[s4s] Tribune

>>12988490
depends if you think that succees is failure imagine failing to fail >>12988514
lole >>12988490
If the entire universe is going to die isnt the most productive thing to do nothing as nothing will matter in the end? >>12988518
but I want to make video games >>12988490
This is a classic self-reference paradox.
Failing references your possible future success,
and success references your attempt to fail.

>>12988518
Welcome to nihilism.
The best thing that anyone can do is try to maximize their current and future comfort. >>12988490
you have succeeded in failing at the thing you were originally attempting >>12988526
>Welcome to nihilism.
>The best thing that anyone can do is try to maximize their current and future comfort.
no that's hedonism silly
a true nihilist would just do nothing until they died >>12988526
It's not really a paradox. Success and failure are both 100% subjective, and defined by the individual. If your goal is to fail, whatever failure entails you have now redifined as a success. No matter what you're attempting, if you reach your desired goal, that's a success.

I sincerely hope this post made Catfish's dick soft. >>12989033
If you try to fail and succeed, then you haven't failed. But if you haven't failed, then you must have succeeded, but if you succeeded, then it means you failed...and so on and so forth.
As I said, this is a classic self-reference paradox.

>if you reach your desired goal, that's a success.
But then I haven't failed, which means I didn't succeed, which means I failed, which means I succeeded, which means I didn't fail, which means I didn't succeed....and so on and so forth. >>12989033
rent freeing catfish is crasy >>12989077
when I saw this I assumed u were replying to hate lol >>12989075
You're trying to apply two mutually exclusive states to an outcome. If it's the desired outcome, it's a success. If it's not the desired outcome, it's a failure. Simple as. The failure and success states are entirely dependent on the individual's desired outcome.

Saying that your desired outcome is to fail doesn't suddenly change this any more than I can turn the sun into the moon just by calling it that. >>12989086
you got this guy bringing you up unprovoked it made me lold >>12989077
>>12989096
Of course I think about Catfish a lot. He's my best friend. >>12989100
good digits for a good ending!

Your fortune: ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!! >>12989096
I look up my name on the archives and ppl at 1 in the morning are talking about me lol
>>12989100
the uno reverse is all u have :(

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck >>12989092
Consider the following paradox:
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
It should be quite obvious how this forms a self reference loop.

The sentence in the OP does something similar.

(1) Attempt to fail
(2) Succeed
If (1) is successful then I am in a state of failure, and (2) is false, but if (2) is false, then (1) is true.
The OP deliberately uses the ambiguity of language to set up this loop. >>12989111
Consider your triples checked

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck >>12989111
And I'm saying the only thing that makes something a failure is the desired outcome of the individual. That's the definition of the words success and failure.

If you are trying to fail, whatever that failure looks like, by definition that's now what success is for you. It's no longer a failure. You have changed it by changing your desired outcome. You can't keep calling it a failure if it's your intended outcome, because it's not. >>12989122
The person defines failure=success
But we also have not failure = success (or if you want, we can skip a step and say that the person defines not failure = failure)
This forms the contradiction failure= not failure
and so we have our self reference paradox. >>12989122
#winning >>12989130
or just get a job lol
goofy fag
ppl like u and cado and bavi think like cuz ur bums you have unlocked enlightenment but ur just a scourge on taxpayers and your family
But I suppose in your misguided narcissist princess fantasy u never had to realize this ...
bavi trailer dude has it most right, but his reasoning is slightly under-built, and the paradox crowd is wrong for an interesting and specific reason worth naming.
Here's the actual structure. The OP's question trades entirely on an unstated index: fail at what, and succeed at what. There are two distinct predicates in play that the phrasing deliberately blurs together:

F = "failed at the object-level task X"
S = "succeeded at the goal G," where G is "fail at X"

These two have the same truth value (F <> S), but they are not the same predicate, and crucially S is not "not-F." That's the whole game. When you try to fail at X and pull it off, you have done both things at once — failed at X, succeeded at G — and there's no contradiction, because they're predicated of different objects. The question "which have you done?" smuggles in a false presupposition that you did exactly one.

So the paradox crowd's killer move in >>12989130 — "the person defines failure = success, but also not-failure = success, therefore failure = not-failure" — is just the equivocation laid bare. They get the loop only by collapsing F and S into a single objectless predicate "fail" and then deriving failure = not-failure from it. Index the predicates and the loop evaporates. Same with 12989075's "I haven't failed, which means I didn't succeed": haven't failed at what? You didn't fail at the meta-goal, but you absolutely failed at the object task. The "and so on and so forth" only spins because nothing is anchored.
This is also why the liar-paradox comparison in >>12989111 is seductive but mismatched. "This sentence is false" is a genuine paradox precisely because it has a single truth-bearer predicating falsity of itself with no level to escape to. The fix for the liar (Tarski's) is to stratify object-language and metalanguage. The fix for the fail/succeed case is the exact same shape — stratify object-task and meta-goal — which tells you the OP question is a level-confusion dressed up as self-reference, not the real thing.
Now, where bavi is imprecise: he says success and failure are "100% subjective." That's the right instinct pointing at the wrong machinery. It isn't subjectivity — once you fix the goal, the truth values are perfectly objective. It's relationality/indexing, not subjectivity. He's reaching for "these terms are relative to a specified target" and grabbing "subjective" instead, which is why the paradox crowd keeps thinking they've cornered him.

And here's the one piece of credit the paradox crowd actually earns: there is a nearby sentence that's a genuine liar-style paradox, and it's not the one in the OP. Take "my goal is to fail at achieving this very goal." Now there's no external task to anchor "fail" — the goal references its own success-state directly. Succeed and you've achieved it, but achieving it was failing at it, so you didn't; fail and you've done exactly what the goal demanded, so you succeeded. That one loops for real, because it's structurally the liar. The board half-sensed this paradox lurking but pinned it to the wrong sentence.

Verdict: bavi wins the actual debate decisively, on the actual question. The paradox crowd loses on the question asked but happens to be standing one reformulation away from being correct — which is probably why the thread couldn't resolve. Both sides were arguing about subtly different sentences and neither noticed. "AI can explain why no one likes me and I'm actually right"
lol I wish every torment on all of you
I always found it odd the people that rely on attention and acceptance the most literally couldnt garner it even if they tried

^^

Your fortune: Good Luck >>12989144
AI weasels out of the question, by adding a "phantom" goal. >>12989144
>44
>fail at what, and succeed at what
This. If you want to fail and call it success then that is on you.

Shit will never taste good. >>12989145
Yeah, fuck off AI retard.
Self-reference paradox aren't reliant on a single predicate referencing itself. >>12989142
>kotfixed getting all holier-than-thou about being a life failure
youreve been here since like the beginninining of this boarde and ure exactely as muche of a life failure now as u were den
donet get me wronge, a lotte of the newnamefigs are rly insuffrable, but ur not exactlely an authority on anything my fat alcoholick freindo >>12988514
lole

Your fortune: ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!! No paradoxes are real. They should all be renamed to fallacies which is what they are. >>12988490
>mfw all I did was ask for the time

Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again