This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Verbatim
Pages: 1 ... 878889 9091 ... 1601
2641
« on: July 07, 2018, 09:09:25 PM »
Back in the Poison Swamp for reasons. I did not miss this place.
2642
« on: July 07, 2018, 07:48:06 PM »
Anyfuck, I'm playing this game again tonight.
2643
« on: July 07, 2018, 02:20:22 PM »
It depends on what you define as killing off everything. If by that we mean to kill of every single person, animal or plant, we can just continuosly nuke same place over and over again until our nukes reach magnetic core of Earth and disrupt it, which cause magnetic field of Earth to dissapear and everything to die from radiation sooner or later, well almost everything. Some things will survive and adapt to new conditions. It`s however, a temporary solution, it probably be enough to put our planet down long enough until Sun explode or whatever happens to it.
Well, we might create a black hole, but it`s unreliable solution either, because no one knows how it works. I can only say that living or being in it, if it`s possible, will be different from your or any other human definition of word "living" or "being" so that accomplishes goal of destroying everything living.
Nukes/black holes are a little too violent and scary for my liking—my ideal apocalypse is quiet, peaceful, painless. I see another logic inconsistency - you are proposing us veganism, main purpose of which is to save animals and the next thing you say is that it`s better to kill everything. Well, then I really don`t see any other reason for this thread to exist outside of "the sake of argument", "simulation purposes", where you try to attain higher moral ground over people who aren`t vegans and thats basically a hypocrisy.
I don't see how it's a hypocrisy, if you could explain that for me. While I do believe that life is better off not existing, I still have to come to terms with the fact it does exist. The best thing about life is that it is possible to change it for the better. So, while I'd prefer life not to exist at all, it can't be helped—the next best thing for me to try to do, then, is to do my part in spreading the word about all the things I believe will make the world a better place to live in. Right now, I just have two rules—1.) Don't have kids, and 2.) Go vegan. Everything else is fairly self-explanatory. Be honest, treat people how you wanna be treated, obey the laws of your country, etc. It's not hypocrisy, it's pragmatism. I realize I'm not going to get what I want out of this life, so I work with what I have.
2644
« on: July 07, 2018, 02:03:07 PM »
I'm surprised that nobody brought this up yet, but veganism is not a perfect solution. Veganism saves animals at the cost of killing plants. Well, so what is the problem with this? The problem is that we showing preference for animals over plants. Reason why it`s acceptable is that plants are harder to extinquish than animals and we extinquished quite a lot of animals in the past, but that doesn`t mean that plants are impossible to extinquish and world is not set in stone. There might come time when we have to kill animals in order to save plants, which brings me to second point:
Being vegan or not being vegan is fine as long as you don`t extinquish either animals or plants.
We just happen to live in time when animals are closer to dying than plants.
I don't think we'll ever have to worry about fruit and vegetable-bearing plants going extinct. They're incredibly easy to regrow, and I think we've been doing a pretty good job overall with that. You're right in saying it's not perfect, but I just don't foresee it becoming a serious issue, even in the distant future. It's good that you're thinking about these things, and being an environmentalist is a good idea in general, but when it comes to saving plants, I think environmentalists are more concerned with things like deforestation and hydraulic fracturing and stuff, not edible plants (and fungi). I'm more concerned about animals because they suffer, whereas plants don't. That's all I really care about right now.
2645
« on: July 07, 2018, 01:18:28 PM »
No, it's that you act like the world is either complete trash or it has to be a utopia. Anything less than utopia is trash, but that's not the point. You seem to think we're closer to that utopia than I do, when we're not. Close enough to be okay with being swindled and stolen from. Agreed, devs should have much larger profit margins. And games should either be less expensive to make, or developers should be pressured less to make expensive games. Fuck "pushing the envelope," the envelope hasn't been pushed since the '90s. Games fucking suck today. DLC is only a small part of the problem. My point being you're blaming the devs when it's usually Activision and Microsoft pushing this shit. Delightful, so fuck Activision and Microsoft for pushing this shit. Nothing else changes. How many mission campaigns were in the base game of the first Ghost Recon? 15 I think
And how much did they cost you? Who the hell is gonna pay them, then? Are they supposed to just get money for free? They have to make and sell their product, that's how it works. The publisher, fucking obviously. It's not ever going to happen, but it's what needs to happen regardless. So developers have found a way to make more money because game sales really don't make them that much. How horrible. Extremely horrible. I'll never support it again, and fuck anyone who does. Except it takes a big budget to push the envelope. No it doesn't, not at all. The most biggest envelope pushers in the industry are indies and Nintendo. No one else has ever pushed the envelope. We've, by and large, been getting the same shit since the mid-2000s. Hardly anyone is innovating anymore in the AAA industry. You can make a great game for a few hundred bucks, but it's the same tired old 2D adventure. It gets old. Not if your IQ is high enough "I'm fine with thousands of people being out of work and a thriving industry dying because some price adjustments need to be made" Yeah Except it's a complete game. A car is complete when it's built, seat warmers and Bluetooth capabilities are extras. Who's to say a car is complete without those things? Cup holders were considered a cushy luxury at one point. Now, if a new car doesn't have any cup holders, it's considered a cheap piece of shit. Incomplete. Bad analogy, again. It's not a complete game without the DLC. I'll never get the complete Dark Souls experience unless I buy the DLC, and that pisses me the fuck off. That's your opinion. Plenty of people like pizzas with a lot of toppings. I didn't say "a lot" of toppings, I said EVERY topping. No one realistically does this, and this is why this is a shitty analogy too. It's not a logical equivalent, because there's NO ONE who would be displeased with having all DLC available to them. If you don't like pineapple, you don't put it on your pizza. If it's on your pizza, you return it. If you don't like a DLC, but you still have it because you bought the GOTY edition, you don't have to access it. DLC is an extra. An extra that makes the game incomplete without it. I'm going to design a game halfway, sell it to you for $60, and then sell you the other half for $30. And you'll buy it, apparently, because that's how gullible you apparently are. I'll even tell you that the DLC was designed well after the game was already """finished.""" And you'll take my word for it, because you're a genius. But you still fail to refute even the most basic point I've made, that DLC's are extras and not necessary. I vigorously refuted it with great strength, and smashed it up with my huge, throbbing, vascular verbal musculature. They're 100% necessary, especially if you want to complete the game. So you admit it isn't about greed. I never admitted that. Why would I pester you to buy the DLC if I know you can't afford it? It's not that I can't afford it. It's that I shouldn't have to pay for it, even if I were wealthier than Bill Gates. Back in the day we just probably would've never had the content. And that was better. Way better. wtf nigga we're the same age You're not acting like it. You're acting like a dumb Gen Z-er who never knew how much better things used to be. You are paying for the work the chef does, the rent, the cost of upkeep, payroll, everything. That's what goes into pricing the food at a restaurant. I'm not talking about the pricing of the food. I'm talking about tipping. No it isn't smart. Don't buy bad DLC that's overpriced. Good DLC is a way for us to get more content they'll never make and put in the game before launch. How the fuck am I supposed to know what's good or bad until I pay for it and play it first? You realize that's fucking impossible, right? You can look up reviews and ask your friends and try to use your best judgment, but sometimes, that's just not good enough. You could be missing out on the best gaming experience of your life, and I'll never be able to experience it because I'm not willing to pay extra for content that should already be in the goddamn game itself. You act like you're being screwed out of something. You're not. I textbook am. No, I shouldn't be, because that's childish behavior. I'm a victim of what lmao? Extortion, and you should be more pissed about it than me, because you've paid for more DLC garbage. A lot of us saw this coming. There's just a lot of people who seem to have no problem with microtransactions. And they should be mauled by tigers, probably. I agree. But there's not really anything we can do. Do what I do. I don't expect to change anything, but I'm not going to sit quietly and just accept this practice. Ever. I'm going to bitch and piss and moan for the rest of my life about it if I have to, and I'll be happy doing it. It's my right. There's no need to be an extremist. People like you are why I have to be extreme. If no one else sees it your way, you have to be extreme. That's the only way the meme can truly spread. Proof? It's an axiomatic truth, there's no proof required. Extra content that must be paid extra for is basically extortion. There's literally no good or acceptable way to go about it. Complete what? What is this obsession with completion? The game. It's not an obsession, it's me wanting exactly what the fuck I paid for. A complete game, with ALL of its content available to me. If I paid $60, I want $60 worth of content. Period. No game on the market in the last twelve years has been worth $60. Not a single goddamn one, and you're a moron if you think otherwise. Taking DLC into account might have actually made some games worth that much, but when you buy DLC, you no longer just paid $60. You paid $70, or $80, or $100—all for content that only really amounts to $60 on a good day. Most games aren't worth $10 even with all the DLC. If you pay more, you are wasting your money. No, that's bullshit. But it doesn't mean video games should be nuked. Why is that bullshit? I'm not entitled to all the game's content, apparently. You're backpedaling. Why shouldn't I be nickled and dimed over every little possible thing in the game? I don't HAVE to buy it, after all. It doesn't make the game incomplete, after all. Right? Right? I'm telling you to buy good DLC. I can't know if it's good unless I buy it and try it myself. That's the fucking trick. It's not like when I buy ten apples, and I receive exactly ten apples, so I couldn't possibly be dissatisfied. A game's quality is a lot more nuanced than that. They're not, they're just trying to make some money like everybody else. Waiting until they can make another game (if they even get the go ahead and the funding) is ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? I don't want DLC, I want full games. That's all I want for the rest of time.
2646
« on: July 07, 2018, 11:39:36 AM »
okay then how do you feel about farmers that raise chickens like any other pet and sell the eggs
Then that's probably okay? Maybe? But that's SO rare, because chickens simply aren't like "any other pet." There's many extra things you have to account for, otherwise raising chickens might have been more of a regular thing. This is a good articleEither way, if you've already given up eggs for an extended period of time, you probably won't have much of a taste for them anyway. I'm at a point where I can't even enjoy anything that came from an animal.
2647
« on: July 07, 2018, 11:22:44 AM »
You're ignoring that there is no magical button though. It's nothing that couldn't be invented. The logical inconsistency seems to lie in you basing all of this on respect for agency and an aversion of suffering, yet you seem to be perfectly fine with imposing (or ignoring) suffering and violating and killing untold amounts of animals because you're the superior creature who gets to decide how they're treated. Of course—do you not think parents should have some degree of control over their children's behavior? Sometimes you have to override someone's agency for the greater good. Again, there is no inconsistency here. I'm not expressing anything I haven't expressed for years upon years. Life is bad because it comes with suffering. You can reduce the suffering of billions of creatures by taking some control of their agency. But doing so and not respecting them is bad from a moral point of view. Since you're telling me they can't live a purposeful life (something you're deciding for that animal) you advocate killing them all which not only causes suffering but also violates their autonomy in the most significant way and goes directly against their deepest and most fundamental desire. Their deepest and most fundamental desire is to copulate and reproduce, not to live. No animal wants to "live." They just don't want to die. They don't understand why they don't want to die (or why they'd be better off dead). They're just running a primitive biological script that tells them that dying is bad, survival is good. For what reason? There is no reason. So, we could pointlessly maintain their pitiful, pointless, joyless existences to make ourselves feel moral, but the reality is that most factory-bred animals wouldn't well appreciate it. A lot of them live in squalor, are missing body parts, are severely overweight, or have various other debilitating conditions. They may not want to die, but they certainly don't want to suffer, either. But they are suffering. And you want to maintain it for some reason, with bizarre pathos-based reasoning. I'm also puzzled by what you imagine a purposeful life would be like for an animal. That's what I'm asking you. So are you retracting this silly statement you made? "Killing millions of them off doesn't seem very humane or fair especially when they can lead pretty normal and 'fulfilling' lives by the standards of animals like them." There is no fulfilled life without purpose. So what do we do with the ones that live now? Set them free, something which will likely cause more suffering than just treating them properly for the rest of their lives? Kill off healthy animals with years left to live, something which will violate them more gravely than anything else? Seems like no matter the choice, you're going against a core aspect of your philosophy. But I'm not. A core aspect of my philosophy is that we're all better off dead. On a different timeline, I might have been a mad scientist working to create a doomsday button. "Healthy animals with years left to live" to do WHAT, exactly? And they aren't healthy, by the way. Try doing some research. Hell, you don't even need research. Look up any factory farm, take a cursory glance at the animals and the conditions they're "living" in, and then think really hard about what a ridiculous statement you just made. I guess that logical inconsistency I see is that you advocate killing them all (which violates, disrespects and harms the animals and their agency/autonomy) No it doesn't. because you think they can't have any sort of purposeful life anyways (which is kind of your own speciest argument where we get to do whatever we want and treat these creatures in any way because we're superior and get to decide what's worthwhile or right/wrong for them). We're not the ones deciding what's right or wrong for them. You can't even decide that for yourself, because morality is objective. It's not a whim-based decision, it's a responsibility based on raw logic. Reality sucks, therefore let's get the fuck out of here. Basic stuff. It's not a meaningful example speciesism, because I'm trying to save the animals by delivering them from the shittiest world imaginable. If anything, that's speciesist against humans, because we'd still be here. Otherwise, parenting children should be considered ageism to you now. Not only is it ageism, it is a meaningful example of ageism. Children should be able to run free with no guidance whatsoever, is what you're basically trying to say. Killing them violates their autonomy and puts you in a position of superiority enforcing your views on the animal. Setting them free will cause mayhem and enormous amounts of pain, fear and suffering for millions of creatures. Perhaps letting them live on in humane conditions and continue being milked/shaved is both less of an invasion of their agency and overall causes them a lower amount of suffering.
Yes, yes, perhaps delaying the inevitable makes us look more moral without actually being so. Yes, yes. Quite. Don't put them out of their misery now. Wait until after they've suffered intensely for a few more years in an utterly pointless, unfulfilling, and unhappy existence. Yes, very rational. Very fair. Very humane.
2648
« on: July 07, 2018, 10:40:53 AM »
This utopia you're dreaming of is never going to exist, and if it does it'll be long after we're dead. It's pretty tiresome that you rely on this and use it as a crutch in very argument. My perfect utopia is never going to exist, which gives us a free pass to be greedy, avaricious scum. I don't understand why art and money are mutually exclusive to you and you're acting like money is disgusting and below art. I guarantee you all the great artists who died poor and have their art selling for millions in snooty art galleries would've preferred to have had that money while they were alive. The term "starving artist" isn't a badge of honor, it's a criticism of a deep flaw within our society where we don't value art enough and don't encourage it so artists can be successful and also make a living. It's a deep flaw in society that should not be the consumer's job to fix. A lot of these decisions to sell gun skins etc aren't made by the people who actually even make the game most of the time, it's usually the suits around who say "hey this is making money we should do it too". Oh my god, you're right. That makes it so much fucking better! I LOVE DLC now! There's plenty of DLC that's worth it. Way back to the first Ghost Recon, Desert Storm and Island Thunder were true expansions packs with like 8+ mission campaigns and new multiplayer maps with new weapons. Or just recently Nioh, which has 3 great expansion packs with a ton of work put into them which I might add were free for those of us who bought it on Steam. But that's the developer's choice, or sometimes it's out of their hands. Like Bungie who got forced by Microsoft to make ODST into another (half ass) game when it would've been awesome as DLC. How many mission campaigns were in the base game of the first Ghost Recon? Free DLC doesn't really count, obviously. It sucks that you only get it free on an inferior platform, though. ODST being its own game was the right decision, only it should've been priced accordingly. The fact that games tend to be $59.99 across the board nowadays is completely fucking asinine. Or maybe realizing he'd starve to death would have to put his artistic talents to the side while he does something else for money. Of course artists still want to create art even if they won't get paid, the point is they should be. But I shouldn't be the one doing it. "BURN EVERYTHING DOWN BECAUSE DLC IS ABUSED SOMETIMES" No, it's abused 99% of the time. You have to be so foolish to believe that the vast majority of game developers and publishers don't make plans for DLC very early into development. None of them are angels who would only think to add DLC after the game is already released and fairly successful. That's the real dream world. Yeah no offense to indie developers because they make great games on a limited budget, but I like big budget games. So you're the problem. Maybe if games were less expensive to make these days, we wouldn't be in this position. I don't see why the video game industry should be destroyed and reduced to sidescrollers because you now have an unfounded hatred for DLC. I mean, by this logic, all games should be free too. In which case nobody would ever make money so it'd be like 10 years until a game comes out and it'd drive the industry back decades. There'd be no new consoles, no controllers, no innovation of any kind. Sounds good to me. Games were better decades ago anyway. So we agree. The video game at launch is simply a cheeseburger, pickles cost extra. Some places give you pickles for free, but that's up to them. The past of me is about dietary shit, I don't want a whole new industry anyway. And you had the entire cheeseburger for free. What? Where do you eat where pickles cost extra? You have to specifically tell them not to add pickles if you don't want pickles. It doesn't make the burger cheaper. You're paying less for an incomplete burger, but if you don't like pickles, you don't like pickles. This is why the analogy is fucking dumb and doesn't work. These are different things we're talking about. There's no parity between ordering food and buying a video game. It's two different worlds. It's content they worked on after completing the game. It doesn't come included because it is EXTRA CONTENT. The game is not complete until you have all the DLC. You can't get MORE complete than complete. That's not how English or logic works. There's no line to draw. It's literally extra content. It's like saying the cheese pizza you ordered should have every topping on it for free. It cost the pizza place money to stock pepperoni, why the hell should they give it to you for free? great more shitty food analogies 😴 You don't want every topping on a pizza, because that'll ruin the pizza. Having every DLC package for a game won't ruin it. It'll COMPLETE it. You get a sense of completion—I have full access to EVERYTHING the game has to offer. It's complete. It's not more-than-complete, because there's no such thing as more-than-complete. It wasn't complete before you bought the DLC, and it lost "completed" status when they announced DLC after the game was released. The game that was once complete is now not complete anymore. Now you have to pay more. That's how this works. YOU are the one drawing arbitrary lines based on a whim hahaha what the fuck is this. It's not arbitrary at all, I've given numerous and detailed reasons for why I think the way I do, and you haven't been able to properly respond to anything so far. Just bad food analogies and simple quandaries that are easily answered with basic logic. They want more money and there's nothing wrong with that. There's everything wrong with it. Fuck them for forcing it on us, and fuck us for taking it up the ass. They don't make that much more profit on DLC. All the more reason not to fucking bother. You don't have to buy DLC, you do have to tip unless you're an insane asshole. Not tipping a waiter isn't gonna change the world and have their boss start paying them more. That's ridiculous. Do you have any idea how much that wouldn't work? Like at all? But I DO have to buy DLC if I want a complete experience. Let's say I get Nioh, and I get it on a superior console platform where none of the expansions are free. I beat the game and I thoroughly enjoy it, it's a 9/10 and one of my new favorite games. I then discover that there's DLC, and I have people like you saying "So you liked the game then? Are you gonna get the DLC now? The DLC is awesome, you should buy ALL of them. So are you gonna do it? Huh? Huh? Huh?" It cheapens the experience. It's not complete anymore, knowing there's SO MUCH content that I'm missing out on that I'll never get to play because of developer greed. There is absolutely no justification for this whatsoever, when back in the day, you never had to worry about any of this. You could just unlock everything for free through gameplay, and the entire game was in your hands. Remember unlocking shit? There was a time when you could unlock stuff in video games, for free, through gameplay. I don't know if it's because you're too young to remember, but that's how video games were. It was a better time, and I'll destroy the current state of the game industry to go back to that. And I never said I don't tip. It's a fucking FACT that I shouldn't have to, and I'll scream it from the mountaintops. But I just don't go to restaurants. I mean, obviously. Where would I eat? It shouldn't be my fucking job to pay you for the work you do. I'm sorry. So I'm never ever going to do it. Same thing with DLC for video games. I'm never buying it, you don't have to tell me not to. It's decided. Everyone should follow me on this if they're smart. Wrong. DLC is extra content, you don't need to buy it. If you can't afford it, tough shit that's life. You were sold an incomplete product, tough shit that's life. Yeah okay, I guess I'll just take that sitting down. I couldn't buy almost any DLC for years, you don't see me complaining. You don't see me saying the entire industry should bend and warp to my every complaint and want. You should be. You're a victim, and I sympathize with you. What the fuck? Did you not see the backlash the Fallout 4 Creator Club got and how people were saying it's Oblivion horse armor all over again? Because people are FUCKING MORONS who don't realize that this is all their fault. It's their doing. If they didn't support horse armor DLC twelve years ago, we wouldn't be here right now. No one is allowed to be upset except for me, because I saw the writing on the wall from the beginning. Fallout 4's creator club wasn't horse armor "all over again." Horse armor is something we've not only endured, not only accepted, but normalized. The fact that anyone could ever be pissed about anything DLC-related these days is pigshit because that's what the ENTIRE INDUSTRY revolves around these days, and it's our fault for causing it. Fuck anyone who got upset at that who doesn't also hate the entire industry like I do, since the very beginning. There is literally nothing wrong with DLC. Unless it's a shady developer that puts good ideas on pause to be sold as DLC later Literally all of them. I never feel like I NEED DLC for any game I own. There's like 4 DLC expansions for ARMA 3 I don't have and they're overpriced garbage. I could make better missions myself in a few hours on the editor or even download some for free on the Workshop. But you DO need them, if you want to complete the game. There are fighting games that have you pay for characters. You have to pay to have a full roster of playable characters. Are you seriously going to tell me that it's possible to have a complete fighting game if you don't have every fighter available to you? If you see DLC like that, simply don't buy it and don't show any support for it, or buy it on sale. Why are you giving me advice? Did this conversation not already start with me saying that I'm never buying DLC again? Why do you feel the need to tell me this? That's the only way to make sure we get good DLC that's priced fairly. This is simple shit, I shouldn't have to tell you this. You can't blame all DLC because some devs are greedy.
I can and I will, because they all are and I'd like it if they starved and died.
2649
« on: July 07, 2018, 06:33:29 AM »
Verbatim never has any real solution apart from kill everybody and everything.
mainly because there is no other solution
2650
« on: July 07, 2018, 12:29:29 AM »
How do you feel about hunting in order to control the population? How about killing off and eating invasive species that are destroying the environment such as Florida's lionfish?
i've shifted my thoughts on this frequently, but i've come to the conclusion (i think) that population control is a fair cause for that sort of thing—but there are other (perhaps better) solutions, such as reintroduction, because the only reason we need to do such things in the first place is because of overhunting the reason you might have a deer problem, for example, is because we hunted too many wolves—whose ecological function is to keep deer in check—so of course the deer population is going to rise reintroducing more wolves into the wilderness would solve the issue, but i won't sit here and tell you that a deer being mauled to death by a wolf is a whole lot better than being shot by a human—it's a pretty fucked up game we have to play, when you think about it that said, i'm not sure what preys on lionfish—sharks, maybe? not sure how that works
2651
« on: July 06, 2018, 10:11:04 PM »
hope Croatia wins tomorrow
really why what's gonna happen
2652
« on: July 06, 2018, 08:11:50 PM »
That doesn't seem to be very logically consistent. sure it is have i not said numerous times that i'd press a button that ends all life for the sake of ending all suffering before there's no logical inconsistency here, these animals have no chance of leading any kind of purposeful life The animals are there. They're alive and well regardless of whether they were bred to be a certain them. Killing millions of them off doesn't seem very humane or fair especially when they can lead pretty normal and "fulfilling" lives by the standards of animals like them. it's more than humane—it would be the most heroic thing possible to do describing these animals as alive is fair, but calling them "well" just shows a lack of education on the subject please describe what is "fulfilling" to a cow for me, i need to hear a good joke There's very few pets would be able to survive in the wild either, yet I doubt you advocate for a genocide of dogs, rabbits, birds, horses and so on for that reason. i mean, i don't think that's a horrible idea either a yearning for extinction has been a cornerstone of my general philosophy for a very long time—there is nothing more merciful than closing the book on life entirely, and i'm unaware of a better solution while also letting their "materials" go to waste even though they could ease the suffering of heaps of poor and hungry people.
if this is what you think i'd want to happen, then you haven't been paying attention (for the past two or three years) dead animals that are dead should probably be put to good use, yes veganism is more about activism than it is about dietary choice—if everyone suddenly became a vegan, the next moral step would be to consume all the animal products that have already been made so that it doesn't go to waste, but only under the auspices that no more of it ever gets produced again
2653
« on: July 06, 2018, 07:20:40 PM »
Dude it's a fucking video game about a magic zombie jailbreak. It's not that serious.
theft is a pretty serious crime actually you're certainly not one to talk about taking video games too seriously either
2654
« on: July 06, 2018, 06:23:44 PM »
wow, belgians sure are good at handling balls 👌
2655
« on: July 06, 2018, 05:59:51 PM »
I'm not going to have a discussion with you when you're just playing devil's advocate. People that believe this are dumbasses. Everybody deserves to be able to make a living, THAT'S life. Only I'm going a step further than you and saying that the concept of a "living" shouldn't exist. The fact that it does it the real problem. If you want to step into the world of art, don't come in with dollar signs in your eyes. Otherwise, what you're making barely qualifies as art, and there's absolutely no chance of me ever supporting anything you do or create. And if I do, it was because I was duped, because that's the game developers have to play in our capitalist system. How is the consumer being screwed? If it's good DLC that's priced fairly, what's the problem? "Preying" on dumbass people who buy gun skins is a myth and the only people to blame are the consumers. Why shouldn't people make money off of stupidity? Because it's immoral as fuck. You can't just take advantage of people like that and call yourself a good, honest person who deserves to make money doing what he loves. Name a good DLC that is priced fairly. None exist, only what you thought was worth it. It probably wasn't, especially if it was more than $5. We absolutely do need entertainment. That's how life works. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you do and wanting to make money, too. It's a product, why should it be exempt from having monetary value because it's art? Because it shouldn't be your primary focus. It shouldn't even be your secondary focus. If an artist were told that he could never make money off of his art again, a true artist wouldn't be discouraged by that. He'd continue making art, because that's what he does. Most game developers would quit, and those who would quit are the ones I don't want in the industry anyway. And if the industry would die without those people, then so be it. Fuck it all, let's just build a new industry off of independent game developers and hobbyists. I've been looking into playing some indie games anyway. Because a cheeseburger is just that, meat, cheese, and buns. Pickles are basically DLC. You just repeated yourself. I don't buy the analogy, come up with something different. Food and video games are way too different, because people are going to have different ideas of what they want to have on their cheeseburger. If I want a plain cheeseburger, then the plain cheeseburger I get is what I paid for. That's the completed product. If they add extra shit I don't want, then I'm returning it. Likewise, if I actually DO want extra shit, and they forget the pickles or whatever the fuck, then they sold me an incomplete product. When I buy a game, I'm under the impression that I'm going to be able to play the entire experience. And to me, if DLC doesn't come with, then it's not complete. How could it be? There's several hours worth of content that I'm missing out on, that I can't play, unless I pay extra. That's so fucking stupid. Where do you draw the line? There has to be a point where you realize the game isn't complete without the DLC. I draw the line at DLC, because any other line you draw is going to be completely arbitrary and based on personal whim. What's so bad about releasing a complete game with no DLC? What's wrong with that? Why can't they just do that? Why do they need more money out of me? Wow ok Tarantino. Hahaha come on dude that's not even the point. I agree devs should make more profits but it has nothing to do with DLC being free or not, because the profit margins aren't all that different. It's the point for me, I'm not terribly interested in whatever your point is honestly. Find another fucking job if you don't think you're getting paid enough, because I'm not paying you extra. I shouldn't have to, so I never fucking will, from the day I posted that forward. And if people are smart, they'll follow suit. So a game on launch day is incomplete even if DLC hasn't been announced?
Correct, and that's been the model for the past twelve-odd years. Games stopped being completed the moment the first ever DLC was created. Remember when Oblivion's horse armor came out, and everyone hated it and thought it was the stupidest fucking waste of money ever? That's been normalized. People eat that shit up, now. It's not just accepted, but highly encouraged. No, the golden years were when you could buy a game for the PS2 and you'd never have to pay anything extra for it. A quick $50 payment for some game, like Ratchet & Clank, and you had to pay for fuck else. And you had the entire game, right there in your hands. You never had to worry about playing anything else, except for sequels, but if you liked the game enough, you're gonna buy the next one anyway. And you know it's gonna be worth it, because it's a whole new game. Now everything is fucked. You're lucky if you're not spending $100 on a game you're into just to make sure you're not missing any of the extra content. Absolutely unacceptable.
2656
« on: July 06, 2018, 04:41:09 PM »
Fuck people who want to make money off something they created for you to enjoy? Why should they do it for free? Why are you dooming them to have to work somewhere else that they hate and not be able to make money off of games? Isn't this one of the things you hate the most about the world, about how (you think) you can't make a living off of writing? Why should DLC be free, apart from you basically saying you don't want to pay for it? Yes, fuck them. They don't do it for free—the games are already $60, and I don't care how much of a tiny fraction they actually make off of game sales. If they don't make enough, they can work somewhere else. And they'll hate it, but that's life. I don't want to make a living off of writing. I hate that I live in a world where you must make a living to begin with. People should just be able to live, period, and do whatever they want. That's not how it works. In any case, I care more about the consumer. It pisses me off to see people get practically stolen from when they buy shit products, because they're the people who are actually working real jobs, doing real things. Making video games is not something we need, so I don't view it as a real career. I wouldn't view my writing career as a real career, either, especially since I wouldn't be doing it for the money. I'd be doing it for the art, and that's the only reason any artist should ever want to make anything. It's extra content. A cheeseburger is complete with meat and cheese. Ketchup, mustard, pickles, onions, peppers, and so on are extras. Says who? Why can't I say you're wrong about that? Maybe a cheeseburger DOES need to have all of those things. Either way, video games and food are different. You should care, because you're acting like developers are these greedy assholes who who just want to screw us out of our money for no reason when they're the ones getting the shit end of the stick on profits. Fucking sucks ass for them, then. I'm against tipping for the same exact reason, too. Maybe they should get paid more in general. Why the fuck do honest regular working people have to pick up the tab for them? That's bullshit. Nope. The game is complete at launch.
False, by definition of the word.
2657
« on: July 06, 2018, 11:52:19 AM »
you first OP
2658
« on: July 06, 2018, 11:44:39 AM »
What about the fact that several animals suffer when they're not treated that way? Not milking cows can have pretty serious negative effects for their health and the same applies for other animals (sheep not being shaved, for example). Should we just stop milking or shaving them and just accept that it will harm millions of animals or do you suggest we do those things but then just throw away and waste all of the resources?
i don't know for sure, but i'd imagine that's only because those particular animals were so heavily specialized to BE exploited, that not exploiting them for their materials would also be harmful to them in the way you noted animals bred in this fashion should, frankly, be put out of their misery—it's not like they'll be able to survive in the wild, or anything if this remains true of farm animals that are not specialized, i'm not sure if any such animals even exist at this point, and i guess i would need to see the studies before making any concrete statements on that
2659
« on: July 06, 2018, 11:38:33 AM »
Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?
nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible
i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary
how do you feel about free range chickens for eggs?
i feel like "free range" in general is a meme used to obfuscate what actually goes on, just to reassure people and make them feel like they're not actually doing anything unethical good article on the subject that will be disregarded as biased and non-factual
2660
« on: July 06, 2018, 11:29:26 AM »
For you.
Do you think being misinformed is why more people arent vegan?
in this day and age, not really—or at least, it's not the biggest reason anymore, but it may have been in the past i think most people know in their hearts that veganism is just the way to go in the current year they just don't do it, or find excuses not to do it, out of laziness, apathy, and the fact that they're literally addicted
2661
« on: July 06, 2018, 04:19:14 AM »
Is free-range farming a cow for milk / cheese okay?
nope, because that cow's milk is still not really for you to consume, and the cow itself still does not exist for you to exploit, even if you treat it as nicely as possible i'd have to concede that it's much less shitty to do it that way (or at least, the idea of it is), but it's still highly unnecessary
2662
« on: July 05, 2018, 11:35:17 PM »
That guide really underestimates how bad vegan food tastes like.
i think you're overestimating how much it matters vegan food could taste like literal, actual shit, and i wouldn't stop being a vegan or being an advocate it helps that it actually doesn't taste that bad, though
2663
« on: July 05, 2018, 11:32:17 PM »
#6 I don’t have an argument but I’ll still eat meat because it’s delicious.
a more honest way of saying that would be "because i'm addicted and i don't care"
2664
« on: July 05, 2018, 11:31:34 PM »
you forgot the most important and easily justified reason
they're tasty
that's not a reason why you'd think eating animals is okay that's a reason why you eat animals two different questions nobody who thinks it's okay to eat animals on the SOLE BASIS that they taste good is a person i'm willing to take seriously, because the counterarguments against that position are so obvious and facile that it's a complete waste of time and effort
2665
« on: July 05, 2018, 06:26:12 PM »
I don't think it's right to kill animals, but cutting meats from my diet won't improve my health or change the market any significant manner. It also wouldn't make me a better person.
Yes it would, no it wouldn't but that's not the point, and yes it would.
It's healthy to moderate your meats and cut back every so often. As for being a better person, leaving such an insignificant impact over a choice during my life shouldn't be concerning. Environmentally, it would make me a better person. It wouldn't make much of a difference unless there are more noticeable drops in consumers. Otherwise, it's not like becoming a vegan would make me any less of an asshole.
I think there's a lot more to becoming a better person than the ability or capacity to make widespread social change. You'll probably never make any real impact on anything in life, let alone this—but I don't see why that should preclude you from the "is a good person" club. Maybe not the good person club, but the better person club. Maybe no one is capable of being good, but everyone is capable of being better.
2666
« on: July 05, 2018, 05:56:03 PM »
I don't think it's right to kill animals, but cutting meats from my diet won't improve my health or change the market any significant manner. It also wouldn't make me a better person.
Yes it would, no it wouldn't but that's not the point, and yes it would.
2667
« on: July 05, 2018, 05:40:38 PM »
Not gonna go through all of it but I'm immediately skeptical of any activist site or group that make claims like "scientists have proven that X" when this is not only contested/challenged but also ignores crucial parts of the research at hand. This is literally the second point out of the list of 49 and I already have issues trusting their other claims. If you ever want to win people over and build a proper argument, don't do this stuff. It only hurts your credibility.
Don't see anything wrong with the claim. My response to the same argument was better anyway, so substitute mine for theirs if you absolutely must. Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with challenging the concept that humans are indisputably at the top of the food chain, because that's really only insofar as our technological advancement goes. Try fighting a lion naked.
2668
« on: July 05, 2018, 05:00:18 PM »
I followed the thread fine on mobile.
fair enough, i've just heard that spoiler tags don't work on mobile or something
2669
« on: July 05, 2018, 04:30:41 PM »
if you're on mobile, stop being a peasant and get on your desktop instead otherwise, this thread isn't gonna work for you Why do you think it's okay to kill animals for food? #1. Because they're just animals. We may be animals, too, but they're still below us on the food chain. You simply cannot compare a human with an animal, because we evolved to be superior to them. Ah, the classic "speciesist" argument—the belief that humans are inherently "superior" to livestock, because a human is a human is a cow is a cow. Mindless bigotry combined with toxic "might makes right" philosophy. Anything that you can overpower is yours to overpower, and it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, because they're not gonna be able to do anything about it anyway. So, if an advanced alien race invaded us from the cosmos and decided to enslave and consume the entire human race, because they're stronger than us, and we have no chance of fighting back, we should just accept our fate. We can still try to fight them, but if we lose, we lose, and they'll have carte blanche over all humanity. That's what you'd be okay with. #1a. I wouldn't be okay with that, actually. As a human, I want the human race to continue to survive, so if we were destroyed by aliens more powerful than us, there may not be anything we can do about it, but it still wouldn't be right. Perhaps you should consider applying those morals to the lesser beings that you consume. If you don't see what makes it okay for an extraterrestrial race to consume humans, to not apply the same standard across the board would be a basic example of hypocrisy.
#1b. Yes, I would be okay with that. Your sense of ethics is dogshit—borderline insane—but at least you're consistent.
#2. Because wild animals eat each other all the time. Some of them are carnivorous, and can't even survive unless they consume another animal's flesh. What makes it so different for us? It's just natural. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-natureThere are a lot of perfectly natural things about the world that are decidedly not good or okay. Disease is natural, so I guess we should just throw out all of our vaccines and all of our medicine, and just allow natural forces to destroy our bodies from the inside out. Don't try to stop it, it's just nature. Or, we can say "fuck that," continue using medicine, continue wearing clothes, continue using technology, and continue using the reasoning brains we've been given to make the world a better and more rational place for life to exist in—not in the name of nature, but in spite of nature. The one thing that separates humans from animals is that animals can't reason. We have a brain that we can consciously use for good, ethical, or altruistic purposes. Animals obviously don't, and while that may not make us superior to animals, in the sense that it gives us the right to exploit them—No, what it does is behoove us to be smart, responsible, and compassionate. Just because animals can't do that doesn't mean we can't, or that we should stoop to their level. That's retarded. What you're basically suggesting for us to do is to regress, and reduce ourselves to the stupid, primitive animals that we evolved from, functioning solely on our most base and carnal desires. Why are you like this? #2a. I just don't think it's right to assume you know better than nature. "Nature" doesn't "know" anything. Nature is not a person. Nature is not a god. Nature is a deterministic force—it has no thoughts, it's just a perpetual yet seemingly inescapable influence on the physical world. Luckily for us, however, it does not have a total stranglehold on reality. Using our intelligence, we can influence the influencer, and practically bend it to our will, just like we've been doing for millennia. The fact that human beings, as weak and frail and fragile as we are, became the most "successful" species on the planet should be proof positive to you that nature does not completely own us. If it did, we wouldn't be ruling the world right now.
We can rule it, and we can also defy and reject it. We don't have to reduce ourselves to stupid animals. So let's not. That's, more or less, what our intelligence is for.
#3. Because I can. Humans are omnivores, after all. The ability to do something, unfortunately, does not give you the right to do it. You're going to need more robust reasoning than that. #3a. I don't care. I don't need to justify myself to you. "Go fuck yourself" is the only appropriate response to anything resembling this. This applies to any subject. #4. Some people need to eat meat. There are certain nutrients that can't easily be found in a plant-based diet, like vitamin B12. Let's not play games—You don't get enough vitamins, you don't care about your health. And even if you do, you're not a dietitian, and you don't know shit about shit. This is just a lazy excuse. B12 can be supplemented easily. They're called... vitamin supplements. They're available everywhere, and if you truly cared at all about your health, you should probably be ingesting a bunch of these anyway, because no one is getting enough of their most essential vitamins. Alternatively, you can look around for fortified foods that have B12 in them. It's not difficult, it's not hard. You just have to know and pay attention to what you're doing. You just don't want to because it requires you to put a little bit more effort into what you're buying at the grocery store, because you normally don't put any thought into it at all. As for protein, there are numerous sources of protein in many plant-based foods. There's beans, nuts, legumes, lentils, mushrooms, and more. You can even substitute your precious meat for soy-based analogues that taste remotely similar, even if they're not perfect. #4a. Yeah, but aren't those things all pretty expensive? I don't know if I can afford vegan products. Or find them, for that matter. You can. Look harder.
If you truly can't, consider doing something about it. Move out. Go to stores you've never visited before. Find shit online. If you can't, but you're still wiling to, then at least your heart is in the right place, and I have nothing to spite you for, really.
Most of you can, but just aren't willing to.
this isn't complete, and i was planning on building upon it later but then i noticed that someone already did it way better than me, oops
2670
« on: July 05, 2018, 01:27:10 PM »
is this....a JOJO REFERENCE XDDDDDD
look at this duuuude, hes doing a pose MUST BE THE WORK OF A ENEMY STAND XZDXDDXDZDZSXF>FSDVAHJFTSTYKXJ
how does it feel to have shit taste
you have fallen so far, it is unbelievable
Pages: 1 ... 878889 9091 ... 1601
|
Show Posts