Where is the storyline for Sylvanas loyalists?

[huth]

So I'm not allowed to say it's possible to be objective, but you're allowed to say it's impossible to be objective. That's not how any of this works. How are you gonna prove that no one can possible ever reach the knowledge necessary on a subject to be objective about it? Mind you, many people have reached that about several subjects already, so I'm really curious how you're gonan dig yourself out of that one.

Nobody has ever reached that point. Even the most knowledgeable scientists can fall prey to confirmation bias.

Mostly because "being objective" is not causally linked to being knowledgeable on a topic. It's causally linked with not having emotions to interfere with the process. A computer can be objective. You can't. There is no such thing as "enough knowledge to be objective".

[CrawlFromThePit]

Nobody has ever reached that point. Even the most knowledgeable scientists can fall prey to confirmation bias.

Mostly because "being objective" is not causally linked to being knowledgeable on a topic. It's causally linked with not having emotions to interfere with the process. A computer can be objective. You can't. There is no such thing as "enough knowledge to be objective".

If you claim no one has ever reached that point you create a loophole of your own argument because you can't prove that claim either. You would have to say "I don't believe anyone reached that point" to which I'll say "believe what you want, I couldn't care less".

[huth]

If you claim no one has ever reached that point you create a loophole of your own argument because you can't prove that claim either. You would have to say "I don't believe anyone reached that point" to which I'll say "believe what you want, I couldn't care less".

Nobody reached that point because it is unreachable. And it has been proven. There's whole fields of biology and medicine investigating these things.

You might as well claim that i can't say that no one ever reached the center of the Sun walking on foot. Of course i can say that, because it isn't currently physically possible to succeed at that task.

[Biske]

They are the Monster Faction that is also the Invading faction, I can't help that they missed out on the opportunity to make them the Evil/ Bad faction, this would have made things so much easier to understand and make much more sense over the years.

Sorry for the super slow replies. Anyway, yeah, it certainly would have made it easier, and that's how it was in WC1 and most of WC2 (which is where they started dropping hints that orcs weren't just green Satan, although they were still objectively bad), but personally I'm just kind of tired of that trope. I like monsters and outcasts being more relatable and not evil. I'm fully aware this is just a personal taste thing, so don't feel like I'm saying that you're wrong or anything.

[CrawlFromThePit]

Nobody reached that point because it is unreachable. And it has been proven. There's whole fields of biology and medicine investigating these things.

You might as well claim that i can't say that no one ever reached the center of the Sun walking on foot. Of course i can say that, because it isn't currently physically possible to succeed at that task.

There are subjects in this world that are simple enough to know everything there is about it, therefore reaching the point of objectivity.

I'm glad you bring out the field of medicine actually, while it is true that this is far too complexe for one person to know everything about it, there are people who specialize in a specific aspect of it and reach the point of knowing all there is to know about it.
A simple example would be epilepsy, people used to think this was demonic possession. That was their uninformed opinion, just like this guy over here with his uninformed opinion, and next to him I'm a doctor who knows it's not demonic possession. That's what I mean with this whole thing, I never said someone could know everything there is about the entire universe, it's just as ridiculous as thinking it's impossible to know enough about 1 subject to be objective about it.

[Manhands]

Sylvanas: You're all puppets for me to abuse!
OP: Cool, cool. Where are we going next?

[huth]

There are subjects in this world that are simple enough to know everything there is about it, therefore reaching the point of objectivity.

You're still subjective about topics you have exhaustive knowledge about. You're mistaking educated opinions for objectivity.

Objective doesn't mean correct. It means it is independent of the observer. It doesn't matter what ruler you use(notwhithstanding faulty products), a 1m iron rod will always measure 1m. But you can never guarantee that somebody else will percieve it in the same way you do, regardless of knowledge. Most people would likely agree on the colour of the rod. None of them have any way of telling if they all percieve that colour in the same way.

That is why humans can never be objective. Human perception is not standardised. How much knowledge you have about a topic is irrelevant to whether you are objective about it.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Mists of Pandaria, Cataclysm, Wrath and Burning Crusade were rather coherent.

Mmm.. while I love TBC as my favorite expansion, I will admit the story was a bit fragmented and didnt really connect from zone to zone at all.

[Melsiren]

All you could ever hope for is extra flavor sometime during Shadowlands.

Kinda like how Rogues who completed the legendary daggers got a special line from Wrathion in MoP.

And how DKs who completed their orderhall have a special interaction with a red dragon some where in BFA content.

So chances are there will be a quest in the Garrison/Orderhall/War campaign of Shadowlands where we will interact with Slyvanas and I am sure she will make comment about how you were loyal/useful/dumb/ or something.

That's about all you can expect if anything.

[CrawlFromThePit]

You're still subjective about topics you have exhaustive knowledge about. You're mistaking educated opinions for objectivity.

Objective doesn't mean correct. It means it is independent of the observer. It doesn't matter what ruler you use(notwhithstanding faulty products), a 1m iron rod will always measure 1m. But you can never guarantee that somebody else will percieve it in the same way you do, regardless of knowledge. Most people would likely agree on the colour of the rod. None of them have any way of telling if they all percieve that colour in the same way.

That is why humans can never be objective. Human perception is not standardised. How much knowledge you have about a topic is irrelevant to whether you are objective about it.

Read this to learn what the word actually means instead of making up your own definition:

ob·jec·tive·ly
in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
"events should be reported objectively"
in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually.
"the physical world we think of as objectively true"

First of all, there is ALWAYS an observer, objectivity itself can be observed, so if everything that is observed by someone is automatically subjective it means objectivity is also subjective which creates a fundamental flaw in your logic. A loophole.

Objectivity is the neutral state of things that is not influenced by feelings or opinion. Take your 1m iron rod, ask people how long it is without telling them or giving them any way ot measure it. They'll just guess basically, based on how they feel the length is. That's your subjectivity. Give them a way to find out the real length, they will reach objectivity and their previous guess which was subjective will get replaced by objective information. Do they have feelings or opinions about this result? Some may have doubt and say the ruler you gave them was weird or some shit, but in general we trust these tools, right?

This formula can be applied to everything in life, at this point in our evolution we don't have the knowledge or tools to reach objectivity on EVERY subjects, but just like back in the day they couldn't know epilepsy was not demonic possession, now they know what it is. There's some subject where we have the necessry information to be objective about them.

An objective fact doesn't become subjective because it went through the eyes of someone observing it like you claim. Objectivity exists first and is twisted and interpreted into subjectivity due to ignorance (called "feelings" in the definition). Replacing that ignorance with knowledge makes you abandon the subjectivity in lieu of objectivity because you start seeing this thing for what it is and not for what you feel like it is.

[huth]

Read this to learn what the word actually means instead of making up your own:

What, the definition that says the same thing i did? Maybe you should read it, and more importantly, get somebody to actually explain its meaning to you. You display a mind boggingly ignorance for somebody who keeps trying to "correct" others on its usage.

"Objective" means that you don't matter. A 1m iron rod is 1m long regardless of whether people can guess the length correctly. It is objectively 1m long. If provided with the same measuring tool, every observer will arrive at the same result eventually. The observer does not matter to the result.

"Subjective" means that your personal perception matters. Would you consider the iron rod long or short? Heavy or light? Is it easy to hold or does it take effort?
Those are subjective. The answer depends on the person you ask. The result is dependent on the observer.

Knowledge is irrelevant to this. An objective quality is objective even if you are ignorant of it. A subjective quality will still depend on your perception even if you know all about it.

[Kantoro]

Loyalist storyline, you munch grass in your pasture, take direction from the sheepherder. The end.

[Vladier]

There are subjects in this world that are simple enough to know everything there is about it, therefore reaching the point of objectivity.

I'm glad you bring out the field of medicine actually, while it is true that this is far too complexe for one person to know everything about it, there are people who specialize in a specific aspect of it and reach the point of knowing all there is to know about it.
A simple example would be epilepsy, people used to think this was demonic possession. That was their uninformed opinion, just like this guy over here with his uninformed opinion, and next to him I'm a doctor who knows it's not demonic possession. That's what I mean with this whole thing, I never said someone could know everything there is about the entire universe, it's just as ridiculous as thinking it's impossible to know enough about 1 subject to be objective about it.

And yet you refuse to elaborate on your supposedly informed opinion of MoP being bad. You know, like a doctor would if asked why someone suffers from epilepsy. And you do it by pretty much insulting other people as incapable of changing their opinion after being presented with facts, without there being any indication for this being the case.

As I am a person inflicted with a great level of apathy, and so free from the burden of emotions which could cloud my judgement, would you perhaps consider proving to me and others in this thread your purported authority on the matters of narrative and plot by articulating your reasoning? Or would you prefer to remain nothing but a demagogue, or dare I say, an ordinary forum troll?