First, is the True Patronus really that overpowered? We know that it can be used to destroy Dementors, but that is a very specific limited purpose and will have no value after The Great Dementor Hunt.

Do we know where Dementors come from? Could it be possible that the Killing Curse creates them?

I don't think that the True Patronus is going to be an easy way to bring the end of death. It would not do it on its own and would probably be much harder than figuring out how to kill dementors.

It can be used to block the Killing Curse, but Quirrelmort probably is smart enough (and has been around Harry long enough) to make use of some transfigured depleted uranium slugs and a Mass Acceleration Charm. Or fire. Or lightning. Or anything, really. It merely neutralizes another seeming game-breaker. (While Mad-Eye Moody's description makes it sound very powerful, but I don't know if anybody has ever actually used it through all barriers or over intercontinental ranges, and the ability to dodge it indicates that it cannot be THAT good of a homing spell.

Here is an alternative interpretation of the prophecy:

THe one: Harry With the power: The True Patronus To vanquish the dark lord: The Dark Lord is not Voldemort, but rather a personification of death (maybe even a literal personification of death such as the grim reaper as a King Of Dementors. approaches, born to those who have thrice defied him. :Heroism is often called 'death defying'. Alternatively, it could be a wierd interpretation with Harry being born from his biological parents to his adoptive parents. His adoptive father is a biochemist (IIRC) who works in a field that is probably connected to medicine. Perhaps he has made three significant medical discoveries? Although I am not sure about the whole thing with being marked as his equal or whatever.

Wouldn't that make Quirrelmort an ideal candidate for stonemaking?

No, I was really, really unclear. The way I see it: Mudane Patronus: A powerful but non-general preference for life rather than death embodied in a desire to protect. True Patronus: A fully general preference for life over death Avada Kedavra: A non-general preference that a specific person die Hypothetical Apocalypse Spell: A fully general preference for death over life. It's unlikely that anybody would ever cast this. Possibly connected to the ritual that will summon death itself? Ritual to summon death itself: True Patronus may be the counterspell to dismiss death. Horcrux: Requires a selfish preference for your life to exceed your acceptance of the sacrificial victim's preference. Philosopher's Stone: Possibly requires very difficult magic and an explicit,non-general but non-selfish preference for life over death.

I think that using the True Patronus charm to end death might (some or all): A) not end death by itself, but open the door to a magical, Muggle, or combination immortality method B) lead to the discovery of a higher-level method of operating the Atlantis system, letting one use magic to directly fulfill any preference C) Re-activate a latent immortality function in the Atlantis system. It won't be easy, or a plot-breaker.

It's not really about combat, but rather about the GM's narrative. In any game, the GM usually has some story designed, with pre-determined events, locations, characters, etc. When the players deviate too far from the plot, the GM is in trouble, because he's got nothing prepared. He can improvise up to a point, but the overall gaming experience will suffer.

A good GM will gracefully handle whatever crazy thing the players want to do, and channel them back toward the prepared plot tree in a way that feels seamless. A bad GM (such as, sadly, myself) will flail around for a while, employing increasingly desperate measures to get the players back on track. A truly terrible GM will flat out tell his players, "no, you can't do this, for no better reason other than that I told you so".

Had to make an account to answer this one, since I can give unique insight

I'm an atypical case in that I had the Capgras Delusion (along with Reduplicative Paramnesia) in childhood, rather than as an adult. The delusions started sometime around 6-9 years of age. I hid it from others, partly because I halfway knew it was ridiculous, partly because I didn't want to let out that I was on to them...and it caused me quite a bit of anxiety, because I felt like I lost my loved ones and slipped into parallel universes every few days. I would try to keep my eyes on my loved ones, because as soon as I looked away and looked back the feeling that something was different would return.

Sometime around 12-14, I realized how implausible it was for any kind of impostor to conduct such large scale conspiracy, and how implausible it was that I was slipping into parallel universe. I told my parents what I was experiencing and admitted it was irrational. I forced myself to ignore the feeling every time it came (though it still bothered me). Eventually around 17 the feeling stopped bothering me altogether, although little twinges still occured from time to time.

I'm currently in what I would consider to be above average mental health, and many years later learned I the name of the delusions that had plagued me as a child. Prior to identifying them as monothematic delusions, I had thought that imposters and parallel universes might simply be a gifted child's equivalent of monsters under the bed. My parents thought it was from reading/watching too much fiction. I never suspected a neurological disorder until years later.

I'm not sure if I was able to see past the delusion because I'm an atypical case (no known brain injury), because I was a child, because my brain healed via biological mechanism, or because I'm intelligent...but I can tell you that my memory of the event involves me figuring out that the delusion was improbable and consciously working to bring it to an end.

So unless my memories are false (it was a long time ago) or I am engaging in mis-attribution, the answer to your question is that yes, in some cases it would be possible for someone to use rational thinking to overcome this kind of disorder.

In the "Probability" section, you say:

Suppose you start out 85% confident that the one remaining enemy soldier is not a sniper. That leaves only 15% credence to the hypothesis that he is a sniper.

But in the next section, "The Problem of Priors", you say:

In the example above where you're a soldier in combat, I gave you your starting probabilities: 85% confidence that the enemy soldier was a sniper, and 15% confidence he was not.

Seems like you swapped the numbers.

I could be making a mistake, but I'm working off of the first incognito google hit from "tone argument," which is this.

As I understand it, a tone argument is a suggestion that someone change tone in order to improve his or her chances of persuading. And the common objection is that such tone arguments are disingenuous. They are "concern trolling" or offering fake support in order to hurt the cause.

So ... are we really disagreeing here or are we talking past each other?

Discuss this poll by replying to this comment.

It's also reason to care about the tone of arguments whose substance you endorse, and which are being offered by other people -- which is exactly the tone argument (assuming that the person offering the argument is sincere and not concern trolling or worse). The scenario being imagined supposes that you and I both support the same agenda, but while you are being persuasive, I am turning people off with my tone. In that case, you really ought to point out to me that I am hurting my own cause with my tone.

unusual

really?

It's pretty cool that you are <strike>a friendship slut</strike> <strike>platonically promiscuous</strike> less likely than average to reject someone approaching you for affection. Advertising this might reduce your status, but you'll probably get more hugs overall. I say, go ahead and publicly spell out your unusual openness (by telling people your rules, etc).

"Eating strawberries every six months may not be as good as the first time (although nostalgia may make it better), but it's not obvious that it declines in utility."

Isn't "not being as good" just what "declines in utility" means?