@GERALTITUDE: You clearly are someone with a superiority complex who reads everyone elses posts as though it is a game of one upsmanship that you must take part in and turn into some bizarre attempt at dissecting posts, attempting to go on and explain my post to you will probably only result in further childish 'mentoring' and more displays of how intelligent you believe yourself to be. Nevertheless here we go:
- "I fail to see the context you buried so deeply in your sarcasm and overuse of the word 'pussy'"
Hm. That may be because you read the wrong post. Read my first and third post, not the list, definitely no context talk in there. I believe the first post literally read: Yo, context.
My post was directed solely at your 'opinion = pussy' post and was a jab at how you lost all pretext to arguing context in favour of over-simplifying other posts. Your first and third posts I have no issue with.
- "You can't just take some posts and use them to decry an entire thread's responses then backtrack when called out and say you only meant your rough approximation of wit to be indicative of some of the posts."
Ooh, snuck in a real zinger there didntcha? In fact I can do whatever I want with your posts.
Clearly, and that is to the detriment of your argument in the post to which I replied.
- "The deeper conversation about violence in videogames that the topic creator wants is being hamstrung by his focusing on one particular instance of brutality in a game predominantly, if not wholly, based around firing pieces of lead through the human body. He ignores the fact you gun down hundreds if not thousands, as do alot of the people here who think that anyone opposing their viewpoint is just a desensitized violence apologist."
This doesn't make really make sense. What are you saying exactly? He can't mention specific instances of violence? He has to talk about all the violence in the whole game at once? How exactly does that work? The OP felt this particular mission was worth talking about. You're saying it's not on the grounds that the game is back-to-front violence? You have to explain this, as currently what you're saying is: This game is violent through out so no one scene is reproachable.
What I was saying here is perfectly well expained towards the end of the quote. You yourself disregarded the argument brought up that the games in this series feature killing nazis in world war 2 which is a part of this argument, it's a history of these games and shouldn't be ignored when discussing the game's approach to the topic of violence.
- "The deep discussion of videogame violence that some people may want to self fellate their sense of intellect through by pretending they're adressing can't ignore "killing nazis in a WW2 game" whilst simultaneously rounding on an instance of "decapitating Angolans" because it's all symptomatic of the same issue."
Nah, that's incorrect. Nazis are cartoon characters left right and centre in nearly every X they appear in these days (looking at you, mecha-Hitler). If you want to talk about that depiction and everything that's fucked up about it, fine, I'm down for that. In this case I could have used a more appropriate example, like "killing Promethean Knights in Halo 4 is not the same as etc" but I was replying to Believer, who originally used that example, and I felt it made sense to use it.
Nazi depictions in games being accurate or not is besides the point, they intend to portray nazis, a part of history and real people, Ideology and timeframe don't change the fact that it's all the killing of other human beings and people will rally against some instances whilst ignoring others because "Oh that's different"
- And if the arguments of those who think it's not a big problem are ill thought out and not intellectually valid enough then where does that leave your little sarcastic sattire of their points that refuses to adress the logic behind each thought and instead attempts to group all opposing arguments in an infantile spoof of what you believe to be their stance?
That list, or whatever, is not attempting to do any of those things. Myself and another forum poster were bonding over the frustration of the attitudes in this forum. Why would I bother breaking down the logical problems of statements like "It's a game F U"?
It cheapens the entire argument and you climbed down to the level of those who's statements you believe to be unworthy of thinking about. You also completely simplify all the posts you're adressing to make them fit this idea that they're not worth taking on board.
'The biggest problem with your post is that you break your own word. You say people need to act grown up to have this conversation. But what did you do exactly? What is your post other than an obvious attempt to sound smart while trying to point out everything that was wrong with my posts? Why do you try to belittle me so much if you're so grown up? Take a look at your self duder. You don't come off smart with posts like that, but smarmy. If you wan't credibility, act mature. No one believes you want to be grown up when half your post is jabs and shit like "na na fellate themselves".'
And the crux of it is here, you felt like I was trying to belittle you when instead I was targeting your one post that came across as aloof and dismissive of other people's arguments. Of course my post was trying to point out everything wrong in that one particular post, it was an awful post that completely missed the point of the argument up to that juncture. Your 'criticism' of my post was a thinly veiled attempt to save face and make claims that I'm just a smarmy dick trying to look smart, take your own advice and try not to break down people's posts so much, it just results in these overly long posts and both sides looking like they think more of themselves than they should of which we are now both guilty as sin.
Log in to comment