That's very true.Quote from Groanan
Quote from _Salvation
Lol@you take some mindless examples literally and as proof of my ideals and opinions, by the way. Lol@you thinking about this on your way to school, what the fuck? Having kids is a dream for some people. If everyone were to follow your advice, it would be a sad day for humanity.
Why would you mention super models if you didn't think they were the ideal women?
You brought it up under the pretext that unless I was married to one, I couldn't pity you, as if the fact that you think KFC is yummy isn't enough reason for my pity.
Having kids is a pretty low-grade dream, it is not like getting pregnant is difficult (and there is always adoption).
People in civilized nations, where the economy has already boomed and settled down, have less kids.
Kids are sorta a thing for poor people and fundamentalist religious nuts.
It is not like pregnancy does great things for a woman's body either.
Humanity of course would never fully go for the "lets not have children" plan, so there will always be kids.
But caring for "humanity" is pretty bizarre, unless you believe in reincarnation, or you believe that mankind will eventually escape the Earth and live amongst the stars, what is the point about caring about the future of the human race? Eventually this planet will be inhabitable.
Resources being as bare as they are, the less kids everyone has the better.
You really think the coleslaw is individually packaged for your freshness? I imagine they have 5 gallon buckets.
But what are you doing ordering a normal size thing of coleslaw anyway? It is freaking watery cabbage mixed with mayonnaise.
We're living on a planet with very limited resources and we just keep on multiplying. The rich have few kids, while the poor just keep on piling them up for display. I don't quite get the logic of it. And people just keep on get more and more, while the planet is draining by the day. We are not really providing for the future, humanity is slowly suffocating itself.
I do agree, life is something that needs to be cherished, but people are no longer doing that.
They call it the miracle of life, but with 6.9 billion people it's growing to become more of an epidemic.
1
I stand by my statement; it is a sad life you lead where your only option is KFC.
If you lived in a real city, there are 24 hour diners and grocery stores.
If you either knew how to cook, or had a loved one to cook for you, they could make you real fried chicken, with actual gravy (made from the chicken grease), in around half an hour.
If they threw in homemade biscuits, or potato salad, you would have a real meal, as opposed to a bland slop of generally the same color that you just shove down your gullet to survive.
KFC is a flavorless mush, and if that is what makes you happy, I pity you.
Honestly and sincerely, no matter who you are, you deserve better.
The Colonel should commit seppuku.
3
I think it is all part of a bigger plan
Phase 1: RMAH
Phase 2: Titan
Phase 3: ????
Phase 4: Profit
I think Titan will be a virtual community where you can own virtual land, spend virtual dollars, and quest in groups / play mini-games.
Second Life + Club Penguin + World of Warcraft + Facebook + XBox Live
I agree that putting money in the Blizz bank will probably give you nothing in return (unless the value of the dollar drops as the value of ebalance rises).
I don't see Blizzard becoming an outlet for other games, but if they create a world where you can create virtual items (like Second Life) I can see Blizzard letting you sell them through their store.
And yeah, there will probably be tons of micro-transactions coming, and a card game, stuffed animals, figurines, etc.
2
Because when my monk is in inferno, my teammates, depending on their builds, will say: "MONK change to Healing mantra, and cast heals"
or "Barb get threatening shout and taunt them off of us"
And when they ask that, you have two options:
1. capitulate
2. leave the game
And if capitulating is actually more helpful for the team, not doing so is unsportsmanlike .
I know you want all the skills, you are supposed to want all the skills, they are all supposed to be cool, Blizzard, as the GM, is supposed to force us to have less than everything.
You can't look at the option of swapping skills without also seeing the social dynamics that will come into play, freedom choice becomes a responsibility.
The spells are only cool now because you get a limited amount of them, if you have access to all of them they will have to retool the game so it isn't a simple game of picking the right passives before starting a fight.
So by giving everyone the "option" to play the way they want by having all the skills accessible and hot-swappable, you are actually condemning everyone else who does not want to spend three seconds before every fight changing skills.
1
I still think there might be a possibility of reshaping morality / ethics around robots if people view choice differently.
That test wouldn't work, because aside from being genetically similar, they'd have to be exactly similar on the subatomic level, and if there are wacky things like meandering electrons that sometimes are a billions lightyears away and then mystically reappear, that would also have to be identical with the two humans.
I think to prove that thoughts are electrical signals, they could instead zap our brains to make us have thoughts, or extract memories from our brains electronically; both things they are working on now.
But is there any other scientific theory for what thoughts are? (other than them being neurons firing at each other and then collectively becoming thoughts after lots of internal debate?)
On what being aware of fatalism means:
It just floats around like all other bits of data, we absorb it, and it spreads around like a virus.
Everything we do, being decided beforehand and forever into the future, includes us getting the virus.
I agree all that morality stuff at the end was somewhat a cheat; meaning without choice is alright though, because meaning can be a semantic line drawing distinction between words and what they refer to, even if they never touch reality; having an overall meaning of life would be silly, because there need not be one in a fatalist universe, life is as it is because it is and couldn't be otherwise. I agree it doesn't really go anywhere.
As far as quantum mechanics, and things having a chance on a subatomic level of being here, or being someplace else entirely, I am not sure how it can effect our ability to exert free will. Unless we have control over these meandering subatomic particles, they would just be something else that effects us.
But as for the idea, like "the secret", and "what the F*^*& do we know," where things exist as waves and only when we realize them do they take a fixed position in time and space, where a person, through their consciousness and feelings, can choose to realize certain futures and can make anything they want happen - that could only work, I think, if we do not share the same reality, and I am pushing hard on the single reality model with time being linear and objects obeying certain rules.
But yeah, if things don't have to obey cause and effect, because there are a bunch of tiny causes that somethings, for a reason or no reason, don't do what they should do, it makes having a working fatalist system a bit extra difficult.
1
I did not, even once, suggest that we should legislate peace.
There is a difference between that which is "peaceful" that which is "just" that which is "legal" and that which is "good."
These are separate concepts.
For no apparent reason, you are tying every comment I make about what it means to be peaceful into a normative value that should be spread across America as the law.
No, I did not. You are not comprehending the difference between moral condemnation and causation.
I never once excused the violent person, or gave the violent person a moral justification.
I'm was not trying to explain incitement, I'm trying to explain causality.
No! Justification has to be based in either moral principle or some sort of law - I am talking about causality and the control we have, as individuals, over situations.
Shame on you for not understanding causality and misinterpreting everything I say into a moral or legal philosophy when in reality we have the exact same view on what ought to be the law, and what is the moral course of action.
No thanks, after reading biographies on em for a leadership class I took a year ago, and the several times I went over civil rights movement in undergrad, and the brief one episode rant by Penn Jellete on his recent tv show, and the oral history passed on to me by acquaintances, I'm not very interested.
You are misinformed, not on my understanding of the civil rights movement or Ghandi, but on the very things I am saying in this thread.
You seem incapable of separating a point of fact on an abstract concept from a moral imperative or an argument for legal change.
I thought by repetition it would sink in, and you would magically discover that I am talking about the abstract principle of what it means to not cause harm to others and to refrain from creating situations where harm is caused to anyone, by anyone, for any reason, when you have the power to do so.
The thing is though, Proletaria, is that I didn't.
I agree that social inequality is a tangent issue, I brought it up to show what my personal normative values are.
Most of what I said in this thread was not about what I thought was right or wrong, or what I thought was constitutional or unconstitutional, or what I thought was legal or illegal.
And I am positive that there are other lurkers out there who read what I wrote and understood that I was not suggesting policy.
At least one other person in this thread has recognized that your responses are disjointed to what people are actually saying - it upsets me because your characterization of what I am preaching is libelously incorrect.
We have the exact same beliefs about everything but what it means to be peaceful, and you just can't see it
1
Slowly everything I liked about the game was removed bit by bit.
World PVP dried up.
They shuttled us all into battlegrounds, and then they removed all the cool stuff from Alterac Valley.
They then shuttled us all into siege vehicles.
And through the arena system, they shuttled most pvp into group v. group combat (I prefer 1v1 in the wild, and the instancing system got rid of players being in the wild).
They pulled pvp gear away from pve gear, so doing pve no longer had a chance of giving me something awesome for pvp (and making my pvp gear not great for pve).
They also made all the gear fungible (as opposed to having intrinsic value to the player), by having it upgrade every few months, so epics I find one month are worthless six months later.
In the beginning, it felt like a larger power gap between blues and T1/T2/ZG/AQ gear, and a smaller gap between T1/T2/ZG/&AQ; there was a feeling that if you collected epics from a variety of sources, even if your character wasn't the best, and looked like a rainbow trout, they were still pretty damn powerful in the world.
By making gear worthless, and by making pve gear especially worthless for pvp, I lost interest in gear and it just became a requirement to PVP.
Additionally, they kept giving us more and more abilities, and you need to use most of them - having over two dozen keybinded macros is less fun to me than specifically using a very small subset of skills that your character is better at based on preference and customization (the overlap of skills between classes homogenized the different classes as well).
I love that they released the goblin class, goblins are by far one of my favorite things in rpgs, dating back to Milton Bradley's Heroquest, Magic the Gathering, and the Goblin Sappers in Warcraft - but being a goblin on the gear treadmill in a lackluster PVP environment wasn't enough to keep me around.
I think I'll like D3's gear system a lot more than WoWs, unless they start releasing higher tiers of gear every few months (hopefully new gear sets are aesthetic, or different in their utility in some way or another, but not higher level / clearly better).
If they expand the amount of players allowed in a group to six or eight (maybe in an expac) and bring back the hostile feature of D2, I'll be happy with the PVP.
If they make a 1v1 arena option, that would probably be enough to keep my attention.
But I don't hate WoW, and I see all WoW-hate as a sign of youthful hormones running amuck.
Thinking something is bad is one thing, but to turn something one dislikes into anathema seems like what children do around each other to force the herd mentality.
2
Noobs will do stupid things, they don't know what to do, and their complaints can help Blizzard tailor the game to new players who have no experience or knowledge of Diablo.
You can't make something foolproof without getting a bunch of fools to do a dry run of it.
1
Not planning on using my law degrees, just eating up my veteran education benefits and seeing if the economy rebounds.
I would like to work in the video game / porn industry, but my $350k of debt will force me into government work (ten years gov employment = forgiveness of federal loans).
On a daily basis I troll forums and help perverts find the names of specific porn stars based on little to no information.
I drink over sixty ounces of cherry coke a day, and all my teeth are porcelain / metal / composite.
It is highly likely that, when D3 hits, I will spend six hours a day playing it while going to law school full time.
I used to paint warhammer type miniatures, and do karate, but both of those require extra funds / space to work.
I gave up WoW a month ago to get ready for Diablo 3.
Been marathoning Red Dwarf lately, and the Ricky Gervais show.
I follow Doctor Who, the Spartacus series, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Futurama, Project Runway, Red Letter Media, Gintama, and a bunch of seasonal anime that come and go and rotate every three or so months (I also read Berserk, Vinland saga, One Piece, Mysterious Girlfriend X, and I just started Hunter x Hunter).
1
I'd be game for any monster class.
I loved playing the werebear duid because he was a huge monster with basic, visceral, claw and bite attacks.
To keep from just remaking the druid, they could have it be some sort of demon or zombie flesh golem monster.
Call em Alchemists, and make it a dr. jeckle / mr. hyde thing.
A melee class that augments their body with demons / the undead, and that can either shoot bones, or quills, or some other sort of biological weapon.