Knight244

Oh my God, it even has a watermark.

Did I do something wrong? 

So I just read the book Super Mario by Jeff Ryan and something that stuck with me is his description of the callousness of one of the very higher ups at Nintendo in the early days even before Donkey Kong was created.  He said that the man took his daughter to Geisha clubs.  It gave me a new sinister view of Nintendo and this idea of devil Mario had been floating around in my head before then so I decided to draw it up.  The book was very interesting too.
 
 

@Knight244said:

Yeah, I also heard that the roman emperor Nero said that Christians burned down Rome and guess what he lied.

I wasn't even talking about Rome. I was talking about the crusades, the inquisitions, the witch burnings, the spreading of Christianity at sword point as a "join or die" rule.

Let me get this straight then, so what you're saying is that 12 poor men, one a humble fisherman, mass murdered their way to making Christendom the force it was for 2000 years. I assume of course you believe that they took their example from Jesus who mass murdered His way off of the cross he was being crucified upon by the cruel powerful Roman empire and cruel hypocritical Jewish religious elite so that he could nuke all of Jerusalem in an effort to give birth to his unrelenting unstobbable Christian empire of total domination and uppercuts for everyone? Of course, what better way to do it then to give yourself up completely to a cruel tormenting death upon a cross.

Your... "extrapolation" of what you think I said is... disturbing. You seem to have issues. You said Christianity has never been involved with mass murder, I disagreed. I never said anything about the religious figures themselves, although God did kill a LOT of people in the bible.

And of course you wouldn't be implying that your liberal philosophy isn't the truth and all others are false philosophies and religions that are filled with liars? It's not you right, that's just the truth?

Fair point, except I never implied that my stance, beliefs or philosophies were truth. Just that I was unsettled by your (and others') unwavering belief that they are the true chosen ones and everyone else are liars.

@Knight244 said:

Please enlighten me so I can prove you wrong professor.

You can't honestly be saying you have never heard of any mass murders being done in the name of christianity? I guess all of them just "pretended" they were Christian? Oh wait, if it weren't for them Christianity wouldn't have existed today.

@John1912 said:

Maybe if we remove religion we will have one less boundary over which to segregate ourselves into hateful and mistrusting groups. Religion has been the root cause of infinitely more deaths and suffering then video games will ever allegedly cause.

Oh I assure you that people will have no trouble creating all sorts of hateful and mistrusting groups without the aid of a professed religious ideology. Just ask the National Socialists and the Communists. It turns out that men just love to hate and mistrust and they really don't need any religious ideology to do it. Of course if they so desire they can create an infinite amount of false religious ideologies to provide icing for their hate mistrust cakes and lo and behold the world is filled with false religious ideology too.

I love the self centered idea that your religion is truth and all others and false religions filled with liars. We all know there's only one TRUE religion, now bow down before Odin!

I know the definition of my religion and that definition doesn't include mass murder.

You need a history lesson.

Maybe if we remove religion we will have one less boundary over which to segregate ourselves into hateful and mistrusting groups.  Religion has been the root cause of infinitely more deaths and suffering then video games will ever allegedly cause.

@Knight244 said:

@thebigJ_A said:

@Knight244 said:

@gale said:

@Knight244: He may not have been a real Christian, but was he a True Scotsman?

If someone insists that you are allied with and responsible for the actions of one psychopath because of a few shared beliefs, they're idiots who are just looking for someone to blame. However, you don't get to define what another person's religion is. You get to define what your beliefs are, and that's it. You don't have to agree with anyone else - you don't even have to respect anyone else - but you don't get to decide what someone gets to call themselves. Nor do you get to make whatever blind assertions you want about other people's reasons, feelings, and beliefs, when your only evidence is your complete inability to understand the concept of other people not having exactly the same thought processes that you do.

Also, it's a huge leap to assume that Swervinmonkeyz was making some sweeping indictment of everything to do with Christianity. That his extremist political and religious ideology would have a far greater influence on his politically and religiously motivated attack than some fucking videogame is a perfectly salient point to make, a fact that's apparently sailed right over your head, if your bizarre No Russian non-sequitur is anything to go by. I don't especially care to take lessons in scientific methodology from someone who doesn't even understand what other people are. Have a go at forming a coherent argument before you try schooling people on what real science is. You'll look like less of an idiot that way. Well. Then again. It's not magic. I'm not sure there's anything in the world that could make you look like less of an idiot at this point. But oh well. Couldn't hurt to try, I suppose.

What qualities does a true Scotsman possess? Is it simply to be born in Scotland or does a true Scotsman possess a certain virtue of character?

Really, dude? At least follow the link and find out what the No True Scotsman Fallacy is. The fact that you asked those questions means you missed the point entirely.

I don't think I did miss the point but correct me if I'm wrong.  We're discussing the essence of what a man is and what certain types of men are?  Is he a Scotsman because he's born in Scotland or is a Scotsman because he possesses virtue A, B, or C?  Is he a true gamer because he has a simple love for the pleasures of video games or is he a true gamer because he lives for the day when he will be able to murder the whole planet?  Is he a Christian because he believes in the dignity of the Virgin Mary or is he a Christian because he believes in the virtue of shooting holes in his fellow man?  Is he a being possessing a soul or is he solely flesh and blood?   I don't think I missed the point.  I did follow the link and what I found there is an unsatisfying answer to the question "who is a true Scotsman?"  So is a true Scotsman simply a man born in Scotland or are there certain intangible qualities that make a man a true Scotsman?

Look, I flunked out of university, but even I know you're not supposed to be focusing on the name of the fallacy, rather than the fallacy itself.  Stop blathering on about Scotland.  That has nothing to do with anything.  You should be arguing against the fallacy itself.   
  
The fallacy of course being: 

" No True Scotsman   is a   logical fallacy   by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no   true   member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them."    Personally, it's just always annoyed me when people go decide that they have the divine authority to decide who is and isn't a "real Christian", as if they are the fucking internet Pope.  

@Knight244 said:

@gale said:

@Knight244: He may not have been a real Christian, but was he a True Scotsman?

If someone insists that you are allied with and responsible for the actions of one psychopath because of a few shared beliefs, they're idiots who are just looking for someone to blame. However, you don't get to define what another person's religion is. You get to define what your beliefs are, and that's it. You don't have to agree with anyone else - you don't even have to respect anyone else - but you don't get to decide what someone gets to call themselves. Nor do you get to make whatever blind assertions you want about other people's reasons, feelings, and beliefs, when your only evidence is your complete inability to understand the concept of other people not having exactly the same thought processes that you do.

Also, it's a huge leap to assume that Swervinmonkeyz was making some sweeping indictment of everything to do with Christianity. That his extremist political and religious ideology would have a far greater influence on his politically and religiously motivated attack than some fucking videogame is a perfectly salient point to make, a fact that's apparently sailed right over your head, if your bizarre No Russian non-sequitur is anything to go by. I don't especially care to take lessons in scientific methodology from someone who doesn't even understand what other people are. Have a go at forming a coherent argument before you try schooling people on what real science is. You'll look like less of an idiot that way. Well. Then again. It's not magic. I'm not sure there's anything in the world that could make you look like less of an idiot at this point. But oh well. Couldn't hurt to try, I suppose.

What qualities does a true Scotsman possess? Is it simply to be born in Scotland or does a true Scotsman possess a certain virtue of character?

Really, dude? At least follow the link and find out what the No True Scotsman Fallacy is. The fact that you asked those questions means you missed the point entirely.

@Knight244:  He may not have been a real Christian, but was he a True Scotsman?
 
If someone insists that you are allied with and responsible for the actions of one psychopath because of a few shared beliefs, they're idiots who are just looking for someone to blame. However, you don't get to define what another person's religion is. You get to define what your beliefs are, and that's it. You don't have to agree with anyone else - you don't even have to respect anyone else - but you don't get to decide what someone gets to call themselves. Nor do you get to make whatever blind assertions you want about other people's reasons, feelings, and beliefs, when your only evidence is your complete inability to understand the concept of other people not having exactly the same thought processes that you do.
 
Also, it's a huge leap to assume that Swervinmonkeyz was making some sweeping indictment of everything to do with Christianity. That his extremist political and religious ideology would have a far greater influence on his politically and religiously motivated attack than some fucking videogame is a perfectly salient point to make, a fact that's apparently sailed right over your head, if your bizarre No Russian non-sequitur is anything to go by.   I don't especially care to take lessons in scientific methodology from someone who doesn't even understand what other people are. Have a go at forming a coherent argument before you try schooling people on what real science is. You'll look like less of an idiot that way.   Well. Then again. It's not magic. I'm not sure there's anything in the world that could make you look like less of an idiot at this point. But oh well. Couldn't hurt to try, I suppose.

I'm sorry if I was too scathing in my responses last night.  I simply think that violent video games encourage those who are steeped in rage to become more deeply mired in it, and I believe it is a gross error in judgment to think that angry video games do not play a role in keeping angry people angry.  Those who stay to the judgment that violent games are completely innocent seem to me to be those that profess a love for the same questionable games.  I mean am I completely wrong here?
 
I mean there are good video games that aren't violent.  Is the misanthropic violence really necessary to make a good video game?