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 - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 312313314 315316 ... 352
9391
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:20:28 PM »
wasting your time
Considering new ideas and discussing philosophical quandaries may be a waste of time for you, but considering that a good deal of Serious deals with those things, it would appear that you're a minority in that belief. I'm not intending to be condescending in saying this, but if you don't want to discuss philosophy, then don't. You're just wasting yours and every other person's time by doing that.
I never said I don't discuss philosophy.
I said I'm not going to sit here and answer loaded questions and allow you guys to jerk each other off because in theory nobody would be violent. In theory humanity could stop all wars and fighting and get rid of poverty, but we won't. I live in the real world.
How is it a loaded question? Anti-natalism is-- by nature-- an improbable concept. I'm not even an anti-natalist, I have no stake in the spread of the philosophy. You claimed that anti-natalism (essentially a thought experiment) is genocidal; since anti-natalism calls for a voluntary abstinence from procreation, it can't be genocidal by nature. It has nothing to do with those already concepted, it's preventative like a condom. "Don't have children" can sum up the doctrine. Since it deals with nonexistent beings, it can't involve genocide. There's nothing to kill. You can say with a degree of certainty what would happen in the case that it was applied practically, but again-- it's essentially a thought experiment. It's impractical, you can't argue it in terms of practicality. You are also really good at instigating, Chally. I don't even mean that negatively, it's truly an amazing trait that if applied elsewhere, could really do things. In the practical world.
9392
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:13:42 PM »
i could go all day picking this stuff apart and arguing semantic logic but im not getting through to you guys so ill leave it at this. Everyone understands exactly what you're saying. We're all in agreement. We're discussing different facets of the game, and because of that our statements on it being realistic and unrealistic are both correct. the backdrop of TLOU fundamentally includes its setting, which is grounded in the fictional spread of a (fictionally mutated) fungus across the world and the consequences of that fungal outbreak on society. the execution is realistic for its context, but the context itself is inherently unrealistic, so it lies entirely in the realm of non-reality. The backdrop does not necessitate-- nor preclude-- finer details. Hence, "a biological infection" instead of specifically "Cordycep zombies". The backdrop-- which by the original statement excludes the finer details [not contradicting the definition] of the game like zombies or gameplay comprimises (e.g. health kits healing bullet wounds)-- is realistic. now, how does this tie in with the OP? TLOU's gameplay wants to be realistic, but the AI is so goddamn retarded that the execution falls flat on its face. the actual story progresses logically and plausibly within the confines of the overarching theme, but as i stated before, it's inherently unrealistic. Nobody said that the AI is realistic. Nobody said zombies are realistic. Only that the backdrop is. One facet of the game, not the whole, not a single other thing. so, at the core of things, if we categorize games into "realistic," and "unrealistic," TLOU obviously falls into the latter category. Unarguably correct. But that wasn't what he was arguing. but that begs the question; how many games are actually realistic, then? how many games are close enough to reality to actually qualify as fundamentally realistic? i think that's the question we should really be finding the answer to, because this argument is going nowhere fast. Realistic, as overarching term for media such as games, would be quantified on how close it (as a sum of all its parts) is to reality. The least amount of compromises made in terms of reality would be "realistic".
9393
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:58:23 PM »
Unless it is a quote inside a quote.
Yeah but that's not what people are doing.
I realize that, but you didn't specifically say that in your post.  Apostrophes can be used in the place of quotation marks in a grammatically sound context.
9394
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:57:18 PM »
wasting your time
Considering new ideas and discussing philosophical quandaries may be a waste of time for you, but considering that a good deal of Serious deals with those things, it would appear that you're a minority in that belief. I'm not intending to be condescending in saying this, but if you don't want to discuss philosophy, then don't. You're just wasting yours and every other person's time by doing that.
9395
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:53:04 PM »
People, Mordo isn't saying that TLOU is realistic (it isn't). That's why he specified backdrop. Zombies are clearly fictional, but how everyone reacts to a fatal and highly contagious infection isn't that out there. How it handles an apocalyptic scenario isn't that far fetched either.
the general idea is founded in a very un-realistic setting, so i would argue that it doesnt qualify as realistic by virtue of its inherent theme. that's all im saying, fundamentally
Nobody is disagreeing that TLOU is unrealistic. A backdrop is defined as, "the setting or conditions within which something happens". The conditions being "a highly contagious and fatal infection spreads throughout the US (most likely the world) and results in a failing of government agencies to hold society together. How do people react to this?"
yes, TLOU does deal with those things in a plausible way. but, as we've established, for something to be considered realistic, it needs to be grounded in reality and fidelity to nature/real life with accurate representation and without idealization. In the case of TLOU, is it fundamentally grounded in a very unrealistic theme- it handles the consequences of the outbreak in a solid, plausible way, but by its very nature it is rendered unrealistic, and isn't fit to be mentioned in the realm of "realistic video games." does that make sense?
This is why I started with "TLOU isn't realistic". Nobody has debated that, nobody disagrees with you. You're equating the whole of the game-- which is unrealistic-- to the backdrop, the only thing he mentioned in his post. TLOU is unrealistic. The backdrop isn't. You are both correct because you are both arguing two different points.
9396
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:49:01 PM »
Yup. He doesn't exist, and neither does omnipotence, so it's a waste of time.
Then I'm done discussing this. If you can't hold any merit in philosophy, then there's no point in discussing philosophy with you.
9397
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:46:21 PM »
People, Mordo isn't saying that TLOU is realistic (it isn't). That's why he specified backdrop. Zombies are clearly fictional, but how everyone reacts to a fatal and highly contagious infection isn't that out there. How it handles an apocalyptic scenario isn't that far fetched either.
the general idea is founded in a very un-realistic setting, so i would argue that it doesnt qualify as realistic by virtue of its inherent theme. that's all im saying, fundamentally
Nobody is disagreeing that TLOU is unrealistic. A backdrop is defined as, "the setting or conditions within which something happens". The conditions being "a highly contagious and fatal infection spreads throughout the US (most likely the world) and results in a failing of government agencies to hold society together. How do people react to this?"
9398
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:42:13 PM »
This is really simple. You guys just refuse to accept that in practice, it'd be genocide.
And you refuse to understand that we aren't talking about practicality.
Yes or no: is VOLUNTARY extinction genocide? No "in practice", because that's irrelevant. We aren't talking about probability, or "how it would actually work out". It's an incredibly simple question. If every single human were to agree to not procreate, would it be genocide?
Practicality is all that matters.
Otherwise we might as well talk about flying pigs.
And I assume that (to use another thread in Serious as an example) the discussion of God's Omnipotence is uninteresting because it lacks practical application.
9399
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:39:33 PM »
People, Mordo isn't saying that TLOU is realistic (it isn't). That's why he specified backdrop. Zombies are clearly fictional, but how everyone reacts to a fatal and highly contagious infection isn't that out there. How it handles an apocalyptic scenario isn't that far fetched either.
9400
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:35:07 PM »
This is really simple. You guys just refuse to accept that in practice, it'd be genocide.
And you refuse to understand that we aren't talking about practicality. Yes or no: is VOLUNTARY extinction genocide? No "in practice", because that's irrelevant. We aren't talking about probability, or "how it would actually work out". It's an incredibly simple question. If every single human were to agree to not procreate, would it be genocide?
9401
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:32:40 PM »
voluntary celibacy Careful. We've been over this--there's nothing about celibacy in anti-natalism.
Error in word choice-- voluntary abstinence from procreation.
9402
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:28:28 PM »
Here's what we're saying here, Chally:
In the scenario that complete, 100% lack of resistance, total resignation to voluntary extinction, voluntary celibacy among humans-- is it genocide? It's not a question of "what would really happen", or "it's not probable"-- that's irrelevant. "Neither" is not a legitimate answer to "Would you rather be in Silent Hill or Raccoon City"; it would be impossible to actually be transported to either, and whether you'd want to go or not is irrelevant. Just like whether you believe voluntary extinction is impossible, it is irrelevant to the question.
9403
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:17:37 PM »
There will always be a violent group in an ideology, especially one that encourages people not to do things.
You are equating the potential for violence with an ideology that doesn't promote violence. If a self-identified anti-natalist were to blow up a daycare centre, that wouldn't mean anti-natalists want to blow up daycare centres. that means a violent individual acted against a core tenant- to reduce suffering (or disutility as meta would put it)- of the philosophy and blew up a daycare centre.
9404
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:38:33 PM »
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.
I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.
We're discussing concepts here, not probable implementation. "Likeliness" has nothing to do with the question.
I'm not disputing that.
Okay then. I just thought I'd restate what Meta said with less fancy vocabulary to see if more people would understand that. >_>
9405
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:35:09 PM »
It's not impossible to argue against anti-natalism in some forms or another, but you don't need to resort to calling it genocidal or edgy. All it does is make the conversation steer back towards defining anti-natalism, since most reactions I've seen are knee-jerk to the name alone.
9406
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:33:00 PM »
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.
I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.
We're discussing concepts here, not probable implementation. "Likeliness" has nothing to do with the question.
9407
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:32:41 PM »
What's your name in real life?
obviously it's HaloK1LL3R M16A4.
That's for him to decide.
Hey, he might identify as an M16A4 you meatbag bigot.
9408
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:31:38 PM »
But at the same time, realism =/= poor gameplay.
i cant think of very many "realistic" games that were any good
enlighten me
Flight Sims are the bomb.
if you're into that sort of thing i guess
i think hotline miami is actually fairly realistic, since the player char dies just as easily as the enemies
Games like ARMA are pretty bland unless you're really into MilSim, but saying "realistic" is a negative is about as silly as saying it's a positive.
9409
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:30:16 PM »
What's your name in real life?
obviously it's HaloK1LL3R M16A4.
9410
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:28:59 PM »
But at the same time, realism =/= poor gameplay.
i cant think of very many "realistic" games that were any good
enlighten me
Flight Sims are the bomb.
9411
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:25:20 PM »
But at the same time, realism =/= poor gameplay.
9412
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:22:35 PM »
Unless it is a quote inside a quote.
9413
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:09:35 PM »
Someone has to exist to be killed, Chally. The only cause of death in that situation would be father time. I get what you're saying- that he's advocating mass extinction and this could be considered a negative for a species- but that's not the same thing as genocide.
9414
« on: February 04, 2015, 11:02:45 AM »
Wonderful 101 is more wonderful
9415
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:45:25 AM »
If they do, I want it to be the final Zelda game. And I want them to call it Zelda III.
Not "The Legend of Zelda"--just Zelda III.
Zelda III with a subtitle is more likely, given Zelda II: The Adventures of Link. Zelda III: The End of a Legend
9416
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:25:10 AM »
Nothing, I guess.
9417
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:08:37 AM »
But remember, they're more open-minded than liberals.
9418
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:37:52 PM »
Have to back out of this until I can resolve some computer issues.
9419
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:46:53 AM »
1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist
So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?
Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)
Which is always a plus, yes. Adoption is a fantastic thing, be it for children or pets.
Better to give those without homes a home, after all.
And that's what's being said here. Verb's not saying to kill all the babies, he's saying to not bring new life into suffering. If you want to be a parent still, adopt so that a being that's already been born- that's already tainted by the suffering- can life live with less of it.
Well he doesn't want to kill, he just wants to stop all existence- at least from what I've gathered.
Unless there was a painless way to eradicate all life.
Then I'm sure he'd be all for that.
He's not even promoting death in that sense. Anti-natalism involves genocide, it's voluntary extinction.
9420
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:39:12 AM »
...what?
Is something about what I said confusing? Because I can't see it.
Your wording. I can't tell if you're saying it's impossible to be "a social darwinism" (again, the wording) or if you're insulting me for supposedly being a social darwinist, as you claimed.
He jokingly called you a social darwinist, then said that he doesn't think you're stupid enough to actually be one. Pretty sure it was a compliment, if not slightly backhanded.
Pages: 1 ... 312313314 315316 ... 352
|
Show Posts