Syntax12345's forum posts

  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@ShockD: Use your money to buy something on her account. Problem solved.

#2 Edited by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@TyCobb said:

I really wanted Ron Paul to be the Republican primary. But because I think ObamaCare was the worst idea ever, I will be voting for Romney. Although I guess it really doesn't matter if I vote or not since I live in California and unless the next Democrat President turns out to be the devil himself, California will always vote Democrat.

Let me ask you this: do you actually know what constitutes Obamacare?

I hear a lot of "RA RA RA WORST THING EVER" from conservatives and yet whenever I've asked for specifics, I usually get "UHH.... UHH...." because very few actually know what it constituted in the end.

@Jams said:

@believer258 said:

God, I don't want to vote for either. Obama doesn't really seem all that concerned about the economy and Romney seems like... a twat.

On the subject of "people's rights vs the economy", I can't help but say that I place more importance on the economy. Is it wrong that gay people can't marry? Yes, but in the grand scheme of millions of poor kids, depressed fathers, and strung-out mothers, I think it's a tiny issue. Maybe if you've never been touched by, say, a long-time layoff or a house foreclosure, you'd think differently, but I have and it's definitely a bigger problem than the definition of marriage. We should get around to that when most people have jobs again and the middle class isn't disappearing any longer.

There, I said it, I care more about making sure people can eat and pay for their houses than I do about making sure gay people and straight people have the same rights in terms of marriage, along with all of the other equality injustices still floating around. I hate them, yes, I just don't think they're as important as keeping everyone employed. The story would definitely be different if people were dying or the situation was similar to the early-mid 1900's, where the KKK roamed free and black people were put through some horrible things, but it's not like that. Gay people aren't getting threatened, hurt, and killed left, right and center, though it does occasionally happen.

Well said. Sometimes there are things you just have to put on the back burner until the country is in a better position to handle non life threatening problems. There aren't really any social issues that should be at the forefront this election. Unfortunately that's never the case. I think either side of the political parties could fix the economy if they really wanted. Then they could probably fix crime, the school system, audit their own government to make sure there isn't any over spending (GSA). They could really get this country back on track if they really wanted to.

It's also really easy to say this if you haven't been touched by, I don't know, being treated differently on the basis of who you are. It's also very easy to say that Gay people aren't being threatened or hurt if it hasn't personally touched you.

@McGhee said:

@Everyones_A_Critic: But why would you vote for Obama when he's been going after legal pot dispensaries in California, stomping all over shop owners left and right?

Except they're not legal in that they violate federal law.

Which does, and should, trump state law.

That said, it's easier to lighten up on divisive issues such as legalization in a second term because you don't have to worry about reelection.

#3 Edited by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@Everyones_A_Critic said:

I'd put any single one of Immortal Technique's songs against Lupe's. He throws historical evidence at you and does so with lyrics that go at your throat every time. He doesn't beat around the bush with filler lines to front the fact that he doesn't know everything he's talking about (cough, Nas, cough) he's an incredible mind:

Killer Mike's verse is the obvious weak link there because he's really saying nothing new, but Brother Ali and Tech more than make up for that.

Tangentially, Immortal Technique's Dance With The Devil is one of the darkest and most disturbing pieces of modern music I've ever heard, and yet it still manages to be totally brilliant.

Lupe is acting incredibly childishly with regards to all of this. I really enjoy (most) of his music and this is really just disappointing on his part. I hate to say it, but I expected better.

@jakob187 said:

Unfortunately, I can't really listen to Immortal Technique's socialist ideals.

I hate to come off like a dick, but that strikes me as super shallow. You don't have to agree with everything he says to enjoy his music, but acting so dismissive over an ideological difference (however major it might be) just seems weird to me.

#4 Posted by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@Nicked: It's n@Nicked said:

@Syntax12345 said:

@Nicked said:

I think what some people are misunderstanding (maybe even the OP), is that even without the real money auction house, Diablo 3 is a hollow experience, and I think there's an argument to be made that it is in some ways "unethical".

Diablo 3 is perpetually unfulfilling so that you will keep playing. You grind to get more loot so that you can grind to get more loot. It's a slot machine with extra levers. If you take away the numbers popping off of enemies, the glowing weapons, etc., you're left with something really hollow. If I told you about a game where you hold the left mouse button for 10 hours until you unlock a harder difficulty where you hold the left mouse button and sometimes press buttons, you ought to say that that sounds like a hollow game.

The game preys on an the player's interest in seeing artificial improvement in characters without intending to educate us or make us better people.

Whether you feel addicted or not is irrelevant. What's more important is that the game is designed to be addictive and manipulative. To design with that intent is kind of malicious.

I'm not arguing that all games should be high art or whatever, but I think it's important to recognize the reality of what Diablo 3 is. (Sorry if this came out as a smattering of thoughts, it's difficult to be concise about this stuff!)

I'm well aware of what it's designed to be and I still maintain that it's not unethical because it's certainly not pretending to be anything else.

Besides, there's certainly a willingness to participate in that that exists. I (anecdotal evidence isn't super valid, I'm quite aware) certainly know people who played through it once on normal and put it down for good. I absolutely doubt they're the strict minority, too.

Could you elaborate on your points a little more? I'm just not totally sure where you're coming from. I don't understand what you mean by "not pretending". And does "willingness to participate" matter in terms of ethics? A system designed to take advantage of willing participants seems morally suspect to me (that's the whole thing with gambling, right?).

I'm not trying to be rude, I respect your opinion and would like to hear more of it.

I don't personally agree with the notion that people are being taken advantage of because they are agreeing to do it.

It's not like they are unaware, the only thing that is "being taken advantage of" is their willingness to participate (and if this is morally suspect, then all buying and selling is morally suspect because it takes advantage of peoples' willingness to participate. I am willing to sell x product in order to take advantage of the market's demand. Is that unethical?)

#5 Posted by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@Eurobum said:

@YI_Orange: @ColinWright: @Syntax12345: @EXTomar:

Sooner or later you guys will understand that somebody else makes the decisions for you, most decisions in your life in fact are decided by external influence. A person is always extemely limited in knowlege, time, rationality, exprience and has no chance what so ever against a PR buget of millions and the immediate idiocy of his peers. The fact that you attribute the decisions to yourself, your taste, your will is just an act of vanity and a common misconception, which you (and me) were taught by a half-witted teacher along with libertarian capitalism. The fact that people are held responsible for their actions is mostly a result of the inability to persue people or ideas who incite those actions.

When choosing between search engines for instance, Google, Bing, an article you read a friend's story have much more influence than yourself in the matter, even though you have the final say.

You/We may have the final say, but you/we will be parroting, following, immitating somebody else saying it. There is also no escape of this condition, it's not a matter of smarts!

Issues with addiction, morality, legality are resolved not on a personal level but on the level of society and it takes the dedication of many good and smart people to achieve this. Meanwhile immoral companies like Acti/Bliz are happy to exploit any wide-spread psychological predisposition they can find, like the primitive hunter-gatherer urges to watch XP-bars fill up, collect, compete and gamble. Just like immoral companies explited slave labor in the past, or child labor or badly paid labor, or un-informed buyers for times immemorial.

I'm not arguing that psychology does not play a role in marketing. Stop trying to act like there is no such thing as self control and everybody is blind except for you because you took philosophy 101.

Also, uninformed consumers are not comparable to slave labor in any way, shape, or form. That's an absolutely idiotic point to try and make.

#6 Posted by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@Nicked said:

I think what some people are misunderstanding (maybe even the OP), is that even without the real money auction house, Diablo 3 is a hollow experience, and I think there's an argument to be made that it is in some ways "unethical".

Diablo 3 is perpetually unfulfilling so that you will keep playing. You grind to get more loot so that you can grind to get more loot. It's a slot machine with extra levers. If you take away the numbers popping off of enemies, the glowing weapons, etc., you're left with something really hollow. If I told you about a game where you hold the left mouse button for 10 hours until you unlock a harder difficulty where you hold the left mouse button and sometimes press buttons, you ought to say that that sounds like a hollow game.

The game preys on an the player's interest in seeing artificial improvement in characters without intending to educate us or make us better people.

Whether you feel addicted or not is irrelevant. What's more important is that the game is designed to be addictive and manipulative. To design with that intent is kind of malicious.

I'm not arguing that all games should be high art or whatever, but I think it's important to recognize the reality of what Diablo 3 is. (Sorry if this came out as a smattering of thoughts, it's difficult to be concise about this stuff!)

I'm well aware of what it's designed to be and I still maintain that it's not unethical because it's certainly not pretending to be anything else.

Besides, there's certainly a willingness to participate in that that exists. I (anecdotal evidence isn't super valid, I'm quite aware) certainly know people who played through it once on normal and put it down for good. I absolutely doubt they're the strict minority, too.

#7 Edited by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@dr_mantas said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Syntax12345

This is asinine. They're not doing anything unethical here.

If you're too stupid to understand that you're predisposed to addiction (getting addicted to a videogame is fucking pathetic, by the way) then it's nobody's fault but your own if you get hooked and lose money because of it.

Stop blaming others for your own inadequacies or immaturity.

Yep! You know how I've managed to avoid being sucked into the AH?i haven't fucking used it. Shit, I've only looked at it once. It's not hard to avoid it. You just do.

It's true they aren't actively forcing you.

But I feel that gaming doesn't need to become more similar to gambling, with reward loops and sums of money getting involved. Of course gambling is legal in most of the free world, and you can say that no one forces you to do it, but there are people addicted to gambling. And I don't think that's OK.

It's all just a question of ethics to me, and my personal opinion.

I'm a recovering alcoholic.

Say I take another drink and fall back into it. The companies selling this alcohol are constantly profiting off of it and feeding it.

So who's fault is it if I fall back into it?

Mine. Because the moment I take another drink is the moment I lack the self control to not.

What's hard to grasp about personal responsibility? I'm not calling the booze industry unethical because some people (me included) lack self control.

Also, if this is even a blip on your ethical radar, you need to prioritize.

#8 Posted by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

This is asinine. They're not doing anything unethical here.

If you're too stupid to understand that you're predisposed to addiction (getting addicted to a videogame is fucking pathetic, by the way) then it's nobody's fault but your own if you get hooked and lose money because of it.

Stop blaming others for your own inadequacies or immaturity.

#9 Posted by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

Why not just replay Okami on your PS2?

#10 Posted by Syntax12345 (22 posts) -

@Living_Monstrosity: Wow. Just wow.

  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3