12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

tool_bot wrote...

Why doesn't she just call the cops?

No United Thedas Peace Keepers?

But that example is not that good lol. If the house was being invaded by the other side, she should just gtfo and run.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
And if she stares out that window and ignores her 3 month old child while doing so?  not rational.

If she didn't ignore him, but didn't fully attend to his needs because she sees that man outside as a threat to both of them. Irrational?

If he fell out of his crib and broke his arm while she was staring out the window?  Yes.

So it's only rational if there are no bad consequences?

[phaonica]

tool_bot wrote...

Why doesn't she just call the cops?

I don't know. It's not a perfect example. Maybe my husband is the Chief of Police and he thinks I'm just being paranoid, and told the other cops to ignore me.  (just piling it on)

Modifié par phaonica, 14 octobre 2010 - 02:12 .

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
And if she stares out that window and ignores her 3 month old child while doing so?  not rational.

If she didn't ignore him, but didn't fully attend to his needs because she sees that man outside as a threat to both of them. Irrational?

If he fell out of his crib and broke his arm while she was staring out the window?  Yes.

So it's only rational if there are no bad consequences?

Of course not.  Ignoring a 3 month old baby for for an extended period of time is not rational, regardless of whether anything bad happened.  Would you let a mother who routinely left her 3 month old alone in another room so she could watch soap operas in peace keep her baby, even if nothing bad happened yet?

[tool_bot]

TJPags wrote...

If he fell out of his crib and broke his arm while she was staring out the window?  Yes.

Well, yes and no. There are plenty of examples where a perfectly reasonable (and arguably best) move backfires incredibly because of a lack of information or whatever. In this case I'd say the mother would have to be able to predict this injury, that leaving her post for a few moment wouldn't result in the stalker/serial killer/clown from harming them and that her attention would have been enough to prevent the injury.

Why we're all talking about home security though, is beyond me. I've checked the title of this thread 3 times already and I'm still confused.

[TJPags]

tool_bot wrote...

TJPags wrote...

If he fell out of his crib and broke his arm while she was staring out the window?  Yes.

Well, yes and no. There are plenty of examples where a perfectly reasonable (and arguably best) move backfires incredibly because of a lack of information or whatever. In this case I'd say the mother would have to be able to predict this injury, that leaving her post for a few moment wouldn't result in the stalker/serial killer/clown from harming them and that her attention would have been enough to prevent the injury.

Why we're all talking about home security though, is beyond me. I've checked the title of this thread 3 times already and I'm still confused.

But we're not talking about turning away for a moment.  We're talking about spending the day looking out the window at her brother in law, who is just sitting in his car outside eating chips.

And, umm, I don't know why we're still discussing this.  We like damsels in distress?  

No, actually, I think it's a good example.  Yet it may have run its course for now.

[tool_bot]

TJPags wrote...

But we're not talking about turning away for a moment.  We're talking about spending the day looking out the window at her brother in law, who is just sitting in his car outside eating chips.

All day?!

Damn don't people in analogies have jobs?

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
And if she stares out that window and ignores her 3 month old child while doing so?  not rational.

If she didn't ignore him, but didn't fully attend to his needs because she sees that man outside as a threat to both of them. Irrational?

If he fell out of his crib and broke his arm while she was staring out the window?  Yes.

So it's only rational if there are no bad consequences?

Of course not.  Ignoring a 3 month old baby for for an extended period of time is not rational, regardless of whether anything bad happened.  Would you let a mother who routinely left her 3 month old alone in another room so she could watch soap operas in peace keep her baby, even if nothing bad happened yet?

No, but you changed the example to take out the threat. When the threat is there, can not fully attending to the baby in order to ward a threat be rationalized, regardless of if anything happens to the baby or not?

[TJPags]

tool_bot wrote...

TJPags wrote...

But we're not talking about turning away for a moment.  We're talking about spending the day looking out the window at her brother in law, who is just sitting in his car outside eating chips.

All day?!

Damn don't people in analogies have jobs?

No.  People in analogies and people in soap operas do not work.  It's a known fact.

Well, unless they're doctors or lawyers or business tycoons.  Or criminals. 

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
And if she stares out that window and ignores her 3 month old child while doing so?  not rational.

If she didn't ignore him, but didn't fully attend to his needs because she sees that man outside as a threat to both of them. Irrational?

If he fell out of his crib and broke his arm while she was staring out the window?  Yes.

So it's only rational if there are no bad consequences?

Of course not.  Ignoring a 3 month old baby for for an extended period of time is not rational, regardless of whether anything bad happened.  Would you let a mother who routinely left her 3 month old alone in another room so she could watch soap operas in peace keep her baby, even if nothing bad happened yet?

No, but you changed the example to take out the threat. When the threat is there, can not fully attending to the baby in order to ward a threat be rationalized, regardless of if anything happens to the baby or not?

With or without the threat - which is only a threat in her mind at this point(after all, the brother in law is just sitting there, with his chips . . .oh, and his red bull   and not doing anything that's actually threatening at the moment) it's irrational to ignore a 3 month old baby all day.

[tool_bot]

TJPags wrote...

With or without the threat - which is only a threat in her mind at this point(after all, the brother in law is just sitting there, with his chips . . .oh, and his red bull   and not doing anything that's actually threatening at the moment) it's irrational to ignore a 3 month old baby all day.

No. Again it depends on the threat and how necessary your prescence is to keeping the baby safe. For example, can you reasonably expect the amount of harm the baby will sustain exceeds the amount the stalker/brother-in-law/Elvis will cause? Now if I leave the infant alone until it-

Wait nvm. I'm gonna go drink.

[TJPags]

tool_bot wrote...

TJPags wrote...

With or without the threat - which is only a threat in her mind at this point(after all, the brother in law is just sitting there, with his chips . . .oh, and his red bull   and not doing anything that's actually threatening at the moment) it's irrational to ignore a 3 month old baby all day.

No. Again it depends on the threat and how necessary your prescence is to keeping the baby safe. For example, can you reasonably expect the amount of harm the baby will sustain exceeds the amount the stalker/brother-in-law/Elvis will cause? Now if I leave the infant alone until it-

Wait nvm. I'm gonna go drink.

Now wait a minute here.  We all know Elvis is no threat.  He went back to his own planet in the mothership.

I'm gonna join you in that drink . . . . .

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...
With or without the threat - which is only a threat in her mind at this point(after all, the brother in law is just sitting there, with his chips . . .oh, and his red bull   and not doing anything that's actually threatening at the moment) it's irrational to ignore a 3 month old baby all day.

I agree that the threat from a thief is not high enough to warrant this kind of behavior. If her actions have escalated to this point over a thief, then she's probably being unreasonable. Especially if she's locked all the doors and he's just sitting in his car eating chips. There is a balance to this obviously, and we could back and forth on it all day.

The main point I meant to make is that he was perceived as a threat (whether she had any recent proof or not and despite that he was invited), and that she was not being unreasonable to lock him out.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...
With or without the threat - which is only a threat in her mind at this point(after all, the brother in law is just sitting there, with his chips . . .oh, and his red bull   and not doing anything that's actually threatening at the moment) it's irrational to ignore a 3 month old baby all day.

I agree that the threat from a thief is not high enough to warrant this kind of behavior. If her actions have escalated to this point over a thief, then she's probably being unreasonable. Especially if she's locked all the doors and he's just sitting in his car eating chips. There is a balance to this obviously, and we could back and forth on it all day.

The main point I meant to make is that he was perceived as a threat (whether she had any recent proof or not and despite that he was invited), and that she was not being unreasonable to lock him out.

yes, I agree with you.  But the rationality stops at a certain point, I think you'll agree.  Where that point is, we may differ on, but it's there.

Now, join us in that drink  

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...
Now, join us in that drink  

Why thank you. Don't mind if I do.

[Addai]

 You are talking about outdated tactics and strategies that could no
longer fit in more modern periods. You're right of course, but I don't
see how this has anything to do with Loghain. We were not discussing his
tactics. We were discussing the murky political situation where
Ferelden was faced with 2 fronts and a possible third that, in Loghain's
mind, was potentially the most dangerous. And how he, while factually
wrong, had good or at least valid reasons to think so.

So I
really don't see "new possibilities to adjust to and exploit" in this
situation (he did try to get all mages to fight and was very nearly
succesful, so that's a plus). We don't really know what tactics he
employed (we do know he was crushing the Bannorn in several battles,
including one where he was ambushed). And I don't see how his general
strategy, which might not have been perfect, could have been improved
much considering everything. His major failure, imo, was political, in
the sense of uniting the bannorn against him.  His other major mistake
is thinking that the Orlesians were the immediate threat.


(husband)

Well I'm probably mixing too many metaphors for clarities sake.  A closer analogy would be that Loghain is paradigmically stuck.    Kind of like the Mcarthy era general, or even the wacky colonel from Dr. Strangelove, being around during the time when Michael Gorbachev's Glastnost was taking off.   It would be hard to imagine that as nothing other than a commie plot to lower our defenses.


www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Addai67, 14 octobre 2010 - 02:49 .

[tool_bot]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Now, join us in that drink  

Why thank you. Don't mind if I do.

I've got Grey Goose, Hypnotiq and Spiced Room.

Oh and some Yuengling but it's dark brewed and warm. Not sure if even I'd be up for that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
(husband)

Well I'm probably mixing too many metaphors for clarities sake.  A closer analogy would be that Loghain is paradigmically stuck.  

Because the paradigm he has makes sense (and not like the colonel who thinks his sexual problems are because of water poisoning). When the USSR launched Sputnik, I am pretty sure the USA was crapping its pants and for pretty good reasons. Even if it turned out Sputnik had no military applications and the USSR apparently had no military plans for it.

Whether it was right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is, is it unreasonable to have such fears?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 octobre 2010 - 02:56 .

[TJPags]

tool_bot wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Now, join us in that drink  

Why thank you. Don't mind if I do.

I've got Grey Goose, Hypnotiq and Spiced Room.

Oh and some Yuengling but it's dark brewed and warm. Not sure if even I'd be up for that.

I do like yuengling.  But warm? 

[Sarah1281]

All this talk about alcohol is depressing.

[tool_bot]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Whether it was right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is, is it unreasonable to have such fears?

To me one of the big questions is 'is this fear more reasonable then that fear?'

[Monica21]

Sarah1281 wrote...

All this talk about alcohol is depressing.

Is it? Because it makes me wish I had a bottle of brandy for a hot toddy. To help with my congestion of course.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tool_bot wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Whether it was right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is, is it unreasonable to have such fears?

To me one of the big questions is 'is this fear more reasonable then that fear?'

Yes, I already said, I think his sense of priority was faulty. But not that faulty and not without reason. Loghain did not have the privilege of seeing what we saw.

If he "preempted" and attacked the Orlesians, then I would have 100% agreed with you that he is mostly unreasonable.

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

All this talk about alcohol is depressing.

Is it? Because it makes me wish I had a bottle of brandy for a hot toddy. To help with my congestion of course.

Chest congestion is terrible.  I often have a brandy . . .err, keep some brandy around . . .just to ward it off. 

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

All this talk about alcohol is depressing.

Is it? Because it makes me wish I had a bottle of brandy for a hot toddy. To help with my congestion of course.

Chest congestion is terrible.  I often have a brandy . . .err, keep some brandy around . . .just to ward it off. 

Mine is all in my head. My entire face hurt last Tuesday and Wednesday. And then of course I told my brother that my face hurt, and he said "It hurts me too." <_<