK. Moody suggests that the spell might already be mildly homing or at least very easy to target.

Comment author: Desrtopa 13 December 2013 06:48:34AM 4 points [-]

It's worth keeping in mind that even if she's completely useless for any sort of mission, Bellatrix may still be useful to Quirrell, by providing materials for the spell to restore his original body. This was discussed shortly after she was broken out; the spell would be at its most effective if the ingredients used were the most powerful of their kind; not merely the flesh of a servant, but the most faithful servant, and so on.

No matter how much the story diverges from the original HP canon, it's still an option for characters to do the same things they did in the original, as demonstrated by Quirrell in the last couple of chapters.

MoR Riddle still made his horcruxes, and he didn't do it for nothing.

Comment author: ikrase 13 December 2013 08:41:17AM 0 points [-]

Plus she still might carry secret ancient magic that could be taught to Harry or to someone else without Quirrel needing to.

Comment author: Ishaan 13 December 2013 01:10:53AM *  0 points [-]

He did it with hermione, no?

He just needs to know about SS meeting beforehand and tip off Filch about it without linking the tip to his ID. Only one hard manipulation here, which is to suggest a specific detention.

Comment author: ikrase 13 December 2013 08:34:43AM -1 points [-]

And that could probably be done with appropriate False Memory Charm.

He's got to have a time turner.

Comment author: beoShaffer 12 December 2013 06:20:18AM *  3 points [-]

It seems like a stretch but is there any chance

Imps as can't be seen or heard or remembered, even while they're eatin' yer face.

is a shout out to

But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face.

from the Dresden files?

Also could the spell Quirell used to destroy Hogwarts walls in earlier chapters be used to dungeon bypass the third floor corridor by going through the back of the room with the mirror of desire Erised>

Comment author: ikrase 12 December 2013 06:28:45AM -1 points [-]

Potentially, although it would presumably raise huge alarms and might be impossible to stealth with. Meanwhile, I imagine that the traps are not readily bypassable.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 07 December 2013 02:09:23AM *  -5 points [-]

I generally see it followed by an excruciating monologue, full of sound and fury, equally signifying nothing.

Comment author: ikrase 09 December 2013 12:34:14PM 0 points [-]

I see it that both proponents and opponents tend to interpret or use it to mean "seriously, definedly bad" rather than the implied usage of "indicative of a problem".

Comment author: hyporational 30 November 2013 05:42:37AM *  2 points [-]

The problem with using agenda as a heuristic is that it could be claimed most scientists have one. Perhaps if you divided agenda into subcategories, some of those could be useful, like political or religious agenda.

Comment author: ikrase 30 November 2013 06:09:25AM 0 points [-]

I guess that's right.

Comment author: hyporational 28 November 2013 02:36:16PM *  7 points [-]

One admittedly problematic heuristic I immediately thought of is that proto-scientists are significantly less certain about their claims than pseudoscientists are.

Comment author: ikrase 30 November 2013 05:35:34AM 0 points [-]

Also, pseudoscientists very, very often seem to have either an agenda, or a desperate desire to escape epicureanism.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 25 November 2013 08:03:15AM 2 points [-]

But for that the LW meetups suffice. They could benefit from some more structure or cross support.

How about a Grand Meetup? Or was there one?

Comment author: ikrase 26 November 2013 08:41:25AM -1 points [-]

I would reccomend segmenting it from LW a bit.

View more: Prev | Next