Is it morally wrong to choose inaction, to not involve ourselves in a no-win scenario? By simply being present, are we already involved? Will God someday judge us for these most pivotal moments?
I also choose not to press x.
From a Nietzschean perspective, I would press x, because it costs me nothing and causes others to feel gratitude and indebtedness to me, and improves my mental state. Thus, it improves my condition and capacity to exercise my will for no cost. If my physical health was at risk in this scenario, beyond what I could receive in return from others, I would not. If only momentary discomfort was at risk (ie. a bruise), but the people involved would remain indebted or grateful, and see me as a "good" person (which has certain inherent benefits), it would be stupid not to, and by my personal morals it would be wrong, because I am choosing to remain weak rather than increase my influence over others at a small, momentary cost.
Philanthropy for one's benefit and mental health has certain benefits, which often outweigh the cost. If many more people did this, perhaps it would still be a stable society. Harming others for no purpose is a sign of weakness, "demonstrating" power (a sign for which the truly strong have no need). Only the strong have the luxury of "loving thy neighbour," and not doing so, but allowing others to be harmed in the same move as a loss of opportunity for yourself, is stupid and weak.
You were hit by the ball and embarrassed yourself in front of the entire school. Game Over.
wikipe-tan provides excellent demonstrations for a variety of Wikipedia articles: Example
Fan service
This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view.
I feel like I'm missing some context here. Why wouldn't I press that button?
Because it would be funny.
Also most QTEs have a set time threshold in which to avoid the default or fail state. Typically (for me) this is not enough time to
a. Detect the threat that requires action
b. Assess the appropriate response (press the โ๏ธ key and no other)
c. Find and press the โ๏ธ key.
Commonly the correct key would be randomized and any incorrect actions would result in a fail state. During the mid 2010s, a sad era, games were commonly lousy with QTEs meaning we get to see Lara die over and over and over again.
Some games got creative such as having nonโdeath fail states (have another beer, or try to seduce the conversing NPC)
July 2007 โ a suggestive image of Wikipe-tan (not drawn by Kasuga) was proposed for use in the article on lolicon. The image was removed from Commons by Jimbo Wales, who called Wikipe-tan a "community mascot" who should not be subject to such "pedophilic sexualization". Kasuga later drew a new image for the article which did not use Wikipe-tan.
Poor Jimbo ain't get enough credit for putting up with this shit.
I choose not to press x
Is it morally wrong to choose inaction, to not involve ourselves in a no-win scenario? By simply being present, are we already involved? Will God someday judge us for these most pivotal moments?
I also choose not to press x.
From a Nietzschean perspective, I would press x, because it costs me nothing and causes others to feel gratitude and indebtedness to me, and improves my mental state. Thus, it improves my condition and capacity to exercise my will for no cost. If my physical health was at risk in this scenario, beyond what I could receive in return from others, I would not. If only momentary discomfort was at risk (ie. a bruise), but the people involved would remain indebted or grateful, and see me as a "good" person (which has certain inherent benefits), it would be stupid not to, and by my personal morals it would be wrong, because I am choosing to remain weak rather than increase my influence over others at a small, momentary cost.
Philanthropy for one's benefit and mental health has certain benefits, which often outweigh the cost. If many more people did this, perhaps it would still be a stable society. Harming others for no purpose is a sign of weakness, "demonstrating" power (a sign for which the truly strong have no need). Only the strong have the luxury of "loving thy neighbour," and not doing so, but allowing others to be harmed in the same move as a loss of opportunity for yourself, is stupid and weak.
You were hit by the ball and embarrassed yourself in front of the entire school. Game Over.
wikipe-tan provides excellent demonstrations for a variety of Wikipedia articles: Example
hmm
This article also has Wikipe-tan on it
Oh no, she's hot.
They should use her to push donations!
Don't you dare press that button.
I feel like I'm missing some context here. Why wouldn't I press that button?
Because it would be funny.
Also most QTEs have a set time threshold in which to avoid the default or fail state. Typically (for me) this is not enough time to
a. Detect the threat that requires action
b. Assess the appropriate response (press the โ๏ธ key and no other)
c. Find and press the โ๏ธ key.
Commonly the correct key would be randomized and any incorrect actions would result in a fail state. During the mid 2010s, a sad era, games were commonly lousy with QTEs meaning we get to see Lara die over and over and over again.
Some games got creative such as having nonโdeath fail states (have another beer, or try to seduce the conversing NPC)
Poor Jimbo ain't get enough credit for putting up with this shit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan
I choose to press. What did she do wrong?
OMG where did that rabbit hole lead me