ManMadeGod's forum posts

#1 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

@yummylee said:

-- his consistence in audience participation definitely made it more engaging than most of the site's run-of-the-mill livestreams.

This. It always bothered me on other live-streams when the crew would have thousands of users watching....... and take maybe 1 question/comment from the chat.

#2 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

noby noby boy is as niche as it gets.

#3 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

"It's interesting how nuanced the PEGI answer was compared to the ESRB, no?"

The ESRB answer sounds like your standard American PR soulless response which contains as few words as possible.

#4 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

We will see Half Life 3, The Last Guardian, and Doom 4.

#5 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

I remember not even beating those games "back in the day". Was never a fan of Gen 3, but if they create a new story and change the game significantly I might check it out.

#6 Edited by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

Just going to put down the first three to come to mind and not question it:

  1. Rome: Total War
  2. Rise of Nations
  3. Shadow of the Colossus
#7 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

@milkman said:

A lot of people seem to think that calling someone "privileged" is an insult when it really isn't at all. People get super defensive about it but there's nothing wrong with having privilege. Recognizing it is the important part and realizing that it may be hard sometimes to understand a the problems of an underprivileged person when you're looking at things from a privileged position. That's when you need to "check it." But the phrase has been so hijacked and mocked to this point that it pretty much means nothing.

If the overwhelming majority of people that get told to "check their privileged" feel that they are being insulted then it is an insult. You can say "I didn't mean it to be take that way", but I don't think that changes how others feel.

There are (at least) two ways to look at a social issue. For example you can say:

1. Black men are more likely to be arrested under false pretense.

2. White men are less likely to be arrested under false pretense.

Both can educated and illustrate a point, but often times when people take approach number 2 they do it in way that sounds accusatory, even if that's not what they want to do.

As a side note I have seen people use this term is rather abrasive ways. For example I was told by a Hispanic friend that the only reason I would get a job after college was because of my white privilege. It came off as a way to devalue my work while creating an excuse for the lack of her own accomplishments. I understand that most people don't use the term in this manor, but it does happen.

#8 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

First time commenting in here, but I gotta say this is my first time I've been into wrestling since the 90's, when I was in Elementary school. I've gotta say I think I'm way more into it now than I was then. I used to only watch it occasionally at a friend's house back then, but now I try to catch RAW every week. Which I decided I need a break from since I'm so far behind in my grad school work.

With that being said, I am what basically amounts to a casual fan, so is the network worthwhile for me? I don't care too much about looking back on the years I've skipped, but I am into what has been going on recently.

Anyway, Sheamus winning the US Title is totally the start of a heel turn, right?

Sounds like you would be buying the Network just to watch the PPV. I mean, if you're watching RAW every week why not? Do you feel that the PPV events are worth $10?

They also have some cool documentaries on the network which you might like. Example would be looking at the career of Stone Cold or an hour long video following Bryan leading up to WM30.

#9 Edited by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

@president_barackbar said:

@manmadegod: I've personally never understood the argument that you have to really try to make them compatible. Its pretty easy if all you do is say "well God is responsible for the natural order of the universe." That doesn't exclude any scientific truths at all, and still allows for the existence of God. The problem I have with your argument is you are definitively saying there is no way to reconcile the two when, in fact, its actually pretty easy to. I didn't do any mental gymnastics there at all, simply "well God created the principles of science and the universe." I understand the atheist point of view and I don't care if anyone chooses to be an atheist, but to imply that its the only belief system that doesn't require the denial of scientific truth is just plain false.

Okay I will only ask you two question: Explain me how to reconcile evolution and the adam and eve story. This was something I thought long and hard about when I was a Catholic but I'm always open to other points of view.

Here is the problem: Jesus died "for our sins". Christianity says every person is born a sinner because of Original Sin which was inherited from Adam. If you believe in evolution then you can't say there was two original people created by God, and that they violated his rule not to eat the fruit. If not for this Original Sin, what purpose does Jesus play? Suddenly his sacrifice seems a little odd. I understand that some minority groups within the Christian faith will try to say our sin is inherit without it being passed on from Adam & Eve, but I feel that strays too far from what Christianity has been teaching for 2,000 years. It is for this reason that I believe it is not possible to believe in Christianity and modern science (well, one of the reasons).

Remember, all of the major faiths make more claims about the world than "God exists". So I don't think we can just say "God is responsible for the natural order" and leave it at that. Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/Jews/Hindus believe much more than that. Would you at least agree with this point?

#10 Posted by ManMadeGod (1590 posts) -

@cretaceous_bob: I understand where you are coming from, but you also have to realize that the idea that the separation of science and religion is a modern idea. Rationalism was, for a very long time, supported by the Catholic Church. In addition, one of the most prominent orders of monks, the Jesuits, have ALWAYS espoused the use of rational thought and scientific reason from within their religion. The separation between science and religion in today's world was created by Protestants who have a literal reading of the Bible. Not every branch of religion, Christian or otherwise, directly refutes science.

The Jesuits were founded in the 1500's. At the time there was a belief that God created everything, and god is a logical rational being. Thus, there must be a reason for why the sun comes and goes every day, and there must be a reason for why it gets cold in winter and warm in the summer. At the time science was seen as a way to discover the way God makes the universe tick.

The problem today is that in the 500 years or so since the Jesuits were created, we have learned so much that God isn't needed in that equation any more. We know the answer to many things included how and approximately when homo sapiens appeared on the earth. You have to really try in order to make religion and science co exist, and that's the problem.

Also, if there was no Adam and Eve then Christians have a MAJOR problem. While the Catholic Church has come out in favor of evolution, I'm pretty sure they have never said how that view point agrees with Adam and Eve and Original Sin. This is also the reason why Protestants feel the need to defend a literal reading of the Bible, and kinda gets at the entire crux of the creationism debate.