Yeah but would a kid know that decently enough? Everyone says the Game Over screen of FNAF is horrifying because you can practically see the guard stuffed into a suit and his eyes bulging out. To which I have to say: IF I WAS ABLE TO FUCKING SEE THAT I might find it scary. I honestly didn't even notice anything about that Game Over screen until someone posted it online lighted up a bunch. And even then, it's still not scary.



Same reason why Mike Upshur, a journalist with NO combat training, heads into an Insane Asylum full of people who want to kill, rape or otherwise harm in AT NIGHT and WITHOUT ANY MEANS OF PROTECTION. It's mandated player stupidity.

C-A

---

That's precisely my point, CatMuto. I mean, without enough self-defensive skills (at least take a melee weapon or a gun) and going to somewhere where you may have a chance to die,you'll fall in danger no time. Who dares to go anyway?

The ones who create these sort of game has nothing to do. Understands nosense. Now look! Scott made some game where stupid robots come to kill you, and you just sit there, watch the drama whilst doing nothing. Run, cop! Or try kickin' them, but no. Sits there watching their drama.

Stupid Idiotics. I would never let any youngers go out at night no matter what, with or without knowing self-defense mannerisms. I better decline them rather watching their "dead bodies"

Seriously.

---

I don't think weapons would work against the animatronics, anyway. I think that bullets would probably just bounce right off. They're made of metal, after all. Maybe if you had explosives it would work, but where the heck is a minimum wage security guard going to get explosives?

---

Like I said, it's mandatory stupidity. Same reason why the dumbest ideas in videogames are nothing but padding because there are much easier ways to solve things. Look at the Ymir Fruit in Tales Of Symphonia - you have to knock the fruit from the tree into the water, but you don't reach in and grab it because of "dangerous fish" nearby, so you have to use the Sorcerer Ring's ability to have good fish and boars help you to travel the fruit all the way across the map until it's close enough for you to pick it up.
Despite, you know, having a character who has spent the last 30 hours with wings and every battle since floating with said wings. That's among the dumbest things to pad Symphonia. Just have Collet float up there and grab the goddamn thing. And the fish there aren't that dangerous, pretty sure you could grab the fruit before a fish would get you.



Why not do the Wizard's Apprentice way and use an axe? Pretty sure a heavy, hard swung axe could chop the animatronics to pieces. Then they couldn't move anymore. Sure, you would get fired for "tampering with the animatronics" but heck, getting fired is A BLESSING in this case. (Though this just makes me question why the security guard doesn't just fucking quit - I know being desperate for a job, but no job is worth it for me to put my life at risk)

C-A

---

The canonical reason for why the guard keeps coming back is because he finds it thrilling and enjoys risking his life because it gives him an adrenaline rush.

---

Translation: Fucking Idiot that needs (and wants) to be removed from the Gene Pool.

C-A

---

You know what really grinds my gears? People who talk about a game just for the sake of hating it.
I mean, there's a large number of people on game discussion threads across countless forums that discuss the game for the sole purpose of spewing vitriol and hate.
If you have a negative opinion of the game, that's fine. It doesn't affect anyone other than you.
But when you start hating on the game, making comments such as, "this game sucks because it uses this character archetype and it's so stupid raaaaaa" or "I predicted a plot twist so the story has to be contrived and unoriginal", it does nothing to contribute to the thread whatsoever.
If you're going to criticize a game's flaws, then at least try pointing out some of its positive points, too. There are very, very few games, if any, that are so bad that it's impossible to find a good point. Most of those games end up falling into the 'It's so bad, it's good' category anyway.
My point is, if you're going to offer your opinion about a game, try to add something positive. Nobody wants to see page upon page of hate-filled post.
And that's what really grinds my gears.

---

You can't just let go away of a game you hate and just make positive remarks. If there is a contradiction or something that doesn't make any sense, no matter what, you need to make negative statements of it, TheGreatSnarkoo.

Neither that makes any sense too. Also, we're just discussing things. That, or you're preventing us from the discussion.

---

What if the flaws in the game are so bad to the specific player that it's difficult to mention anything positive? Look at me and Danganronpa - the flaws look worse to me, so it's difficult for me to think of something that is positive about the game. I guess for the Vita version, I would say that it's nice that it has Dual Audio... but that is 1 positive thing. Compared to the mountain of flaws and negatives, mentioning 1 positive thing is not gonna add anything to the discussion, either.

Or even Final Fantasy games. Out of the ones I've played, I always liked the music. But I don't mention that because, well, I DO love the music in the ones I've played, so I see it as a given that I like the music.

If you want to complain about people hating on games, hate on the ones that hate and criticize a game without having properly played it. I've stopped complaining about KH, though I still don't think it's a good series, since I haven't played them. (Maybe Chain of Memories if I finish with Lufia FoD)

C-A

---

I admit, I try to find good points in games that I dislike, but it doesn't feel the same as just letting out your gripes when you're annoyed. People that only say negative things are only focusing on them, and just want to voice their opinion. They may actually like parts but don't think that's relevant to their feeling at the time they post.

Take me and Sonic Boom Rise of Lyric. When I see footage I get enraged at the horrible frame rate, poor quality graphics, slow gameplay, lack of any music, and overused voice clips. However, I do appreciate the hard work the animators and voice actors put in. The CG cutscenes are well animated, very nicely produced, and the VA's have been the best the series has ever had. Plus looking at the development of the game, lots of the staff quit mid-way, or lost their jobs after the game was released and flopped, so you feel bad their worked was doomed from the start. But I digress.

---

If I give a full on review on anything, I will do my best to portray both negative and positive sides. If I'm stating my current opinion on the game, I do mostly focus on the impression the game has given me lately.

C-A

---

I think what TheGreatSnarkoo was referring to may have been excessively hating on a game...as in,saying thinks like you can't see how someone would like it or that the game should have never existed.Which is bad because,you know,people are entitled to have an opinion.

---

I don't really hate FNAF. I hate the ripoff fangames and the fanboys going all apesh** with it.

---

Whoa whoa whoa. The mods may end up locking the thread if this discussion is going more farther and also because of "Flaming" or "Confronting"

---

I think it's all OK, we're just giving opinions on the topic. If it were an argument between members then thing would get out of hand.

---

As it just so happens, I was considering stepping in, albeit for a different reason. Five Nights at Freddy's and whether or not it's a good game are topics better discussed elsewhere.

---

Told ya.
Now, ...?

---
*ahem* Anyways, You know what really grinds my gears? Wires. Seriously. Today, my favorite mini-headphone (the one you get with buying a smartphone? Yeah, those) got stuck in a wheel of my computer chair and lookie-lookie, it got cut off. The Wire of the earphone/mini-headphone I mean. Cutted off! Gone! Balderdash!

I usually like surfing the webs while listening to music on the phone and I often use those little things so only I CAN hear. But now thanks to the fact they're gone, I feel like something is missing or feel on the urge to play one, but I can't: all will hear it. And besides, I like listening to musics and TSFW songs all by myself and none hearing.

---

Uh... pretty sure I recall plugging my regular headphones into my smartphone during the time when my old MP3 player broke and I got a new one. Far as I know, nobody except me ever heard my music. And I checked.

C-A

---

S'why I use wireless mp3 players
Comfortable and you can move about and dance without fear of a painful yank to the ear as you catch on a wire.

---

Guess you guys didn't understand. I meant the headphones are made of wire, right? They have two sides, correct? So one of them has been cut off when it got stuck at the wheel.

Ah well... I guess that's over. I can only listen to one side now. Plus, it's kinda foolish to fix it. So, I guess I should buy another one.

---

N-no I got that...

Like I said it's why I use wireless ones now. I don't have to worry about them getting caught up in anything.

---

Riiiight...

---

Am I missing something here?

I don't get where in my previous statement it appeared I wasn't grasping the situation

---

You certainly didn't, Pierre. But CatMuto probably have did. Meh, whatever.

---

You know what really grinds my gears? Something I'm going to call "extremist denialism."

Edit: Please read the post I made after this one. It clarifies a point that I haven't adequately covered here.

Essentially, this is the tendency for someone from a particular group, be it religious, political, etc., to deny extremists' connections to said group. Some Muslims might insist that the likes of Al-Qaeda are not "true Muslims," for example. Some Christians might insist that the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church should not be thought of as Christians. I have political examples, too. I've seen people on the political right trying to use the "socialist" in the NSDAP's name as an excuse to paint Nazism as a left-wing ideology rather than the predominantly far-far-far-far-right ideology it mostly is. Then there are some feminists who insist that their more extreme elements, such as TERFs, SWERFs, etc., should not be thought of as real feminists.

I get it. These extremists are nuts and you're not one of them. I get that, okay? I'm not calling you a Nazi for leaning to the right on some issues. I'm not likening you to the WBC for being Christian. I'm not comparing you to ISIS for being a Muslim. I'm not lumping you together with Cathy Brennan for being a feminist. It's important to recognize what you and extremists have in common, though. There is something in your beliefs that the extremists took too far, and that needs to be looked into so that you and your more reasonable comrades may better defend your beliefs against extremism. A form of extremism that has its roots in your beliefs is a form of extremism that you and your comrades need to help combat and argue against. By pretending it has nothing to do with you, you make it easier for other people in your group to become radicalized.

Just so we're clear, I recognize that there are people who recognize the vulnerability of their ideologies to extremism, and they have my thanks for doing what they can to keep their comrades from going down that path. What bothers me are the people who try to make excuses to do nothing about those who take their views too far. As someone who considers himself a feminist, I'm all too aware of some of the nuts who connect themselves to the movement and hope that I have been of use in keeping other feminists away from the fringe. As a social democrat, I'm quite aware of the dangers of taking socialism too far and have on multiple occasions spoken out against the likes of Stalin. As an atheist, I know all about how universally hostile and condescending toward religion some of my fellow atheists are and I personally disapprove of such an attitude (I often call such people "asshole atheists"). There are aspects of my views that some people would take too far. I consider it my duty to call out such people on their views, though I will grant that I could be better at doing so. I hate it when people make excuses to not call out their more extreme comrades, especially if the excuse is that the extremists in question are dangerous because of something else.

---

Hey Luigi, I apologize if this upsets you. I can't say anything about some of the points you made as I have no knowledge of them and I respect your opinions. There yours and I admit, you have a lot of interesting and intelligent stuff that is fun to read.

As a Christian though, I want to say something about where I stand on the issue of the WBC. Now, I understand that ideals and rituals are similar or taken from the same source between the various religions that associate themselves as Christians. However, when it comes to issues with extremist groups like the WBC, I'll define whether they are Christian or not based on what God says. So what the Bible says is how I interpret who is living as a true Christian and who is not and the Bible gives a very clear definition on that.

The Bible states that a Christian is someone who gives their life for Jesus, putting their full faith in Him and trying their best to emulate how He lived. Countless times in the Bible, to put it simply, it clearly says that sin is bad and if you live in it and don't repent, you're going to hell because sin separates you from God.

Now to make my point, Jesus vigorously taught us to love one another. Sinner and Christian alike. Everyone. When the Bible mentions to not condone sin, He never once said to hate and slander those who live in sin. He said to love them. He told us to witness to them. When we witness, we do so in hopes that people will be saved from going to hell. Not to hate them and say that's where their going. Our goal as Christians is to save others from going to hell so when God's judgement comes upon, they won't suffer.

However, what the Westboro church does isn't biblical at all. I don't associate them as Christians because they don't even practice or have any kind of deviated religion that even associates with the Bible. All they do is hate the homosexuals and condemn them to hell. They're a hate group. The only thing I have in common with them is I use the name God, but they slander His name as well.

If I have to associate anything with them in your terms Luigi, then they're hypocrites. And according to the Bible, hypocrites are considered the worst because it falsifies and slanders God's name. I pray for people like these, but I will never condone what they do and I will never call them a Christian. To me, it's like looking at someone who's a regular drunk and another who's a murderer and calling them both murderers because it both falls under the category of living in sin. It's akin to putting Christianity and WBC under the umbrella term of religious folk.

I apologize if this sounds too defensive, but it's been my stance on this for a long time and will remain this way. But please know, Luigi, I respect your opinions, but this part is just one thing I don't agree with. And hey, maybe I'm just being stubborn and justifying your point!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

While I am on this though, I again apologize if this offends anyone, but this has grinded my gears for a while, especially within the past few weeks now, and it's when people misuse the term Christian or interpret the Bible to fit their lifestyles.

To let people know, I'm no right wing bigot or whatever and God has been very important to me since I was young. I don't consider myself brainwashed and I have witnessed far too many things, such as miraculous and impossible healings that I've seen while away on foreign mission trips that convince me to never deny the presence of God.

So, it irks me when people claim they are Christian, then they go out and do whatever pleases themselves, living like any person who doesn't know God, will curse up a storm, go get drunk, have sex, then come back to church Sunday and they're good.

It irks me when people tell me I'm not a Christian because I'm not accepting someone's sinful lifestyle that's considered sin according to the Bible. I'm not allowed to tell them that it's bad. Instead, I'm supposed to tell them it's okay. The bible says living in sin and not repenting is a one way ticket to hell. I tell these people their sinful lives are bad because I love them. If I don't and instead say it's okay, that I accept it, you know what that does? That's me condemning them to hell. And when I see people calling themselves Christians giving the okay for any kind of sinful lifestyle, you're basically telling those living that lifestyle to go to hell. That's not love, it's condemnation, and it makes me sick. If I had my way, I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell.

And this brings me to my last point is Christian hate groups. The complete opposite who condemns all to hell because they live in sin. It angers me. As Christians, we're supposed to lead others to Jesus to save them from hell. Whether loving their sinful lifestyles and approving it or condemning them to hell is just two extremes that has the same result. One group is just more hateful than the other.

And one more thing that I've been seeing on the internet lately that I really wish people would understand about Christians. We're human. Guess what, we mess up too. Just like you. Stop trying to find those moments we mess up and call us hypocrites. We try our best to live the best we can for Christ, but we stumble because we're human. But guess what? We're aware and we try our best to get back on track. It's like someone who legitimately tries to quit smoking. You know what? There's probably a good chance they might mess up, but they work to get back on track. Same with Christians. We stumble into sin, but we pick ourselves back up. We weren't born Christian, we weren't born holier than thou or whatever nonsense you say. We were born in the same world you were. We were born into sin, just like everyone else on this planet. And guess what? You pointing out the mistakes that we may make when we stumble doesn't make you any better. The only difference I have with others is that I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but don't use that to justify yourself to try and put me down when I mess up.

And I guess this just comes to roundabout for me, that I really dislike when others are bullied because they are different. Whether Christian, gay, skin color, gender, difference of opinions, we're still people, and when you say something demeaning because of someone's lifestyle, remember that there's a person on the other side and you're hurting them. If you don't agree with them, either tell them nicely and politely or don't say anything at all. I understand everyone is different but don't be a jerk about it.


Geez... sorry this is soooo long. Didn't mean it to be. I guess just being stuck with nothing but the internet for 5 months has made me a little salty towards it. =p

---

It doesn't upset me, Dullahan. I understand the reasoning behind your perspective. What bugs me about extremist denialism is how it has been used by some people as an excuse to do nothing about extremism and how it opens the door to more extremism. Promoting an interpretation of Christianity that attempts to turn people away from extremism is not something an extremism denier would do. I should have clarified that in my earlier post, so I apologize for my failure to do so, especially if it offended you and/or other people who read my post.

Regarding your comment on how people interpret the Bible to fit their lifestyles, I think that's very much connected to how religious extremism often forms. I've read the Qur'an and Bible on and off over the years, and I recall one passage in the Qur'an that I think is particularly relevant:

"It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah." --Qur'an 3:7

I like this passage a lot, partially because it appears to recognize the inevitability of disagreements over interpretation, but also because it appears to encourage people to recognize the possibility that their interpretation may be incorrect. I tend not to assume malicious intent, so I don't fully agree with this passage regarding why people focus on ambiguous parts of their religion; I think it's more a classic case of confirmation bias. People adopt certain viewpoints over the course of their lives. Believing these viewpoints to be the right ones to hold, they unconsciously seek out passages in scripture that can be interpreted in a way that suits their views. I've often seen people on the left complaining about how the far right tries to force religion into politics, but I don't think that's quite what happens. Rather, I've started to think people on the far right (and probably some on the left, too, but they appear to believe more strongly in favor of separation of church and state, from what I've seen) are inadvertently trying to force their politics into religion.

---

I wasn't offended. Your post just really brought up a lot of things that have been bothering me as I've been browsing the internet lately.

I completely agree too with the misinterpretation/alternate interpretations of scripture. Heck, I'll go as far as to say it doesn't just apply to religion from what I see, but with any belief system, I always see some kind of deviation in some form or another that's created to suit their needs. Heck, it's why there's so many religions based on Christianity. It's all alternate takes on the Bible or misinterpretation to suit needs.

I like the quote you put up too, it couldn't be closer from the truth. The Bible warns about this as well. While I myself am firm in my beliefs, I'm also the type that if I have misinterpreted how I should live for Christ wrong, I want to be corrected so I can fix that up. If it draws me closer to God, I'm willing to change if I'm doing something wrong, or at the very least, try my very best.

About politics, I'll be honest. I've been staying out of it at this point because it just sickens me. While my parents are still for Republician themselves, I honestly get sickened by both sides. I don't agree with a lot of Democratic policies, but at the same time, I really hate how Republicans are skewing the concept of religion to try to win favor. It's gotten to the point of which party do you favor more? The one with equality or the one with traditional religion, and honestly, both sides seem to be skewing these concepts, at least to me, to where it just makes me sick. In the end, we all know it's just about the votes and which side gets to take over for a while and have their way, and I hate that our politics have sunk so low as to have this all that it amounts to.

---

Last edited by dullahan1 on Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Judging by what else you posted, I'm guessing you meant to say something else here.

---

Man politics at home sucks right now.

The one Conservative (Right wing "Tories") MP in Scotland had been declared Scotland's secretary of state...and is the only one who doesn't object to the Tory's EVEL plan (I know, hilarious abbreviation). EVEL stands for "English Votes for English Laws," and seeks to give English MPs a veto over any legislation that goes through parliament that the Speaker determines only affects England.

This comes in the wake of a pathetically weak Scotland Bill. In the last days of the Scottish Independence referendum, the "No" parties banded together to make a hasty and vague promise of "more powers," for Scotland in a to-be-decided Scotland Bill. Since that point, the Scottish Nationalist Party claimed 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland but the other parties failed terribly in England resulting in an overall majority for the Tory government.

In the last few weaks the proposed Scottish Bill has been deemed "weak" and "not meeting the standards of the Smith Commission" which it was originally based on. As a result various amendments which received cross-party support were put forward to the government but the Tory-backbenchers with their majority have not conceded or compromised on a single bit. The bitter reality is "why would they have to? They are a majority, it doesn't matter if almost all of Scotland feels it is inadequate it's what the 'nation' as a whole deems is fine."

Now the new EVEL plan people say seeks to degrade Scottish MPs (when it matters most because there's a bloody lot of them this time around) in parliament to "second-class MPs" with not as much say as what goes on in England. The prime fear is that since we are a Union, "English" matters might have a knock-on effect on the UK. Worst thing was today I heard someone 'accidentally' answer "The Scotland bill" when asked for an example of what these 'English-only' laws might look like.

The flipside to this of course is that as-is England doesn't get to vote on Scottish Parliamentary matters so it's fair right? Maybe on paper, but England contains Westminster which ultimately makes a LOT of decisions for the entire United Kingdom and Scotland already has substantially less power on it's own matters due to Westminster deciding how much power the Scottish Parliament is even allowed in the first place.

Coupled with a government that seems determined to drag it's sister nations out of the EU without their consent...

Yeah it's pretty depressing to know that you've got a majority government that doesn't care about you as a country.

---

A big part of the problem, in my eyes, is that the United States and the United Kingdom are both still using first past the post voting. It can lead to a rather unrepresentative legislature, as CGP Grey demonstrated in a recent video of his. I lean pretty far to the left for an American, so I've had plenty of time to be annoyed by the Republican majority in the House blocking a lot of legislation. To be fair, it could just as easily go the other way, with a hypothetical Democratic majority forcing legislation past Republicans without any attempt to compromise. I definitely feel your pain, Pierre, at least with regards to having a legislature that can just flat-out ignore a huge chunk of the population.

I'll admit that it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine for people to complain about not being represented just because they're in the minority, but thinking about it, I'm not really consistent when it comes to how I respond to those kinds of complaints. I try to base my position on just how much attention is given to the minorities' issues. A minority that frequently has time set aside to discuss the issues they want discussed is a minority that I would say is still represented. By contrast, a minority that is just flat-out ignored or is only allowed to speak so that the majority can claim it's listening (despite never really bothering to respond to the minority in question) is one that I'd say isn't represented.

Still, it raises an interesting question: are there elements that just shouldn't be represented? I imagine we both can think of groups in our respective countries that hold views so abhorrent to us that we'd consider it a waking nightmare for them to gain control of the government. Should a group that explicitly wants to kill, expel, or make second-class citizens out of certain parts of our population have a voice in government to begin with? On what grounds should a government decide what issues deserve to be addressed?

---

Yeah, I meant the opposite. =/ I was tired.

---

It's something I've been wondering about lately with regards to the "Orange Walks" that went on in Glasgow recently, though it's on a much smaller scale than what you described (City Council level rather than Governmental level) I think it's along the same lines.

The Orange Walk (or march) is a celebratory parade held by members of the Orange Order. It commemorates the battle of the Boyne where William of Orange defeated King James II. The battle was a pivotal point in the religious landscape of the British isles at the time and many celebrate it primarily for sectarian reasons (and some unionist ones as well) as it was a battle that ensured Protestant domination across the land at the time.

Often the marches go through areas where they will get a "mixed" reception at best. The one the other week went past Parkhead...which is the home grounds of Celtic Football Club, a traditionally Catholic (and VIOLENTLY so) connected club. Apparently it got quite violent and fights broke out and there were drunken revellers all over the streets.

At best it's being a poor winner and lacking grace, at worst it's actively provoking sectarian conflict. The Orange order says none of it's members would engage in such behaviour and denounce this but even if the Order that organises the parades does not mean or participate in such acts they claim the acts are done by "Hangers on" and "Outsiders" who see them for the representation of Protestant Triumph.

I suppose this ties back to what you were saying about Extremist Deniability, the Orange Order as the officials may deny and publicly denounce acts of Sectarian Violence, yet they hold an event that is gratuitously offensive in the first place and people who ARE prone to Sectarian violence see it as a simple of triumph and an opportunity to conduct such actions.

For a while I wondered "Is it just organised bigotry? Why should the council even allow such a parade with such a history to go on?"
Apparently the Orange Order says they are entitled to walk anywhere they want on "The Queen's Roads" and have a policy of not contacting any of the residents in an area they will be marching through beforehand.

So no I don't think Freedom of Speech as such should be available all the time if it is going to be used for beliefs where the prime outcome (if not the intended outcome) is harmful to others.

---

Your talk of the Orange Walks reminds me of an incident that happened in the United States earlier this year. Someone decided to hold a cartoon contest--specifically, a Muhammad caricature contest. A couple of extremists took issue with the contest and tried to attack it. Thankfully, they were stopped (though they died in the process), but what bugs me about the incident is that the person who organized the contest has openly expressed hostility toward Islam as a whole and was almost certainly trying to provoke the reaction she got so she could use it as evidence to support her views. Admittedly, my earlier post was concerned more with whether the government should be obligated to listen to people who mean their fellow citizens harm, but the matter of freedom of speech does tie into that. I suppose one answer to the issue is akin to what I said earlier: freedom to petition the government is not a guarantee that the government will do what you asked them to do. It just means the government has to hear you out. As for freedom of expression, I mentioned earlier in this thread that exceptions do exist in the case of acts clearly intended to incite (or, in some cases, provoke) violence.

---

It seems ridiculous to do something like that...especially after the incident in France. I mean I could understand doing it if it was topical or maybe just on occasion but holding a full-on contest to mock an important religious figure? That's just inviting anger. I'm fine with other people's beliefs until they start setting out to antagonise and harm other people.

And that's still what I meant roughly, it was a smaller scale but I was wondering whether the Council should be obligated to host an event when it is downright harmful to people in town as a result. I suppose the argument is you cannot guarantee something will happen as a result.

You can't guarantee people will get violent at a parade.
You can't guarantee people will attack a cartoon contest.

Despite the fact that everyone acknowledges there's a substantial risk (and indeed it might be an INTENDED risk by the people arranging said event) it is no guarantee of trouble in the same way that actively starting a fight is.

---

Something that really grinds my gears is people thinking destroying other people's stuff is funny!

---

You know what really grinds my gears? People treating bias as an excuse to summarily dismiss a claim as false. I believe this is called an "appeal to motive."

If something's true, it's going to be true whether I have a vested interest in it being true or not. Don't point out why I want it to be true. Look for why it can't be true. Companies that produce globes have a vested interest in Earth being round. That doesn't mean they're lying when they say it's round. I'll readily grant that there are people who will lie if they benefit from the lie being believed. On the off chance that they might actually be right, I won't name any names, but I imagine most of us can think of a few groups of people who we believe knowingly spread misinformation because they stand to benefit from it and/or stand to lose something if the truth is revealed. That doesn't mean we should dismiss their claims as false right off the bat. If what they say is false, we should expose the falsehood for what it is rather than dismiss it without even looking into it.

Seriously, I'm sick of seeing well-researched videos and/or articles being dismissed as "liberal/conservative propaganda" by laypeople in the comments section and subsequently ignored.

---

You know what really grinds my gears? Idiots who say Videogames are at fault for violence.

I've already said before, if someone honestly runs amok and kills people because they did it in a videogame there was something deeply wrong with that person before they played the videogame! The videogame itself technically had nothing to do with making him do it, it could've been anything that served as the final catalyst that made them explode.

But recently on the news, a man said that "virtual killing" in videogames desensitizies teens to feel empathy for other people, making it easier for them to be violent towards other people without feeling bad. He also mentioned a violent background and homelife as a potential reason why they see violence as a way to deal with things, but the videogame thing just stuck out like a sore thumb.

No, killing people (or beating them up, in my case) does not desensitize me towards other people's suffering. (The Asperger's does that) I have beaten people up in Dead or Alive, Street Fighter and similar for almost 20 years now and I can still feel bad for other people. In fact, if videogames really did cause every player to become a killer or violent beater, I'm pretty sure half of a city's population would've been beaten by now. I would've killed at least a dozen people by now, and that only in the last two years.

Try to blame something else for a while, you older people who don't "get these videogames". Not all of them include killing people!

C-A

---

I have to object, stasticially it's true. Most video games desensitize people's empathy. But I will agree, as a fair judgement. Not all video games are bad and should be blamed at for violence. (Only stupid Turkey does that)

Super Mario Bros, it's all about jumping and defeating Bowser Koopa to save Princess Peach. Does it depict violence? No.

Gals Panic S2, an eroge game about capturing picture of women. Does it depict violence? No.

Minecraft, all about survival and mining. Does it depict violence? No.

Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. It's all about solving murder and crime to defend their defendant. Does it depict violence? Yup.

Most video games, like COD and CS: GO depicts violence. Most players are teens, but there are lots of kids playing them too. I know, it's some stupid parenting right there. That's why "mature-rated" video games are bad for kids. Not all video games are bad for children.

---

Still, most fools buy "Mature-Rated" games for their kids.

---