James

[quote name='eleanor' date='23 September 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1285244455' post='700710'] I'm in Scotland right now studying abroad and I ******* love it. Was interesting to see the clay pigeon team sitting behind us at the pub last night get completely naked Also, the classes here are once a week for three hours and I only have to take two. It is so goddamn glorious. I wish I was here for a year instead of a semester [/quote] [font="Palatino Linotype"]Wow, that sounds incredible. How much flexibility did you have in your course to determine where/when to go? I am researching this for myself, although I actually don't think I'll be in a position to do it for a while yet. But I'm very keen and it definitely seems doable. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I actually watched some of Glenn Beck's TV show last week. And as I watched his incredibly long ramble about filling a bucket and emptying it and how it rains with money and then the blackboard and... Well, I was thinking, does anybody actually take this guy seriously? I mean, he's clearly deranged on some level. He had pictures of the founding fathers of America on a blackboard and he was talking all about their religious convictions - now, I'm not American, but I [i]know[/i] that most of the founding fathers were strict secularists. As Beck talked, he demonstrated what I thought was fairly little understanding of his own country's history. Obviously his show isn't of the news variety, but I just find it incredible that he isn't basically doing the same rant on a street corner while wearing a cardboard box. When I was in America I went to the movies and during the trailers, they advertised some weird-as-hell Christmas show that Beck does live on stage. I actually had to try hard not to burst out laughing! It was so asinine - or at least, the advertisement made it look that way - he even kneels down and [i]cries![/i] What the hell? It's bizarre. Do Americans also find it bizarre as well, or is this just a culture difference?[/font]

[quote name='The Tentacle' date='21 September 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1285022943' post='700649'] The farthest I've been was a cruise out into international waters. Â Seriously, I was on a cruise ship that sailed out past America's borders, turned around and then came back. Â It made me nervous doing just that so I doubt I'd hold up very well being surrounded by a foreign culture for any amount of time. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Really? I've only been beyond my country's borders once...and my first reaction was extreme excitement, haha. I've never spent more than a holiday length of time overseas, but I [i]am[/i] looking into the idea of studying overseas (or at least, continuing my current studies overseas). It'd happen maybe next year (at the earliest) or the year after. So if it does happen, it'll certainly be exciting (and scary). I'm thinking I would definitely want to choose America for that, even though the process is admittedly fairly arduous - although I expect it to be pretty arduous no matter what country I choose. The hardest part - even tougher than securing a scholarship, I think - would be getting a decent job! [/font]

[quote name='CaNz' date='14 September 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1284463247' post='700493'] right now i think we have a lot of room, but if we keep letting the government redraw it every time someone gets offended, we ar gonna have to start watching our step. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]This is why I get very annoyed when people arbitrarily declare something "offensive" and then proceed to use that as a basis to block somebody's free speech. I would certainly want to draw the line where physical violence is involved - but words? No. If you're offended, that's just too bad. If you can't determine what words to take on board and what words to reject, or if you break down and cry every time somebody burns the flag, then I think you simply need a good dose of maturity (and perhaps a slight boost to the I.Q.). I can think of many instances in Australia where somebody else's free speech might have "offended" me. But the great part about a free nation is that a) I don't have to listen to something hurtful and b) even if I do listen to it, I can still choose to take it with a grain of salt. So long as you aren't infringing on my personal rights, then I really don't care what you choose to say (the exception, of course, being controlled environments like this one - where there are certainly specific limits that people agree to). As I mentioned earlier, this is especially true if people are genuinely responsible for what they say.[/font] [quote name=CaNz]we all remember just how american you are James, banner or no banner.[/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Haha, and surely there's nothing more American than advocating free speech - especially where religion is concerned. [/font]

[quote name='The Professor' date='13 September 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1284349835' post='700466'] [font="Comic Sans MS"] Burning the Qu'ran is equivalent to insulting the entire religion in retaliation to a tiny little fringe group that the rest thinks is crazy. Does that seem right to you? [/font] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I know I'm harping on the point, but as far as I know, [i]nobody[/i] here is suggesting that book burning is right. On the contrary, we all acknowledge that it is stupid and unnecessary. I thought that was so self-evident that we'd sort of moved beyond that point by now. Because we know what the motivations are in this case, we do know that burning the Qu'ran is a very blunt instrument designed simply as an inflammatory action. But do not make the mistake of suggesting that the terrorists on 9/11 were "distorting" the Qu'ran. On the contrary, they were simply following it literally. It is a very good thing that [i]most[/i] people of faith do not follow their scriptural texts literally. This, again, comes back to the difference between fundamentalists and moderates. Moderates are only moderate because they explicitly do not take a literalist approach to every one of their religious doctrines. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, both take all doctrines literally and, in some cases, act on those literal interpretations. Of course, the guy who is burning the Qu'ran isn't making that argument at all. I agree that he is simply behaving like a zealot - and his motivations are certainly not based on any real understanding of Islam (or any religion, for that matter). In regard to flag burning, I agree with HC's point. Sometimes purely symbolic gestures are more effective than carefully-constructed arguments. I will personally never burn a flag, because that is not something I would choose to do. And I do think it is a terribly blunt instrument. But that's not really the point, is it? The question is more about whether or not people have the right to free speech. And on that point, I certainly support their right - free speech isn't qualified by the degree of taste or appropriateness of the speech, really.[/font]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='13 September 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1284344546' post='700461'] [color=indigo] On another note, I think it was some tiny churches in the US burning Harry Potter, not schools. Regardless, that was asinine. [/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Ah yes, you're right about that. In some ways I think it was a similar story, in that they were quite small groups but they gained this enormous international attention. Thanks for the clarification. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]There are a lot of movies that I discovered after their theatrical release, especially movies that are from the 60's. Some of my favourite films are from that era, especially Rosemary's Baby and The Birds. I actually still don't own The Birds on DVD...I must fix that... I am sure there is actually a huge list, most of which I can't remember at the moment. One movie I loved as a kid though was Batteries Not Included. I'm not sure what year it was released, but I was probably too young to have seen it at the movies. I bought it on DVD recently because I saw a copy at a local supermarket (those supermarket bins can really surprise you, haha). I didn't even think they had printed it in Region 4! So I was very happy to have that one. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I haven't read very much about Reach, in part because my Xbox 360 is dead and I haven't yet bothered to buy a new one. At some stage, when I do buy a new Xbox, I think I'll be picking this one up. I never really thought that Halo was as revolutionary as some of its fans suggested, but I also think that the series got a lot better as it progressed. I liked Halo 2 a lot more than the original and I thought that Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 was a really beautifully polished game. It didn't really grab me with innovative ideas in the same way that, say, Half-Life 2 did, but it was still a very solid and fun shooter. So if Reach is at least as good as Halo 3, then I'm definitely interested. I actually never finished Halo 3 though, because my Xbox died when I was just over halfway through. Argh! [/font]

[quote name='eleanor' date='13 September 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1284332191' post='700449'] IMO, even personally, I believe burning books, and other venerated objects, should be protected by the First Amendment. The point of the First Amendment is that it protects even forms of expression that most people would be disgusted by. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Right. I agree with this. I could never personally imagine burning a book or a flag - and often when these things are done, it does annoy or anger me. But I think when you start setting limits on free speech in this area, you do set a dangerous precedent. One of the words that I'm really tired of hearing is "offended". Of course anything could potentially offend any person, especially if you're actually attacking their sincere beliefs (I use religion as the example in this case, but you could replace that with anything you like - political beliefs, beliefs on how to raise children, beliefs on lifestyle, etc...) The issue I have with people being offended, though, is that quite often people declare their offense as a precursor to shutting down argument or free speech. You guys might be familiar with a proposal now before the United Nations that would essentially enshrine blasphemy as a crime (an "international" crime, as far as I remember). That concept should horrify every lover of free speech and democracy - whether you are religious or not. Also, the guy who chooses to burn the Qu'ran may be exercising his right to free speech. But the rest of us can also exercise our right to form an opinion about his action. In other words, he must be responsible for his own words and actions. Sure, he might do something horrible like burning a book - but what will the consequences be? If nothing else, he is now internationally known as one of the most backward attention-seekers in America. The damage this has done to his reputation is profound, I'd say. [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]This is probably the first Apple TV model that I'd consider buying. But the big issue for me is the rentals. I'd really want to see a much bigger viewing window for it to be worth my while. Can you actually buy full movies on this thing or is it only streaming? Another big issue for me is the fact that my Internet connection is really variable. Sometimes it's very fast, sometimes it's really slow. I actually think I have some sort of line fault or something. But in any case, it makes Apple TV and HD streaming pretty unrealistic at this point. I also generally prefer the idea of downloading content and then watching it, or being able to start watching a partially-downloaded clip (ala YouTube). You've also reminded me that I've been planning to create an Official Apple Topic for a while now...maybe at some stage I'll get around to it. [/font]

[quote name='Delta' date='12 September 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1284284101' post='700439'] [COLOR=#35425e] James, not everyone is level-headed as a utopia would like them to be. And even if they agree that burning religious text is no more shocking than burning a book about a wizard boy, there will be a nagging voice inside their heads telling them that the former is more grave. I imagine it would be like burning [i]The Origin of Species[/i]; the perps are actually saying "b***s***, Darwin".[/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]See the quote from me below:[/font] [quote name='James']I have absolutely no doubt that there are many people who would be more offended by the burning of the Qu'ran versus the burning of Harry Potter, but I am certainly not one of them. Bear in mind that many of those same people were calling for Salman Rushdie's head when he wrote The Satanic Verses and bear in mind that many of those people were threatening violence against a small Danish newspaper when it published pretty benign (and, actually, not terribly witty) cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]As per the above quote, I fully understand - and have pointed out - that there are many people in the world who will have a strong reaction to burning the Qu'ran. And it is also true that someone who burns the Qu'ran likely [i]knows[/i] this and is deliberately trying to fuel a conflict of some kind. I am simply pointing out that, in [i]my[/i] view, the broader issue [i]I[/i] have with this is the burning of [i]any[/i] book in general. I personally think that religion often gets a free pass simply because it is religion - it becomes immune to criticisms, both reasonable and unreasonable. So, for me, the issue is not that we're talking about the burning of a religious book - I am just as opposed to those schools in America that burned Harry Potter for equally stupid reasons. So, yes, you're absolutely right that not everyone will have the same reaction and that we don't live in utopia - as I myself have already pointed out. But I am not only criticing the act of burning the Qu'ran (as if it even needs my criticism - it's self-evidently ridiculous), I am also criticising the idea that any one group's "beliefs" should somehow be beyond the realm of free speech. That idea sets a very dangerous precedent and it should not be regarded as self-evidently correct, either.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]I thought my statement was pretty clear - I think you have interpreted it correctly. I am opposed to the burning of [i]any[/i] book, whether it is the Qu'ran or whether it is Harry Potter. I have absolutely no doubt that there are many people who would be more offended by the burning of the Qu'ran versus the burning of Harry Potter, but I am certainly not one of them. Bear in mind that many of those same people were calling for Salman Rushdie's head when he wrote [i]The Satanic Verses[/i] and bear in mind that many of those people were threatening violence against a small Danish newspaper when it published pretty benign (and, actually, not terribly witty) cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. I say this because my opposition to what's happening in this case is the fact that books are being burned, [i]not[/i] that it is specifically the Qu'ran that is being burned. If our only objection to this is that the [i]type[/i] of book is the issue, then I think we are kind of missing the broader point. Without answering for HC, I do just want to point out that I think he was clearly making a general comment. I don't think it is necessary to actually delve into specific instances - we all recognise that conflicts around the world are complicated and involve many different factors (religion often being the prominent, but not the sole cause). I read HC's comments as solely being a comparison between Harry Potter and the Qu'ran. I don't think Harry Potter has caused many wars of conquest, for example. I don't think HC's comments invite deeper analysis, in part because that could itself end up an entirely separate topic.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I think that the burning of any book is an offense of a kind, whether that book is Harry Potter or the Qu'ran. I don't think that religious texts should be afforded more respect than any other text, simply because they are religious, but I [i]do[/i] think that book burning should be safely associated with barbaric idiocy. It's difficult to say whether or not the media should have covered this story. I think that once notable people became involved (General Petraeus, for example - am I spelling his name correctly?), then that does tend to make it newsworthy. And, at that point, I think it's absolutely worthy of media coverage. It's interesting that the story has become so enormous in terms of public perception though. As many have said, this basically involves one guy from some little backwater church who is trying to make an absolutely inane and stupid statement. I do think that people should have the right to do this type of thing (i.e. something that is symbolic but doesn't physically hurt another person), but it's the kind of blunt, inarticulate statement that I would expect from the group involved. [/font]

[font=palatino linotype]Yeah, I definitely see your point. I think what you're describing is one of those magical elements that tends to make Nintendo games so good. I'm thinking about the Warp Zones in Super Mario Bros., for example (or the flute in SMB 3). I've just passed the wasp hive today. I'm inching forward slowly! So far, so good. There have been a couple of tough moments, but nothing that makes me want to throw the controller. I've been pretty happy with the pacing and difficulty in general. But, yet again, Samus's voice... argh. :\[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]The more I play, the more I agree that Samus's voice acting is actually very detrimental to the story. They just chose the wrong actor. I agree that Samus requires a slightly deeper voice - a more authoritative tone. On the question of using upgrades, I felt that IGN were pretty harsh about this. Thinking about it logically, [spoiler]Samus has arrived at the alien vessel well after the Federation troops. It is [i]their[/i] mission. If she had walked around constantly requesting permission to use her weapons, or simply using them anyway, I think this would make her seem childish and unprofessional. Samus clearly respects the mission and she respects Adam's authority. Given that she is essentially on a team, rather than being a lone bounty hunter, I think it's completely fitting that she's taking direction from Adam.[/spoiler] For me, the relationship with Adam and the use of upgrades is one of the few things that gives Samus any quality of patience, maturity or professionalism. Team Ninja could have used some very lame excuse, like...her suit got broken in a crash or something (you know, the stuff we've all heard before). But integrating upgrades into this kind of hierarchy works pretty well, I think. In regard to linearity, I haven't really had a problem with it. I haven't played Super Metroid in a while, but even compared to the Metroid Prime series, I think Other M is pretty true to series form. You frequently encounter a lot of stuff that's just out of reach or unobtainable and you have to go back to those areas later on. This two steps forward, one step back approach is classic Metroid. Admittedly, Other M regularly confines Samus to tighter locations (lots of corridors, for example), but even then there's plenty of variety involved - and some pretty neat little secrets to be found, even during the course of regular gameplay. And Samus has always progressively unlocked her weapons, giving her the ability to re-visit previously locked areas and so on. Other M's handling of that seems very canon to me. Other M does have a number of little intentional surprises that aren't immediately apparent - I've noticed a few of these as I've been playing. But even some of the things you have to do that are part of the regular experience are pretty surprising, anyway [spoiler](e.g.: the way you have to access terminals to de-cloak parts of the ship, being one example)[/spoiler]. I don't know if I'd want those secrets that border on glitches, especially in a modern game. I think Other M sometimes borrows from Half-Life 2's playbook, in terms of creating "spontaneous" elements that are actually scripted. A lot of games do this now, but Other M seems to put a greater emphasis on this than even the Metroid Prime series. I'm getting a little further in now and I'm definitely finding that, very occasionally, the controls can be an issue. The biggest problem for me is still those moments where it is helpful to jump in and out of first person mode quickly - that can be a little bit awkward, but only when it has to be done very quickly. Luckily the game doesn't seem to place too much emphasis on that, or at least, it tends not to bank up too many similar experiences in the same area. You've probably seen more of it if you've seen the walkthrough, Piro...but as much as I'm liking the ship's design, I'm kind of hoping that I keep seeing those different "outdoor" areas. They really help to break things up and keep things fresh. [b]Edit:[/b] I have to admit, from the point of view of atmosphere and such...I still think Metroid Prime trumps Other M. I'm talking about the original MP, as well (I've not played Echoes and I only played a little of Corruption). In some ways, Other M feels more similar to the 2D games, which is good for purists...but I really think MP set a very, very high standard for things like music and art design. I wonder if I'll feel different as I get closer to the end of Other M.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]So, I had about an hour with the game last night. Still very early, but I do have a couple of thoughts already. First and foremost, the presentation is definitely miles ahead of the previous Metroid games (and pretty much most games Nintendo develops). There's a healthy mix of fantastic quality FMV littered throughout and there are semi-regular cut-scenes as you actually progress through the adventure. The plot is certainly nothing incredible, but then again, Team Ninja didn't have a huge amount to work with in this regard. That is to say, they've kept a lot of the cheesiness and simplicity, but they've also attempted to add in quite a bit of back story and character interaction. I'm not a huge fan of Samus's voice, though. She sounds pretty soulless so far. Ironically it's the characters around her that give the game a sense of life and personality. But we'll see; perhaps that will change. I was a little bit worried that the injection of other characters as part of Samus's mission would actually result in the game losing its feeling of isolation (which, for me, was one of the major aspects that helped to define that "Metroid feel"). But not so. There are other characters around Samus during the game (again, so far) but they aren't intrusive. And the actual scenario regarding Samus not using all of her weapons out of "respect" for Adam Malkovich is actually quite reasonable and plausible (I think IGN was quite wrong about this - when you guys play I'm eager to know what you think). In terms of gameplay, I've been pleasantly surprised. The D-Pad movement is absolutely fine. Yes, there's no real way to "walk" - Samus is essentially running all the time. But this absolutely suits the pace of the game. You'll find yourself running and jumping frequently, both to navigate the levels and when fighting enemies. Speaking of which, the auto-targeting also doesn't feel out of place. The reason for this is, I think, that this is not strictly a 2D game with 3D graphics. It's a bit difficult to explain. In a game where you're always running left to right, auto-targeting may seem a bit cheap because it's pretty easy to jump and shoot, or to aim up and down and shoot. But in Other M, the perspective changes regularly. So you'll be running left to right for a while, then you'll be running forward "into" the screen. The feeling is very akin to those 2.5D levels on Super Mario Galaxy. I think some of the reviews gave the impression that you're almost on-rails, which is not the case at all. Due to this situation, though, you'll often run into large areas where you're literally surrounded by swarms of enemies. And because many of them are shooting at you, you'll need to frequently jump out of the way (there's a special "dodge" action for this, which works really well). It can get a little haywire, like an old-school arcade game. In this context, the auto-targeting actually works quite well. The [i]only[/i] issue I have is that you need to be facing your target to aim at them - when you're in a room full of baddies, that can sometimes be a bit tough to manage, because you're having to jump away from enemies, only to turn and face them again so that you can hit them. I'm not sure how much that makes sense. It's a difficult format to describe. At any time you can point the Wii Remote at the screen to move into first-person view. This is mostly useful for exploration purposes (especially picking up items), but it can also be useful occasionally for fighting bosses and other enemies. It isn't quite as limiting as you may think, though. For one thing, the map will always highlight (with a blue dot) that there is an item in the room. In this way, you don't have to constantly jump into first person view in every single room just to check that you haven't missed something. This is something I was a bit worried about at first, but the game design handles it elegantly. The map may show you, via the dot, where the item is...but you still have to actually go into first person view to work out how to retrieve it. Often you'll have to roll into Morph Ball mode and go through some vents, or you might have to break a panel with a missile or something like that. Very occasionally this switch between first person and third person can be jarring, especially when you have to kill some enemies in third person and then switch to first person to destroy, for example, their nest (some enemies just keep coming until you destroy their nest with some missile strikes). As I said, I'm still early in...but so far my experience has been very positive. I'm finding that the issues mentioned by some reviews are really not big issues for me at all. For the most part, I'm finding the controls to be very smooth and responsive, the level design has so far been fantastic and everything else (graphics and music) has been very true to Metroid's roots, while still coming across as very modern and updated. So far, so good. I've already come across a couple of really beautiful surprises and I'm only at Sector 1! So I'm pretty eager to see what'll come next. I'm sure I will post more about this as I get further. Maybe some of the minor frustrations will get bigger as time goes on, but at this point I'm very happy with how Other M has turned out.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]I just bought Other M today, so I'm pretty eager to see how it plays. I'll put some impressions up here soon. As far as the whole FPS thing, the only point I'd make is that it's a little difficult to really include Metroid Prime: Hunters in the mix, in part because it [i]was[/i] very much akin to an FPS by virtue of the handheld/DS format. In other words, it was a deliberate departure from the console series. I personally think that Metroid is very well-suited to a first person perspective and it's kind of a shame that more adventure games don't use that format. I know Miyamoto once said that the "ideal" Zelda would be a first person game - the difficulty, of course, is that it is very difficult to get a sense of your character's body in a first person game (that is, relative to platforms and objects). So with Zelda it'd be a bit tricky I guess.[/font]

[quote name='Jagan00' date='07 September 2010 - 06:36 AM' timestamp='1283801766' post='700276'] Just for clarification the Metroid Prime series are NOT FPS games They are FP Adventure games Comparing them to Halo is absurd [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I agree with you, except that I can see how, if you've been a big Metroid fan and played the third person titles, a first person title might throw you a little. I never had that kind of connection to the Metroid series, so I was able to appreciate Metroid Prime for what it was. And even though I haven't played the series in a while now, I still remember how masterful it was. Metroid Prime was very much about puzzle-solving and exploration (and even platforming, really) - it's just that it had a first person perspective. I don't ever remember the controls being difficult (in terms of turning and strafing...I could have sworn that was possible, especially since I don't remember it being an issue for me - but I am happy to stand corrected). I do remember specifically that Metroid Prime 3 had absolutely sublime controls. The Wii Remote integration was nothing short of brilliant, especially with the first person perspective. And the ability to literally reach forward and grab/turn knobs and switches was incredibly tactile and intuitive. I can't really think of another game on Wii that was actually able to match that degree of interactivity with the game world. At the moment I'm not sure if I'm going to get Metroid: Other M or not. I'm happy enough with what's been said about it [i]in theory[/i], but I suspect that the biggest issue for me could be the D-Pad control. And I say that simply because a lot of people have complained about the fact that Samus pretty much runs everywhere and it feels a bit awkward. I would say that Metroid is very well-suited to either first or third person perspectives, but I think Team Ninja generally had the right idea by trying to go back to the 2D roots and branch out a bit from that. I just wonder if by forcing everything onto just the Wii Remote, they haven't limited the game in an artificial way that need not have been the case. I'd love to see some reviews from OBers about this one.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]Sorry Citric. I understand that it's frustrating. We've just come across a problem with our Report Center (mod tool) that we really should try to fix before attending to anything else. We are still learning how to manipulate this software ourselves, so it does take some time and we have to try to sort things in order of priority. But believe me, we haven't forgotten and we will get there. [/font]

[font=palatino linotype]That idea kind of scares me, honestly. I don't think anyone should be censoring news anchors under any circumstances. Nor should there be any government body trying to determine whether or not something is "biased". The obvious problem is that you then have to police whatever authority you set up to police journalists. The idea of even policing journalists is itself pretty dangerous, I think.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I agree with you completely, as per my last post. I think the media have a great deal of responsibility. The problem, though, is that (as bad as it is) they are ultimately chasing advertising dollars. And the audience seems to respond most favourably to this kind of "shock" or entertainment journalism. If audiences generally began to switch towards less biased forms of news, then probably this will have an impact in terms of the big commercial networks. What's interesting is that, apparently, shows such as The O'Reilly Factor are among the most highly-rated on cable TV. People obviously like the confrontations and the entertainment element. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. On the one hand, Fox News is taking little responsibility for its obviously biased "news" presentation. On the other hand, viewers clearly enjoy and, to some degree, demand this type of media. I guess you could debate the extent to which each group is at fault, but sometimes I I think there's a lot more to it than simply news media being their typical biased selves.[/font]

[quote]I find this statement incredibly offensive and in rather poor taste.[/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Why? How is it poor taste to draw a logical conclusion? This really doesn't gel with the thoughtful nature of the rest of your post. If you declare something offensive by fiat, then it would be a good idea to explain your reasoning. As I pointed out to HC, it's not a question of intelligence at all, but rather it is a question about one's ability to analyse evidence. I am not arguing that the bearing here is completely on the student - in fact, I'm arguing the exact opposite. I completely agree with you that teachers, school systems and even news outlets that do not encourage critical thought are simply not living up to their responsibility. It should be obvious that if teachers and school systems (and perhaps even the curriculum itself) does not encourage critical thought and analysis of evidence, then by default students who lack this ability will be relatively unlikely to suddenly discover it as adults. Therein lies the problem (at least part of it, anyway). My idea of linking the lack of critical analysis in viewers to the resultant behaviour of media outlets may be entirely wrong in reality, or it may be only part of the answer...but I think it's a relatively logical (and completely benign) point to make.[/font]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='03 September 2010 - 07:31 AM' timestamp='1283459493' post='700163'] [color=indigo]]I don't disagree that it is about commercial competition and ratings to some extent, but that just enforces my opinion that the polarization of these news networks (you can say that they are entertainment channels but they are all "news" networks, it is in their title and each channel has at least 6 hours worth of what they coin to be news shows, not editorial content). [/quote][/color] [font=palatino linotype]Yeah, that's really the observation I'm making. I'm saying that the media zeitgeist (if it can be called that) has moved from a news culture to an entertainment culture. I think this is, in large part, driven by audiences. Even their "news" content, though, is questionable (especially in the case of Fox News). But I guess it's hard to hold them to a standard that so few outlets seem to follow.[/font] [quote name='Heaven's Cloud'][color=indigo]I'd also argue that there is no proof that there is a correlation between intelligence and the belief in creationism (I wish there was, but I couldn't find anything truly supporting that claim). I could make an opposing point simply by stating that Americans have to be more intelligent than other folks from developed nations because American's working for foreign companies average a much larger salary than any other group of workers working for foreign countries. We obviously aren't any more intelligent than people from any other country on average, but I can easily provide an argument to the contrary,[/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I think it's just important to clarify that I wasn't talking about intelligence. I don't think it's an intelligence question. It's a credulity question, which is different. My point is that the emphasis seems to be about "choosing a side" or "picking a team", rather than carefully evaluating evidence on its own merits and then reaching a conclusion. To put it a different way, it could be that people are encouraged "what to think" rather than "[i]how[/i] to think". It is very possible for intelligent people to believe something wholeheartedly, not because of any evidence, but because they sub-consciously (or consciously) block out and disregard any contrary evidence or opinion. Again, this happens on Fox News all the time - they have the capacity to simply pretend something doesn't exist, when it contradicts their stance. I think that a lot of people have actually forgotten what evidence really means. And I think a lot of people are not accustomed to asking questions like "What was the source of that information?", or "How can the reporter know that fact for sure?" or even "Who wrote that story, when was it written and what could have influenced the writer's view?" I don't think it automatically follows that people always think critically. Rather, I think you have to be trained on some level to do it - children, especially, should be taught to challenge assertions and to evaluate evidence. But - coming back to my creationism point - this is quite obviously not happening on a vast enough level.[/font]