| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | |
| 106) | |
Paperboy  Posts: 27 Joined: 28 Apr 2008 | |
| 107) | |
BANNED  Posts: 102 Joined: 1 Mar 2008 | Oh stop crying and grow a thicker skin you fat fucks. not literally... User was banned for: Zero Punctuation: Mailbag Showdown. (Permanent) |
| 108) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1171 Joined: 13 Sep 2007 |
Going WAY to far there. |
| 109) | |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 987 Joined: 13 Jan 2007 |
Is it me or are you the first one to mention Jack Thompson here? We need a Godwin's law variant here as well, like, you know, blah blah blah, page 1; blah blah blah, page 2; blah blah blah, 2011; blah blah blah Jack Thompson! |
| 110) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1524 Joined: 18 Dec 2007 |
Yeah but you can't do that to a video game can you. Anyway, I think the Wiifit should not have included the "Your a fat bitch and no one likes you, and chances are your adopted" title. Also I think that if Wiifit called those who get a laugh at this article fat then their attitude will change, change very quickly. It is true some people need to harden the fuck up (long live chopper) but you have to realise that a lot of people play video games to escape the insults, to enter a land where they aren't insulted because of their appearance. |
| 111) | |
Paperboy  Posts: 18 Joined: 16 May 2008 |
Umm... I'm tired of this thread so it'll be the last time I reply here. My quote, which has the word "exercise" in it actually was about "exercise" not about being psychologically ready to blah blah blah so I think you're wrong there. But whatevs. And the second one, yeah I have heard of people who have lost weight before they meant to/were ready to. Back when I was in band, as a section leader, I knew this guy who was pretty overweight, and he said he was going to start losing it after the marching season ended, and he was totally freaked out about eating better and whatnot, but through the exercise, he actually did lose something like 40 pounds over the season so... yeah, I'll leave it at that. And props to whoever said that taking offense to something is your own choice or something along the lines of that. So very true. |
| 112) | |
BANNED Posts: 102 Joined: 1 Mar 2008 |
I agree, but in this case it sounds like the game isn't insulting people for their physical appearance (how can it, it doesn't have eyes), it is commenting on the player's BMI rating. That is an inescapable medical fact and if even that can't be said in plain terms for fear of offending then we've become a society of pussies. User was banned for: Zero Punctuation: Mailbag Showdown. (Permanent) |
| 113) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1524 Joined: 18 Dec 2007 |
I agree with the society of pussies argument but we don't need to become a society of hateful jerks who walk around insulting each other either just to not be a society of pussies. There is a happy middle ground but no one can be bothered to look for it. |
| 114) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Whatevs. No one cares.
No, it really wasn't. It had the word exercise in it, in the phrase "into playing Wii for exercise." Being "into" something is a psychological state. It's really that simple.
Being "totally freaked out about eating better and whatnot" does not mean you aren't ready to lose weight, it just means you are apprehensive about the decision you've made. Again--it's that simple.
That is totally untrue. Not taking offense to someone insulting you makes you a doormat. Now, not *suffering psychological harm* from someone insulting you because you choose not to, that's a different story. That kind of response does not preclude labeling the person insulting you a dick and calling for them to shut their ignorant ass up. I really don't see why everyone thinks it's so noble to shrug off people trying to hurt you. I don't care if someone hurts me or not when they attack me--it offends me that they *tried* to hurt me in the first place. And I like to make those people pay... |
| 115) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
The thing is, 'fat' is not "plain terms." A word like 'overweight' would be a plain term, and in digging around a bit, it seems that's what WiiFit actually uses. However, BMI isn't an "inescapable medical fact." From what I'm to understand it does not accurately measure many people, including athletes and children. It's fine to maintain that we should be objective about reality, but from what I've read, the BMI isn't the "inescapable medical fact" you're making it out to be. If you're so concerned that we not twist medical facts, shouldn't you be just as concerned that WiiFit is giving people erroneous information about their physical condition? Aren't you concerned that a person that is "4ft 9in tall and weighs only six stone" was giving the "inescapable medical fact" that she's overweight, when actually, her BMI would be about 18.2 making her *underweight*? Am I doing the math wrong here? Or am I the only person to actually check for myself if this isn't a sign of how our kids are lazy/parents coddle our children/not calling a person fat will incur the wrath of the Old Ones who will come and smite us all/any other Decline-Of-The-West doomsday scenario everyone is going on and on about, and might be that the programming in WiiFit is messed up? |
| 116) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 63 Joined: 5 Dec 2007 |
So you're really being hurt by the intent, not the actions or words? Exactly what I got at earlier. That intent is what matters, not the actual action. The offending party still succeeds when they get what they intended to get, though--response from the offended party. |
| 117) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
No...I'm angered. Big, big difference between being angered and hurt. Anger...is fun.
Not when the response makes them look like a jackass and everyone laughs at *them*
You've misunderstood me. It's not eye-for-an-eye. It's frightening the people who make this world suck into keeping their mouths shut. There's a difference between vengeance and deterrence. If you can't grasp that, well, have fun getting your ass kicked through life. You can have the high ground full of strife--I want to live in the lowlands in peace. You seriously misunderstand the meaning behind that quote given the way you use it. |
| 118) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 63 Joined: 5 Dec 2007 |
You think you're that intimidating? Jah, make me laugh, kiddo. The fact that you're worried about getting your ass kicked through life makes me laugh as well. Maybe when you're a bit more mature, you'll understand. As an adult, there is no laughing "them". That silly shit disappears after high-school. But since you seem to be of that age, yeah, go for it. Kick someone's ass if you really think they have it coming and that's going to make all the difference in the world--hopefully that works out for you. |
| 119) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
So much for you taking the 'high ground', hmm? |
| 120) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 63 Joined: 5 Dec 2007 |
Were you insulting me? Was I insulting you? I honestly think you're a highschool aged kid that is looking at the world through that prism. If you're not, well, I could see how calling you a highschooler might be insulting. I thought we were two people trading ideas. Are you trying to pick an e-fight with me or something? Did I miss the part where the e-gloves came off? |
| 121) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
I'm just pointing out to you that you don't actually believe in taking the higher ground. You advocate it in your arguments, but you don't practice it, you don't act in conformity with those ideals in your behavior. |
| 122) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 63 Joined: 5 Dec 2007 |
if you want to discuss Wii Fit and BMI or whatever, keep posting in this thread. If you want to discuss the high ground, pm me. |
| 123) | |
Paperboy  Posts: 47 Joined: 17 May 2008 | This thread is making me hungry. |
| 124) | |
Muckraker  Posts: 349 Joined: 14 Dec 2007 |
No dude, you're missing the point. The point is that you should never put yourself in that type of position in the first place. And if you do, then you need to learn your lesson and not do it again. Take your example for instance; if someone is hitting you with a bat, you need to say "what did I do to get in this position?" If you're walking through New York back alleys in the middle of the night, you kind of have to expect something bad to happen. As for being made fun of if your overweight, why are you overweight in the first place, and why don't you do something to get thinner, or to earn the respect needed for people to stop making fun of you? If it's something you can change about yourself to get people to stop making fun of you, then do so. Either work out, ignore it, or take a baseball bat to some knee-caps. I'm not justifying the people that go around making fun of fat kids or attacking people in alleyways, but the world is tough and you need to learn how to cope. At any rate, you can't really compare physical to mental violence. Words only hurt if you let them, and if you don't have the ability to say "fuck you" and walk away, then that's your parents fault for not helping you with it. And as far as the murder thing, it kind of depends. If you walk up to a guy you know is a killer and shoot him in the face, you're still a murderer. The only time it would be justified is if the murderer is about to kill you or another person. Funny thing, this started off as a five sentence post. I guess I'll know tomorrow weather writing at 1 in the mourning turns me into a genius, or bat-shit insane. |
| 125) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Maybe. However, if I *do* put myself in that position again, well, that doesn't *justify* their actions. I'm trying to distinguish the question of *what you have a right to expect to happen* from the question of *what you have the right to morally condemn*. No matter how many times a person walks down "New York back alleys in the middle of the night," the last attacker is just as blameworthy as the first.
In that case I you're missing *my* point--people are conflating 'the reasonable coping response to a tough world' with 'if you do not respond reasonably you have no right to complain and therefore your attacker is justified'. I think you have a very different point than BlueMage. What I believe you are saying is: 'sure they don't get the *right* to hurt you just because you didn't learn your lesson; however, it means that you can do something besides complain, and that is to come up with a better coping mechanism' What I believe BlueMage is saying is: 'well, you knew it would happen, so therefore what they do to you isn't wrongdoing'. +++ I still don't see why one can't embrace the fact that the "world is tough and you need to learn how to cope" AND retain one's moral indignation at the world for being so tough. In fact, I wouldn't say the world is *tough*: tough implies a morally neutral state of affairs--climbing a mountain is tough. I think it would be more productive to say 'the world has a lot of really awful people,' to reiterate at every step of the conversation that these people are morally wrong. Why? Because people come up with better coping mechanisms when they feel they did nothing wrong. When they feel less like a natural victim and more like an temporarily unlucky regular person. When they feel that even if they give up the *practice* of walking down "New York back alleys in the middle of the night" because the world is tough and you need to learn how to cope, that doesn't mean they surrender the *right* to walk down "New York back alleys in the middle of the night." Because that's how things get better--people get morally indignant without losing their common sense for self-preservation. I don't know where you're from, but have you been to New York recently? The same streets that were littered with crack vials in the 80s are now a million dollars a home. There's a lot of power in recognizing that some risks are worth it. |
| 126) | |
Muckraker Posts: 349 Joined: 14 Dec 2007 | Alright, I can see where you're coming from Cheese, and I suspect we are agreeing with each other through different means. However it's really friggin late where I am right now, so I need to get some sleep. But if this thread is still alive, and I can somehow manage to pull a logical opinion out of my ass, I will definitely be back tomorrow. Bad timing really, I find a thread where I can have a well thought out opinion, and it's on the day of my dad and uncles (twins) 50th birthday party. To say the day has been hectic would be a gross understatement. |
| 127) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
I agree. I think a lot of this is about vocabulary, and the different ways in which people are using words like 'blame' and 'cause' and 'justify' and 'wrongdoing'. |
| 128) | |
BANNED Posts: 102 Joined: 1 Mar 2008 |
I'm not concerned at all about what WiiFit says about people being fat; anyone that takes medical advice from a Nintendo Game instead of going to their doctor for a checkup is beyond hope anyway. I'm sure the WiiFit manual has all the necessary disclaimers on it and as such Nintendo should not be apologising for anything. WiiFit is first and foremost entertainment and should be taken with a pinch of salt. That the BMI index's accuracy is less in certain individuals is also not Nintendo's concern. It's used because as a general and simple indicator of fitness for most of the population, it works pretty well and is the best we've got. Any doctor worth his salt will be able to tell that fact to a patient who thinks they are overweight because of it, as will many easily available online documents including the first line of the Wikipedia article on the subject. It's a storm in a teacup that somewhere out there made an oversensitive chubby girl cry; I mean what's next, games that use the phrase "You Lose" instead of "Game Over" to have to apologise for making the player feel like a loser? Sheesh! User was banned for: Zero Punctuation: Mailbag Showdown. (Permanent) |
| 129) | |
Muckraker  Posts: 237 Joined: 22 Jan 2008 | nice, maybe we should turn gamestop into a check ids at the door type place and sell videogames like cigarettes and beer, seriously if a game like wii fit is "banned for kids" then not a damn thing is safe for kids these days, or even better maybe we could put kids in little bubbles that only lets their parents talk to them and then they can put their ideas straight into kids heads without worrying about outside influences having an oportunity to give the kids their own opinions on stuff. then we'd be trully safe... |
| 130) | |
Anonymous Source Posts: 1 Joined: 17 May 2008 |
You are making a straw man argument here, perhaps without meaning to. I believe what he means is that killing a killer (A killer being defined as someone or something that kills) does not make you any less of a killer yourself. Here is the definition of a bigot: Being bigoted against bigots, DOES IN FACT MAKE YOU A BIGOT. People who are stupid/ignorant by choice. EDIT: Trying to keep your kid safe from the evil in the world is a noble cause, but they will eventually have to go out into the world themselves. If you have opted to protect them from all evil instead of giving them the tools to defend themselves from it, and combat against it, then they will be completely destroyed or consumed by it when the time comes and you are not there to take the blow for them. "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life" sort of sums it up. Don't give them what they need, give them the ability to get what they need for themselves. I do tend to ramble on. |
| 131) | |
Muckraker  Posts: 322 Joined: 11 Jan 2008 | "anonymous father". I smell the Daily Mail made up crap again... I for one would prefer if the video game told people they were obese. No point in buying a fitness product that's going to lie to you, is there? I also personally think any parent who doesn't stand up and inform their kids they're fat, skinny or whatever, is also lying to their children and ought to be more ashamed than Nintendo. I had health problems for being too skinny until a doctor told me I was dangerously so and ought to stop being a vegetarian. So I did what he said. I feel better. The Wii game tells people they're fat. Get it into your thick heads it's doing you a favour, and do something about it rather than whining because a £69 product doesn't kiss your arse! |
| 132) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1614 Joined: 13 Feb 2008 | |
| 133) | |
Anonymous Source Posts: 3 Joined: 15 Apr 2008 | Pfft, what a useless argument. You are what you are so live with it or go shoot yourself. |
| 134) | |
Beat Writer Posts: 138 Joined: 14 Nov 2007 |
You're associating fault with what I attribute to inevitability. Whatever we feel or believe is the culmination of our perception of life. If we feel bad when someone says something offensive, it is because a part of us agrees with the offender. It is because _we_ give them weight over ourselves and take them seriously. It's as much the offender's 'fault' for offending you as it is yours for being offended. If you truly believe someone is ignorant, an asshole, or bigoted, then they should be dismissed and unable to touch you. Their words will be dismissed and would be bland and meaningless, and their views will be nonsensical and insipid. They could not offend you. Whatever in life has any effect whatsoever on us is due to our reaction to it. If we accept it, or agree with it, then we adopt and feel comfortable with it, and if we disagree or reject it, we steer away and clear from it. It is simply a matter of cause-and-effect, and we are all subject to it. I merely claim that to be happier overall, one should consciously limit what has an effect on oneself, accepting sources one has learned to trust and find comfort in. The reason a person who is content with oneself would not strike at others is because they would not feel the need to do so. It's not that I can't. It's because I prefer not to, because it'd be a waste of effort. Upon meeting a troll, I don't light up a flamethrower. I ignore them and walk away. I have no need to light up a flamethrower because I have nothing substantial to burn. Another reason not to lash back out at others is that in lashing out the point is to hurt another. If they have not hurt you and you have lashed out because you believe they meant harm, then you're as despicable as they are, and your argument makes no sense because there's no vengeance to be taken if there's nothing to avenge: if you truly were not offended and you have dismissed a would-be aggressor, then by lashing out you are acting on your own accord and are being an aggressor right back. If this vengeance is due to your disgust of aggressors, then you will be disgusted with yourself and the conduct with which you have negotiated your life, and I believe that it will catch up to you sooner or later if this shame is not conscious at first. The reason I discourage lashing out is that it is a reactionary behavior- a way of showing yourself, more than any other person, that you can be controlled and made to act in a certain (vindictive) way. You show yourself that you are back to being dependent on others' input for your own output. It is self-defeat if you mean to be in control of your life and be a healthy person. |
| 135) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
But in comment 112 you said: "it sounds like the game isn't insulting people for their physical appearance (how can it, it doesn't have eyes), it is commenting on the player's BMI rating. That is an inescapable medical fact and if even that can't be said in plain terms for fear of offending then we've become a society of pussies." You can't say you're "not concerned at all" right after you say "if the game can't say inescapable medical facts in plain terms then we've become a society of pussies." You can't be concerned and not concerned about the same thing in the same sense at the same time. That's just basic law of non-contradiction. |
| 136) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
No, he's equivocating on what the words 'murderer' and 'killer' mean. He's using them in one place to mean a person who commits an unjustified killing, and in another to mean a person who commits a justified killing--that's equivocating.
But I'm not 'utterly intolerant' of his beliefs. I'm justifiably, rationally, and supportably intolerant--hence, not 'utterly'. See the difference? It's a huge one. You missed the function of the word 'utterly' in that definition. |
| 137) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Sorry--you misunderstood me. Read some of my other responses--I specifically said this was about deterrence, not vengeance. |
| 138) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1104 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Why can't you protect them from evil AND give them the tools to do so themselves when you are not there? You need to explain a little more because there's nothing in what you say there that makes this necessarily a choice between mutually exclusive alternatives. |
| 139) | |
Beat Writer Posts: 138 Joined: 14 Nov 2007 |
This makes no difference because I was equating the vengeance of nothing with an offense. To deter someone from doing something is to be on the offensive, either before you are hurt or after you are hurt, which in itself makes you an offender- something you'd like to deter, and that is self-defeating through hypocrisy. I have already said that. Perhaps you should read my comment again. Again, you dodge the main point which is if you feel the need to act out in aggression, preemptively or no, it is because you feel an aggression toward yourself- it is because you feel offended, and by definition that you are vulnerable and that the vulnerability has been stressed. You are admitting to yourself that you are letting others press your button, eliciting this 'deterring' behavior. I am not going to be impressed with whatever you decide to call it. Fighting fire with fire only makes you another flamer. Once you find yourself in a need to respond, you know you have been found too weak to dismiss someone who you claim is of lesser value to you than yourself- it is hypocritical on your part for believing yourself to be one thing (unaffected by the offender) and being another (having a need to deter the offender). Hypocrisy is what I believe to be the ultimate sin, and this is why I am so adamant about this. Powerless; this will always leave you a victim- a childish one at that, kicking and flailing in all directions in fear of being kicked or flailed at. Even if no one hits you, you were still afraid all along. What's more shameful is that you're justifying this. If you still do, I must say that I believe that you have no idea what you or I am talking about. |
| 140) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 68 Joined: 22 Jan 2008 |
I'm blaming someone who refused to take action when the opportunity presented itself. That lion isn't going to stop attempting to eat you if you ask nicely - you MAKE it stop. So, to go with your example, no, it doesn't give them the right to continue hitting you with a bat, but its your own moronic fault if you refuse to move when they try. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
wow, I think its pretty funny.
people are just too self consious nowadays