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 - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 196197198 199200 ... 243
5911
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:25:02 PM »
5912
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:20:30 PM »
There is no such thing as tipping here. Waiters actually get paid.
Yeah but here in America we have something called "freedom"
[eagle cry in the background]
5913
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:14:28 PM »
Well, shitty service = no tip. You don't deserve my money if I don't get a good experience/service out of it.
Even the worst service still warrants a 5% tip. Waiters rely on that money as part of their income.
Not in Bongistan they don't.
Ah, sorry. I thought you were American for some reason.
You guys really need to change your minimum wage laws.
5914
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:11:42 PM »
Well, shitty service = no tip. You don't deserve my money if I don't get a good experience/service out of it.
Even the worst service still warrants a 5% tip. Waiters rely on that money as part of their income.
Not in Bongistan they don't.
5915
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:07:06 PM »
Well, shitty service = no tip. You don't deserve my money if I don't get a good experience/service out of it.
5916
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:40:41 PM »
Prolly just going to get the mods in to lock this thread.
This forum is literally cancer. Don't know why I bother spending time here.
what would they lock it for? this has been a very civil discussion. i have provided all the proper sources for my arguments against TLOU's "realism" and i have given you ample opportunity to do the same for your argument. dont back out on me now... it was just getting fun =]
This thread has been derailed to fuck over the basis of a word. That warrants a lock.
derailed? we're simply having a discussion about TLOU's realism. this is actually very on topic. i would know, since i made the thread..
No, we're not. This thread has turned into a flamewar over the definitions of words and fucking biology.
5917
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:38:55 PM »
Prolly just going to get the mods in to lock this thread.
This forum is literally cancer. Don't know why I bother spending time here.
what would they lock it for? this has been a very civil discussion. i have provided all the proper sources for my arguments against TLOU's "realism" and i have given you ample opportunity to do the same for your argument. dont back out on me now... it was just getting fun =]
This thread has been derailed to fuck over the basis of a word. That warrants a lock.
5918
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:36:51 PM »
Like, fucking holy Christ, the amount of people that will derail a thread and troll the shit out of it based on the definition of a word, or conflate subjectivity with objectivity.
Some serious mod presence is required for that forum. More so than the flood.
5919
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:34:02 PM »
Prolly just going to get the mods in to lock this thread.
This forum is literally cancer. Don't know why I bother spending time here.
5920
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:29:51 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
le funy reaction face ex dee dee
Really though, what are you guys even arguing at this point? I asked a question then I get a torrent of sperglords trying to debate semantics and contest basic biology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realistic
You're changing the meaning of realistic to possible.
Possible != realistic.
Which is why Azu said:
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=realistic
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=possible
that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable. ya dun goof'd m9
We done with this semantics war, or are you going to continue to debate definitions and scientific fact?
you're very stubborn.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realistic
realism:
concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary;
the theory or practice of fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealization
from Merriam-Webster. do you have a more credible dictionary source than that? i doubt it. please stop. you're embarrassing yourself.
"This online source isn't credible because it's online, but this OTHER online source is!" Holy fuck lol, the logic.
5921
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:28:24 PM »
im arguing that The Last of Us isnt a realistic game. it's only realistic in the sense that it takes place on our earth and has human characters who use guns and stuff. the non-realistic story elements, such as the fungus zombies, comprise the overarching theme and therefore it is inherently based in non-reality. so, it's a very bad example of a "realistic game."
sure, if you ignore all the unrealistic elements of the game, then it becomes realistic... but the fundamental idea of The Last of Us isnt realistic at all.
And if you actually read my post, I never stated it was outright grounded in realism either. I said it was as close as any videogame has ever gotten to the post apocalyptic setting due it's attention to grit, and the fact that it uses actual real life viral pathogens.
Christ, this forum really needs a crash course in basic literacy.
oh hey shit we've gotten to the backtracking stage of losing an argument
good golly god damn kid you're a goldmine of impotent rhetoric
Please, I'd love for you to point out in my posts where I stated that TLOU was a realistic game.
5922
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:27:14 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
le funy reaction face ex dee dee
Really though, what are you guys even arguing at this point? I asked a question then I get a torrent of sperglords trying to debate semantics and contest basic biology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realistic
You're changing the meaning of realistic to possible.
Possible != realistic.
Which is why Azu said:
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=realistic
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=possible
that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable. ya dun goof'd m9
We done with this semantics war, or are you going to continue to debate definitions and scientific fact?
>Using google to define words instead of a dictionary
Yes, we are done.
By all means, refer to a paper dictionary. I'm sure you'll find the same definition.
5923
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:22:17 PM »
im arguing that The Last of Us isnt a realistic game. it's only realistic in the sense that it takes place on our earth and has human characters who use guns and stuff. the non-realistic story elements, such as the fungus zombies, comprise the overarching theme and therefore it is inherently based in non-reality. so, it's a very bad example of a "realistic game."
sure, if you ignore all the unrealistic elements of the game, then it becomes realistic... but the fundamental idea of The Last of Us isnt realistic at all.
And if you actually read my post, I never stated it was outright grounded in realism either. I said it was as close as any videogame has ever gotten to the post apocalyptic setting due it's attention to grit, and the fact that it uses actual real life viral pathogens. Christ, this forum really needs a crash course in basic literacy.
5924
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:20:08 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
le funy reaction face ex dee dee
Really though, what are you guys even arguing at this point? I asked a question then I get a torrent of sperglords trying to debate semantics and contest basic biology.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realistic
You're changing the meaning of realistic to possible.
Possible != realistic.
Which is why Azu said:
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=realistichaving or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=possiblethat may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable. ya dun goof'd m9 We done with this semantics war, or are you going to continue to debate definitions and scientific fact?
5925
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:11:44 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
inflammatory? oh, friend, you have it all wrong... you pulled out the autist card, i simply played the game you started.
le funy reaction face ex dee dee Really though, what are you guys even arguing at this point? I asked a question then I get a torrent of sperglords trying to debate semantics and contest basic biology.
5926
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:03:35 PM »
mordo, since you keep repeating the same thing over and over, i thought id take the liberty to repost something i said earlier in the thread that you might have missed.
here, let me clue you in on some #relevanthistoricalinformation
the confucians have long believed in a concept called "the rectification of names," which encourages proper nomenclature of things so as to catalyze social harmony. so, when you take words like "realism," dilute the meaning and apply it to define something that... isnt realistic at all... that's a breach of proper confucian conduct, and you are fostering social enmity instead of harmony
I'm not sure why you're bringing out ancient Chinese philosophy to debate microbiology, but eh. Whatever. I'm done with this inflammatory thread.
5927
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:51:15 PM »
no mordo i just think your entire argument is flat out retarded
My argument that TLOU has a realistic-ish setting? That viruses are entirely capable of jumping from species to species which has been confirmed by a plethora of scientific evidence and backing? Yeah, okay. It's retarded. Cool.
5928
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:31:55 PM »
Yeah, they do, but it isn't making it any more plausible for a fungus that, as of now, targets the brains and bodies of ants to do the same to humans. It'd take quite a while for them to go from infecting ants to, say, infecting rodents, to larger animals, and so on, all the way to humans. So no, the concept itself is still not realistic. At least, not in the time frame we're given in the story. I never said it was "realistic" or even plausible. I said it was possible. But yeah, thanks for reaffirming my statement. You're right about one thing, that if you take out the zombies the story is realistic, but you could say the same about pretty much anything. Take out the Conduits in inFamous, and the story is realistic. Take out the talking animals and robots in Sonic the Hedgehog, and story is realistic. Take out the unrealistic elements, and the story is realistic. What a tacit statement. "Take out all the stuff that makes a game unrealistic and it becomes realistic." Yeah, no shit. What I'm trying to say is that the backdrop and setting to The Last Of Us is as closest to an actual apocalyptic setting than any game has ever attempted. Are you guys willfully electing to ignore sections of my post, or?
5929
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:18:48 PM »
or realistic(ish) settings and backdrops like The Last Of Us?
lol
lol
LOL
Hm?
realistic games
the last of us
pick one
>backdrop
Cordyceps are a real thing you know.
The idea of them doing the same to humans what they do to ants is laughable, however. Certain diseases and parasites have some influence over human behavior, but not enough to create zombies.
Plausible? No.
Possible? Yes. The idea of a viral pathogen jumping from species to species is not unheard of.
Anything is 'possible' when you get down to it.
The idea of a viral pathogen that specifically targets ants suddenly being able to infect a far more complex human brain is an interesting one, but I'm not about to pretend it's even semi-realistic.
Well when you put "suddenly" into the equation that's when it becomes impossible.
Watch the video. It details how 60% of our diseases originate from domesticated animals, and how it's possible for an infection to travel along a particular food chain.
his argument is also almost entirely based on conjecture. that's an entertainment spot for vsauce, not a serious scientific examination of the plausibility of such a thing. im not convinced.
Conjecture based on reputable scientific theories. Conjecture backed up with credible citations. Fuck, I'm not even saying cordyceps is a viable threat. But to deny the possibility of human infection is to deny basic biology and microbiology.
5930
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:13:47 PM »
or realistic(ish) settings and backdrops like The Last Of Us?
lol
lol
LOL
Hm?
realistic games
the last of us
pick one
>backdrop
Cordyceps are a real thing you know.
The idea of them doing the same to humans what they do to ants is laughable, however. Certain diseases and parasites have some influence over human behavior, but not enough to create zombies.
Plausible? No.
Possible? Yes. The idea of a viral pathogen jumping from species to species is not unheard of.
Anything is 'possible' when you get down to it.
The idea of a viral pathogen that specifically targets ants suddenly being able to infect a far more complex human brain is an interesting one, but I'm not about to pretend it's even semi-realistic.
Well when you put "suddenly" into the equation that's when it becomes impossible. Watch the video. It details how 60% of our diseases originate from domesticated animals, and how it's possible for an infection to travel along a particular food chain. Viruses mutate to accommodate their hosts mang.
5931
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:05:58 PM »
or realistic(ish) settings and backdrops like The Last Of Us?
lol
lol
LOL
Hm?
realistic games
the last of us
pick one
>backdrop
Cordyceps are a real thing you know.
The idea of them doing the same to humans what they do to ants is laughable, however. Certain diseases and parasites have some influence over human behavior, but not enough to create zombies.
Plausible? No. Possible? Yes. The idea of a viral pathogen jumping from species to species is not unheard of.
5932
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:39:39 PM »
not even realisticish
having zombies at all removes it entirely from the realm of plausibility
besides, the game's AI is so fucking bad that the "realistic enemies" end up being dumber than actual rocks
BACKDROP AND SETTING Jesus Christ, if you're going to be an autist just forget it.
5933
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:36:18 PM »
or realistic(ish) settings and backdrops like The Last Of Us?
lol
lol
LOL
Hm?
realistic games
the last of us
pick one
realistic(ish) realistic (ish) (ish) Seriously, minus the zombies it's actually a pretty realistic take on the post apocalyptic setting. So are you going to my question or are you just going to be a sanctimonious asshole?
5934
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:35:04 PM »
super OP videogame virus vs super OP videogame virus
gee, I don't know. I've never seen Ebola fight Anthrax before so...
5935
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:34:07 PM »
or realistic(ish) settings and backdrops like The Last Of Us?
lol
lol
LOL
Hm?
5936
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:32:21 PM »
What do you mean by realism? Realistic combat like Operation Flashpoint, or realistic(ish) settings and backdrops like The Last Of Us?
5937
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:29:20 PM »
Say what you will about ISIS but their production quality is spot on. Don't think I've ever seen someone being immolated in 1080p.
5938
« on: February 04, 2015, 11:30:17 AM »
"hurr the stars are the states and the stripes are the colonies"
Literally something a 5 year old would draw.
RULE BRITANNIA.
5939
« on: February 04, 2015, 11:26:34 AM »
5940
« on: February 04, 2015, 10:30:48 AM »
ITT: Semantics wars
Semantics aren't necessarily pointless. There's a lot of value in determining the actual position other people take in a discussion, and topics of logic are by definition topics of semantics.
The definition of omnipotence isn't really subjective though, is it?
Pages: 1 ... 196197198 199200 ... 243
|
Show Posts
