Tomislav Ostojich wrote:

Let X be some object that exists only potentially. Why kind of absurdities result if it becomes actual by itself without an external agent?

(No, I haven't read Aristotle because all English translations of his work are dense and annoying, even though Cicero is alleged to have once remarked that his prose is like a river of gold.)

EDIT: This should probably be moved to "Beginner's Questions." Sorry.

Well, as the ever-enlightening and absolutely unheard-of Lady Mary Shepherd pointed out, there is a problem with grounding the process of its actualization.

Consider X's transition from being potential to being actual. Now this transition is an action, and an action is something that is performed by something actual. We now ask, what performs this action? Certainly not the thing in potentiality, since that thing only potentially exists, not actually. So it must be something else besides the thing that is becoming actual; call this thing Y. Now for Y to perform the action involved in X's becoming actual is just another way of saying that Y is actualizing X. Hence, it is absurd for some X that only exists potentially to become actual without some external agent to actualize this potentiality, since this requires there to be an action, which by definition is performed by something actual, which is not performed by anything, since neither the thing in potentially, nor anything external to it can perform it. Ergo, we have our absurdity.

DanielCC wrote:

Preferred Skyward Sword to Twilight Princeness.

Heretic!!!

My main beef with Skyward Sword was it's complete lack of non-cattle driving overworlds; all of the non-dungeon areas were little tracks of land that you traveled on in order to get to the dungeons, which ruined any sense of exploration.

DanielCC wrote:

Haven't enjoyed a large format Zelda game since Windwaker (which was attacked for what I always felt was one of its best features - the massive range for exploration the sailing mechanics allowed).

I like Wind Waker quite a bit; the large world was it's best feature by far, as well as the plethora of treasure to be had. It's greatest weakness was its easy battle mechanics; I swear I never even had to sweat once about fainting in that entire game.

The main reason why I'm excited about Breath of the Wild is that it will bring on this feature of WInd Waker; estimates based on preview clips have predicted that the world is about 2-3 times larger than Wind Waker's massive map, and much of that area is land instead of water.

I thought Twilight Princess was better than Wind Waker though, and I shift between Majora's Mask, Ocarina of Time, and Twilight Princess about which is my favorite one; I think it depends on my mood.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Alexander wrote:

My own reason has always been: Manners cost nothing.

I see no reason not to be "politically correct" in day to day conversation. Usually the phrase means little more than "not being racist or sexist", and since I do not wish to be either, I am more than happy to go along with it.

When it comes to religion, the waters get muddier. If political correctness means treating people of all creeds equally, I support it. If it means treating all creeds equally, I do not support it (and neither does anyone who really believes a creed).

Obviously there is such a thing as "political correctness gone mad", but I think this is related to political correctness as shooting up an abortion clinic is related to the pro-life movement. It's the madness people point at to discredit the larger (saner) movement.

 ​I'm not so sure. Political correctness does include just plain good manners, but it also tends to mean being overly sensitive. It means, that is, seeing racialist or sexist or whatever slights in places where they don't exist, as well as those that they do, and inflating each slight, real or imagined . Political correctness means thinking that any racialist or sexist or what have you slight is some major incident. The true political correct man sees the favoured categories of political correctness as the most important ways of dividing up reality, and the constant looking for victims and villains according to these categories as the centre of morality and politics. You only have to turn on a completely political correct TV news channel, like BBC News or CNN, and you can see they spend much of their time reporting on heroes and villains according to the political correct doctrine. Old fashioned morality and social interactions fade away and the only struggles and causes talked about are politically correct ones, except occasionally when poverty and the poor are mentioned. 

I would also add that it is not apparent to me that

…