The $%*! frustration thread

[Shee]

Ever just feel bleh?

I think it's because I hate my day job, even though it should be the best in the world.  But it ain't.  At least not anymore....so it goes.  Easily the best situation for me right now, just trying to get this ball rollin' some more!

Bah, it'll pass.

[GenesisOne]

I am quite frustrated by the cost of video game soundtracks, particularly for older games. I've had my eye of the SoM sound track for some time now, as well as the CT sound track, but I am always reluctant to plunk down that much money. I am cheap.

Well, you can always cheat by going on YouTube, finding such music, and ripping the audio.  It's how I did it, but that is beside my long-standing frustration.

I'm sick and tired of how console games are trying to become the new Hollywood. When teens are in the mood for a mobster story, the game industry hopes you'll be in the mood to play The Godfather game rather than watch the movie. The difference here is that people can watch the movie version over and over and over again because there is a human element to the story that lets a person enjoy it all over again after all those years. Games really don't give you that.

I find it completely unfair to compare any movie game to a movie because films are relying on an art form (drama) that has thousands of years of experience to its name You put sympathetic humans on screen (or stage, or TV, etc.) and tell a well-paced, exciting story and we escape into their adventure. However, the director controls how the story unfolds, controls what you see and, if s/he knows what s/he's doing, delivers it to an audience based on a centuries-old formula designed to engage the emotions.

Games try to trump that with interactivity, letting you control the outcome. But the more control the gamer has, the more the pacing is ruined by brainless repetition (leaving the task to the gamer presents the possibility the gamer will fail 30 times in a row).

If they make the game tasks easier (as not to bring the story to a screeching halt), the gaming experience becomes much too short to justify the $60 price tag, and the more interactivity is taken away in favor of pacing and pre-rendered cinemas, the more they stop being video games.

Again, it's okay for a film to be scripted because you're in the hands of the director and charismatic actors who make you care about their situation, but other than the thrill of seeing what latest visual effects a shiny new console can show off, what's the reward for playing a scripted game?

[Lord J Esq]

...what's the reward for playing a scripted game?

Education, entertainment, inspiration. Are you really going to go up against, say, Chrono Trigger--a game that is totally scripted except for a chapter of sidequests at the end?

[GenesisOne]

Education, entertainment, inspiration. Are you really going to go up against, say, Chrono Trigger--a game that is totally scripted except for a chapter of sidequests at the end?

Those three things I can easily find in my favorite movie or TV series. 

Actually, I'd only have to contest the first one: education.  You learn the names of all the fictional characters, the monsters, the locations, the races, the stats, the weapons, the spells, etc., but how much of that knowledge can you apply and use in real life toward becoming a more intelligent person other than using it as discussion points for us Compendiumites, cannon-fodder for fanfic writers, and having them join the throng of thousands of tropes and conventions like its brothers and sisters?  Most likely, you can't.

Chrono Trigger was a leap in RPG story-telling which I have yet to see replicated to this day in any other RPG I've played. You won't be seeing me criticizing the script (i.e. I'm removing myself from the nameless rabble of debaters over its plot holes, paradoxes, etc.), but despite its awesome story, immersion, and replay value, at the end of the day, it's still like any other game that I win at. The only reward I get is the self-satisfaction of playing a game and finally beating it.  Nothing more, nothing less.

The only differentiating factor here is the taste and personal preference that feeds the satisfaction of beating said game. 

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[FaustWolf]

Well, it's thanks to the use of mythological references in videogames that I did decently well with that sort of stuff in grade school; I might never have known about Shiva, Ifrit, the Roman god Janus, etc., were it not for my favorite games! The random info in videogames inspired me to pick up an encyclopedia and read it when I was a little'un.*

But more important by far is the fact that RPGs got me interested in storytelling as an art form, and improved my vocabulary quite a bit. True, I guess I could have gotten this from movies and other, more traditional media, but, uh...I didn't! Sooo, there!  

*Note: It was an antique 1950s encyclopedia, so this isn't really bragging.  Man, was I pissed when I found out years later there wasn't really vegetation on the planet Venus! So much stuff I had to unlearn...

[alfadorredux]

It was as recent as the 1950s, and you're complaining? The encyclopedia we had in the house when I was a kid was older by several years than either of my parents. It had an entry for "World War, The".

[FaustWolf]

The encyclopedia we had in the house when I was a kid was older by several years than either of my parents. It had an entry for "World War, The".

Mwahahaha! Amazing. Man, there are probably encycs still floating around that have this pic next to the "Dinosaur" entry. Only, er, not in color.

[ZeaLitY]

Ugh, tired of hearing that it's "women's choice" to wear hijab in France, in regards to the possible ban. It was not their choice to be born into a Muslim family in which, as children, they had no real choice but to accept and be conditioned by the religion of their parents. A brainwashed "choice" is an oxymoron. I would only debate the ban in terms of how effectively it will erode religion and whether it will have any counterproductive effects. Otherwise, it's a smashing attack on religion, no matter if it's partially motivated by xenophobia.

[Lord J Esq]

Big matter that it's partially motivated by xenophobia. When you find yourself in pursuit of a worthy cause but are attracting the alliance of villains, it's extremely important to own the terms of the debate and to explicitly distinguish the good motives from the bad. If bad people are on your side, you can't help that, but you can do the cause a lot of hurt by ignoring it, downplaying it, or excusing it. I am categorically against blurring the line between humanistic and xenophobic motives for banning the public use of the veil. You need to remember that in terms of world power structures the more dangerous people are still the Christian fundamentalists, not the Muslim ones.

I continue with a discussion of the sexism of the veil, appropriately, in the Sexism thread.

[Truthordeal]

Ugh, tired of hearing that it's "women's choice" to wear hijab in France, in regards to the possible ban. It was not their choice to be born into a Muslim family in which, as children, they had no real choice but to accept and be conditioned by the religion of their parents. A brainwashed "choice" is an oxymoron. I would only debate the ban in terms of how effectively it will erode religion and whether it will have any counterproductive effects. Otherwise, it's a smashing attack on religion, no matter if it's partially motivated by xenophobia.

Zeality, from what I've surmised, you were born and raised in an extremely religious family and community(so religious that your own parents aren't aware that you're an atheist) and yet you somehow chose to be an atheist. My question to you is: Why you think you're capable of making the "rational decision" to convert to atheism, but that these women are too brainwashed to reject the veil?

[GenesisOne]

You need to remember that in terms of world power structures the more dangerous people are still the Christian fundamentalists, not the Muslim ones.

Right, because Christians flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, not Islamic extremists.

You have to understand that not all acts of terrorism are religiously motivated.  There are always anti-governmental and anti-social sentiments that exist within such infrastructures.  As such, I am more inclined to believe, based on the evidence I have perused, that Islamic fundamentalists are more dangerous than Christian fundamentalists.

[Lord J Esq]

I am more inclined to believe, based on the evidence I have perused, that Islamic fundamentalists are more dangerous than Christian fundamentalists.

Most of the world's great powers have a Christian heritage. None have a Muslim one. Most of the world's richest people are Christian, or at least come from countries with a Christian background. Very few, in comparison, are Muslim or come from a Muslim background. Christian ideas and attitudes and credit and troops are exported fluidly throughout the entire world; Islamic ones are not. Christian fundamentalism, by existing in large part within the developed world, has an inherent power advantage. Power is dangerous, and thus more of it makes a person more dangerous. Your decision to judge power on the absurdly narrow variable of terrorism--nay, the even more absurdly narrow case of a single specific terrorist act--is completely negligent and foolish.

[GenesisOne]

Most of the world's great powers have a Christian heritage. None have a Muslim one.

Are you kidding? There are lots of people with a Muslim heritage that occupy positions around the world in politics, entertainment, business, etc.  Check it out.

Most of the world's richest people are Christian, or at least come from countries with a Christian background. Very few, in comparison, are Muslim or come from a Muslim background.

Names would be nice to have to back up your assertion.  This is not to say that "invalidation by numbers" is a valid argument.  Example: I'm more likely to die from getting hit by a falling coconut than by getting attacked by a shark, but that doesn't mean that shark attacks don't happen.

Christian ideas and attitudes and credit and troops are exported fluidly throughout the entire world; Islamic ones are not.

Now this is just flat-out lying.  Do you honestly expect me to believe that there is absolutely no Islamic influence being exported around the world in science, literature, the arts, et. al? Read this.

Christian fundamentalism, by existing in large part within the developed world, has an inherent power advantage. Power is dangerous, and thus more of it makes a person more dangerous.

Let's break down your argument:

1. Christian fundamentalism, by existing in large part within the developed world, has an inherent power advantage.
2. Power is dangerous.
3. Therefore, Christian fundamentalists are dangerous.

This would be an association fallacy.  In this case, the fallacy implies that the power that people associate with Christians comes from them being fundamentalist in their beliefs. While this may, in part, be true, it is fallacious to state that all fundamentalists in power are dangerous, or that someone becoming a fundamentalist in power is dangerous.

Your decision to judge power on the absurdly narrow variable of terrorism--nay, the even more absurdly narrow case of a single specific terrorist act--is completely negligent and foolish.

Is it any more negligent and foolish than what you've asserted with basis? We both have room for improvement, in that case.

[Lord J Esq]

Since you persist in this nonsense I will grant you one more reply, but I was short on patience the first time around and I'm not any better now.

Most of the world's great powers have a Christian heritage. None have a Muslim one.

Are you kidding? There are lots of people with a Muslim heritage that occupy positions around the world in politics, entertainment, business, etc.  Check it out.

"Great power" refers to a country, not a person. The most powerful Islamic or Islamic-heritage country in the world would probably be Pakistan or Indonesia. Either would fall well below such countries as US, China, Russia, the UK, Japan, India, Brazil, Germany, France, and more.

Most of the world's richest people are Christian, or at least come from countries with a Christian background. Very few, in comparison, are Muslim or come from a Muslim background.

Names would be nice to have to back up your assertion.  This is not to say that "invalidation by numbers" is a valid argument.  Example: I'm more likely to die from getting hit by a falling coconut than by getting attacked by a shark, but that doesn't mean that shark attacks don't happen.

The lower part of that comment is irrelevant nonsense. Don't waste my time. We're talking about relative power differences; if more Christians are rich than Muslims (and this is true), and more rich Christians are richer than rich Muslims (also true), and if wealth is an important measure of power--and it is, in fact, a key measure of power, through the markets, government, and enterprise--then it follows ineluctably that Christians are more powerful. Now add the "fundamentalist" qualifier, and the statement remains true. I leave it to you to inspect a list of the world's richest people and note the ratio of Christians to Muslims.

More importantly, I wasn't talking just about the rich. Implicit somewhere between the line about great powers and rich individuals is the power of the wider populace of the great powers. Far more Christians than Muslims have access to ways and means of every configuration.

Christian ideas and attitudes and credit and troops are exported fluidly throughout the entire world; Islamic ones are not.

Now this is just flat-out lying.  Do you honestly expect me to believe that there is absolutely no Islamic influence being exported around the world in science, literature, the arts, et. al? Read this.

Lying, no. You failed to understand what I said. Never assume that Lord J is lying when your own ignorance remains an unchecked possibility. I leave it to you to make the raw comparisons of the Christian-background versus Muslim-background flow of ideas, attitudes, credit, and troops. What you'll see is that, while Islamic influences certainly are visible all over the world, Islamic dominance is confined to a narrow band of the center of the world. In contrast, Christian dominance is global and is intertwined with the operating bases of everything from our economic systems to our morality codes to our national constitutions. This is a part of why it has been such labor for secularists to extricate the states and the people from the church and the institutions of religious dominance generally. When Christians make that beloved claim of theirs that ours is a "Christian nation," they're not right in the sense they mean (in that the country was founded with the intent that it be a bastion for religious conservatism), but, technically, they're not wrong either, because our nation has a Christian heritage. It is not not a Christian nation, culturally speaking.

Christian fundamentalism, by existing in large part within the developed world, has an inherent power advantage. Power is dangerous, and thus more of it makes a person more dangerous.

Let's break down your argument:

1. Christian fundamentalism, by existing in large part within the developed world, has an inherent power advantage.
2. Power is dangerous.
3. Therefore, Christian fundamentalists are dangerous.

This would be an association fallacy.  In this case, the fallacy implies that the power that people associate with Christians comes from them being fundamentalist in their beliefs. While this may, in part, be true, it is fallacious to state that all fundamentalists in power are dangerous, or that someone becoming a fundamentalist in power is dangerous.

You're right. If taken at face value, my argument commits the fallacy you mention. I could have been more exhaustive in explaining the relative difference between the Christian and Muslim sides. If we take it that power is dangerous and Christians are more powerful, then Christians will sometimes be dangerous. If we take it that power is dangerous and Muslims are less powerful, then Muslims will sometimes be dangerous. And, between the two, Christians will be dangerous more so (either in frequency or severity) than Muslims.

That you would make such a quibble, however, when you almost certainly could have deduced the full form, smacks of the diversions of desperation.

Your decision to judge power on the absurdly narrow variable of terrorism--nay, the even more absurdly narrow case of a single specific terrorist act--is completely negligent and foolish.

Is it any more negligent and foolish than what you've asserted with basis? We both have room for improvement, in that case.

The fact that you are contesting this point is an absurdity and I find myself disgusted that your critical faculties are poor enough that you actually think you have a point. I only wish my time were not so severely constrained. Maybe somebody else can explain it more simply and in greater detail that Christianity is based in the developed world and Islam is based in the developing world, and thus Christianity (and Christian fundamentalists) are the more powerful of the two religions. The wars launched by Christians have been broader in scope and more numerous. The laws passed by Christians have been greater in reach and encompass more people. The politics of Christians have shaped most of the world's present-day national boundaries. The companies founded by Christians are at the center of finance and the globalization process. The exports and imports of Christian-heritage nations are more numerous and valuable than those of Muslim-heritage ones. Etc., etc., etc.

[ZeaLitY]

Ugh, tired of hearing that it's "women's choice" to wear hijab in France, in regards to the possible ban. It was not their choice to be born into a Muslim family in which, as children, they had no real choice but to accept and be conditioned by the religion of their parents. A brainwashed "choice" is an oxymoron. I would only debate the ban in terms of how effectively it will erode religion and whether it will have any counterproductive effects. Otherwise, it's a smashing attack on religion, no matter if it's partially motivated by xenophobia.

Zeality, from what I've surmised, you were born and raised in an extremely religious family and community(so religious that your own parents aren't aware that you're an atheist) and yet you somehow chose to be an atheist. My question to you is: Why you think you're capable of making the "rational decision" to convert to atheism, but that these women are too brainwashed to reject the veil?

It's a good question. If I had to identify some factors...

• Decent parenting, but with a split; my mom was Catholic for most of my childhood, and my father was Mormon. So I recognized a kind of dichotomy early on, and my parents were never completely Nazi about much..
• Possibly biological factors related to cognition, but I'm not qualified to speak about this or guess on nature vs. nurture.
• Experience being an outsider. I was a Mormon in the Baptist midwest in a small Mormon community, so I already knew what it was like to be on the outside of popular belief.
• Exposure to humanism all within 2004-2005, specifically from Star Trek: The Next Generation, arguments between others on the Compendium, and the Richard Dawkins documentary that came out during that time. The Next Generation gave me an incredible feeling of happiness and hope for the potential of humanity, and helped me dream of an ideal future. It also illustrated why religion was contrary to it.
• A commitment to self-honesty combined with struggling with sin. Ever since I was a little kid, I've resolved to be self-honest and not lose my passion. It's why I can wear a lot of things on my sleeve, like my dreams or creative side—things most people take a long time to reveal in conversation or getting to know people. This didn't mesh well with the more anti-human of sins, like having "impure thoughts" or getting into a mischief, which wasn't helped by my awesomely delinquent Scout Troop. The church is pretty strict about that stuff; you can't take the Sacrament on Sunday if you've sinned, or else you're offending God twice. And you definitely can't enter the Temple to perform baptisms for the dead or anything else if you aren't worthy. Over time, I came to realize that some of these "sins" were actually interesting and valuable parts of the human experience, like play drive, interest in science, human sexuality, and so on, and so it was impossible to reconcile sin with self-honesty.
• Looking down on other religions helped. Islam was obvious, but I also looked down on Baptists, because here it's 1) get baptized, 2) you're saved, no matter what you do! And that seemed like a gigantic copout compared to being LDS, which involved strenuous good works and 10% tithing till the day you die. Catholicism was a giant guilt trip, and all the other churches in my city looked like little hovels, which I discriminated against because they obviously were too blind to ask what the one true church is, as Joseph Smith had done.
• A long break from church while experiencing that humanism. It let me have a break from the programming and social reinforcement of church. It coincided with a particularly bad youth leader, who (like many people in our church) was military, but was in a bad, jerkish way. He was kind of an ass, and he was also one of those ultra-spiritualist people who really takes belief uncomfortably far. (Reminds me of this guy in my undergraduate speech class who referred to Jesus by the archaic "Abba" and thought churches were too impersonal, and that Sunday practice should alternate in people's homes.) That guy put me and a few others off (again, awesomely delinquent Scout Troop; we were badasses who skipped out on merit badge fairs to get lunch and played extended night games and pranks at campsites).

The "liberalism" didn't come until later. At first, I escaped my parents' conservatism into libertarianism, but then realized that I couldn't trust most humans as they are right now to function ethically in a society as free as libertarianism would create, especially given the widespread abuses of Wall Street financial houses and other institutions like the World Bank. History also seemed to demonstrate that the rich protect their own interests to the detriment of others, and that only the force of law and common government has been able to cow elements of society like that (truly successfully? maybe not) into working for humanity. And as for wanting to change the world... I have a friend who feels that people have to help themselves, and I agree—up to the point they have an even playing field. But many people don't even get the chance for an even playing field, and we can still influence what kind of playing field will be there when future generations will be there. So we might as well make a big damn ruckus right now and even the playing field as soon as possible to free future humanity from the fires of antiquity.