Messages

If someone wants to talk numbers, go right ahead. I know numbers can be read any way people want too, it's not going to magically make people agree on this thread. There's violence in other parts of the world than the US, but we're talking gun deaths, gun ownership, crazed killers with automatic weapons.

Your pacifistic values sound cute, but when someone's threatening your life and the lives of your loved ones, you're going to wish you had some way of defending yourself.

This is not going to happen 99.9% to me. The odds are very slight. If I bring a weapon inside my home so I can feel 'safe' against such an odd, then I should never go out in the street where a car is far more likely to run me over. I get to live my life not pondering violent death every new level of the dungeon because guess what! I live in a civilized society!

Shit happens still. So what.

The odds are worse in the US, but as I said, who is benefitting from this, who is feeding this, and is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you cultivate a culture of violence you'll reap violence. Then you say 'we need the guns against the violence'. Oh come on.

And since you keep mentioning a "culture of violence", what about the widespread riots in Paris? I remember picking up a textbook once and seeing something about a few thousand years worth of war in Europe, too. Hmmm... Oh, but it's up to the US to make a good example, I forgot. Wink

Wink wink! This conversation is awesome! Let's wink at helm because we're sarcastic and can't make a straight-ahead argument without resorting to our amazing cynicism.

There's violence in other parts of the world, for many reasons. We're talking about gun violence, gun ownership. What is the point you're trying to make here? That europeans kill people and have killed people in the past? Yes they have. This isn't an US vs YOU game in which if we all are after all not blameless, we can all rest somewhat easier that we're both in a shitty situation. Someone just killed 30 students with an automatic weapon. It might have happened in germany, it might happen in greece tomorrow. But how many times has it happened in the US, and how many times will it happen again?

Yes, but AGAIN (and again, and again, and again ...) this isn't something unique to the U.S.  Must we keep generalizing?

It's more prominent in the US in my opinion. Don't simplify what I say so it's more easy to attribute to a vacant generalization. This is called a strawman argument. Don't make strawmen out of my arguments. Thanks.

It's not very often but in the US they decide to take up automatic weapons and go on murdering rampages. I think there's a violent culture issue. And I think it's an availability of weapons issue.

And I think it's naive to think that the availability of weapons is what's causing this violence.  As, again (and again, and again, and again...) there IS a problem in America with violence.  But trying to simplify it by saying, "They can so easily get a gun ... that's what made them violent" is just plain ignorant and dangerous.

Are you talking to me or generally to the air? Because if you're talking to me, I never said the availability of weapons is what caused the violence. I said a culture of violence and fear is what causes the violence, and the easy availability of weapons makes the violence all that more bloody, prominent, and horrid. Please don't simplyfy my arguments. Please don't make strawmens of them. Thanks.

If you want to talk to the thread in general, by all means, but not in reply to a quote of mine. It's misleading.

Just because one CAN get a gun, doesn't mean they'll go off on a murdering rampage.

I agree.

There are other [far deeper] issues in play.

Culture. Of. Violence. Disregard for human life. The mentality "I will put my gun to the head of the one that potentially threatens my family or wants to take my belongings".

Way to quote one particular part of a thread from two years ago!

It was a stunning display of ignorance I'm not likely to forget anytime soon.

As I stated very clearly in that thread: I hold human life very dear.  It's something I think no human being has the right to take from another.  However, should a person (man or woman) willingly and intentionally commit a murder than they forfeit their right to their own life.  They've taken somebody elses and thus, don't deserve the right/privelage of their own.  (and I believe the term I used was "scumbag")

Blah blah blah you hold life very dear but murdering criminals must die. Culture of violence.

Again (and again and again and again ...) you all can keep denying the realities of the world we live in if you want.  That's on you.  I hope (truely) that you never have to eat a reality sandwhich for lunch.

It's ignorant to presume I am out of touch with reality because I am proposing more humanist methods of dealing with murderers, or am against easy gun ownership. It's just begging to be flamed. I have had my share of reality, I've delt with mortality. And it's because I've lost people that I find the concept of humans killing humans maddening and unfathomable. A human life cruelly ending well beyond its prime is the most horrible thing and I am not easy to say 'kill 'em when they're bad' as you are.

there'll be violence present.

Of course. But does a culture of violence, and easy access to guns lead to less violence or more violence? I want less violence. I am not living in some fantasy world where there's no violence. I am living in europe where there's no suicidal rampages at schools with 30 people dead... yet, at least.

There'll always be those that covet what their neighbors have.  Do I like this fact?  No, certainly not.  Do I blindly deny this fact out of some flimsy utopian ideal?  Hell no.

Strawman. You're talking to me. I never once said anything utopian. If you're talking to the rest of the forum, talk to the rest of the forum, not to me. Don't discredit what I say for what it isn't.

I would love it if it were more difficult to obtain a gun.

Cool. Agree.

I would love it if there were less guns on the street.

Agree again. Vote for it.

I would love it if there were [far] less violent crimes.

Who wouldn't?

I would love it if I didn't have to feel the way I do about capital punishment.

Then why don't you start feeling different about capital punishment, Darth? It's not very difficult. You just say 'I was wrong, and I am contradicting myself by holding the sanctity of human life foremost and in the same breath saying people are not human if they exceed their ratio of bad deeds and therefore to be put to death by their fellow humans.'

Reality sucks.  I'd love it if I could just burry my head in the sand and deny it, but I can't.

I'm sure more guns for all make reality quite a bit more bearable.

Law of the west or not, surely that hypothetical situation is a more desirable outcome than the "mild-tempered tolerance" of being slaughtered like sheep, with Nanny Gummint cowering outside until the gunfire subsides so she can zip up the bodybags?

Between the two I choose law of the west. But the two are not the only options. This is misleading to believe. How about long-term plans that will remove this culture of fear that breeds all this needless killing to begin with? Such plans will naturally include gun limitation as part of them, not as some sensationalist knee-jerk reaction to yet another rampage. How about being able to live in relative safety and to not fear a stranger walking outside your house all the time? How about less Mad Max and more Civilization. You're only living in, oh, the self-appointed bastion of western morality. Make a good example.

Firstly, the second ammendment of the constitution was put in place to ensure that the citizenry of the U.S. would have the arms necessary to over-throw their government should that government begin to resemble the governement they'd just fought and bled for years to defeat.  In modern (contemporary) times that's gotten a bit lost.

Wait a moment. In greece, where there's quite strong gun control - in cities at least - the constitution says that in the case that a goverment seizes power from the people (our constitution starts with saying that all power comes from the people and to the service of the people) and therefore becomes a dictatorship, the citizents have an obligation to take arms and overthrow this dictatorship. Obviously, the second the dictatorship is in effect, the country is in a state of lawlessness as far as the constitution is concerned, and as such. there is no legal power that the dictatorship can excert.

Gun control isn't an issue when you're fighting for democracy. I don't know if it's your misinterpreting the second amendment or if the founding fathers of your nation had a strange idea about causality, but the two things don't necessarily interfere. You can have gun control and still have people rally to reestablish democracy in the case it's overthrown by some tyrant.

In the case of an invading force of course a country has a regular army.

....so?

Again, YES there IS a problem in America (and the world) with violence and those that don't hold life in high regard.

There's also a problem in the US with people who don't hold anyone's life but those of their family and loved ones in high regard. Don't you think that's a bit of an issue?

BigBrother said before 'it's a shame students couldn't fire back at the killer'. Let's consider this for a second as a 'best case scenario'. Armed deranged student enters school, shoots five with automatic weapon before armed nonderanged student pulls a handgun and takes down deranged student. Hero student! Go, law of the west!... is this civilization, democracy and mild tempered tolerance? It seems a lot of people would not have such a problem with this scenario. This particular case the person is said to be very close to insanity and as such it's easy to vilify him and not consider him the source of pure evil without having to deal with the human aspect of the situation. But there's crazy strange kids in other places of the world, and a lot of them snap, and cut their throats, or kill their moms and drown themselves and whatever. It's not very often but in the US they decide to take up automatic weapons and go on murdering rampages. I think there's a violent culture issue. And I think it's an availability of weapons issue.

I'm not denying any of these things.  I'm simply saying that whether or not people want to admit it there are those that don't give a shit about human life

You mean like you when you said you didn't care about the execution of that 'douchebag' Stanley Tookie Williams? That sort of disrespect for human life? The way you spoke about something mindblowing as it is to TAKE SOMEONE'S LIFE so casually? The way you stiked him off of the 'human' roster because he was a murderer too?

It might be the case you're no 'good guy' in your video-game, Darth.

That's not me giving in to fear and propoganda.  It's a reality that has existed since the first human wanted the other human's rock-pile.

What the...? I'll be the first to underline the atavistic part of the human psyche as existent, important and not to be comfortably ignored, but we're talking about civilization here. Who argues based on human nature in such a conversation? The whole point of human civilization was the attempt to ease one's animalistic instinct to the point where a group of humans can live in relative harmony. Of course we still serve out our prime directives (mate, protect young, live in safety, excert power and control) within the confines of this civilization, and there's constant friction, but to mention 'it's just human nature to kill, bud' just zeroes the whole point of what most cultures are trying to do.

And if the "bad" guys are going to use guns (which they are whether or not anybody wants to see this simple fact) then your average citizen needs to have the ability to level the playing field.

What is the game being played? Who are these video-game 'bad guys'?

In the language you use there are the signifiers of a whole mentality that is mostly ecountered en-masse in the US in my opinion. You live in a huge country, and you've been led to fear people you don't know constantly (by whom and for what reason is a different discussion). I don't think if boom! tomorrow all guns are outlawed in the US, the citizens won't find ways to kill each other (though probably in less numbers and possibility of success). I think it takes a long period of hard work on many levels to undo the damage in the US that an intentionally cultivated culture of ignorance, fear and violence has created.

In a powerful, yet politically bankrupt society, the reaction is for the able to defend their liberties over everything. That the US spawned what we call 'libertarians' whose seemingly only political interest is securing their right to this and to that according to their constitution is not an accident. People there don't care about their fellow man, they can slice their own wrists for all it matters. Just as long as the awful state doesn't tell them what to do. Libertarianism is the political position of the egotist.

I personally think making guns very difficult to aquire in the US is a very worthwhile proposition even if it steps on the freedoms of americans to have guns generally, just as long as it is coupled with an intentful process of changing the cultural climate of the country from fearful and suspicious to oh... something more like Canada. But this won't happen as long as certain governing parties' interests depend on the american public being fearful and suspicious of everybody, most namely sand-niggers.

The constitution is not written by god, when it's outmodded it should be able to go through a rigorious but fair process of being reevaluated. NOT having a gun doesn't harm you. If a violent criminal harms you and you couldn't defend yourself because you didn't have a gun, it's not the lack of your gun that harmed you, it's the criminal that did. Minimizing criminal behaviour is the goal, not just to be able to 'kill the bad guys before they kill you and clear the level'.

Don't get me started with you little lady! 19 to 25 is a big difference! I forbid you to see Spaff anymore! Go to your room!

Monkey, why are you in contact with her parents and haggling if she's only interested at you as a friend? That's... peculiar!

I don't see it courtous, nice, or useful to comment on a relationship like that in public.

If people don't want people making reasonable observations about easy to see aspects of their relationship, then they shouldn't make public posts/post images of their loved ones or that about their relationship.

If someone - and I'm not saying that's on the same wavelength as what Matt did - posts pictures of himself and his wife and she's covered in bruises and crying I won't find it unreasonable to ask if he's beating her.

Let's not overlook that the VT killer was clearly insane (imaginary girlfriend named "Jelly" who called him "Spanky", his refusal to talk to anyone or make eye contact, deranged writing, past therapy, etc). A bunch of students stopped going to class because of him. The co-director of the creative writing department, who tutored him one-on-one had a code word with her assistant to call the police. From his behavior alone, there were warning signs.

Yes all these things why did this person have access to weapons?

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I really don't understand why.

ManicMatt: She's 16, you're 25. That's 9 years of difference, and not when one is 50 and the one 41. Teen years are a delicate age, and girls in that bracket are best off socializing with people of equal age (no matter if many would protest at such a concept). Unless she's really mature that's kinda creepy, sorry to say. Think if you had a daughter her age dating someone who is 25.

The names of the united states are not as reasonable for europeans to know as -you'd hope- it would be for americans no know european countries. It's like asking a non-greek to name all the various locales in greece. People will know Athens and perhaps an island or two they've had vacations in. Knowing Winsconsin and South carolina is not as important as knowing where France and Germany are.

Of course we can name a few states because of pop culture and stuff. It tells a lot what games I grew up on that the very first state I inputted was Oregon. Anyway, I got 18 states, then grew bored of the timer.

[Cyprus]

oh man I feel really bad. 23 left at timeout. Bosnia, Cyprus and Armenia amongst them. I don't feel so bad for stuff I just didn't know the spelling of like Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Andorra, Luxembourg, Azerbaijan

Following on from the picture thread, is it right for a man of 25 to date a girl of 16?

I must admit that I don't know a lot of young girls that are mature to the point where I wouldn't feel it creepy to try to have my way with them (as a 23 year old), but I'm sure some exist. We've all heard of tales of 'dude, she totally looked 3 years older than she was!' and I am prepared to admit that this can happen.

Remember the rule: take your age, divide it by two (round up), add seven = minimum ethical age of courtship!!1

I find it interesting and well-written.

Maybe I prefer making games to sitting around talking about them.

A commendable attitude to an extent.

Oh come on, don't wish death on anyone, even in such a roundabout way. Let's not be another cynical part of the internet where such words escape from our mouths unchecked. It doesn't lead to anything good.

Still, I can't understand how people consider them to be literary masterpieces plot-wise.

some - and same - people consider Final Fantasy 6 or 7 to be amazing games in terms of plot and characterization. They just have - comparably to me - lower expectations, that's ok.

Akatosh: I base than on my long gaze within the innards of the goat I sacrificed to the dark lords last night. Seer of visions be me.

If you keep making good games you'll arrive at a similar position as yahtzee, Dave, quite rapidly. All the better if you keep the somethingawfulisms down unlike him, and therefore not hurt your games by your personality.

home

I don' t agree at all. Consoles are for wanker teenages with acné, and AGS has never been that.

Well... It wasn' t. 

hihihihi.

I totally disagree. I was a teenager with acne when I started using AGS, like most people here.

First off, I like South Park. I enjoy how it makes fun of everything (in one episode alone it made fun of Christians AND atheists)

This is something I've been thinking about a bit. This thread has sunk enough to not be sure if it can have a comeback, but I was thinking about it, so I might as well contribute even if there's not going to be much discussion. So here it goes, but DG if you can't contain the maddoxisms don't bother replying me. I say this because I will be building off partly on your opinion of South Park.

I don't think 80's cartoons were better than 90's stuff, and such generalizations baffle me. I don't think TNMT and pokemon are archetypically dissimilar or that one of the two tackles moral ground the other does not. I found modern viewing of 80's stuff like Transformers and TNMT was a very awful experience and don't hold any nostalgia-based fondness for such stuff anymore. I still love robots and ninjas and shit, but hey, let's not get overboard and strain mentally to defend glorified but thinly veiled marketing campaigns for toys just because they were part of our collective youth.

It is also quite interesting to me that this is by far the most 'lol! internet!' argument I've read on this forum, and it has resulted to such heated retort not based in the end on clashing life philosophy or morality, but in fact on tv entertainment preference. This is a wordy equivallent of 'I prefer TNMT' '-I prefer South Park' '-lol u dumb!'.

It is as esper says, DG: it's a matter of opinion, not fact (and I've seen how fact-happy you've been as of late, links everywhere) on what cartoons a person prefers, and that even extends on opinions on which cartoons are more educational or useful for children. There's not really much in terms of studies you can summon up to change that. The entertainment industry, though governed by ill-defined societal... formulae, is hardly the science you enjoy treating it as.

I also don't see the point to go 'HERE ARE THE FACTS, JACK' and then following that up with 'if you don't agree you don't know anything about anything and you smell'. Your 'The REAL news/Maddox' approach might be something you've invested a lot in, but can't you see how if you first feign rationality and seriousness with your wikipedia links, then when you abruptly switch to yet another 'in-yr-face-lol' internet persona, the switch is jarring, annoying, ineffective and finally rude? You might think it's the best internet invention ever, but it's not for most. The AGS forums are hardly brawlhall. Why did progz deserve to be treated as the butt of *any* of your jokes? Humour is only sacred when two people enter in a discussion with a presupposed and civil agreement that 'everything goes' (like in i-mockery) while the AGS forums are hardly governed in such a way. You seem to operate on that people know and expect 'oh that's just whacky DG, bringing us the TRUTH and also telling us we smell, what a lovable internet-funny-guy!' while I don't think people do.

Just check how many times you've insulted people with your humour (and your 'humour' because there's been cases of fuck yous thrown around, as well as those recent explicitly passive-agressive 'I could call you that but I didn't, did I, progz?' awful bits) in this forum to the point where they leave threads you go all REALnewsMaddox in. You know me and you know I can dish and take it on that level, but NOT in AGS. It's not that I'll 'cry you a river' if you call me smelly here, but it's just that it's not called for. Your mecca-forum where both factual discourse and low-brow shit-flinging can occur in harmony is NOT here.


Anyway, enough about that.


So, you guys say that South Park tackles the issues in an incisive manner. I say it does present a lot of stuff you wouldn't find in a TNMT episode. To that extent you are correct. But South Park fails as social commentary because it makes fun of everything, including itself. I find that it's a very reactionary cartoon that doesn't have pick any discernible side. It will talk about stuff that is controversal, but the discourse will end up on the level of 'lol! people that hate fags! *barf* fags are awful themselves! *crap* kenny dies *pee*. Maybe a single episode will have more of an 'opinion' but in the long run, if one sees a lot of South Park episodes, the net moral and political positioning nears absolute center nothingness, except perhaps a limp libertarianism that actually occurs in the flux of a political belief system (I don't have everything, but I want my freedom!).

South Park is very fast to make fun of modern life idiocy, but - and I think this is a trait of american sociopolitical satire - to cover all bases, it hastens to have no opinion that it doesn't ridicule preemptively itself so as to feel defended. It's almost as if the creators of South Park feel they're doing something naughty, and have guilt over their satire that they are so eager to lampoon themselves as well to save dissenters the effort. And when they're attacked, it becomes a large issue over their RIGHT to satire (which is of course, easy to defend), not the validity of their contra-opinion itself, as they don't really have an contra-opinion besides obvious stuff like 'freedom is good' and 'making fun of stupidity is a holy mission'.

DG you mention ironic points of view as if they're worth ejaculating over or something. In fact, irony and cynicism are in my opinion modern diseases of spirit and politics, and the mark that we've passed very closely to total moral and philosophical bankruptcy. When all we can say when someone attempts to expound on a theory - as faulty as it could be- is 'well, aren't you a smart one'. Totally not conductive, a dead-end farcical solution befitting to a court full of jesters but not a king in sight.

Which isn't to say that south park has no value to watch, it can be funny occasionally and I do think it's quite a bit more enjoyable for adults than TNMT could ever be, I'm just looking at the signs it points to.