Because, you may have noticed many of his bold predictions are now revealed for what they were: a political agenda and not actual science.
Even if they aligned pretty well with political agendas, that doesn't by itself make them false. Keynesianism aligns well with political agendas. Marxism aligns well with political agendas. Climate change aligns well. Climate denialism aligns well. Anything in science can align or misalign well.
So, what did those predictions come to? Did they hit? Or did they miss? That's the only question that matters.
By the way: von Mises predicted 70 years in advance the results of the Russian economic planification experiment. His predictions aligned with libertarian political agendas. They came right all the same. If anything, that (and Hayek's) suggest libertarian political agendas have something more to them.
Yes, it has, because when you wrote "your proposal would mean all startups would need to have their first employees be a watchdog group to set up controls so every future employee could never commit a crime" that's exactly what you did. Proceed in this manner and in a matter of hours you'll have a full set of workable proposals.:-)
By the way:
I would ever invest in any company / I would never start a company
That's fine. You'd be an employee or, better yet, a small scale entrepreneur. A world of small scale entrepreneurs is a good outcome for me. And, to be sure, it's part of an already developed economic system: Distributism.
No, it isn't. Suppose you yourself were living in the scenario I described above and, yes, if an individual below you commits fraud you are responsible too. How would you act? How would you setup your company so as to avoid being sent to prison by effect of middle managers' greed?
I'm sure the simple fact I asked question has caused you to begin thinking on possible risk mitigation solutions, hasn't it?
Now think an entire world of entrepreneurs thinking over that exact same question. Don't you think they'd have developed and kept improving best practices? Practices that are so ingrained in such a world's entrepreneurial culture they are taught in universities, absorbed in trainee years, and all but became second nature to anyone who deals with any significant amount of money?
Yes, it's workable. It might be unimaginable if you only spent one minute thinking about it. For a culture that spent (or were beginning to spend) tens of thousands of man-years thinking about it however, not so much. There, it's just how things are.
If they required these managers to invest significant amounts of their own money in the company before taking the job, they wouldn't take the job in the first place because it would always be a horrible investment from a diversification standpoint.
The simple and easy solution to this is to completely eliminate the shielding that exists between investors' personal assets and the concrete results of corporate policies.
If an investor is personally responsible for everything his money helped cause, then extreme diversification becomes a severe liability. Did you invest in an investment fund that purchased shares in your name from a company that was found to subcontract to a company involved in child slavery? Now you are guilty of personally trading in child slavery, will all the legal and criminal implications involved in it, including the legal obligation to fully compensate your victims, no workarounds allowed, not even insurance shielding. Don't want risk ending bankrupt and in jail because you put your money where it shouldn't be? Don't invest in anything you don't know perfectly well, be always on top of things, and never allow it to lead to anything even remotely socially negative.
That alone would do wonders in making the entire world of big business turn from the greedy rapaciousness we came to expect of it into one in which every rich person takes extreme care about where they put their money, as putting their money anywhere, including in a bank account, now has consequences that go far beyond merely losing that amount.
Investment funds would still exist, but they'd be very different. Instead of just huge analytical schemes trying to find where's the highest ROI and switching what they according this one single parameter, they'd have troops of managers directly combing very finely every legal and moral aspect of whatever they were looking into putting their clients' money so as to be absolutely sure not only their clients, but they themselves, would not end up poor and in jail.
Do you know that old saying according which freedom requires responsibility? Modern capitalism has set things in such a way that the rich have tons of freedom and very little actual responsibility. Fixing that doesn't require toppling capitalism. Rebalancing things so that responsibility grows proportionally with freedom would to the trick.
PP was a project of of eugenicists back in the day. They didn't want to outright kill blacks, but they wanted blacks to have less children than whites and thus, over time, for their relative (and maybe absolute) numbers to decrease in comparison to that of whites, thus "whitening" American society. A "soft genocide", so to speak.
The Wikipedia article on PP's founder provides more details about her views. Which, it is important to note, aren't the current view of PP.
Stop trying to explain the past to people who read about it already.
Sure! I'll tell that to all my teachers back at the University, in particular the ones who taught me Philosophy of Science I to IV, Philosophy of Physics and Philosophy of Biology. They'll love finally finding themselves enlightened! Thanks a bunch! (y)
especially the natural philosophers, or as we call them now, scientists
No. Scientist work from within a set of philosophical assumptions about a huge number of things, assumptions that are taken as givens "just because".
The good philosophers open up that black box of assumption and go on questioning, HARD, every single one of those. And none of those stuff scientists assume can be falsified, because they're the very basis upon which non-falsifiable methodological constructs such as the principle of falsifiability are built.
Philosophy is the art of making the annoying questions, no matter who gets annoyed, all the while never accepting hand waves such as "well, it works".
What all philosopher, from everywhere and every time, did best, was to look around, think really hard about what they were seeing, notice something didn't fit, and express it. Expressing it usually comes in the form of trying to solve the problem (it's rare the person who simply asks the questions and stays at that), so it isn't a surprise that such a proposed solution, being the first attempt at solving that problem no one else had noticed, is weak. But then come others who down the line actually manage to solve it well.
Aristotle, by all accounts the third philosopher, wrote a book called "Questions". If I remember correctly, it's 400 pages of just that. After 2400 years we solved 20% of the book, and most of those 20% solutions only very recently.
Add to that all the questions philosophers since then made, and how the attempt at solving those questions led to progresses in all area, and you see that the task philosophers have is actually quite important. Annoying as hell, but important all the same.
If they don't want to eat whales or use their skins - that's fine - but they don't have the right to ram down their viewpoints down everyone else's throats, particularly other countries. It reminds me of abortion - if you don't like it, then don't have one but leave other people alone.
Precisely. And the same should be applied to laws against animal torture. If you don't like to slowly rip the flesh out from living kittens, then smashing their toes with hammers, and finally setting their bloodied bodies in fire, then just don't do it. As for those who enjoy hearing the screams of tortured dying kittens, let them./sarcasm
This is precisely why I enable telemetry data in any software I use that uses it. If that specific bit data collection is in place, it will be used to determine future development of the software, so I well might try and help the software developers know that yes, I do use these menu options.
Alas, my telemetered usage of tab groups in Firefox didn't help this feature stay, and I wonder how many power users never let Mozilla know they use it in the first place. Sigh.
I've been considering moving to Pale Moon due to Mozilla's dumbing down of Firefox. The fun thing with that is that, while Pale Moon did this before, tab groups can be added back if one so wishes: Pale Moon Tab Groups add-on. And it also allows installing the Australis theme if one likes it (I do): Australium theme. So, yeah, I'm moving there sooner rather than later now...
Since eating a hamburger or a chicken sandwich is perfectly fine, morally speaking
Why, every moral person knows that, if it is for their own enjoyment, causing pain to another being is fine. For example, what's wrong with setting cats on fire? It's pleasurable to my eyes to see them running alight, to my nose to smell their burnt fur and flesh, and to my ears to hear them screaming. Ditto for, without anesthesia, burning chicken beaks, ripping pigs testicles and ripping cattle tails, then painfully slaughtering them. It makes their corpses' taste more pleasurable to my tongue, and that alone makes it right.
OS X is not easy to use. It's counter-intuitive as hell.
It depends on your background. If you already know a UI, switching to another one will feel annoying and counterintuitive unless the new one works almost exactly like the first. But I remember reading that complete computer illiterate beginners, including small children, get up to speed in Mac OS X's UI in less time than they do in other UIs. If that's accurate, the claim that Mac OS X is in general more intuitive would be correct.
What you're expressing is your deeply held faith in continued technological progress. You believe that progress is accelerating and that there is no upper bound. How would you defend those beliefs?
The main reason is that these are all multi-layered recursive processes (irrespective of you agreeing or not, check the small sequence of blog posts linked below to understand what this refers to -- detail: the author thinks Kurzweil a pessimist...). Therefore, an upper bound certainly exists, but barred resource limits, until we get there the growth will continue being exponential, not linear.
That prediction about it taking centuries then? Make it "n * log( guess in years )" years and, all things remaining the same, you'll probably be closer to the actual time it'll take, if it'll happen at all. If no "because bounds", then no, but that's another matter entirely.
PS.: If the above feels like TL;DR, the important ones are parts 4 and 5. Parts 1 to 3 help 4 and 5 feel more intuitive, but they can be easily skipped.
I don't see how asking for evidence for your claim that "people cosplay hockey" is the NTS fallacy.
Cosplay goes from partial to theatrical production with full makeup. You restricted your side to complete outfits, playing on the fact I randomly mentioned hockey. Other sports, let's say, soccer, use simpler outfits whose fans completely emulate.
But the point you're trying to avoid is this: the delimitation between what is proper adult behavior and what is child behavior is cultural. Sport fans act in every single way exactly like anime, video-game, sci-fi etc. fans, but no one thinks it strange because they're used to seeing it all around. This familiarity is the sole thing that gives any of it the "air" of legitimacy, and that's all there is to it. Objectively, there's no difference except this one, and it's one that's being slowly closed.
Since English Literature has no actual bearing on Pokemon
Actually it does, by means of something that goes beyond it. Pokemon, as almost any work of fiction, including the fairy tales Lewis studied and worked upon (including writing them) and including adult stories, even hard core military fiction, are variations of the same set of narrative elements, that of the monomyth. The teenage boy catching big-eyed cute pseudo-monsters in an all-primary-colors world, or the hardened veteran of a thousand battles watching his companions gruesomely dismembered one by one while struggling to survive in a scenario of nightmares where death is the easy way out and nothing but supreme sacrifices will work, are both the same story. The difference in setting, tone and style are fluff, a matter of taste and preference, and little more.
But you didn't. Instead, you got all defensive.
You asked in an aggressive manner and you got aggressive replies. As for your rephrased and deescalated question, the answer is simple: adults still play Pokemon because for them it's fun to play Pokemon. The same reason anyone does any past time.
Now, would you want a reason for you to play Pokemon? I doubt I'd have any to offer, not even the simple one that you should try it. The reason is that what you wrote make it clear you'd feel so uncomfortable trying a "children's game", so challenged by what others might think if they saw you doing such a thing, that any enjoyment you could discover in the game itself would be overshadowed by that extra layer of negative social expectations, resulting in an almost certain verdict of "it sucks". So, there's no point.
Now, adults who an enjoy "children" things are precisely those who, like Lewis, are able to give the middle finger to that social layer and look at things objectively. For them, the experience of playing for the first time something like a Pokemon game, is one of experiencing that thing, not one of experiencing that thing through the lens and these concepts, those norms, those expectations, these opinions etc. They can allow themselves to enjoy whatever they want enjoy.
Want to have this experience? First thing, learn to not ask yourself anymore whether this or that is something that {list of things you are} "can" enjoy. Managed that? Then I say, go try those games. Then, and only then, you'll be able to say with full knowledge whether it's something worth playing. Note: not "something an adult should be playing", something worth playing.
Yes. And once you've grown enough, after decades of effort at adulting, you finally reach the ultimate level: a pretty good dominoes player. Not to mention a regular at the local bingo parlor.
Send me multiple links of many people wearing complete...
Adults write children's books. That doesn't mean they obsess over them.
And as an adult, I allow myself to obsess over books written by other adults.
You're the second person to quote that to me.
I was the first. As for him not being an arbiter of opinion, actually he is. That isn't an "opinion". That's his expert advice as one of the foremost scholars in the field of English literature.
Now, evidently you may disagree. But then, who am I to prevent someone from being of an opinion mutatis mutandi similar to that of a flat Earth apologist? Have fun within your prejudice-delimited field of "permissible content". In the meantime, we'll continue having fun with literally anything and everything we want.
More specifically, some things you grow out of because you grow into other, more mature, interests.
"Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis
And what "other, more mature, interests" do you suggest Pokemon players pursue?
Sports, evidently. Sporting is what adults do. Pokemon video-gaming, bad. Football video-gaming, good. What? Children also play football video-games? Oh, but that's just them wanting to grow up, so it's fine!
Also, cosplaying. True adults don't cosplay. I mean, they don't cosplay Pokemon team's uniforms. Hockey team uniforms, now, those are fine to cosplay.
Also, let's not forget that only children write Pokemon games. Adults never do that. And those rare that do, they hate every single minute of their day. They could all be adulting, and instead they're childring. That's just plain evil! They could be cosplaying their sporting team, and by means of that showing all their grown up adulting, but no, they're forced to be childring. Oh, how they suffer! I'm sad for them. So, so many sporting stuff they could be doing. Sad.:(
Bitter much? I see a diatribe coming from your keyboard, but nothing refuting any of the points made.
There's nothing to be refuted proper. This is all based on speculation, in turn based on these and those metaphysical assumptions, in turn based on what certain religious seers said they perceived. It can be right, it can be wrong, it can be neither.
The situation is strictly similar to that famous episode regarding Galileo in which someone, after looking through his telescope and seeing mountains in the Moon, and noticing it went against his belief that the planets were perfect spheres -- a belief sustained upon the best, most well argued for ideas from the best Philosophers of the previous 2000 years and upon the same religious seers --, argued that all the valleys were filled by a perfectly transparent substance that guaranteed the Moon remained a perfect sphere. Galileo quipped that yes, this invisible substance was certainly there, except it was all accumulated on top of the lunar mountains, making them even taller than they seem to be, and therefore the Moon even less spherical than the other guy thought.
Nice. There's hope then you're one of the pots that will be thrown to the ground and tread upon. What is it you say? That you thought you were one of the glorified ones? My, oh, my, isn't that rich? Having the broken pots believe themselves the ones that'll get into the glory is precisely where all the fun is!
Oh? What? You think that's unfair? Here's some mind rape. Now, now, don't be like that. You're now convinced you deserve eternal torture, don't you? Yes, nod, exactly like that, yes. Good boy! I'll leave now. Please keep screaming as high as you can, okay? The sound is quite pleasant, and we wouldn't want me non-pleased, right? Good, good! That's how I like it!
Now, to fix those saved over there. They seem to be getting some horrified expressions in their faces. Breaking their minds so that they feel joy in watching my Hell and sing non-stop praising my torture of their former loved ones is a full time job. Sigh. Oh, well, no infinite sadistic megalomania is complete without a chorus of non-stop screams and hosannas from billions of voices at full lungs, and some god has to make things work around here...
Then "APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit" isn't flexible enough for my needs. I guess I'll wait until you add the missing automation, granularity and fine tune controls then. Until then I'll keep using uBlock Origin, as it provides me with the features I need.
SO WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PAY THEM FOR THAT WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY FUCKING YOU OVER ON NUMEROUS LEVELS?
I like their content, and I like the fact they earn enough from ads to be able to work full time in making this content and providing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, you may have noticed many of his bold predictions are now revealed for what they were: a political agenda and not actual science.
Even if they aligned pretty well with political agendas, that doesn't by itself make them false. Keynesianism aligns well with political agendas. Marxism aligns well with political agendas. Climate change aligns well. Climate denialism aligns well. Anything in science can align or misalign well.
So, what did those predictions come to? Did they hit? Or did they miss? That's the only question that matters.
By the way: von Mises predicted 70 years in advance the results of the Russian economic planification experiment. His predictions aligned with libertarian political agendas. They came right all the same. If anything, that (and Hayek's) suggest libertarian political agendas have something more to them.
No, it hasn't.
Yes, it has, because when you wrote "your proposal would mean all startups would need to have their first employees be a watchdog group to set up controls so every future employee could never commit a crime" that's exactly what you did. Proceed in this manner and in a matter of hours you'll have a full set of workable proposals. :-)
By the way:
I would ever invest in any company / I would never start a company
That's fine. You'd be an employee or, better yet, a small scale entrepreneur. A world of small scale entrepreneurs is a good outcome for me. And, to be sure, it's part of an already developed economic system: Distributism.
It is simply silly.
No, it isn't. Suppose you yourself were living in the scenario I described above and, yes, if an individual below you commits fraud you are responsible too. How would you act? How would you setup your company so as to avoid being sent to prison by effect of middle managers' greed?
I'm sure the simple fact I asked question has caused you to begin thinking on possible risk mitigation solutions, hasn't it?
Now think an entire world of entrepreneurs thinking over that exact same question. Don't you think they'd have developed and kept improving best practices? Practices that are so ingrained in such a world's entrepreneurial culture they are taught in universities, absorbed in trainee years, and all but became second nature to anyone who deals with any significant amount of money?
Yes, it's workable. It might be unimaginable if you only spent one minute thinking about it. For a culture that spent (or were beginning to spend) tens of thousands of man-years thinking about it however, not so much. There, it's just how things are.
If they required these managers to invest significant amounts of their own money in the company before taking the job, they wouldn't take the job in the first place because it would always be a horrible investment from a diversification standpoint.
The simple and easy solution to this is to completely eliminate the shielding that exists between investors' personal assets and the concrete results of corporate policies.
If an investor is personally responsible for everything his money helped cause, then extreme diversification becomes a severe liability. Did you invest in an investment fund that purchased shares in your name from a company that was found to subcontract to a company involved in child slavery? Now you are guilty of personally trading in child slavery, will all the legal and criminal implications involved in it, including the legal obligation to fully compensate your victims, no workarounds allowed, not even insurance shielding. Don't want risk ending bankrupt and in jail because you put your money where it shouldn't be? Don't invest in anything you don't know perfectly well, be always on top of things, and never allow it to lead to anything even remotely socially negative.
That alone would do wonders in making the entire world of big business turn from the greedy rapaciousness we came to expect of it into one in which every rich person takes extreme care about where they put their money, as putting their money anywhere, including in a bank account, now has consequences that go far beyond merely losing that amount.
Investment funds would still exist, but they'd be very different. Instead of just huge analytical schemes trying to find where's the highest ROI and switching what they according this one single parameter, they'd have troops of managers directly combing very finely every legal and moral aspect of whatever they were looking into putting their clients' money so as to be absolutely sure not only their clients, but they themselves, would not end up poor and in jail.
Do you know that old saying according which freedom requires responsibility? Modern capitalism has set things in such a way that the rich have tons of freedom and very little actual responsibility. Fixing that doesn't require toppling capitalism. Rebalancing things so that responsibility grows proportionally with freedom would to the trick.
PP was a project of of eugenicists back in the day. They didn't want to outright kill blacks, but they wanted blacks to have less children than whites and thus, over time, for their relative (and maybe absolute) numbers to decrease in comparison to that of whites, thus "whitening" American society. A "soft genocide", so to speak.
The Wikipedia article on PP's founder provides more details about her views. Which, it is important to note, aren't the current view of PP.
Maybe you should follow Feynman's lead and just admit you took the class, passed, and yet have no idea what it was about?
Certainly, as now you've enlightened me too! Isn't that cool?
Stop trying to explain the past to people who read about it already.
Sure! I'll tell that to all my teachers back at the University, in particular the ones who taught me Philosophy of Science I to IV, Philosophy of Physics and Philosophy of Biology. They'll love finally finding themselves enlightened! Thanks a bunch! (y)
especially the natural philosophers, or as we call them now, scientists
No. Scientist work from within a set of philosophical assumptions about a huge number of things, assumptions that are taken as givens "just because".
The good philosophers open up that black box of assumption and go on questioning, HARD, every single one of those. And none of those stuff scientists assume can be falsified, because they're the very basis upon which non-falsifiable methodological constructs such as the principle of falsifiability are built.
Philosophy is the art of making the annoying questions, no matter who gets annoyed, all the while never accepting hand waves such as "well, it works".
Science is "how", philosophy is "why".
Actually, philosophy is "wait a minute..."
What all philosopher, from everywhere and every time, did best, was to look around, think really hard about what they were seeing, notice something didn't fit, and express it. Expressing it usually comes in the form of trying to solve the problem (it's rare the person who simply asks the questions and stays at that), so it isn't a surprise that such a proposed solution, being the first attempt at solving that problem no one else had noticed, is weak. But then come others who down the line actually manage to solve it well.
Aristotle, by all accounts the third philosopher, wrote a book called "Questions". If I remember correctly, it's 400 pages of just that. After 2400 years we solved 20% of the book, and most of those 20% solutions only very recently.
Add to that all the questions philosophers since then made, and how the attempt at solving those questions led to progresses in all area, and you see that the task philosophers have is actually quite important. Annoying as hell, but important all the same.
If they don't want to eat whales or use their skins - that's fine - but they don't have the right to ram down their viewpoints down everyone else's throats, particularly other countries. It reminds me of abortion - if you don't like it, then don't have one but leave other people alone.
Precisely. And the same should be applied to laws against animal torture. If you don't like to slowly rip the flesh out from living kittens, then smashing their toes with hammers, and finally setting their bloodied bodies in fire, then just don't do it. As for those who enjoy hearing the screams of tortured dying kittens, let them. /sarcasm
Just because the Japs ain't 'whites' does not make them any way 'inferior' to the people from the Western countries
They could be superior. Instead, they chose to be as low as everyone else.
I think it was Windows-only in the past, but I just checked and nowadays there are also official Linux and Android versions too.
This is precisely why I enable telemetry data in any software I use that uses it. If that specific bit data collection is in place, it will be used to determine future development of the software, so I well might try and help the software developers know that yes, I do use these menu options.
Alas, my telemetered usage of tab groups in Firefox didn't help this feature stay, and I wonder how many power users never let Mozilla know they use it in the first place. Sigh.
I've been considering moving to Pale Moon due to Mozilla's dumbing down of Firefox. The fun thing with that is that, while Pale Moon did this before, tab groups can be added back if one so wishes: Pale Moon Tab Groups add-on. And it also allows installing the Australis theme if one likes it (I do): Australium theme. So, yeah, I'm moving there sooner rather than later now...
Since eating a hamburger or a chicken sandwich is perfectly fine, morally speaking
Why, every moral person knows that, if it is for their own enjoyment, causing pain to another being is fine. For example, what's wrong with setting cats on fire? It's pleasurable to my eyes to see them running alight, to my nose to smell their burnt fur and flesh, and to my ears to hear them screaming. Ditto for, without anesthesia, burning chicken beaks, ripping pigs testicles and ripping cattle tails, then painfully slaughtering them. It makes their corpses' taste more pleasurable to my tongue, and that alone makes it right.
Right?
OS X is not easy to use. It's counter-intuitive as hell.
It depends on your background. If you already know a UI, switching to another one will feel annoying and counterintuitive unless the new one works almost exactly like the first. But I remember reading that complete computer illiterate beginners, including small children, get up to speed in Mac OS X's UI in less time than they do in other UIs. If that's accurate, the claim that Mac OS X is in general more intuitive would be correct.
I somehow doubt they actually get 2.99 euros in ad revenue per reader per month so as to make this a fair exchange. More like 0.10, maybe?
What you're expressing is your deeply held faith in continued technological progress. You believe that progress is accelerating and that there is no upper bound. How would you defend those beliefs?
The main reason is that these are all multi-layered recursive processes (irrespective of you agreeing or not, check the small sequence of blog posts linked below to understand what this refers to -- detail: the author thinks Kurzweil a pessimist...). Therefore, an upper bound certainly exists, but barred resource limits, until we get there the growth will continue being exponential, not linear.
That prediction about it taking centuries then? Make it "n * log( guess in years )" years and, all things remaining the same, you'll probably be closer to the actual time it'll take, if it'll happen at all. If no "because bounds", then no, but that's another matter entirely.
Part 1: The First World Takeover ...Recursion, Magic
Part 2: Life's Story Continues
Part 3: Surprised by Brains
Part 4: Cascades, Cycles, Insight...
Part 5:
PS.: If the above feels like TL;DR, the important ones are parts 4 and 5. Parts 1 to 3 help 4 and 5 feel more intuitive, but they can be easily skipped.
I don't see how asking for evidence for your claim that "people cosplay hockey" is the NTS fallacy.
Cosplay goes from partial to theatrical production with full makeup. You restricted your side to complete outfits, playing on the fact I randomly mentioned hockey. Other sports, let's say, soccer, use simpler outfits whose fans completely emulate.
But the point you're trying to avoid is this: the delimitation between what is proper adult behavior and what is child behavior is cultural. Sport fans act in every single way exactly like anime, video-game, sci-fi etc. fans, but no one thinks it strange because they're used to seeing it all around. This familiarity is the sole thing that gives any of it the "air" of legitimacy, and that's all there is to it. Objectively, there's no difference except this one, and it's one that's being slowly closed.
Since English Literature has no actual bearing on Pokemon
Actually it does, by means of something that goes beyond it. Pokemon, as almost any work of fiction, including the fairy tales Lewis studied and worked upon (including writing them) and including adult stories, even hard core military fiction, are variations of the same set of narrative elements, that of the monomyth. The teenage boy catching big-eyed cute pseudo-monsters in an all-primary-colors world, or the hardened veteran of a thousand battles watching his companions gruesomely dismembered one by one while struggling to survive in a scenario of nightmares where death is the easy way out and nothing but supreme sacrifices will work, are both the same story. The difference in setting, tone and style are fluff, a matter of taste and preference, and little more.
But you didn't. Instead, you got all defensive.
You asked in an aggressive manner and you got aggressive replies. As for your rephrased and deescalated question, the answer is simple: adults still play Pokemon because for them it's fun to play Pokemon. The same reason anyone does any past time.
Now, would you want a reason for you to play Pokemon? I doubt I'd have any to offer, not even the simple one that you should try it. The reason is that what you wrote make it clear you'd feel so uncomfortable trying a "children's game", so challenged by what others might think if they saw you doing such a thing, that any enjoyment you could discover in the game itself would be overshadowed by that extra layer of negative social expectations, resulting in an almost certain verdict of "it sucks". So, there's no point.
Now, adults who an enjoy "children" things are precisely those who, like Lewis, are able to give the middle finger to that social layer and look at things objectively. For them, the experience of playing for the first time something like a Pokemon game, is one of experiencing that thing, not one of experiencing that thing through the lens and these concepts, those norms, those expectations, these opinions etc. They can allow themselves to enjoy whatever they want enjoy.
Want to have this experience? First thing, learn to not ask yourself anymore whether this or that is something that {list of things you are} "can" enjoy. Managed that? Then I say, go try those games. Then, and only then, you'll be able to say with full knowledge whether it's something worth playing. Note: not "something an adult should be playing", something worth playing.
Sports change with age.
Yes. And once you've grown enough, after decades of effort at adulting, you finally reach the ultimate level: a pretty good dominoes player. Not to mention a regular at the local bingo parlor.
Send me multiple links of many people wearing complete...
Yay! Let's play No true Scotsman as the adults we are!
Adults write children's books. That doesn't mean they obsess over them.
And as an adult, I allow myself to obsess over books written by other adults.
You're the second person to quote that to me.
I was the first. As for him not being an arbiter of opinion, actually he is. That isn't an "opinion". That's his expert advice as one of the foremost scholars in the field of English literature.
Now, evidently you may disagree. But then, who am I to prevent someone from being of an opinion mutatis mutandi similar to that of a flat Earth apologist? Have fun within your prejudice-delimited field of "permissible content". In the meantime, we'll continue having fun with literally anything and everything we want.
More specifically, some things you grow out of because you grow into other, more mature, interests.
"Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -- C.S. Lewis
Grow up.
And what "other, more mature, interests" do you suggest Pokemon players pursue?
Sports, evidently. Sporting is what adults do. Pokemon video-gaming, bad. Football video-gaming, good. What? Children also play football video-games? Oh, but that's just them wanting to grow up, so it's fine!
Also, cosplaying. True adults don't cosplay. I mean, they don't cosplay Pokemon team's uniforms. Hockey team uniforms, now, those are fine to cosplay.
Also, let's not forget that only children write Pokemon games. Adults never do that. And those rare that do, they hate every single minute of their day. They could all be adulting, and instead they're childring. That's just plain evil! They could be cosplaying their sporting team, and by means of that showing all their grown up adulting, but no, they're forced to be childring. Oh, how they suffer! I'm sad for them. So, so many sporting stuff they could be doing. Sad. :(
Bitter much? I see a diatribe coming from your keyboard, but nothing refuting any of the points made.
There's nothing to be refuted proper. This is all based on speculation, in turn based on these and those metaphysical assumptions, in turn based on what certain religious seers said they perceived. It can be right, it can be wrong, it can be neither.
The situation is strictly similar to that famous episode regarding Galileo in which someone, after looking through his telescope and seeing mountains in the Moon, and noticing it went against his belief that the planets were perfect spheres -- a belief sustained upon the best, most well argued for ideas from the best Philosophers of the previous 2000 years and upon the same religious seers --, argued that all the valleys were filled by a perfectly transparent substance that guaranteed the Moon remained a perfect sphere. Galileo quipped that yes, this invisible substance was certainly there, except it was all accumulated on top of the lunar mountains, making them even taller than they seem to be, and therefore the Moon even less spherical than the other guy thought.
Nice. There's hope then you're one of the pots that will be thrown to the ground and tread upon. What is it you say? That you thought you were one of the glorified ones? My, oh, my, isn't that rich? Having the broken pots believe themselves the ones that'll get into the glory is precisely where all the fun is!
Oh? What? You think that's unfair? Here's some mind rape. Now, now, don't be like that. You're now convinced you deserve eternal torture, don't you? Yes, nod, exactly like that, yes. Good boy! I'll leave now. Please keep screaming as high as you can, okay? The sound is quite pleasant, and we wouldn't want me non-pleased, right? Good, good! That's how I like it!
Now, to fix those saved over there. They seem to be getting some horrified expressions in their faces. Breaking their minds so that they feel joy in watching my Hell and sing non-stop praising my torture of their former loved ones is a full time job. Sigh. Oh, well, no infinite sadistic megalomania is complete without a chorus of non-stop screams and hosannas from billions of voices at full lungs, and some god has to make things work around here...
The Christian god loves you so, so, so much, that he died for your sins!
Now, in the of chance you might, maybe, not love him just as much, over there's the place he prepared for you. You know, just in case.
[/sarcasm]
All or nothing across all apps multiplatform.
Then "APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit" isn't flexible enough for my needs. I guess I'll wait until you add the missing automation, granularity and fine tune controls then. Until then I'll keep using uBlock Origin, as it provides me with the features I need.
SO WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PAY THEM FOR THAT WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY FUCKING YOU OVER ON NUMEROUS LEVELS?
I like their content, and I like the fact they earn enough from ads to be able to work full time in making this content and providing it.