A Topic You Care About...Step 2 Initiated
- Thread starter Envy Omicron
- Start date
How games in the past couple years have changed for the worse (completely my opinion, by the way. Most people like these games).
I mean that they seem to focus way, way too much on story, characters, and other non-interactive elements to the point where gameplay is ignored. Things like The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, Gone Home, etc.
And what's especially weird to me is that these games almost exclusively clog up the GOTY lists. This makes no sense to me, whatsoever. Why play a game exclusively for the story? How do people manage to slog through the interactive portions just for that next cutscene? Is that genuinely the "next step in gaming"? Seriously - I've heard that phrase quite a bit with regards to these types of games.
Basically, if I ask someone why game X was their favorite, if their top 5 reasons are all non-interactive elements, then is it a good game? It may be exceedingly well written, but why call it game of the year when I need to force myself through the gameplay just for the next part of the story?
To quote a friend - "why care so much about the icing when there's no cake?"
I mean that they seem to focus way, way too much on story, characters, and other non-interactive elements to the point where gameplay is ignored. Things like The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, Gone Home, etc.
And what's especially weird to me is that these games almost exclusively clog up the GOTY lists. This makes no sense to me, whatsoever. Why play a game exclusively for the story? How do people manage to slog through the interactive portions just for that next cutscene? Is that genuinely the "next step in gaming"? Seriously - I've heard that phrase quite a bit with regards to these types of games.
Basically, if I ask someone why game X was their favorite, if their top 5 reasons are all non-interactive elements, then is it a good game? It may be exceedingly well written, but why call it game of the year when I need to force myself through the gameplay just for the next part of the story?
To quote a friend - "why care so much about the icing when there's no cake?"
One topic that I only have to think about to get all fired up in a seemingly endless surge of energy is THE HUMAN CONDITION!
Specifically the aspects of it which involve people with vastly different or abrasive points of view to mine own. I am never (when learning of one such opinion) without a desire to simply delve into the "why's and how's" of it. For example concerning myself I have recently learned of the term "ciss-sexual/gender" applying to one who is both mentally and physically of the same gender((Mind=Female + Body=Female)= ciss-sexual/gender)). It fascinating how this term is used to define in the same way other terms are used such as Pan-sexual, Trans-sexual, Trans-gender etc. I feel a almost uncontrollable urge to quiz people who I learn are defined by these term to discover more about it and them both personally and socially. It's fascinating to me.
The flip side of this are things I see as being harmful or simply destructive which I have an equal but entirely less passive (some have used the term murderous) reaction to. When faced with these situations I am unable to stop myself from wanting to rip off beards and meticulously beat people with crowbars because I see them get away with this behaviour which at best I can only describe as being hateful. Yet when I voice or suggest these opinions I am seen as a villain or a lunatic.
People astound me.
Specifically the aspects of it which involve people with vastly different or abrasive points of view to mine own. I am never (when learning of one such opinion) without a desire to simply delve into the "why's and how's" of it. For example concerning myself I have recently learned of the term "ciss-sexual/gender" applying to one who is both mentally and physically of the same gender((Mind=Female + Body=Female)= ciss-sexual/gender)). It fascinating how this term is used to define in the same way other terms are used such as Pan-sexual, Trans-sexual, Trans-gender etc. I feel a almost uncontrollable urge to quiz people who I learn are defined by these term to discover more about it and them both personally and socially. It's fascinating to me.
The flip side of this are things I see as being harmful or simply destructive which I have an equal but entirely less passive (some have used the term murderous) reaction to. When faced with these situations I am unable to stop myself from wanting to rip off beards and meticulously beat people with crowbars because I see them get away with this behaviour which at best I can only describe as being hateful. Yet when I voice or suggest these opinions I am seen as a villain or a lunatic.
People astound me.
Many things. I'm more of a face-to-face speaker (or at least over the phone/skype) though, and I rarely get into deep conversations because I'm often surrounded by people less than willing to really argue about stuff.
To pick one: Global economy. How it affects people's lives. How it shifts and ripples. What is money. What is demand. What makes people rich and poor. What is the governments' role. What is economical power. What is wealth and how it's distributed.
This is a topic you can get really creative with once everyone involved knows the basics.
To pick one: Global economy. How it affects people's lives. How it shifts and ripples. What is money. What is demand. What makes people rich and poor. What is the governments' role. What is economical power. What is wealth and how it's distributed.
This is a topic you can get really creative with once everyone involved knows the basics.
I don't simply hold that religion and state should be separate, but also that religion and science should be separate.
Why?
Because you inevitably end up with the utter stupidity that is Christian Science, and Creationsim...
and the rabid pyramid scheme that is Scientology.
In order:
I admittedly don't know as much as I should about Christian Science, but the one thing I do know is enough for me to condemn their entire set of beliefs:
they don't believe in modern medicine at all. They believe that all illnesses (of all kinds), and all injuries (of all kinds), are due entirely to "bad thoughts"... and not necessarily your own... but those of people around you.
This tends to lead to a number of aggravating scenarios...
like say... a teenager that closes herself off from all human contact for fear of being exposed to everyone's harmful "bad thoughts"... and winds up going insane from years of isolation.
Or one that my father dealt with... he's a teacher at the high school level, where a family of Christian "Scientists" damn near started a Tuberculosis epidemic at the high school he was teaching at because they refused to take their child to the hospital, or at the very least, keep him home while they prayed for him and basically watched him die instead of doing anything remotely useful.
Christian "Science" in this form, simply has no right to exist because with this belief alone... this absolute rejection of everything we've learned about medical science up to this point... because of that, they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. That belief alone is the definition of insane and reckless endangerment. But, because it somehow falls under the legal protections for religion, it still exists, and legally, there isn't much anyone can do about it.
Creationism, on its own, is fine. Its a bit ignorant of its adherents to just raise a finger to the accumulated knowledge of the last 2000 years or so... but what the hell, this belief isn't actually harming anyone. However, its never enough for Creationists to simply believe in this nonsense on their own, and leave everyone else out of it. No, they have to make everyone else believe in that horseshit as well. They want this shit taught in public, government-funded schools... the EXACT PLACE that it DOESN'T belong in.
And as for Scientology...
well, what else needs to be said about it at this point?
Its a load of bullshit that a bad science fiction author (who was known for being a bit of a con-man) came up with to deliberately scam people out of their money. (he even said in a few interviews that... "... if you want to get rich, start a religion")
The only thing is, I'm guessing he was expecting to be found out at some point near the end of his life... and didn't anticipate just how depressingly successful his little scam ended up being.
Also, he ripped of H.P. Lovecraft... A LOT, when he came up with the lore for Scientology.
Let's see...
Prince Xenu is an ancient, incredibly powerful alien god from far beyond our realm of understanding...
trapped in a mountain somewhere by an "eternal battery"... and I can't seem to get a straight answer out of anyone as to what's supposed to happen if Xenu ever escapes his prison.
now...
in Lovecraft's openly fictional work...
Cthulhu was the greatest of the Old Ones who ravaged our world in an orgy of carnage and madness until they were sealed away. Cthulhu himself is dead, but dreaming in his ancient sunken city of Ry'leah, and he will only awaken when the stars align, and the inscriptions on his tomb are read.
Hmm... notice any similarities here?
Why?
Because you inevitably end up with the utter stupidity that is Christian Science, and Creationsim...
and the rabid pyramid scheme that is Scientology.
In order:
I admittedly don't know as much as I should about Christian Science, but the one thing I do know is enough for me to condemn their entire set of beliefs:
they don't believe in modern medicine at all. They believe that all illnesses (of all kinds), and all injuries (of all kinds), are due entirely to "bad thoughts"... and not necessarily your own... but those of people around you.
This tends to lead to a number of aggravating scenarios...
like say... a teenager that closes herself off from all human contact for fear of being exposed to everyone's harmful "bad thoughts"... and winds up going insane from years of isolation.
Or one that my father dealt with... he's a teacher at the high school level, where a family of Christian "Scientists" damn near started a Tuberculosis epidemic at the high school he was teaching at because they refused to take their child to the hospital, or at the very least, keep him home while they prayed for him and basically watched him die instead of doing anything remotely useful.
Christian "Science" in this form, simply has no right to exist because with this belief alone... this absolute rejection of everything we've learned about medical science up to this point... because of that, they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. That belief alone is the definition of insane and reckless endangerment. But, because it somehow falls under the legal protections for religion, it still exists, and legally, there isn't much anyone can do about it.
Creationism, on its own, is fine. Its a bit ignorant of its adherents to just raise a finger to the accumulated knowledge of the last 2000 years or so... but what the hell, this belief isn't actually harming anyone. However, its never enough for Creationists to simply believe in this nonsense on their own, and leave everyone else out of it. No, they have to make everyone else believe in that horseshit as well. They want this shit taught in public, government-funded schools... the EXACT PLACE that it DOESN'T belong in.
And as for Scientology...
well, what else needs to be said about it at this point?
Its a load of bullshit that a bad science fiction author (who was known for being a bit of a con-man) came up with to deliberately scam people out of their money. (he even said in a few interviews that... "... if you want to get rich, start a religion")
The only thing is, I'm guessing he was expecting to be found out at some point near the end of his life... and didn't anticipate just how depressingly successful his little scam ended up being.
Also, he ripped of H.P. Lovecraft... A LOT, when he came up with the lore for Scientology.
Let's see...
Prince Xenu is an ancient, incredibly powerful alien god from far beyond our realm of understanding...
trapped in a mountain somewhere by an "eternal battery"... and I can't seem to get a straight answer out of anyone as to what's supposed to happen if Xenu ever escapes his prison.
now...
in Lovecraft's openly fictional work...
Cthulhu was the greatest of the Old Ones who ravaged our world in an orgy of carnage and madness until they were sealed away. Cthulhu himself is dead, but dreaming in his ancient sunken city of Ry'leah, and he will only awaken when the stars align, and the inscriptions on his tomb are read.
Hmm... notice any similarities here?
Opinions and how they are formed, whether it be from society that you grew up in, a genetic predisposition or just made up on the fly.
I love thinking about HOW someone thinks, and WHY they think and all that stuff. Sad but true
Also I could quite happily talk about Warhammer 40k for a long time, but mainly because the setting's absurdity and daftness than any attachment to a tabletop game.
I love thinking about HOW someone thinks, and WHY they think and all that stuff. Sad but true
Also I could quite happily talk about Warhammer 40k for a long time, but mainly because the setting's absurdity and daftness than any attachment to a tabletop game.
Hmmm..so many to choose from...
Im the sort of person that can talk with anyone, about anything for hours. Well that's to say I mostly listen myself, and only say something if I feel it's worth saying or it will add something.
But I think I have to say games in general has to be my topic of choice.
Sure I can talk about things, but according to my friends my eyes flare up whenever I go into this, and I can really go on for hours if you let me.
My opinion is that it is a fantastic world of wonders, but it's not all great. Even in this "wonderland" there are rules and dark corners.
I say games in genral, as there is not one thing that sticks out, it's the whole of it. All the different games, with differnent mechanics, sounds, light, style, story, characters.
But not only just the games, we as gamers are a part of that, and also a fascinating bunch.
Trying to keep it short here, as I want to go play some games now... so yeah.
What? Games
Why? They're great and a huge part of human history
Im the sort of person that can talk with anyone, about anything for hours. Well that's to say I mostly listen myself, and only say something if I feel it's worth saying or it will add something.
But I think I have to say games in general has to be my topic of choice.
Sure I can talk about things, but according to my friends my eyes flare up whenever I go into this, and I can really go on for hours if you let me.
My opinion is that it is a fantastic world of wonders, but it's not all great. Even in this "wonderland" there are rules and dark corners.
I say games in genral, as there is not one thing that sticks out, it's the whole of it. All the different games, with differnent mechanics, sounds, light, style, story, characters.
But not only just the games, we as gamers are a part of that, and also a fascinating bunch.
Trying to keep it short here, as I want to go play some games now... so yeah.
What? Games
Why? They're great and a huge part of human history
Human goddamn beings.
Every time I hear somebody say things like "Oh humans are rubbish, we don't have any natural weapons and we're all squishy and so easy to kill how have we even survived" I am compelled to sit them down and explain how human beings are the best damn animal in the world. For the purposes of this thread I will assume you said the above phrase, and go get a cup of tea. Do sit down and let me introduce you to Alan, a prehistoric human.
First point, the lack of natural weapons. Sure, claws are cool, a spiked club on the end of your tail would be badass, and everybody somewhere deep down inside wants to be able to spit acid at people they don't like. We've got stubby little blunt instruments on the end of our limbs, and I guess we could headbutt stuff with our unusually large head? That must be what it's for, right? Dear me no. See, we've got a big well-protected head because our giant brain is damn clever. In particular, for tool-using.
For example, there's some food up in a tree. Now for a wolf or something, that'd be the end of it and they'd go on with their day. For a goat I guess they could take the time to climb up and get it, but that'd waste valuable energy and they might get et. Now imagine a creature with long, rigid extrusions on the end of it's arms. It could easily reach up and whack the food out of the tree. Alan can't reach. However, he spies a branch nearby, picks it up, and whacks the food out of the tree, just as well as the imaginary creature with sticks on it's arms.
Lets have another example, a more carnivorous one perhaps.
There's a deer sleeping in a field near a copse of trees. Here, the imaginary creature won't do so well. It'd have to stand far away to get a good swing with it's long spindly extrusions, and if the trees were close together it'd be bloody hard to quietly move among the trees. Alan spies a nearby rock, picks it up, sneaks through the trees with his lack of large appendages and soft feet, and bashes the deer's head in.
Perhaps you can see what I'm getting at. Human hands aren't a weapon, they're a weapons platform. We have, effectively, all the weapons, rather than being restricted to just one or two. We don't have claws, we made swords and various other sharp pointy weapons. We don't have clubs, we...well, made clubs. Metal clubs! Suck on that, ankylosaurus. It took us a while, but we do now have acid sprays and flamethrowers and lasers and all manner of weapons that outclass other animal's so well that we're, ah, sort of endangering them. You don't get to be top of the food chain without any weapons.
Onto the next point, our...squishyness. You're right, we don't have anything cool like armour plating and/or the ability to roll into a ball like the armadillo or I guess the woodlouse. I'm sure you've learned by now and you're expecting the blah blah we made our own armour out of the corpses of animals we killed blah blah we're a platform whatever. You're completely right (and by you I mean me) but that's not what I'm about to say. NB: I am not a doctor or vet, please tell me if I'm wrong because I'd hate to inadvertently spread misinformation.
You know how if a horse breaks a leg it's fucked? We put them down because it's more humane than attempting to set the bone so that it heals properly, because that requires that weight be taken off it. Horses aren't suited to being still, or living on three legs. Meanwhile people break their legs everyday, no problem. Stick it in a splint, don't knock it around for a while, and you'll be fine.
Blood loss. We can lose 30% of our blood and be relatively fine, just need to get some more fluids and rest a while. Most animals can tolerate around 10-15% and need a blood transfusion to survive any more.
Finally, we don't need any more protection. Prehistoric human's strategy was not to go up to a tiger and punch it into submission. Prehistoric human's strategy was to stay the hell away from tigers, or keep them at the other end of a pointy stick if that couldn't be avoided. Then, if worst comes to worst and the tiger gets around your cunning defence system, you hope that my next point comes into play.
Buddies! Humans are a social animal, and hopefully Alan's mates had just gone for a piss behind a bush somewhere nearby. They can then intervene with quite an arsenal at their disposal (assuming they've figured out how to tie things to other things, but even if not) and the all-important element of surprise, and they will hopefully see the tiger off. Alan's in a bad way, he's got quite a gash on his arm and he's feeling a bit woozy. Alan's mates use whatever's at hand to press the wound and staunch the bleeding, and carry him home. Good old Alan's mates.
And with that short tale, hopefully you're satisfied that yes, humans really are the dominant species and it wasn't some weird fluke of luck that the lion was ill the day we were chosen. I'm not going to go into psychological resilience, or how we learn, or human stress reactions and reflexes and a whole host of fascinating phenomena that have set us squarely above every other animal here, because I really don't know enough about them to say. Anyway, thanks for listening.
Every time I hear somebody say things like "Oh humans are rubbish, we don't have any natural weapons and we're all squishy and so easy to kill how have we even survived" I am compelled to sit them down and explain how human beings are the best damn animal in the world. For the purposes of this thread I will assume you said the above phrase, and go get a cup of tea. Do sit down and let me introduce you to Alan, a prehistoric human.
First point, the lack of natural weapons. Sure, claws are cool, a spiked club on the end of your tail would be badass, and everybody somewhere deep down inside wants to be able to spit acid at people they don't like. We've got stubby little blunt instruments on the end of our limbs, and I guess we could headbutt stuff with our unusually large head? That must be what it's for, right? Dear me no. See, we've got a big well-protected head because our giant brain is damn clever. In particular, for tool-using.
For example, there's some food up in a tree. Now for a wolf or something, that'd be the end of it and they'd go on with their day. For a goat I guess they could take the time to climb up and get it, but that'd waste valuable energy and they might get et. Now imagine a creature with long, rigid extrusions on the end of it's arms. It could easily reach up and whack the food out of the tree. Alan can't reach. However, he spies a branch nearby, picks it up, and whacks the food out of the tree, just as well as the imaginary creature with sticks on it's arms.
Lets have another example, a more carnivorous one perhaps.
There's a deer sleeping in a field near a copse of trees. Here, the imaginary creature won't do so well. It'd have to stand far away to get a good swing with it's long spindly extrusions, and if the trees were close together it'd be bloody hard to quietly move among the trees. Alan spies a nearby rock, picks it up, sneaks through the trees with his lack of large appendages and soft feet, and bashes the deer's head in.
Perhaps you can see what I'm getting at. Human hands aren't a weapon, they're a weapons platform. We have, effectively, all the weapons, rather than being restricted to just one or two. We don't have claws, we made swords and various other sharp pointy weapons. We don't have clubs, we...well, made clubs. Metal clubs! Suck on that, ankylosaurus. It took us a while, but we do now have acid sprays and flamethrowers and lasers and all manner of weapons that outclass other animal's so well that we're, ah, sort of endangering them. You don't get to be top of the food chain without any weapons.
Onto the next point, our...squishyness. You're right, we don't have anything cool like armour plating and/or the ability to roll into a ball like the armadillo or I guess the woodlouse. I'm sure you've learned by now and you're expecting the blah blah we made our own armour out of the corpses of animals we killed blah blah we're a platform whatever. You're completely right (and by you I mean me) but that's not what I'm about to say. NB: I am not a doctor or vet, please tell me if I'm wrong because I'd hate to inadvertently spread misinformation.
You know how if a horse breaks a leg it's fucked? We put them down because it's more humane than attempting to set the bone so that it heals properly, because that requires that weight be taken off it. Horses aren't suited to being still, or living on three legs. Meanwhile people break their legs everyday, no problem. Stick it in a splint, don't knock it around for a while, and you'll be fine.
Blood loss. We can lose 30% of our blood and be relatively fine, just need to get some more fluids and rest a while. Most animals can tolerate around 10-15% and need a blood transfusion to survive any more.
Finally, we don't need any more protection. Prehistoric human's strategy was not to go up to a tiger and punch it into submission. Prehistoric human's strategy was to stay the hell away from tigers, or keep them at the other end of a pointy stick if that couldn't be avoided. Then, if worst comes to worst and the tiger gets around your cunning defence system, you hope that my next point comes into play.
Buddies! Humans are a social animal, and hopefully Alan's mates had just gone for a piss behind a bush somewhere nearby. They can then intervene with quite an arsenal at their disposal (assuming they've figured out how to tie things to other things, but even if not) and the all-important element of surprise, and they will hopefully see the tiger off. Alan's in a bad way, he's got quite a gash on his arm and he's feeling a bit woozy. Alan's mates use whatever's at hand to press the wound and staunch the bleeding, and carry him home. Good old Alan's mates.
And with that short tale, hopefully you're satisfied that yes, humans really are the dominant species and it wasn't some weird fluke of luck that the lion was ill the day we were chosen. I'm not going to go into psychological resilience, or how we learn, or human stress reactions and reflexes and a whole host of fascinating phenomena that have set us squarely above every other animal here, because I really don't know enough about them to say. Anyway, thanks for listening.
Nobody knows what Jesus was about.
Eidos Montreal should never be allowed near a preexisting IP because they wouldn't know subtlety if it burned their office down.
The Deus Ex Franchise (Why DX1 kicked ass, why IW kicked inconsistent ass, and why HR sucked ass, and why the upcoming DXU is a terrible idea by terrible people).
How morality is simultaneously absolute and relative and heavily context-reliant.
Why romance stories are terrible when played straight, but how they can be fascinating when subverted, fetishized, or a part of a larger whole.
And maybe more if I think hard enough.
Eidos Montreal should never be allowed near a preexisting IP because they wouldn't know subtlety if it burned their office down.
The Deus Ex Franchise (Why DX1 kicked ass, why IW kicked inconsistent ass, and why HR sucked ass, and why the upcoming DXU is a terrible idea by terrible people).
How morality is simultaneously absolute and relative and heavily context-reliant.
Why romance stories are terrible when played straight, but how they can be fascinating when subverted, fetishized, or a part of a larger whole.
And maybe more if I think hard enough.
I argue that I ,or an equally postmodern shmuck, could teach a videogame appreciation course with as much or more intellectual merit as any other scholarly circlejerk. I feel that games are a greater exemplification of the human condition than any other form of art. I always spin it a little philosophical/spiritual (in the buddhist sense) that games have the highest value because they force you to check your ego at the door, lest you go mad performing made up tasks to receive made up resources to give to made up people for the made up merit you so crave at that point in the cycle. I would say it is tied with Music based on its highly abstract flowing nature, but it has the added dimension of requiring input, whereas with even most challenging of tunes the main form of amplifying ones experience is simply letting go. This dance of holding on to the controller while letting your mind run free i think has a strangely holistic effect that can be lost in the rigid structures and social fetish of more narrative mediums.
Sure there are other ways of appreciating games but those analyzations have been done to death for the most part in regards to other forms of media. While the blossoming and refracting thematic rabbit-hole of bioshock infinite was one of the greatest experiences i had last year, it only really made me craze reading a book. If I were to choose the highest exemplification of the experience i try to break down it would be Counter Strike. Every round is the same. Every round is different. Even if you get a round perfect, that perfection you acted out will only be a mistake if you take it into the next round with you. So you are then left with only the bleeding edge of NOW, with some triangles and dice rolls to keep you company. That to me is what i looks for in a games, but i find more and more over that this is not unique to addreneline gaming but I have experienced similar states of zen while playing Terraria/Minecraft, Stalker, SSX, GTA, RCTycoon, farming sim, Mario and tetris of course. Any game really can hold that space of "passionate being and non-being", unless maybe there is some externalizing attachment to an overdeveloped MMO persona, but thats a different thesis altogether.
I found myself buckling down this theme early in my higher learning because my peers were strangely attracted to my understanding of philosophy/spirituality/PSYCHADELICS despite the fact that i had no experience with any of the three before college. I feel this has been the effect of the most childish of childhoods furnished with only the zen and flow of gaming juxtaposed against the cultural absurdity of The Simpsons and Southpark and adult swim. Maybe its all the postured babble of a kid in denial, but im pretty sure im immune to any sort of midlife crisis, and ide like to spread what i know can help people let go.
Sure there are other ways of appreciating games but those analyzations have been done to death for the most part in regards to other forms of media. While the blossoming and refracting thematic rabbit-hole of bioshock infinite was one of the greatest experiences i had last year, it only really made me craze reading a book. If I were to choose the highest exemplification of the experience i try to break down it would be Counter Strike. Every round is the same. Every round is different. Even if you get a round perfect, that perfection you acted out will only be a mistake if you take it into the next round with you. So you are then left with only the bleeding edge of NOW, with some triangles and dice rolls to keep you company. That to me is what i looks for in a games, but i find more and more over that this is not unique to addreneline gaming but I have experienced similar states of zen while playing Terraria/Minecraft, Stalker, SSX, GTA, RCTycoon, farming sim, Mario and tetris of course. Any game really can hold that space of "passionate being and non-being", unless maybe there is some externalizing attachment to an overdeveloped MMO persona, but thats a different thesis altogether.
I found myself buckling down this theme early in my higher learning because my peers were strangely attracted to my understanding of philosophy/spirituality/PSYCHADELICS despite the fact that i had no experience with any of the three before college. I feel this has been the effect of the most childish of childhoods furnished with only the zen and flow of gaming juxtaposed against the cultural absurdity of The Simpsons and Southpark and adult swim. Maybe its all the postured babble of a kid in denial, but im pretty sure im immune to any sort of midlife crisis, and ide like to spread what i know can help people let go.
I can name a topic I'm not interested in... this one!
ba dum tss
Seriously though, numbers are fucking awesome, I could talk about them forever. I guess that's my opinion.
ba dum tss
Seriously though, numbers are fucking awesome, I could talk about them forever. I guess that's my opinion.
Transhumanism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism] (post-singularity [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity] human social and political development)
Linguistics (practical teaching methods such as Dogme; to proto-indo-european [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language] theorising; to conlanging [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conlang] with Toki Pona [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_pona], Klingon, etc)
Gender equality (mostly practical issues, but some theorising from a complex relational (non-unilateral) perspective.
Marvel Comics.
Metaphysics.
Linguistics (practical teaching methods such as Dogme; to proto-indo-european [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language] theorising; to conlanging [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conlang] with Toki Pona [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_pona], Klingon, etc)
Gender equality (mostly practical issues, but some theorising from a complex relational (non-unilateral) perspective.
Marvel Comics.
Metaphysics.
Sub-genres of heavy metal. I am the guy who goes "It's not screamo, it's post hardcore with some metalcore thrown in as well." I'm also a staunch defender of idea that not all people who listen to these two genres are NOT all skinny jean wearing, straightened black hair, emo teenagers.
Separation of Church and State. I believe in it heavily and will defend it.
Gender Issues. Depends on the situation which side I'm on.
Separation of Church and State. I believe in it heavily and will defend it.
Gender Issues. Depends on the situation which side I'm on.
Envy Omicron said:
Ok. This topic is fairly... Well, no one knows anything about it. I'm not going to take the 'aliens don't exist' stance, because it relies too much on faith (I suppose one could point out how specific the conditions under which life on earth formed were VERY specific. Things like how earth is a fusion of two planets that crashed together, how the planet is in the green zone, how the asteroid belt protects us, the nature of our moon; it's all very specific. But there are many many galaxies in the universe with many many planets rolling around within them, so anything can happen)Thomas Barnsley said:
So I'm going to counter my opinion on the possible nature of alien life. My stated opinion was the one Dawkins proposed, that since the conditions for life are so specific the evolution of all alien life will turn out quite similar to what we have on earth.
The opposing opinion, proposed by Neil deGrasse Tyson I think, is that alien life would appear and function drastically different to how it does on earth. It will probably not be carbon based, probably not arranged in a cellular structure; it may not even have any solid shape and exist in a gaseous form instead. Basically, like I said earlier, we live in a big universe. Anything is possible. I suppose, thinking about it now, it's fairly narrow minded to assume that there is only one way for the seeds of life to form on a planet, which is the basis of Dawkins whole argument. A planet can go through many processes over time and still end up with life.
I'm just thinking, to argue this side properly, I have to present the qualifications for life (they're debatable. For instance, they don't cover viruses, though there are those that do not actually consider them organisms):
Reproduction
Metabolism
Response to environment
Growth
In my opinion growth and reproduction could probably be considered the same thing. But anyway; the way I see it this is a pretty broad set of criteria. Basically if you get a chemical of some kind that makes energy and puts this energy into increasing itself, all it needs to do is start continually correcting its energy/growth to make sure it doesn't stop as the environment changes. Which is a tall order, but when put like that one can imagine it being done in many distinctly different ways.
Ok, did I pass this test?
Okay, my brain has regrouped and I'm ready to act as FalloutJack's evil universe goatee-man.
Pretty much my argument FOR the wise use of philosophy to express oneself and become extremely deep and clever is that, though thoughtful and insightful, it is not always practical. Philosophy is quite alot of saying, alot of postulating and discussing, but it is very many times not the act of DOING. To think, to muse, to consider has its place, but it is also said that actions speak louder than words, and that sometimes the simplest solutions are the best solutions. Many are the occasions in the case of critical thinking VS someone with a big club, the club got impatient and knocked the guy out. To outsmart someone is one thing. To avoid getting smacked upside the head denies cleverness and sharpness of wit in favor of quick and decisive action.
Philosophy has its place, but even in its own circles, there is the issue of the too many cooks, spoiling the broth as well. You can have plenty of people arguing over something intelligently for hours as is. Imagine the trouble of knuckleheads getting in the middle of it. Nothing halts intelligent debate faster than someone whose personal hamster wheel squeaks very loudly, so to speak, because one thing that intelligent people in the middle of something HATE is someone breaking the flow of discussion, grinding it to the absolute minimum because somebody fell off the bus. And what the usual reaction there is that tempers fly and the whole thing collapses in on itself from the lost momentum.
And then, of course, you have every other people that can happen with conversation ever. You have your arrogant fuckwit who misuses it simply to look smart, your guy who talks out of his ass (AKA he's full of shit), your strawman of course who can't validate his claims, your wikipedia expert who thinks wiki is a viable info source when college professors won't accept that, your abusive jackass who doesn't even try, and so on. Because philosophy requires a little depth of character or at least a willingness to reach out, it not recommended for everybody. Ask your doctor today if philosophy is right for you.
Pretty much my argument FOR the wise use of philosophy to express oneself and become extremely deep and clever is that, though thoughtful and insightful, it is not always practical. Philosophy is quite alot of saying, alot of postulating and discussing, but it is very many times not the act of DOING. To think, to muse, to consider has its place, but it is also said that actions speak louder than words, and that sometimes the simplest solutions are the best solutions. Many are the occasions in the case of critical thinking VS someone with a big club, the club got impatient and knocked the guy out. To outsmart someone is one thing. To avoid getting smacked upside the head denies cleverness and sharpness of wit in favor of quick and decisive action.
Philosophy has its place, but even in its own circles, there is the issue of the too many cooks, spoiling the broth as well. You can have plenty of people arguing over something intelligently for hours as is. Imagine the trouble of knuckleheads getting in the middle of it. Nothing halts intelligent debate faster than someone whose personal hamster wheel squeaks very loudly, so to speak, because one thing that intelligent people in the middle of something HATE is someone breaking the flow of discussion, grinding it to the absolute minimum because somebody fell off the bus. And what the usual reaction there is that tempers fly and the whole thing collapses in on itself from the lost momentum.
And then, of course, you have every other people that can happen with conversation ever. You have your arrogant fuckwit who misuses it simply to look smart, your guy who talks out of his ass (AKA he's full of shit), your strawman of course who can't validate his claims, your wikipedia expert who thinks wiki is a viable info source when college professors won't accept that, your abusive jackass who doesn't even try, and so on. Because philosophy requires a little depth of character or at least a willingness to reach out, it not recommended for everybody. Ask your doctor today if philosophy is right for you.