lemm.ee

0 points

1 year ago

There you go. Proof i didn’t say being offended causes harm! Why on earth would i even have said that? Earlier you were claiming i said all offence was caused by harm, no idea why you switched them.

Also, what does damage do, my friend? When you are damaged, it harms you. And you can perceive harm anywhere if you’re warped enough.

Let me make this very simple. When you are offended, it is because some amount of harm has been done. That amount can be zero. In programming terms, the offence variable comes in a data container that also contains a damage variable. The damage variable does not have to be greater than zero.

Are you done?

report

[ - ]

Lightor@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

There you go. Proof i didn’t say being offended causes harm!

Jesus dude, you are really trying to dance to the point of me needing to break it down, ok here we go.

They aren’t separate issues at all; the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of it being damaging.

So someone being offended is inextricably linked to something. Ok, that part I hope you get, I mean you wrote it. Now what is it linked to. It is linked to “the fact of it being damaging”. Now what is it? It is the offense. So restated the sentence would be: “the fact of someone being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of the offense being damaging”. Now if the offense is damaging it would cause harm, by your very own words: “When you are damaged, it harms you”. So lets put this all together. Someone being offended is linked to them being damaged by that offense, which means that would experience harm.

When you are offended, it is because some amount of harm has been done. That amount can be zero.

No and no. People can get offended by something that causes no harm to them. A person can get offended that I fly a certain teams sports flag, that causes zero harm. Also zero is the absence of anything, so it is not an amount.

In programming terms, the offence variable comes in a data container that also contains a damage variable. The damage variable does not have to be greater than zero.

Ok, now I love this. I’ve been in software engineering for over a decade so lets look at this. I would say if you have a container with 2 variables, then in this case one variable would be null, which is the absence of value, not 0 value like you stated. If a variable has null value it has no reference to the heap, meaning it is nothing. So in that situation, the “offense” container would have only 1 value, offense, alone and by itself without damage.

Are you done?

I mean, that’s up to you. I can keep explaining to you how you’re wrong in a buncha different ways if you like.

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

The float would be 0, dude. No need to change its type. Even in common language we do this. “How many mls left in the jug?” “Zero.”

I don’t get why you don’t get this. Yeah, being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of damage. But you can be mistaken about the damage! And thus are offended by zero damage.

report

[ - ]

Lightor@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

The float? What a weird random data type to pull out of nowhere. Why not int, why not decimal, why not a double, why not a dozen other data types, how random. Someone just did their first hello world.

Also, a float can be null, it’s not changing it’s type, it’s saying that the variable of that data type has no reference in memory. And if it’s a loosely typed language that means there is no data type at that point, until it has a value. Jesus, you really do make it a habit to talk about things you have no idea about.

I don’t get why you don’t get this. Yeah, being offended is inextricably linked to the fact of damage. But you can be mistaken about the damage! And thus are offended by zero damage.

You seem to not understand what the concept of 0 is. Having 0 damage means there is no damage. Not that there is 0 damage, there is NO damage at all, it does not exist. You saying being offended is linked to something that may not exist makes no sense. You can not inextricably link one action to something that does not exist. There is nothing for it to be intertwined with.

Also inextricably linked means intertwined. Meaning it goes both ways. Meaning that all damage must have an offense and all offense must have damage. You can’t have damage if none exists, and you trying to act like “well there is damage but it’s 0” is the biggest cop-out ever. That’s like saying “I was going to give you money for it, just 0 money.” That means you weren’t giving any money, none exists that you are giving. I’m not trying to be mean, but I don’t think you understand the words you’re using.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Yes there are other variable types. Why exactly does it matter whether it’s a float or int or otherwise? We can say it’s a string if you want. What’s weird or random about using a float? I use floats all the time in the games i develop to keep track of values with minute variance. There’s really no reason i can see for you to object, since you didn’t provide one. Seems all you wanted to do was prove you know something.

Yes, you have changed it from a normal float to a null reference. There is no reason to do that. You just seem to want to avoid using the number zero.

Yeah, zero damage means no damage. Do you think you’re the first person to realise that?

Of course it doesn’t make sense to be offended by something that doesn’t exist. It’s irrational. And emotions are irrational. Like i said, you could be offended because you think harm is done, but no harm has actually been done. Offence doesn’t come out of nowhere, and even so called professional victims are still offended by something, whether that something actually caused harm or not. It is an action with a damage value of zero - no damage. Yet in their heads they see damage and react as if it were some higher value.

I’m getting tired of this. We’re going in circles. I don’t know why i have to explain the concept of someone just… being wrong about something being offensive.

report

[ - ]

Lightor@lemmy.world

1 point

1 year ago

Yes there are other variable types. Why exactly does it matter whether it’s a float or int or otherwise? We can say it’s a string if you want. What’s weird or random about using a float?

Well you said “0” harm so I assumed you were using a numeric data type, so String is out. Just felt odd to pick a random numeric data type instead of saying “the variable” is all. I would say that by you calling out “float” as a data type when it has no relevance on the topic sounds like you trying to prove you know something. Works both ways.

Yes, you have changed it from a normal float to a null reference. There is no reason to do that. You just seem to want to avoid using the number zero.

Wrong. If you are in a strongly typed language, which by you saying it’s games and using the term String I’m assuming it’s C# or Java, my guess would be C#, then it doesn’t change it. A variable declared as a float is still a float even if it is null. A float will null value is still a “normal float”, I don’t even know what an “abnormal float” would even be? A corrupt address? The data type doesn’t change. You can’t declare a float, set it to null and then use it like it has no data type, it is still of float data type. I dunno what you’re talking about man. You’re mixing the concepts of data types and value types. Having a float with a 0 value vs a float that is null are VERY VERY different. You thinking the only difference is me trying to avoid using 0 shows a gross misunderstanding of data architecture within software development.

Yeah, zero damage means no damage. Do you think you’re the first person to realise that?

No, but I don’t think you’ve realized it yet. You said there would be damage, but it would be 0. That means there is no damage. How is one thing linked to another thing that doesn’t exist? You’re now talking about perceived damages, not actual damages, which is very different. I classified my original statement as “damages” not “perceived damages” and you replied the exact same way. This concept of “there is 0 damage but someone may think there is”, is nothing but trying to change the narrative of what you said.

Listen I don’t want to have to keep explaining this, but you have muddied the waters constantly, shifting between “there being damage” and there only being “perceived” damage. Those are not the same thing, you said it is linked to damage. If it is linked to damage there must be damage that exists for it to link to. If there is no damage, then the offense is not linked to anything and my very original statement is right, they are separate.

Like i said, you could be offended because you think harm is done, but no harm has actually been done.

You keep contradicting yourself. If an offense is linked to harm, like you said, there has to be harm it is linked to. You are saying offense can exist without harm which was exactly what I said to start with and you called me wrong.

I’m getting tired of this. We’re going in circles. I don’t know why i have to explain the concept of someone just… being wrong about something being offensive.

And I don’t know why someone disagreed with me only to slowly back-peddle into agreeing with me. I originally said offense and damage are independent. You said they weren’t, now you’re saying they can be. That there can be offense without damage, without any damage, the damage that it is linked to. What you’re basically saying is like saying “To enter this building you must pay. You cannot enter without paying. But you can just pay $0 because you still paid, it’s just 0.” That’s not how logic works. You can’t pay someone $0, and you can’t experience harm/damage that doesn’t exist and you can’t tie offenses to harm/damage that doesn’t exist.

If you wanna play the “perceived harm” and “perceived offense” game. Sure anyone can perceive anything, but that was not what I said, and that was not how you responded when you called me wrong.

report

[ - ]