Papa Smurf

[center][img]http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/194/heroes1copyax5.jpg[/img] [/center] All right, people, I know White watched the premiere, but who else did? You better have, because the show was amazing. It's been advertised as a superhero-type show, but I think it's better than that, notably because the powers aren't really the "regular" powers...or at least how they're used in the show. I think my favorite character so far is this indestructible cheerleader. Her first big fall is awesome. I won't spoil anything here because you all need to check the repeat of the episode this Friday, I believe. Suffice to say, it's amazing. I never thought dislocations could be so cool, horrifying, and compelling all at the same time. Her experience with the kitchen sink's garbage disposal was unbelievable, too. ^_^ In terms of sheer character grooviness, the top guy is Hiro, some Japanese bookworm cubicle gopher who talks entirely in Star Trek and X-Men references. He's the man. Everyone needs to check out this show. Especially Shy. You'll love it, dude. Right up your alley.

People, people, people...come on. What Gavin's saying isn't as absurd as what some are making it out to be. Or at least his fundamental point isn't so outrageous. In fact, the point he's making makes perfect sense when you consider "freedom of speech" from a more critical standpoint. There are some groups (Neo-Nazis, KKK, et al) who need to be restricted, because what they do and exercise is not freedom of speech; it's hate-speech. It's talk that is designed to inflict harm on another human being. It's talk with one purpose in mind: to incite violence. That type of goal is completely [i]irresponsible[/i] and doesn't even begin to meet the criteria for being protected under freedom of speech. Why? To borrow a phrase...Because with great freedom comes great responsibility. If one isn't responsible, they don't deserve to have the freedom they're exploiting. I see absolutely no problem at all with actively limiting a group like the KKK or any Neo-Nazi group, because those groups are [i]actively[/i] pursuing CLEARLY socially destructive goals. I don't think pointing to the ACLU, Young Republicans, or whatever is even appropriate here, because the positives and negatives, and whether or not those groups are socially destructive largely depends on where you stand politically. Although I do think the ACLU takes it way too far sometimes, just like Young Republicans do. But do we really believe the ACLU can be referenced in a discussion about [i]HATE GROUPS[/i]? Sure, the ACLU is a bunch of morons pretty much, but you don't see them brutally killing gays, dragging them with a pick-up truck. You don't see the ACLU or Young Republicans burning crosses in yards or lynching people. You don't see them exercising dangerous--deadly--social agendas. And really, I think that's the most important point here: We need smart censorship. Not non-existent censorship. Not total absolute censorship. Smart censorship.

[url]http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1131951343[/url] A very good, dear best friend of mine linked me to this earlier. He and I grew up on Super Mario Brothers, so it's fitting that he should be the one posting all sorts of weird game-related stuff on my Myspace. I really enjoyed watching this video, because in some weird way, it's a trip back in time. I find the technique of the performance to be remarkable; the black curtain is a good call, even though black is the proper stage-hand color anyway. I loved how the audience was getting into it, too. College-age people are the Super Mario generation after all. Thoughts?

Sorry, but I had to jump in here real fast. [quote name='Retribution']That's completely wrong.[/quote] And yet you're agreeing with her on that same point of contention: [quote]That family does have the ability to tell their lawyer to [u][b]seek[/b][/u] the death penalty as their sentence. [u][b]Of course the judge[/b][/u] does have the [u][b]power to make whatever judgement he/she sees fit[/b][/u], the plaintiff still can [u][b]ask[/b][/u] for whatever sentence they wish.[/quote] Compared to Aaryanna_Mom: [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom][i]The person who makes this choice of giving a death sentence is not the family or person who lost the loved one[/i]. Even if they wished it [i]they are not the one?s allowed to make such a decision[/i']. This is done to keep decisions from being made based on a desire for revenge.[/quote] I've bolded and italicized the important points. I think they speak for themselves. Retribution, you're acting like a simplistic and ignorant fool who just enjoys hearing himself complain. [quote]It's revenge in that you're killing that person because of what they did.[/quote] Do you honestly see the world in such a stupid-simple black and white provincial manner? Retribution, think about what you just said. You're putting Timothy McVeigh's execution by lethal injection on the same level as lame Star Trek Klingon dogma simply because both of those executions happen after the fact. Well duh they both happen after the fact. But that's hardly a basis for using your ignorant, dipsh-t little brush to paint everything here in the same color, because I [u][b]guarantee[/b][/u] that the "bloody satisfaction" The Bride got was not felt by most--if not all--of the survivors/loved ones when Timothy McVeigh was executed. And you know what else? It was probably even more painful for them. From what I remember, most of the families [i]even refused to watch on closed-circuit television[/i]. Were they operating in that Klingon revenge mode you seem so convinced of? If there was any positive emotion during that execution, it was that the families had a sense of closure. And closure is SURE AS HELL not the same thing as bloody satisfaction. So as much as you want to see the world in such romanticized, idealistic, fanciful ways, where all punishments are nothing more than emotionally charged revenge modes and where justice is just an illusion weaved by self-righteous political boobs...the world we live in is a world based on rules and laws, and there are far more actions taken than you may realize and/or know to ensure that those rules and laws are followed, and that the punishments that follow when those rules and laws are broken are just and fair. Why do you think there are so many rules and guidelines regarding the death penalty? Why do you think lethal injection is basically the only way an execution is performed these days? Why do you think people are even re-examining lethal injection to decide if it's cruel and unusual punishment, for the [i]rare[/i] cases where the prisoner doesn't die immediately from it, instead drifting in a painful quasi-unconscious haze as the toxins paralyze him or her? But the death penalty is still an emotionally charged revenge mode? Bullsh-t. Pull your head and the stick out of your *** and stop being such a whiny little b-tch, man.

Try AB if you haven't already. I'm loving it. It's given me a new use for my Assassin, using bits of a build Desbreko created...and what a smashingly deliciously devious combination it is...

Birthday traditions? My family engages in organized tournament-style hand-to-hand combat. Two men enter, one man leaves.

[quote name='Charles']Oh yeah, and Papa Smurf--I wonder if the Wii will replace the Nintendo 64 for our multiplayer sessions. heh[/quote] I started typing up a longer response but then realized no lengthy explanation was necessary. [i]It's absolutely going to replace the Nintendo 64, because with the Virtual Console, Wii becomes a N64+SNES+NES, and GCN, due to the backwards compatibility.[/i] *reserves Wii*

[quote name='Charles']By the time Mario releases, I should be really acquainted with the controller.[/quote] Exactly. I'm actually not as disappointed with the delays as other people. We'll get Zelda at launch, Metroid in the next year, and Super Mario Galaxy somewhere within that timeframe I think. It'll help us for a few reasons: 1) It'll give us a chance to know the controller in and out. The Wii Sports pack-in will help to that end. 2) It'll give us less to buy at launch, which I'm sure everyone will be happy with when they sit down and think about it. I mean, in all honesty, when's the last time any of us bought more than one or two games at previous system launches anyway? 3) It means we can devote all of our attention to one or two AAA games, rather than having them spread out across multiple games.

[quote name='Desbreko']The problem with the majority of your arguments here is that you're complaining about options that you don't even have a choice about in GE.[/quote] But more choices doesn't always mean a better game, especially when we're talking about game balance. [quote]The fact is, you can turn off the less-than-great bots[/quote] Being able to turn them off doesn't excuse the fact they're broken to begin with. [quote]you can take the overpowered weapons out of the match and create your own weapon sets, and you can ignore the secondary fire modes if you want to.[/quote] And I could throw PD out the window and never have to worry about its non-existent game balance ever again. But either way, being able to turn-off/disable/prohibit certain weapons shouldn't be required to achieve balance. The very fact that those weapons and items need to be removed from the game types to balance the game is testament to how imbalanced Perfect Dark's weapon selection is. [quote]But all the core features of GE are still there.[/quote] I consider the core features of GE to be tight, balanced gunplay and solid combat. Even using a stripped-down custom weapon set in PD, and forbidding my friends from using the secondary fire functions ...does not give me the same type of tight, balanced gunplay that my Rutgers friends, Charles, and I enjoy playing GE on Friday nights. [quote]So I don't see how you can argue that these extra things make the game worse, when you can set up a match in PD that is almost identical to GE.[/quote] Firstly, I can certainly argue those extra things make the game worse when they contribute to combat balance issues and further compound framerate issues. Secondly, as you saw in your PD experiments earlier tonight--rather, as [i]we[/i] saw in our respective PD experiments earlier tonight, it's impossible to recreate a match in PD that is "almost identical" to GE, due to the weapon problems. The explosive weapons like the Devastator and SuperDragon shoot with a minimal arc and much farther than the GE grenade launcher when shot from the exact same position, with a character of the exact same height. The Devastator and SD are basically rocket launchers that use grenades. Even during the low-end variations of the shot distances, there were easily a few steps between the PD explosives and the GE grenade launcher. Like I've said before, the grenade launcher has a very sharp arc, which requires the player to learn the angles and trajectories to become effective with it. [quote]And, for the record, I happened to be very pleased with the fact that PD included bots. They may not be the greatest, but when I don't have anyone else around to play against--as is often the case--the bots actually give me something to do. They may be inferior to human players, as all bots are, but they're still better than nothing. I play GE and PD almost exclusively for the multiplayer modes, since single player never interested me much, so without bots I never would have bothered buying PD.[/quote] Yeah, you definitely need to be here on Friday nights. lol [quote]As for the framerate slowdown when choosing a head/body combination, again, it's a menu. Framerate in menus doesn't need to be very high, especially when all you're doing is toggling through the body/head combinations. You're just nitpicking here.[/quote] It's not nitpicking when it's one component of a much larger issue I've been addressing. Desi, the game's framerate is so unstable that the menus themselves become choppy as hell. Me pointing out menu slowdown is hardly nitpicking; it's merely providing yet another example of a point that's completely obvious to anyone who's played a framerate stable FPS (like Halo 2...that stays silky smooth all the time, even online). [quote]About PD requiring the expansion pak, you talk like Rare had a choice in what parts of the game to include in that 35%. They didn't. They were limited by what the system's standard memory could handle without the aid of the expansion pak. It couldn't handle the single player game--or at least not well enough for it to be playable--so they didn't include it unless you had an expansion pak.[/quote] After playing through the single player campaign for a few years, on repeated playthroughs, I'll gladly and confidently say that there's nothing in single player mode that couldn't have been done without the expansion pak. The expansion pak was only necessary because of all the pretty textures. The core gameplay could have been executed no problem. The only reason the expansion pak was "required" for single player was due to how pretty the game looked. If you don't believe me that the single player mode could have been executed without the expansion pak, compare PD and GE and tell me there are such radical differences between the respective gameplay in those single player campaigns that PD would have been impossible with lower textures. [quote]Again, I don't see the logic in bashing PD because it gives you extra options.[/quote] Again, had they been extra options that [b][i]improved[/i][/b] the game, I'd still be drooling. But as it turns out, those extra options had detrimental effects on the gameplay itself for reasons I've stated above and previously. So I'm just calling it like I see it. [quote]They could have very easily made the game require an expansion pak to be played at all, but instead they let you play what the system could handle on its own.[/quote] I'd have preferred they had made Perfect Dark entirely dependent on the expansion pak instead of giving us piddlysquat 35% that could barely even pass off as a game update these days. [quote]And it's not like they tried to trick you into thinking the full game could be played without one; they gave you a little chart showing which parts of the game required one, which I think was displayed on the back of the box as well as in the instruction manual.[/quote] Where did I imply that I felt I was tricked? I knew exactly what I was getting in Perfect Dark: the full game because I'd already gotten an expansion pak so I could play Turok 2 in high-res. But providing documentation in the manual and on the back of the box is no excuse for giving us a craptacular 35%. lol. I mean, remember how much hype PD was getting before release. It was being heralded as an evolution of the FPS, a game that was a technical powerhouse and gave us all sorts of new and exciting gameplay options. But what did we get? We got a barely functional, barely playable, barely accessible game whose real content was only available when you purchased a 4 meg expansion pak and then, the action got choppy, the only reason the bots had a warm welcome was because everyone was in love with the game due to it being "the next big thing," we had customization that wasn't worth it because 75% of the weapons in the game might as well haven't been there for serious gamers who care about game balance...I can go on for a while here. lol. But I'll summarize with something I said in an earlier post: Perfect Dark is a rose-colored shades game. [quote]Now, if you want to criticise PD's less-than-great extra features, that's fine. But when you're comparing GE to PD and trying to say PD is worse because its extra features aren't that great, that doesn't work. Having extra options is never worse than no options at all, so long as you can turn them off so they don't affect what was already there.[/QUOTE] Having extra options is worse when those extra options distort gameplay that might be mildly balanced in the first place, or when those extra options take up so much of the game's resources that we experience frame-dropping and lag even when accessing basic menu functions, or when those new weapon features do absolutely nothing to expand the gameplay and instead turn it into a weapon-dash. The weapon-dashes in GE happen because a player knows how to use a particular gun. The GE weapon-dashes aren't game-breaking because the weapons are very balanced.

[quote name='Desbreko']This is N64 AI we're talking about. What do you expect from them? At least PD has bots, whereas you don't even get the option in GE.[/quote] Honestly? I expected [i]something[/i], even after almost a decade. Perfect Dark is one of the rose-tinted shades games. And at least PD has bots? As if the bots in PD are such a gift? Give me four humans (or even a 1v1) in GE over two bots in PD any day. PD is worse off with bots. It's not that evident way back when, but it's sure as hell evident now, since we've seen better AI in better FPS, not to mention FPS that play and handle much, much better...even a game like GE. [quote]Weapon balance is relative and depends on what else is in your weapon set. A SuperDragon is no more overpowered than having a granade launcher and an assault rifle in the same weapon set in GE would be. You just can't do that in GE, so the situation never comes up. If you don't like the SuperDragon, don't put it in your weapon set, or else put more powerful weapons in along with it.[/quote] The SuperDragon weaponset was...Crossbow, Shotgun, SuperDragon, AR34, Shield, and DY357. All high-powered weaponry. Only the AR34 came close to matching the SuperDragon. Imbalanced, definitely. GE was balanced for more than just single weapon functions. With the grenade launcher weapon set, you could pick up a ZMG and still come out victorious against a player of equal skill. That's because in order to rack up kills with the grenade launcher, the player needed to know how to use it, how to ricochet rounds around corners or into rooms using the door. When you picked up the grenade launcher, you weren't guaranteed anything, especially because of the arc to the grenade rounds themselves. The arc forced you to learn the weapon to become terrifying with it. Compare that to the line of fire that's more or less a completely straight line with the SuperDragon. The grenade secondary of the SD isn't a grenade launcher at all; it's a rocket launcher. There's a minimal arc to the SD's grenade rounds. Getting rebound kills is impossible with it, especially considering that the SD's grenades barely bounce at all. The only angle one regularly needs with the SD grenade launcher is where the targeting reticle is pointing, because generally, that's where the round is going to go. Zero player skill. On top of that, you can hold one button for a second and switch to one of the most powerful assault rifles in the game? Sure, you could tell me to just not use the SuperDragon if it's so broken. And make no mistake, I'm not inclined to use any of the projectile explosives in PD, except the remote mines. But, like in GE's multiplayer regarding Oddjob and Moonraker Elite #2, I [i]shouldn't have[/i] to prohibit the use of weapons and characters just to have a balanced match. Oddjob is fun as hell, definitely, and I exploited his height or lack thereof pretty much a solid four or five years when I'd play with my high school buds, but making him the shortest character in the game was a bad design decision, and those types of bad design decisions just got worse and worse and more frequent in Perfect Dark. And honestly, one of those lousy design decisions is the absurd secondary functions. It wouldn't be so bad to have alternate firing modes if the alternate firing modes were actually something that enhanced the game rather than broke it. The Crossbow's Lethal setting, for example? Cool idea, but it's crap because it's so cheap. SuperDragon being assault rifle+grenade launcher? Cool idea, but total crap. Shotgun, even. Double shot alternate fire? Cool idea, but it's not worth using in combat, because it's so unreliable. K7 Avenger? Alternate function is a threat detector? Again, cool idea but ultimately useless, especially when playing with mines, because it takes all the skill out of the game in trying to figure out [i]where[/i] your bastard friends placed proxies. Speaking of threat detector, since when did mines need it? 90% of the secondary functions were designed for single-player. I think that much is obvious. They're all "cool ideas" that don't translate well at all to multiplayer combat situations. I'm reminded of Guild Wars, actually. PvE monsters don't care about balance. PvP players do. Now, I think there are a few weapons in PD that can be used in multi-player without too much of a problem. Most of the pistols, including the Mauler (Phoenix, not so much), Sniper Rifle, the Callisto NTG, Laptop Gun, the regular Dragon (that proxie self-destruct is designed for PvP I think), Shotgun, AR34, Devastator, the Slayer, grenades, N-Bombs, mines, and of course, the Classic weapons. [quote]The Farsight is meant to be a cheap-*** gun. Try putting all Farsights into your weapon set and having duels from across the level; that can be a lot of fun. Otherwise, turn it off, because it doesn't really belong in other weapon sets.[/quote] Farsight is a single-player gun. It's one of those "cool idea" weapons that doesn't belong in multiplayer to begin with. [quote]I haven't played PD in a while, but I don't remember the framerate being any worse than GE. You are playing with an expansion pak, right? If not, get one and then take another look at the framerate.[/quote] It's significantly worse, and I've had an expansion pak in there since before Turok 2, which was in the 1999/2000 range, I believe. [quote]Oh noes, a small glitch in one of the menus. And--gasp!--you only get a head and body for character customization?! The horror! I mean, that's just so much worse than not having any customization in GE. :rolleyes:[/quote] If the customization ends up causing the framerate to drop out even when you're scrolling through character models for multiplayer...the customization feature isn't worth it. Plus, the framerate issues aren't only glitches in the menus. The entire game is plagued with framerate issues. [quote]I don't claim to be a great GE or PD player, but me and my friends never had any more trouble using Disarm than the normal hand-to-hand strikes. Also, it's not supposed to be easy to get in close when you're unarmed and your opponent has a gun; he's going to shoot you while you're running at him and then you die.[/quote] The Slapper's Only License to Kill fights between my friends can easily go on for 20 minutes at a time. We make sure that it's impossible to hit each other, just from the way we kite in the game. So for us, Disarm is all the more useless, and the fundamental idea behind it is pretty bad. You're unarmed, but instead of running away in a zig-zag pattern to screw the enemy's aim, you're going to try to disarm them by getting into melee range. When you respawn and there's someone right there, like in the bathrooms in Felicity, and you've got nowhere to run to (or at least, your options are really limited), then yes, I can see how Disarm would be your only hope, but that's highly situational and any good player would have you dead long before you were in close enough. [quote]Also see my above point about N64 AI. The only way they can provide any sort of a challenge is to cheat. Heck, even most current gen console AI is the same way.[/quote] Exactly. So why praise PD for having broken simulants? What, because the game has bots? I don't see the logic there. I'd rather have no bots than broken ones, and I'd rather criticize a game for including broken ones than not including bots entirely. [quote]I've never experienced glitches with the weapon slots. Everything I put in the weapon set has always spawned, the correct number of them has always spawned, and their placement in the level has always remained the same throughout the match. Are you sure you don't have a faulty cartridge or something?[/quote] I doubt my cartridge is problematic; I've taken the same kind of care with it as I have all my other games, so unless it's an insidious plot of God or the Devil to ruin my cartridge, I can't see how it's a technical issue. Regarding the weapon slots, I know how the weapon slots go, and I know where each slot spawns. There was no AR34 even though I equipped it in the corresponding weapon slot. I know I wasn't imagining it, either, because Charles saw it, too. [quote]It feels exactly the same as GE to me. Except it's easier to aim because you have an on-screen sight at all times. And guess what--a lot of the classic GE guns and arenas are even included in PD.[/quote] It doesn't feel exactly the same to me, and to most people who have had very recent playtime with both games. PD feels way too loose, too slippery and too choppy at the same time. There's no weight to the character movement. The game has the menu options of a football or golf simulation, but it plays more like a lousy version of NFL Blitz or Outlaw Golf. [quote]Zelda: Majora's Mask requires an expansion pak to play the game at all, yet no one ever bashes it over that.[/quote] Yeah, because at least with Z:MM, you needed the pak for everything. It didn't insult you by giving you a pathetic 35% of the game if you didn't have an expansion pak. And let's be perfectly honest here. If a game is only giving you 35% to play without the expansion pak, that 35% should be a full single-player campaign and 4-player multiplayer support, plus a few slots for player profiles...like what we saw in GE, sans the individual player profiles. Everything else (customizable settings, characters, extra profile slots) should be included in that expansion pak-required 65%. Desi, think about it. Perfect Dark, a Nintendo 64 first-person shooter touted as "sequel in spirit" to GoldenEye and advertised as a new and ground-breaking first person shooting experience, released on what, at the time, was the best console for first-person shooters...doesn't even give you a single-player campaign mode if you don't have the expansion pak accessory. [quote]This is like saying a GCN game sucks because you don't happen to have a memory card to save your files on.[/quote] No, because at least you can enjoy the single-player mode of that GCN game even without the memory card. Sure, you'd have to restart the game from the beginning every time, but at least you could start the game from the beginning. Good luck doing that without the expansion pak in Perfect Dark. lol [quote]I'll continue to enjoy PD's multitude of multiplayer options over GE's rigid and inflexible match set-ups, thank you.[/QUOTE] Give me core functions and tight game/gunplay over broken customization and framerate issues any day of the week, thank you very much.

Perfect Dark sucks for the following reasons: The bots are awful and are only deadly because of consistent headshots, 90% of which should never happen. The bots are awful because they have the tendency to sit in one location on the other side of the map when you've got a solid defensive position. The weapons are horribly imbalanced. See SuperDragon and Crossbow for examples. The Farsight gun. It sees through walls, shoots through walls, and can still track a target in primary fire mode (Rail Gun Effect). The framerate barely sustains 1v1 split-screen. The game lags and hiccups when two players are selecting bodies for their characters. The character customization only gives you a choice of a head and body. Unarmed secondary function, Disarm, is impossible to connect with against a human opponent due to weapon damage imbalances, yet a Normal difficulty bot will always connect with it. Weapon slots are unreliable and glitchy. Instead of an AR34 and a shield, two shields spawn. The combat doesn't feel comfortable at all. If you don't have the N64 Expansion Pak, forget about playing single-player mode. Only [u][b]35%[/b][/u] of the game is available to non-Expansion Pak users; that 35% is barely some minor double player gametypes. Barely any combat simulator. --- Charles and I stopped playing within two or three matches. We'll never play PD again. GoldenEye still shats all over it.

I think the biggest problem with this current discussion is that both sides are looking at philosophy and immediately thinking "intellectual godness". The pro-philosophy side is touting it as wonderful and promoting unprecedented intellectual growth (that's the implication I'm seeing, and I doubt I'm mis-reading anything). The anti-philosophy, or perhaps [i]non[/i]-philosophy side believes most philosophers (even the pretend ones in this thread) to have falsely inflated senses of self-worth, and so any support of philosophy is immediately regarded as silly posturing. And I don't think anyone can deny that much of what the pro-philosophy side is saying is silly posturing. Topics are being discussed purely for the sake of discussion. People are talking purely for the sake of talking. The 2+2 bit is a perfect example of straight-up nonsensical and pointless talk for the sake of talk. What good, realistically, can come from such a bizarre and nigh-incoherent "A man is not singular because of Pluralism"? And I think some of what the pro-philosophy side is saying is actually justifying and supporting Retribution's comments, as lame and infantilely phrased as they were. He's saying philosophy is useless in a practical sense, right? Well, when I see someone try to break down 2+2=4 and attempt to prove there's something more to it, by pointing to two men and then haphazardly incorporating a variation of Pluralism...I think that's pretty strong confirmation that there's some downright useless philosophy in the world. I think the reason that the philosophers and pretend philosophers don't see that is because they're too caught up in it to step back and seriously, rigorously ask themselves if the topic merits such "analysis." With regards to ethics, political theory/philosophy, religious philosophy, Ontology, Epistemology, etc, I think people are missing a key point when getting at the practical application of philosophy: It's not philosophy anymore. It's public discussion. You can see this happening everywhere, even in something as simple and immediately accessible as the Terri Schiavo thing from a few years ago. There was a huge moral outcry/debate going on. Did you see anyone quoting ancient philosophers? I watched most of the congressional coverage of it and I saw maybe a handful of references. All the rest either was straight-forward essays/speeches or referring to God's will. Why was that, you think? Do you think 99% of those speeches didn't include older philosophy/philosophers out of contempt or ignorance, or perhaps we've reached a time where everyone talks about morality in a public forum? I mean, I love philosophy just as much as the next guy--and no offense, but I probably have a much healthier view of it than most people in this thread, no matter which side you're on), but I'm plenty prepared to state that worshipping philosophy is unnecessary because of how our society has progressed today. Sure, we don't have philosopher-kings (and really, that concept is common sense) and most of our leaders are douchebags, but regardless, ethics in politics is a major discussion topic anywhere you go today, whether you're at a political rally, a presidential debate, an impeachment hearing, on the No-Spin Zone or Hardball, or even at the family dinner table. Religious debates are alive and well. Does that increase the importance of philosophy, perhaps because that ancient philosophy is the fundamental groundwork for these modern debates? No. If anything, it's the complete opposite. It's not just a small handful of the "brilliant minds" of a society having these types of socioethical debates; it's regular people. Philosophy is just as important today, if not more important, than it was five hundred years ago...but it's not philosophy today; it's another conversation topic in the public collective. And people see that when they really look at it, and that's where the "philosophy is ultimately useless" comments truly come from. But wait, one might argue that the "regular joes" are actually the pretend philosophers because they aren't educated in the history and background of the focus of the discussion. But to that I wonder...since philosophy strives to be honest and true...which of the following sounds more honest? 1) A regular joe talking about how it's wrong to limit stem cell research because it can help many more people than it'll hurt. OR 2) Because Plato's Duality of Matter states that the form can never meet the idea, because matter is imperfect, while the idea is always perfect, and as the human form--the body, the matter--is imperfect, it is therefore questionable to pursue avenues of action that attempt to reach higher, to perfection, for that is arrogance of the gravest offense. Which sounds forced, and which sounds honest? Who sounds like a pretend philosopher, and who sounds like a true philosopher? Just look at public discourse. The many times when someone stumbles around a(n unintentionally philosophical) discussion isn't because philosophy is better left to people of higher intellect; it's because that person is just a moron.

[quote name='Phaedrus']Both views of reality--"big picture" and "small picture" are equally useful, correct? None is greater than the other?[/quote] I'll let you in on a little secret. The "big picture" and "small picture" are the same thing in this discussion, because there is no cosmic significance here. If you need a difference between the BP and SP, then the BP deals with society on the larger scale, whereas SP focuses on small groups. Regardless, both of them focus on society. So instead of searching for some greater meaning (i.e., the big picture that doesn't really exist anyway), focus your efforts on the here and the now, where there's no confusion at all and no favoritism regarding BP and SP. [quote]By following its ghost.[/quote] Then don't look toward Plato; call up Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, and Egon Spengler. If you're following ghosts, you need Ghostbusters, not long-dead philosophers, man. [quote]That's what I've been doing all along, actually. It is liberating. I'm just getting out the kinks and letting go more and more.[/quote] From what I can see here, you aren't shaping anything. You aren't taking an active role. In fact, it's the complete opposite: you're drifting farther and farther from reality. That's shape[i]less[/i]. [quote]Hm. . .so if there isn't meaning, then why create meaning? Why the need to make something arbitrary? Why not just be lithe and free in the lack of meaning? Further, why exist at all? As a human, we have form, an expression of meaning upon the lack of meaning all around us. . .so why exist? Musn't we exist for a purpose in this case? Otherwise, why would we exist in the first place?[/quote] It's all about being a leader versus being a p-ssy. [quote name='Greggy']In conclusion, I believe that Phaedrus is going to say something about how it may appear to equal 4 as we perceive it, but in fact it will always truly equal 1 in an unperceived reality. :p[/quote] Even though there is nothing in your Edit that I haven't seen before in my philosophy courseloads at Rutgers, I rest my case regarding the nonsensical ravings of pretend philosophers and misguided jesters, Greggy. Thank you.

[quote name='Phaedrus']Why make individual, systematic specifications in the first place? What's the use in those? How can they lead to any type of intellectual growth?[/quote] My answer: because they place responsibility on the individual, and the individual is always present and held accountable. Now that I answered your little Socratic method, answer my original questions in a respectable and concrete manner. [quote]You're talking of the Judeo-Christian God here. God isn't necessarily that. God doesn't need to be charaterized. You can infer its existence without a need to further define it.[/quote] I'm talking about the idea of a supreme being. I'm not talking about God; my focus is on the God-ness. Don't want me to use the word God? Don't use it in a sentence. lol To appease you, I'll use unknown supreme being (USB). The minute you invoke USB in any form is the minute where you start using the all-powerful deity, and the all-powerful deity is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian belief, either, remember. You've got African tribes worshipping all-powerful mother and deer goddesses. Ancient Mesopotamia had its own religious overlords; you can find evidence of that in Epic of Gilgamesh, in the form of Humbaba. [quote]Now we're just playing a game of language and terms, definitions and meaning.[/quote] We were playing a game of language from the very beginning. [quote]God is a man-made construct too, the word itself is a construct, the thought of such a thing is relative and man-made. When God was thought of, or Gods were thought of, this was thought of as something that is absolute, certain, and true. Since it was unknowable then, and is still unknowable today, it is merely an abstraction, a construct, an arbitration. What I'm talking about really has no name, it isn't one ultimate being, it isn't anything to me, because I refuse to assume it or "they" are anything. All I know is that it's out there.[/quote] One thing you'll come to learn in a philosophical discussion is that most of the time, you'll find an assumption that God exists, if only for the sake of the discussion. This is one such time. And thus, God is real and eternal, which makes me wonder why you'd list God in a sentence along with "big picture" and "Truth", because those phrases are not interchangeable. And if God is man-made, then why include him at all in your quest for "Truth"? After all, how can you pursue something that doesn't exist? [quote]Sometimes you've got to step back and look around before making any more movements, eh?[/quote] Exactly why... [quote]I can't look at the world that way. That's depressing, and feels more of a step back than what you see as stepping back up above.[/quote] ...it's not depressing at all; it's liberating. You begin to shape your own existence after realizing there is no meaning. [quote]That's the beauty of being human.[/quote] It's the pitfall of humanity. Blinded by belief, by obsession, by a desire to [i]find[/i] meaning, rather than take control and [i]create[/i] meaning. [quote]They have, in various ways. There's meaning in buddhism, christianity, science--everywhere.[/quote] So if there's already meaning, why do you have a problem? Why the worry, fear, sadness, etc? Why the false euphoria? [quote]It's true that I've fallen into the dogma we could vaguely define as buddhism. The ideas I've expressed in this thread are ideas I've found in various ways that are helping me along my way. I've come pretty far since you last saw me, and I know you're speaking from experience. Even so I've got to find it out my own way. Perhaps what you say will happen will happen--how am I to know, or how are you to know? I just need time. Your words cannot will experience into action.[/quote] And that's exactly what you're going to do. Find it out your own way. I'm just informing you what is going to happen, so you know what to expect. By the way, 2+2=4 because of symmetry. Nobody gives a crap about our thumbs except when we need to pick something up. Index finger is great for pointing. Middle finger is one my favorite gestures because it's so expressive. The ring finger is for a very special ring when you find that special someone. And without the pinky, we wouldn't have cute nicknames in Doom for the Pinky Demon. Those are four fingers. Hence, 2+2=4. Four is the magic number.

I'm sorry, but there are still a few questions I have for you. Surely you can understand the need to question, right? [quote name='Phaedrus']You're picking at my gross generalizations and trying to root them into individuals, and this is your nature.[/quote] Why make gross generalizations in the first place? What's the use in gross generalizations? How can gross generalizations lead to any type of intellectual growth? [quote]I don't look only to society and people.[/quote] When the question posed by Adahn was "But why search outside myself when I can search within myself for answers" you answered with the following, [quote]Why? Because your "self" is an abstraction. It's not real. And each day, as you live in this day-by-day existence, people you walk by, words you say to them, another "you" is born. It's like a great big wall of mirrors. Everyone has a different idea of who you are in their head, and none completely agree with the idea of you you have in yours. [...] Why would you seek answers outside yourself? Well, because the answers are outside yourself. "You" is just an abstraction. All things are more connected than you'd like to think. "You" are a part of [i]everything[/i], and everything's a part of you.[/quote] I find nothing in there to suggest anything more than advocating looking at other people's perception of you to find answers about your self. I've already explained why "Part of everything and everything is part of you" is an empty phrase and is insufficient in explaining the reasoning behind depending on the external world for meaning. [quote]but seeing as I look at the big picture I can't help but grasp at metaphysical straws, or the one metaphysical straw, called Truth, God, Allah, and many other things by many different people in many different languages.[/quote] Major mistake here is that you're confusing "big picture" with Truth. In fact, you're confusing a few different concepts; Truth, God, big picture...whatever terms you may have read...aren't the same thing at all. Let's talk God first. Assuming that God exists, he would be the ultimate power, right? The one that guides everything. The one behind all the machinations of the universe, of all existence. "God" himself is an intelligent otherworldly force. That God has a consciousness. You're looking at an active ruler. Same goes for Allah. Both God and Allah are eternal and original. If a God exists, it will have existed forever, and will exist forever. Truth, however? There is no intelligent otherworldly force with Truth. It's near impossible to apply any type of metaphysical being or entity to Truth (which is why capitalizing it is in itself a fallacy). Truth cannot be personified. It has no consciousness. At best, it's a man-made, artificial construct; there's no inherent, original, eternal system of Truth. One may argue that if God exists, he creates what is true. I would ask, what is true? How would you arrive at any conclusion regarding what true would be, especially when you've got nothing more than gross generalizations and clumsy implementations of an awkward and archaic viewpoint of the world? When you have nothing to support your statements regarding "Truth," your statement itself becomes a vague, gross generalization...which puts you farther back than when you started. Regarding the "big picture," there's nothing more to it than Existentialism. You're looking for some profound meaning in the fabric of the universe when all that universe is is dead space. You look for deeper meaning in the world around you and fail to realize that there's a reason you feel so alone sometimes: because there is no deeper meaning. The "big picture" is the same as the "small picture." You seek meaning because you don't feel meaning, and you don't feel meaning because there isn't meaning. If there was inherent meaning, do you think you'd be searching for it, or do you think you'd have found it by now? By that same token, if there was some inherent meaning, don't you think someone would have at least stumbled across it over the past 4000 years? [quote]I see the world as I see it, and it's what's working for me, and you're not going to change our differences, and nor am I going to change yours.[/quote] Meh? See below. [quote name='Phaedrus earlier in the thread]as a philosopher I understand that it's impossible for me to [become greater than God']. I'm just as in awe of things as you are, but I look at the big picture.[/quote] [quote name='Phaedrus earlier in thread']While I may have my ideas and assumptions of reality, that doesn't mean I'm not willing to let them go and seek to understand someone else's. . .[/quote] And so you're unwilling to entertain a discussion where I'm just asking you some questions? That doesn't sound much like a philosopher to me. [quote]I am happy, so let me be happy.[/QUOTE] The thing is, it sounds like a false happiness. See below. [quote=Phaedrus earlier in the thread] The problem that arises with these dogmas is that people cling to them [i]too[/i] tightly. They [i]desire[/i] to have understanding, desire to have a reason for their existence. What ends up happening, though, is that what they cling to are truth-dressed shimmering lies. That is to say that these abstractions of reality are deceiving, that they dress in the garments of truth and glimmer, but they are really lies. [...] Thus you can't let yourself fall into any one dogma. You've got to let go of them, as hard as it can be [...] And when you let go. . .well, I can't explain it in words. It's an [i]astounding[/i] feeling. When you desire as little as possible. . .when you [i]experience this[/i], you feel like you now understand so much more.[/quote] All you've done is go from a non-extreme to an extreme. You've gone from non-dogma to dogma, and embraced the dogma in exactly the same way that you criticized above. How can you be so sure those other dogmas aren't lies? How can you be so sure that your new belief structure (and it is a rigid belief structure, as evidenced by your contradictory comments above) isn't in fact a bunch of "truth-dressed shimmering lies"? What, because of the feeling you feel right now? The inner peace, the calm, the euphoria? It's a false euphoria. I know, because I hit it back in high school. It's the exact inner peace that allows you to take a devastating volleyball spike right to the eyes and nose and bounce right back up off the floor, completely unfazed and unharmed. It's the exact inner peace that makes it possible to withstand physical pain without so much as a wince. It's the exact inner peace that allows you to love those around you unconditionally and to forgive everyone. So what happens? It's a false euphoria. Part of that inner peace will always be with you, but it doesn't dominate your being. It's merely an anchor that keeps you balanced. You'd mentioned metacognition. That's part of it. That's a major component of it, actually, and it's going to be the higher order of metacognition that evolves later, that's going to help augment your self when the feelings of loss and despair slam back after the false euphoria breaks. And plus, this isn't me not letting you be happy. This is me questioning your belief structure, which is what true philosophers do, isn't it? Engage in fairly deep discussions regarding the human condition? Or is the Smurf, like in previous threads, not permitted to ask questions?

Philosophy? Love of wisdom. What I see here in this thread? Mostly love of words. I don't see any actual wisdom here, so I find it incredibly ironic that people are talking about philosophy and fail to demonstrate any deeper understanding...or any amount of skepticism. I saw T13M hint at critical thinking, and Greggy had a paragraph or two about it...but that's it. And for a thread about philosophy, that's just pitiful. I mean, if anyone allowed some reasonable level of critical thinking, we would never be seeing crap like the following: [quote name='Phaedrus']Because your "self" is an abstraction. It's not real.[/quote] [quote]And each day, as you live in this day-by-day existence, people you walk by, words you say to them, another "you" is born. It's like a great big wall of mirrors. Everyone has a different idea of who you are in their head, and none completely agree with the idea of you you have in yours.[/quote] As if other people's perceptions are so much more real or concrete? There's zero logic to the above quotations. The implication above is that in order to find answers (understand your self), you have to look outside yourself...at other people, because you're part of this omnipresent sociometaphysical spiderweb network (or maybe it's just the Lifestream from Final Fantasy 7). And so, if you think you've got better answers regarding your place in the world, regarding your purpose or self-image or your self whatever...you don't, because you can't possibly know yourself due to that Lifestrea--er, [i]omnipresent sociometaphysical spiderweb network[/i]. But why would we buy into any of that Lifestream poppycock in the first place? [quote]"You" are a part of [i]everything[/i], and everything's a part of you.[/quote] Because everything is a part of us, which is just as empty and meaningless as using the bum in the slums of Camden or Detroit to define ourselves, or elevating said bum's drunken, maligned perception of our middle-class college student reality so it ultimately is more important than what we think of ourselves. This entire thread is sopping with irony here. People are so concerned with asking questions of other people that they neglect to ask questions of themselves--and I guarantee that the self-questioning is immensely more important here than asking "Who is this 'God' you speak of". Self-questioning is infinitely more important than stumbling around a clumsy Animal House Donald Sutherland-esque marijuana "mindf-ck" about the nature of atoms and God. What I find most hilarious about that line of thought (the "What if we're all a part of some giant's fingernail" type of "discussion") is that if actualizing interpersonal social networks is the goal of such a thought--a type of web, if you will, where everyone is connected metaphysically--all you have to do to actualize that interpersonal web is look around you and observe society. It's nothing more than cognitive psychology (or sociology). If you want to talk metaphysics, than by definition/meaning of metaphysical ("beyond the physical"), the functions of the mind (note the mind, not the brain) and the collective subconscious of society are metaphysical. Some may argue that metaphysics is much more complicated than "beyond the physical," but when you're being realistic about it...there's really nothing else that needs to be said when defining metaphysics. You've got the individual branches within metaphysics, sure, but I don't think they really matter all that much in any context. But you want evidence of that metaphysical social network existing? That there's a cognitive psychological bond between all people? Look at pictures of the crowds from 9/11/01 (Lord knows they're everywhere today). Very few of them are aware of the people around them, and even fewer are aware that everyone has the exact same gaping mouth "Oh my god..." look on their face. When the towers fall, it's not an active social decision that occurs when people start running; it's a survival mechanism, an automatic response that spreads...like panic. Or cattle. The zombie walk across the bridges, same deal. All of it has roots in cognitive psychology. Not philosophy. Point to Buddhism for the collective consciousness. I can point to cognitive psych and it'll be even more accurate and relevant, because in order to understand the world [i]around you[/i], you observe other people and resist the temptation to wrongly attempt to apply some greater cosmic significance to it. But to arrive at the answers for your self? That's looking within yourself. No amount of attached external cosmic meaning is going to help you. If anything, it'll just confuse and distract you even more. In fact, if one is so determined to find one's self, and to define one's purpose in life...it seems to me that looking to the external society is counter-productive, because that will only re-inforce the notion that you're a slave to the system, which isn't good at all for a self-image that you would like to be a positive self-image from what I can tell. So what's it going to be, people?

[quote name='celestialcharm]I think they[spoiler] lived because their dad was in the army.[/spoiler'] Maybe it was a subliminal message?[/quote] I attribute it more to the filmmakers not being as mean as they needed to be. Cute kids+horror movie+venomous snakes=death, dagnabbit. [quote]I guess [spoiler]the baby had to live because it was either it or the old woman. I guess being young won. ;) [/spoiler][/quote] Only the good die young, which doesn't say much for either the old woman or the baby. Either way, the baby sucks because it failed my thirst for death. I wanted to see a baby+boa constrictor a la [spoiler]what happened to Mary Kate or the British prick[/spoiler].

[quote name='James][font=arial']I only have one question about this movie. Snakes hybernate when it gets cold - why didn't they simply turn the A/C up so high that the snakes either stopped moving or slowed down?I would have thought that'd be an obvious solution and I'm kinda surprised nobody in the film thought of it.[/font][/quote] Because then there couldn't be motherf-cking snakes on the motherf-cking plane? They'd be nothing more than slightly chilled jump ropes, which doesn't make for a very entertaining movie if you ask me. ~_^

I've stepped on my cube on more than one occasion. lol. Hell, you're talking to a guy who's kicked it by accident because he's a clumsy motherf-cker. There's a reason why I've told Charles it's a bad idea to leave his 360 vertical in the middle of my basement floor. ~_^ Regarding the controllers, I'm positive I'm a hell of a lot more abusive with mine. You're looking at six years, easily, of rigorous and rough playtime. Mario Party, GoldenEye, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Bomberman 64...the list goes on and on, man. If your joysticks were that loose and unresponsive when you first bought them, then that was obviously not regular wear and tear and seems to me to indicate that durability and hardware quality aren't in question there. You'd said you'd bought them second-hand. That confirms for me that those joysticks worked perfectly when they were new, and something disastrous happened to them between retail purchase and when you got them. I mean, if my N64 controller's joystick is only mildly less responsive today after at least six years of regular, nightly, multi-hour play...shouldn't that tip you off that the problems you had with your joysticks weren't related to the joysticks themselves? Regarding the Cube out-of-the-box thing, yeah, there are going to be exceptions, definitely. I don't think I was arguing otherwise. But the fact remains that Nintendo products, lots of moving parts or otherwise, have held up considerably better than competitors. I've bought my Gamecube in Jan or Feb. of 2002. I bought my first Xbox in Fall of 2003. Within a year, the Thompson drive on that Xbox failed. Still haven't had any problems with the Cube, and I was sure as hell a lot rougher with the Cube than the Xbox. Unrelated, but still fun, there was an old Mind of Mencia episode on Comedy Central where he produced an N64, then had a midget slam it with a sledgehammer. It took the midget almost half a dozen slams to fully shatter the system. On the first two strikes or so, the midget and the sledge actually bounced off the system, only causing mild casing damage.

[center][img]http://liedra.net/journal/dm_housewarming/IMG_2543.jpg[/img] [/center]

Over the past three years, I'm on my second Xbox, and my brother recently did some maintenance on his original PS2 after it started crapping out on him. Alan, apart from one of my four N64 controllers, my N64 equipment works perfectly, ten years after buying it. Charles can attest to their performance. We don't use that one controller because the joystick isn't as responsive as the other three, but even then, it's still surprisingly responsive for ten years old. Gamecube, same deal. All my Wavebirds perform like-new, as does the Gamecube itself. Never had any problems with the games or memory cards. All first-party. I'd expect a similar high-quality for Wii. When it comes to system durability, Nintendo is the best. That video Desbreko linked us to is pretty solid proof. PS2 was done after the first text. The Xbox, after the second or third. Gamecube, on the other hand, was the frigging Energizer Bunny.

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']I am sick and tired of ignorance.[/quote] "Ignorance" why? How is being realistic being ignorant? Or how is it ignorant when one resists philosophizing that, while attractive, is at best, idiotic? Do tell, because it seems to me that insisting on pursuing absurd pseudo-philosophizing and ignoring what actually happens in documented cases of reality is far, far more ignorant than knowing what kinds of auditory events occur when solid matter collides with other solid matter. [quote]The physical rules that we experience are on a very large level. What we feel and see are averages, because our unaided bodies cannot perceive the inner workings and rules of physics.[/quote] Forgive me "ignorance," but how is any of this meaningful and/or important? Or accurate? [/size] [size=2][quote]I gave a link to a book written by a physicist in an earlier post. He explains things proven by physics in such a way that anyone our age can understand it. If you want to call me on it, you'll have to disprove me, because I've provided a reference.[/quote] OH, I see. It was accurate because of a book you read? Oh, well in that case, I must bow down to your obviously superior comprehension here, because you read it in a book! Pardon the sarcasm, but I don't see how reading a book validates your vague claims above. [/size] [size=2][quote]It has been physically proven that anything can cease to exist at any time.[/quote] Prove it. Explain how. Give me observable examples that don't depend on theoretical physics. [quote]If anything ever does, it usually does so in such a small way that nobody perceives it, but it happens.[/quote] Example? [quote]If it is possible for the tree to cease to exist before it makes a sound from falling (and it is), then that is a possible outcome.[/quote] Instead of making vague claims, give me examples. Provide more than a link to one of the many Amazon.com's on the 'net. [quote]Since there is even one possible outcome that results in the tree making no sound[/quote] Like what? The tree just blinks out of existence as it falls? [/size] [size=2][quote]If you think you know better than me on this, you don't.[/quote] Yes, because you've already demonstrated so much knowledge with such vague assertions. :rolleyes: [quote]Give it up, and stop it with your high and mighty incensive comments.[/quote] I'll give it up when you provide me with relevant examples that raise enough questions that can cast doubt on said tree making said noise when it falls. If you can't, then I'd highly recommend you take your leave from this thread, Adahn. We both remember what's happened in the past when you've put up these types of "I know more than you" acts.[/size]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead'](It's interesting that you use the word "justified" here, as I seem to remember you ridiculing me for using the same term a little earlier)[/quote] I use the word because that's exactly what I see is going on here, Fastritishead. You're trying to justify a pointless philosophical exercise simply for the sake of the exercise, which makes that a pointless justification of something that can't be justified. [quote]If you're saying that all this "deeper thinking" is really unjustifiable, I take this to mean that your own point (and I think this last post is your best in the thread) [i]can[/i] be justified. I assume you hold that this is because "hard physics" is "reality itself," period. In which case, my question is: [b][i]how do you know this?[/i][/b][/quote] I know this because I've destroyed trees before. lol. Because I've hit a tree with a solid object. Because I've been around plenty of wooden areas in my days and I've seen trees falling, crashing into each other, etc. And no matter if that tree was rotten and hollow or if it was sturdy as hell, it made a sound/noise/auditory event when it collided with the trees, bushes, foliage, water, etc, around it. [quote]So, how does this learning process happen?[/quote] It's called living. Being out there and having experiences, and then using those experiences to construct an understanding of the world around you. You could come in and say, "Well, aren't you just establishing the same type of belief structure there as we are here?" I'd respond by pointing out that the noise will happen, because that's what falling trees do: make noise. I can make such a statement because I've been there when trees and other solid objects have collided with each other. I'd also point out that the "point," if it can be called a point, of most of the philosophical ramblings I've seen here largely depend on perception shaping reality, which is a flawed idea in and of itself, because then it entails the entire world ceasing to exist if nobody is around to perceive it. And that's just a foolish thing to suggest, because reality itself does not cease to be when we cease to be. Our perception of reality ends, absolutely. But reality itself does not end. Incidentally, I'm actually amazed to see nobody even mention the "Eternal Perceiver." [quote]unless, of course, for anything to be considered "relevant" at all it must immediately produce useful, practical results, in which case I have no reply and the entire thread fails the test miserably.[/QUOTE] Which is what I've been saying the entire time. The only "older" philosophies I've seen as relevant are Plato's Cave (in a purely emotional reactive context) and Existentialism (in both emotional reactions and social constructions). Everything else is pretty much hogwash. Hobbes and Locke were lunatics because they took to opposite extremes of their shared spectrum and so any good observations they made regarding human existence became tainted. Marx had some nice ideas, as did Sarte, Nietzsche and Kierkegaarde, but most of the time, you had to take their views with a grain of salt. Freud was the same way, and he barely dabbled in "true philosophy." Despite what people may want to believe, most older philosophy just isn't terribly important anymore, particularly in day-to-day life. In film, definitely it can do some amazing things when handled appropriately. But philosophy devotees often miss the forest for the lone tree, and because of that, lose sight of what's really important in life...they lose sight of society itself.

Derald, I like most of your post, but there's one thing I utterly disagree with: [quote name='Derald'] So, in the end, this is destined to be an infinite, recurring discussion, because there are as many answers as there are opinions.[/quote] There is only one actual answer to the question: that the tree will make a sound. Everything else becomes stretched and forced pseudo-philosophical ramblings with little to no relevance at all that suggest downright stupid hypothetical scenarios totally ignorant of reality itself in an attempt to justify so-called "deeper thinking" that can never, ever be justified. If people don't believe me, look at the crap certain people are throwing around here. Deaf women? Or calling that pseudo-philosophy just as plausible as hard physics? Opinion versus answer in a question that deals with hard physics rather than philosophical posturing? Be sensible people. The question deals with how our individual perceptions affect reality, but only on an emotional, reactive scale. It has absolutely nothing to do with trees and sound, because even if we don't perceive the tree falling, it's going to make a sound. Whip a friend in the head with a piece of sapling for an immediate example. Throw a 2x4 at other 2x4s (or at your friend) and hear what happens. Take a chainsaw to a tree in the forests near your house and hear the chaos. Take said sapling and start beating on an oak tree. Or hell, take a trip out to the Jersey Pine Barrens and I'll take you kayaking. There we can do two things: go kayaking and enjoy the scenery, and ask the redneck bumf-cks "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If you think this "What do we know" philosophy is all that realistic, how about you try using it in reality? Guarantee that at least three of those redneck bumf-cks will drag you off into the woods and beat you mercilessly. And then, you'll make a sound! [quote name='sakurasuka'] Really. Think before you speak. This is all a matter of 'opinion' here.[/quote] Honestly, sakura, I'd tell you to think before you speak. Had you thought a bit before chiming in, you wouldn't be saying this is all a matter of opinion, just like you would see that no matter if someone is using "sound" or "noise," they're still agreeing that an auditory event occurs when said tree falls. In fact, despite your best efforts to provide some sort of counter to the "tree does make a sound/noise/auditory event" argument...you end up supporting it even further. I'm starting to think that nobody here really knows anything about what they're talking about, especially those in the pretend philosophers club.

[quote name='AzureWolf][color=maroon']If he is indeed Nelo Angelo, then yeah, it's supposed to be Virgil. So where does that leave Dante? O_o[/color][/quote] Stuck at the foot of the mountain, of course, getting devoured by a lion, a leopard, and a she-wolf.