I got a 1470 back when I took it... 720 math, 750 verbal
As for PSAT, I don't remember what score I got but it was high enough to be a National Merit Scholarship Finalist and get money for it, so it can't have been too bad
The marketplace of ideas comes solely from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and no one else. It stems from his penning of the dissenting opinion in Abrams v. U.S.
The only other person who could have known of it before Holmes submitted is dissent was Justice Brandeis, but that would be only because Brandeis joined Holmes in the dissenting opinion.
The phrase, yes, but not the idea. In essence the "Marketplace of Ideas" is just a catchy modern term for the dialectic process discussed and examined by all of the philosophers I mentioned as well as a number of others.
Holmes' point is incredibly well articulated however, in spite of the fact that he did not really "invent" it. (Though few if any philisophical points are truly "new" but are rather revisitations of earlier work and, in spite of this, are no worse for wear). Here is the final paragraph of Holmes' most excellent dissent:
Quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes »
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States through many years had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798 (Act July 14, 1798, c. 73, 1 Stat. 596), by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants [250 U.S. 616, 631] making any exception to the sweeping command, 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.' Of course I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States.
You can find the rest of the opinion here if anyone is interested.
It has come to my attention that, in various locations throughout this forum, individuals have been discussing and arguing about the merits of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This is an excellent debate and incredibly edifying, particular in today's climate. I'm going to toss in my analysis and position on the issue and then throw open the debate on the matter. First, however, I would like to present the actual text of this glorious addition to human civilization:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just look at it. Then go back and read it again. How many times have you actually done that, and then stopped to think about what it actually means? I mean, why did a bunch of guys sitting around in the 1780's ever think of adding this to the Constitution? What's the point? Well, let’s look at the implications.
The First Amendment clearly protects, in the broadest possible sense, what has come to be known as "Freedom of Speech". It guarantees therefore that any citizen of the US may believe or say anything he or she wants and even get together in a big group to bother the government about it, not matter how foolish, backwards, or asinine other people think that it is. This means that I have the right to believe, without government interference, that my pencil is a deity, celebrities are evil, all books should be burned, George Bush is an alien, or anything else I may wish. I even have the right to try to convince others that this is the case so long as I do not interfere with their rights. The First Amendment explicitly and specifically protects all of this speech, even that which some people may find offensive.
But why; what could possibly be the value of such speech and belief? Shouldn't we stop people from saying things that are wrong or offensive? The short answer to the latter question is "no, most emphatically we should not", and this brings us closer to understanding the why. In order to more thoroughly answer this question, we must look at what happens when such speech is allowed. It means that groups that promote ideas generally viewed as backward and distasteful, such as the KKK, are explicitly protected by the government. It also offers such specific protection to speech deemed offensive by large portions of the population, such as pornography, or groups viewed as far out of the mainstream, such as the Earth Liberation Front. Yet in addition, it offers protection to progressive groups, such as civil rights, which later add to the evolution of society.
But yet the question remains; why? The answer is twofold and involves two philosophical concepts. The first is the Marketplace of Ideas, a concept developed by Plato, Hegel, John Stuart Mill and others. In short, the Marketplace of Ideas means that all ideas, no matter their apparent value, must be allowed to compete. Only through such competition will new ideas evolve with maximum efficiency, for exposing new ideas to all detractors, however obscure or old, necessarily strengthens the idea through constant reflection. Thus in short, this concept states that the freedom of speech allows society to evolve and grow at maximum efficiency. This therefore provides a positive impetus for the protection of speech.
The second concept is the so-called "slippery slope" philosophy. It is relevant here for it shows the dangers of allowing government to check behaviours such as speech. The reason for this is simple. In order for the government to regulate speech, they must be given the power to determine which speech is "good" and which is "bad". Now, this may seem simple at first; after all, isn't hate speech pretty clearly bad? Yet think about it for a moment. If the government has the power to determine this, what happens in more ambiguous cases? Regulation opens the doors to an increase in "power creep" of the government, moving to restrict more and more speech which it finds "offensive". The only way that such regulation would work is if government could be restrained from such "power creep", which history has empirically shown to be a pipe dream. This is then a negative impetus for the protection of speech and arguably rather more important than the first.
That is a very short analysis of the First Amendment and I hope to hear a great deal of discussion on the matter. Many of course will find this post too long to read, but I hope that doesn't care too many people away...
I dont think its the fact that people are afraid of losing their stuff, its the fact they have had the experience of playing offline and dont see the attraction of buying the 'cards' all over again at some insane prices and having nothing (or very little) to show for it.
I think you're correct as to the reason. Its still silly, though. I mean, what do you have to show for cards in real life? A piece of cardboard with some printing on it that, in any modern set, thousands of other people also have. On top of that, MODO has many advantages over real-life magic, especially for tournament players. Not only does it connect you to people from all over the world, thereby allowing you to trade tech and tune decks, it also allows you to practice formats, such as limited, far more cheaply and easilly than you can in real life. Plus, if you're good enough to go near nfinite, MODO really isn't that expensive
True, but at least with real cards its YOUR fault if anything happens to the cards. YOU can take measures to protect them, such as sleeves and cases.
With MTGO cards, its totally out of your hands. You have no input as to how the cards you 'own' are looked after, its based solely on trust. Its like giving all your cards to some random person you know to keep safe, and I know I wouldnt do that.
Except you don't have control over everything that could happen to your cards. I mean, there's literally a better chance that you will get into a horrific car accident which will anihilate your cards on the way to a tournament or a friends house than that all of the Wizard's servers and backups will simultaneously crash and get rid of all of your data. Also, its not like giving your things to some random person, its like letting the information be stored by a company which explicity makes its money by not having things get randomly lost like that. Much like giving your money to a bank, in fact, compared to just grumping it under your mattress.
Quote from magicdeckvortex »
Quote from khaldun »
looks neat. but id still rather just buy real cards and not have internet "cards" you are paying for lines of programming. ill never get mtgo
Amen, brother. I feel exactly the same way.
People are still way too 1980's when it comes to this kind of stuff; just because something is digital doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Lol I can just imagine how silly this entire debate will seem in 20 years.
Nonetheless, it comes to my attention that this is not the proper location for this particular discussion, being as "The Philosophical Merit of MODO" is not a rumor in any sense...:p
I've been following this for some time and think its a really cool bit of science; create a controlled collision on a body in the solar system to see what's going on. I mean, its something that happens in nature all the time but actually getting to look at it is incredible! Also, it makes NASA seem totally hardcore since now the principle purpose of one of their missions was to smash things. :tongue2:
What if mtgo had a massive crash or hack and you lost all of your pernicious deeds???
They are like $100 online!
Uhhh... this isn't exactly likely. I mean, all the data is stored on WotC servers which, like servers everywhere, are highly redundant and certainly kept in a climate controlled room with state of the art fire supression systems. Its nearly infinitely more probably that your real life cards will be stolen, burned, eaten, or vapourized than that you'll loose your online cards. So in that sense, investing in modo cards is strictly safer than buying them in real life...
In light of the type of threads that spawn here on a nearly constant basis, I would like to propose the following thesis:
Debating religion in an online forum filled with individuals from vastly disparate backgrounds is largely a futile endevour.
I'd like to make a few corollary points:
1) Look at how many threads here can be summarized as "Gay people - good or bad" or "Christianity - stupid or no". This gets incredibly redundant.
2) In all seriousness, who here has been convinced to change their opinion based on one of these threads? I'm sincerely curious; if you have, please post here. I would love to hear from someone who thinks "I used to think Christianity was kinda silly and lame but, due to these threads, I now think its the best ever"
3) To respond in advance to Furor's future arguments (My background/upbringing is conservative Christianity, so I think I might be able to anticipate some of what he might say ;)):
It could be argued, first of all, that discussing the verity of Christian claims in such a forum has the possibility, however remote, of bringing someone to faith and is therefore salutary. I would definitely agree that this would be ideal (if one were Christian and thought that converting people was a good thing :p). I would contend however that the inevitable tone of these arguments is such that people are as or even more likely to be turned off to Christianity or reinforced in their indifference rather than converted or made sympathetic.
Second, one may believe that the ignorance which some people display in their posts must be combated by the truth. However, this belies a fundamental flaw in the "online forum", namely that the public and impersonal nature of the format dissuades people from actual, constructive argumentation and rather encourages brief and often ill-thought-out responses. (Furor being a wonderful exception to this rule). Furthermore, the public nature of the forums encourages, if only subconsciously, intransigence rather than concession, for individuals dislike displaying "weakness". This is why, although public debates between equally matched opponents are highly desirable from an educational perspective, they rarely serve to convince anyone of anything.
Finally and on that note (Debates Educate People), the problem is that very few people on these forums actually know how to effectively debate. This is not a criticism of the people on these forums but merely an inevitable outcome of the audience; we're drawn together due to our love of Magic, not our training in the finer points of argumentation :P. The problem is, however, that, on incredibly difficult topics like religion in particular, very little is gained unless both sides of an argument are very well versed in their subject matter. (@Furor: If you ever want to discuss something doctrinal like Justification or the nature of the Eucharist, I'd definitely be up for it ;))
Anyway, I was just thinking on this after reading thread after thread of the same basic arguments. I for one love debates, but only when they actually go somewhere. Who’d be up for a debate on a relevant topic that hasn’t been argued up and down ten thousand times?
This change actually does make the wording on cards a lot more consistent. Now all permenants start soley with the their type (Creature, Enchantment, Artifact, Land*); this actually makes a lot more sense from a design standpoint. In addition, its very likely that this will come up in Ravnica block and we will see R&D further utilize this rules change.
Also, I think its very silly how every time anything changes people get all grumpy about it; just because something's different doesn't mean its bad. The 6th edition rules changes, for example, were largely very good, clarifying much of the game and making sure that it actually, you know, makes sense.
*Except "Basic Land"... I wonder if this will be changed soon to something like "Land - Basic Mountain", etc
I wish other players would realize this. A well-designed set has no broken cards. The problem is that most players here are Spikes, and Spikes by definition like playing games that require no skill, in other words, high power-level formats, also known as money-spending contests.
That's not at all how it works. Some people like winning tournaments and being genuinely good at magic. This means that they build the best possible decks and then practice such that they are the best they can possibly be at said deck. That's how you win Pro Tours; building the best deck and then playing a game such that your higher playskill allows you to beat all your opponents who think that good decks "require no skill to play"
As for PSAT, I don't remember what score I got but it was high enough to be a National Merit Scholarship Finalist and get money for it, so it can't have been too bad
The phrase, yes, but not the idea. In essence the "Marketplace of Ideas" is just a catchy modern term for the dialectic process discussed and examined by all of the philosophers I mentioned as well as a number of others.
Holmes' point is incredibly well articulated however, in spite of the fact that he did not really "invent" it. (Though few if any philisophical points are truly "new" but are rather revisitations of earlier work and, in spite of this, are no worse for wear). Here is the final paragraph of Holmes' most excellent dissent:
You can find the rest of the opinion here if anyone is interested.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Just look at it. Then go back and read it again. How many times have you actually done that, and then stopped to think about what it actually means? I mean, why did a bunch of guys sitting around in the 1780's ever think of adding this to the Constitution? What's the point? Well, let’s look at the implications.
The First Amendment clearly protects, in the broadest possible sense, what has come to be known as "Freedom of Speech". It guarantees therefore that any citizen of the US may believe or say anything he or she wants and even get together in a big group to bother the government about it, not matter how foolish, backwards, or asinine other people think that it is. This means that I have the right to believe, without government interference, that my pencil is a deity, celebrities are evil, all books should be burned, George Bush is an alien, or anything else I may wish. I even have the right to try to convince others that this is the case so long as I do not interfere with their rights. The First Amendment explicitly and specifically protects all of this speech, even that which some people may find offensive.
But why; what could possibly be the value of such speech and belief? Shouldn't we stop people from saying things that are wrong or offensive? The short answer to the latter question is "no, most emphatically we should not", and this brings us closer to understanding the why. In order to more thoroughly answer this question, we must look at what happens when such speech is allowed. It means that groups that promote ideas generally viewed as backward and distasteful, such as the KKK, are explicitly protected by the government. It also offers such specific protection to speech deemed offensive by large portions of the population, such as pornography, or groups viewed as far out of the mainstream, such as the Earth Liberation Front. Yet in addition, it offers protection to progressive groups, such as civil rights, which later add to the evolution of society.
But yet the question remains; why? The answer is twofold and involves two philosophical concepts. The first is the Marketplace of Ideas, a concept developed by Plato, Hegel, John Stuart Mill and others. In short, the Marketplace of Ideas means that all ideas, no matter their apparent value, must be allowed to compete. Only through such competition will new ideas evolve with maximum efficiency, for exposing new ideas to all detractors, however obscure or old, necessarily strengthens the idea through constant reflection. Thus in short, this concept states that the freedom of speech allows society to evolve and grow at maximum efficiency. This therefore provides a positive impetus for the protection of speech.
The second concept is the so-called "slippery slope" philosophy. It is relevant here for it shows the dangers of allowing government to check behaviours such as speech. The reason for this is simple. In order for the government to regulate speech, they must be given the power to determine which speech is "good" and which is "bad". Now, this may seem simple at first; after all, isn't hate speech pretty clearly bad? Yet think about it for a moment. If the government has the power to determine this, what happens in more ambiguous cases? Regulation opens the doors to an increase in "power creep" of the government, moving to restrict more and more speech which it finds "offensive". The only way that such regulation would work is if government could be restrained from such "power creep", which history has empirically shown to be a pipe dream. This is then a negative impetus for the protection of speech and arguably rather more important than the first.
That is a very short analysis of the First Amendment and I hope to hear a great deal of discussion on the matter. Many of course will find this post too long to read, but I hope that doesn't care too many people away...
I think you're correct as to the reason. Its still silly, though. I mean, what do you have to show for cards in real life? A piece of cardboard with some printing on it that, in any modern set, thousands of other people also have. On top of that, MODO has many advantages over real-life magic, especially for tournament players. Not only does it connect you to people from all over the world, thereby allowing you to trade tech and tune decks, it also allows you to practice formats, such as limited, far more cheaply and easilly than you can in real life. Plus, if you're good enough to go near nfinite, MODO really isn't that expensive
Except you don't have control over everything that could happen to your cards. I mean, there's literally a better chance that you will get into a horrific car accident which will anihilate your cards on the way to a tournament or a friends house than that all of the Wizard's servers and backups will simultaneously crash and get rid of all of your data. Also, its not like giving your things to some random person, its like letting the information be stored by a company which explicity makes its money by not having things get randomly lost like that. Much like giving your money to a bank, in fact, compared to just grumping it under your mattress.
Uhhh... this isn't exactly likely. I mean, all the data is stored on WotC servers which, like servers everywhere, are highly redundant and certainly kept in a climate controlled room with state of the art fire supression systems. Its nearly infinitely more probably that your real life cards will be stolen, burned, eaten, or vapourized than that you'll loose your online cards. So in that sense, investing in modo cards is strictly safer than buying them in real life...
They'd just change his rules text to say "all other elves" while they were at it, so he'd wind up being functionally the same.
Debating religion in an online forum filled with individuals from vastly disparate backgrounds is largely a futile endevour.
I'd like to make a few corollary points:
1) Look at how many threads here can be summarized as "Gay people - good or bad" or "Christianity - stupid or no". This gets incredibly redundant.
2) In all seriousness, who here has been convinced to change their opinion based on one of these threads? I'm sincerely curious; if you have, please post here. I would love to hear from someone who thinks "I used to think Christianity was kinda silly and lame but, due to these threads, I now think its the best ever"
3) To respond in advance to Furor's future arguments (My background/upbringing is conservative Christianity, so I think I might be able to anticipate some of what he might say ;)):
It could be argued, first of all, that discussing the verity of Christian claims in such a forum has the possibility, however remote, of bringing someone to faith and is therefore salutary. I would definitely agree that this would be ideal (if one were Christian and thought that converting people was a good thing :p). I would contend however that the inevitable tone of these arguments is such that people are as or even more likely to be turned off to Christianity or reinforced in their indifference rather than converted or made sympathetic.
Second, one may believe that the ignorance which some people display in their posts must be combated by the truth. However, this belies a fundamental flaw in the "online forum", namely that the public and impersonal nature of the format dissuades people from actual, constructive argumentation and rather encourages brief and often ill-thought-out responses. (Furor being a wonderful exception to this rule). Furthermore, the public nature of the forums encourages, if only subconsciously, intransigence rather than concession, for individuals dislike displaying "weakness". This is why, although public debates between equally matched opponents are highly desirable from an educational perspective, they rarely serve to convince anyone of anything.
Finally and on that note (Debates Educate People), the problem is that very few people on these forums actually know how to effectively debate. This is not a criticism of the people on these forums but merely an inevitable outcome of the audience; we're drawn together due to our love of Magic, not our training in the finer points of argumentation :P. The problem is, however, that, on incredibly difficult topics like religion in particular, very little is gained unless both sides of an argument are very well versed in their subject matter. (@Furor: If you ever want to discuss something doctrinal like Justification or the nature of the Eucharist, I'd definitely be up for it ;))
Anyway, I was just thinking on this after reading thread after thread of the same basic arguments. I for one love debates, but only when they actually go somewhere. Who’d be up for a debate on a relevant topic that hasn’t been argued up and down ten thousand times?
Let me know what y'all think.
Oh right; I ought to have remembered that. Thanks!
Also, I think its very silly how every time anything changes people get all grumpy about it; just because something's different doesn't mean its bad. The 6th edition rules changes, for example, were largely very good, clarifying much of the game and making sure that it actually, you know, makes sense.
*Except "Basic Land"... I wonder if this will be changed soon to something like "Land - Basic Mountain", etc
That's not at all how it works. Some people like winning tournaments and being genuinely good at magic. This means that they build the best possible decks and then practice such that they are the best they can possibly be at said deck. That's how you win Pro Tours; building the best deck and then playing a game such that your higher playskill allows you to beat all your opponents who think that good decks "require no skill to play"