The problem is that that approach only works if you take a very metaphorical interpretation of the bible.
With regards to evolution, if you accept it as true, then Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden could not have happened. There were no "first humans," as there was no solid dividing line between our apelike ancestors and modern humans. If there was no Garden of Eden, then there was no original sin, which means that Jesus dying for our sins was pointless, unless God intentionally created as as inherently sinful creatures and then decided that we should be tortured eternally. That's just one example -- there are plenty of places in the bible where described events are, to the best of our knowledge, physically impossible.
On the other hand, if you believe that anything in the bible that is impossible when taken literally should be interpreted metaphorically instead, where do you stop? Who decides which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? Whose job is it to decide what the correct metaphor is? How can anybody be expected to figure out what the correct interpretation is when there are so many different ones and all of their proponents are so vocal about how everybody else is wrong?
It may not be necessary to pick one or or the other, but it's a lot easier to resolve the internal conflicts if you just drop superstitions and rely on testable, repeatable observations.
On the other hand, if you're a woman who is looking to move away from a country that is oppressing you for religious reasons, the USA isn't looking very attractive nowadays...
It's funny that you quote that; so apparently all you have to do to divorce somebody is write them a certificate because you think they're indecent and kick them out of the door? That seems like it lines up perfectly with the "use it and throw it away" mentality that you say is a recent thing.
f a woman was unwilling to have sex, forcing her would be a prevision of the idea of marriage, as would refusing sex in the first place (since marriage was meant to produce offspring). If the woman no longer found favor in the man's eye (they stopped having sex) he'd give her a certificate of divorce and she'd move on with her life.
I think I can figure out what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure "prevision" is not the word you meant to use.
Where in the bible does it provide for or even condone divorce?
Building a modern reactor with less radioactive by-products in North Korea would be great. It will help to the people by getting rid of their energy problems and will not be usable to create the components necessary for nuclear weapons.
That would only be true if North Korea's government actually cared about its people. What would actually happen is that the nuclear generator would be used to power the lights in Pyongyang while the rest of the country would be left to starve.
I mean, we can probably guess which Korea they're referring to here, but last time I checked, they hadn't been reunified yet. I really hope that Bill Gates isn't building a nuclear reactor for North Korea.
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda.
No, that's not correct. It is about equality; it is possible to promote a group people being fairly without also punishing another group.
It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions
Not correct at all. First of all, it is entirely possible to respect a person without bowing down to their beliefs. Second, it is about ensuring that the government does not use its influence to promote any particular religion.
So, how does a person on the left, which branded Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," reconcile this "respect everyone" attitude with this?
The above misunderstandings are the cause of your confusion. It is possible to allow a person to believe what they want without punishing them for their beliefs, and yet at the same time also not allow them to use the government to enforce laws based on there beliefs. Somebody thinks homosexuality is evil and should be illegal? I don't respect that belief, but I respect the person, and they're welcome to keep believing that. On the other hand, somebody wants to use the government to oppress homosexuals based on that belief? Nope, that's where the line is drawn. It's pretty clear.
Except Christianity for some reason. You don't usually hear them saying we should respect the Christian religion
That's because the vast majority of politicians in the US are Christian, and a significant number of them are fundamentalists who want to use the government to enforce laws based on their religion. That's why you see so much push back against them; it'd be the same if any other religious group had significant influence in the government.
Yes, yes you do. You give them money hoping that they'll make a cool product and be successful, and if they are successful you'll get a nice reward for it. How is that not investment? Do you know what an investment is?
People like you are exactly what I'm talking about. You could at least put an account name behind your comment.
I don't check or post on Slashdot nearly as often as I used to, and the comments on this article illustrate why.
I mean, look at this. You've got a small team of people who are designing a product that is explicitly intended to be open and hackable. It's cheap, it's stylish, it runs Linux, and they're reaching out to the indie gaming community for support. They've more than doubled their initial goal in under 24 hours and are probably still reeling at the concept of what just happened. The news is sweeping across gaming sites and people are excited to see what's going to happen next.
And the comments on this Slashdot article are overwhelmingly negative. You've got people saying that nobody will want to develop software for a hackable device (like Android or Windows), there's no market for it (the $2M worth of investments so far seem to disagree), you can get cheap Chinese knockoff Android devices cheaper (LOL, just LOL), and some people are even saying it's vaporware like the Phantom. Seriously, the Phantom? That project was started by a guy who had a history of running investment scams. The people who are behind the Ouya are recognized names in the gaming industry and have the support of a lot of indie developers. There's no guarantee that this will end up being a big commercial success, of course, but you clearly haven't even taken a look at it if you think this is a second Phantom.
Why the hell would I want to produce software for a piece of hardware that can be hacked?
I don't know, why do people produce games for Android or Windows? Both of those platforms practically encourage hacking. And if we're talking about platforms that can be easily hacked despite the manufacturers' intentions, there's iOS, the Wii, the PSP, the DS...
If your a GNU/ Linux user who likes to game then why don't you dual boot or virtualize?
Probably because they don't want to spend a few hundred dollars for a Windows license and have to reboot every time they feel like playing a game into an operating system that they're uncomfortable with.
Sure, Linux isn't the ideal gaming platform, but look at it from this perspective: if it does what you want and you prefer it over Windows, why not use it?
I can see you're trying to joke, but the sad thing is that many of your examples are true:
Restaurants - Tax for not wearing the right clothes.
Many restaurants won't even let you in if you're not wearing the right clothes, and if they do you can expect sub-par service because you don't look as good. And don't forget restaurants that automatically add 18% to your bill if you have more than a certain number of people in your group!
Tax for asking for modification to your orders.
Again, many places already will charge you more if you ask for a modification that causes them to spend extra time on it or use more expensive ingredients.
Stores - Tax for not wearing the "approved" shoes, since you are causing more wear on the floor.
Again, you won't even be let in if you're not wearing shoes at all.
Government - Tax for being obese.
There's one that's actually not true! Unless you count the heavy taxes on the types of food and drug products that obese people tend to consume more of.
Tax for not being married.
Let's talk about filing income taxes jointly, and how I went from owing the government about $500 per year to them giving me a refund of $1500 after I got married.
Tax for not belonging to the right religion.
So did you know that religious organizations don't have to pay taxes on their property, among other things? And many states have legislation that makes it so that you can't hold public office if you're not religious at all.
Schools - Taxed for being stupid.
The parents of stupid kids may not be taxed individually, but the money spent on kids who repeat years comes from somewhere...
If Microsoft can block Pirate Bay, for whatever reason, then what is to stop them from block Apple or Redhat or any other site that they determine is "harmful" to their users? Censorship is censorship. It is a very slippery slope when anyone in power claims censorship is for the good of the people.
Nothing is stopping them. It's their own private servers and they can do whatever they want. Ever been to a forum that censored certain words or banned users for inappropriate behavior? The first amendment only applies to the government. It is perfectly legal for private organizations to control what data people send through their servers. As for whether it's moral or not -- if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. There's no slope at all here.
Multi-player isn't ready, so instead of delaying another 3-6 months to get it just right, they're releasing it anyway. That would be unthinkable with the old (pre-WoW) Blizzard.
They didn't say multi-player isn't ready, they said PvP isn't ready. Cooperative MP is ready, and that's really the big draw of the game anyway. PvP in D2 was a joke, anyway. Considering that they weren't originally planning on PvP in D3 at all, I don't think it's a big loss.
Forgetting that this is Blizzard here and it's usually okay to rely on their promises, is it really best to accept and pay full price for an incomplete game expecting them to patch stuff in later on? It's a very terrible habit for a consumer to pick up especially in this age where expansions don't exist and shitty DLC is rampant.
They weren't originally intending to include PvP at all, so as far as I'm concerned, the game will be complete without it.
I also don't think that it's fair to just forget that we're talking about Blizzard, who has made expansions for pretty much every game they've ever made, and they're working on one for SC2.
So am I the only one who read this as the PvP won't be ready at launch and the skill and rune system is so fucking annoying you have to watch a video and use a calculator to figure out how the damn thing works?
PvP not ready at launch? Fine, whatever. Go play in the arena in WoW or Starcraft if you want to have fun throwing yourself at other players. PvP not being ready tells me that they're concentrating on making a decent single-player/cooperative game. I do not want PvE to be neglected for the sake of making PvPers happy.
And having a complex skill system is a good thing. Complaints like yours are the reason why we get systems like WoW's, where you can click on damn near any random combination of abilities and have a perfectly viable character, and all you have to do to win in combat is press 1-2-3-4. I will gladly take a system where I actually have to take time to learn how it works and then spend time evaluating how the different options interact, and then maybe I'll even have to crunch some numbers to figure out what the most efficient options are.
In short, attitudes like yours are responsible for the decline of western RPGs. Stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that that approach only works if you take a very metaphorical interpretation of the bible.
With regards to evolution, if you accept it as true, then Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden could not have happened. There were no "first humans," as there was no solid dividing line between our apelike ancestors and modern humans. If there was no Garden of Eden, then there was no original sin, which means that Jesus dying for our sins was pointless, unless God intentionally created as as inherently sinful creatures and then decided that we should be tortured eternally. That's just one example -- there are plenty of places in the bible where described events are, to the best of our knowledge, physically impossible.
On the other hand, if you believe that anything in the bible that is impossible when taken literally should be interpreted metaphorically instead, where do you stop? Who decides which parts are literal and which are metaphorical? Whose job is it to decide what the correct metaphor is? How can anybody be expected to figure out what the correct interpretation is when there are so many different ones and all of their proponents are so vocal about how everybody else is wrong?
It may not be necessary to pick one or or the other, but it's a lot easier to resolve the internal conflicts if you just drop superstitions and rely on testable, repeatable observations.
On the other hand, if you're a woman who is looking to move away from a country that is oppressing you for religious reasons, the USA isn't looking very attractive nowadays...
It's funny that you quote that; so apparently all you have to do to divorce somebody is write them a certificate because you think they're indecent and kick them out of the door? That seems like it lines up perfectly with the "use it and throw it away" mentality that you say is a recent thing.
f a woman was unwilling to have sex, forcing her would be a prevision of the idea of marriage, as would refusing sex in the first place (since marriage was meant to produce offspring). If the woman no longer found favor in the man's eye (they stopped having sex) he'd give her a certificate of divorce and she'd move on with her life.
I think I can figure out what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure "prevision" is not the word you meant to use.
Where in the bible does it provide for or even condone divorce?
So are you implying that rape cannot occur inside of marriage?
Building a modern reactor with less radioactive by-products in North Korea would be great. It will help to the people by getting rid of their energy problems and will not be usable to create the components necessary for nuclear weapons.
That would only be true if North Korea's government actually cared about its people. What would actually happen is that the nuclear generator would be used to power the lights in Pyongyang while the rest of the country would be left to starve.
I mean, we can probably guess which Korea they're referring to here, but last time I checked, they hadn't been reunified yet. I really hope that Bill Gates isn't building a nuclear reactor for North Korea.
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda.
No, that's not correct. It is about equality; it is possible to promote a group people being fairly without also punishing another group.
It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions
Not correct at all. First of all, it is entirely possible to respect a person without bowing down to their beliefs. Second, it is about ensuring that the government does not use its influence to promote any particular religion.
So, how does a person on the left, which branded Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," reconcile this "respect everyone" attitude with this?
The above misunderstandings are the cause of your confusion. It is possible to allow a person to believe what they want without punishing them for their beliefs, and yet at the same time also not allow them to use the government to enforce laws based on there beliefs. Somebody thinks homosexuality is evil and should be illegal? I don't respect that belief, but I respect the person, and they're welcome to keep believing that. On the other hand, somebody wants to use the government to oppress homosexuals based on that belief? Nope, that's where the line is drawn. It's pretty clear.
Except Christianity for some reason. You don't usually hear them saying we should respect the Christian religion
That's because the vast majority of politicians in the US are Christian, and a significant number of them are fundamentalists who want to use the government to enforce laws based on their religion. That's why you see so much push back against them; it'd be the same if any other religious group had significant influence in the government.
My religion compels me to pray for you, and to let you be.
Which is it? If you believe that prayer has any sort of real effect, then you are not doing a very good job of letting me be.
Because slashdotters have an irrational hatred of all things sony.
Please don't assume that just because somebody hates Sony it's irrational. For example, let's talk about Lik Sang
The strangest thing out of the whole story (to me at least) was that he is married and has kids !!!
Why is that so strange?
I don't understand why he didn't take this to the police.
He says in the article that he went to the police and they didn't do anything.
Unless of course, the people that attacked him were cops
But you didn't read the article, because one of the first things he said is that it was the employees at McDonald's that assaulted him.
Yes, yes you do. You give them money hoping that they'll make a cool product and be successful, and if they are successful you'll get a nice reward for it. How is that not investment? Do you know what an investment is?
People like you are exactly what I'm talking about. You could at least put an account name behind your comment.
I don't check or post on Slashdot nearly as often as I used to, and the comments on this article illustrate why.
I mean, look at this. You've got a small team of people who are designing a product that is explicitly intended to be open and hackable. It's cheap, it's stylish, it runs Linux, and they're reaching out to the indie gaming community for support. They've more than doubled their initial goal in under 24 hours and are probably still reeling at the concept of what just happened. The news is sweeping across gaming sites and people are excited to see what's going to happen next.
And the comments on this Slashdot article are overwhelmingly negative. You've got people saying that nobody will want to develop software for a hackable device (like Android or Windows), there's no market for it (the $2M worth of investments so far seem to disagree), you can get cheap Chinese knockoff Android devices cheaper (LOL, just LOL), and some people are even saying it's vaporware like the Phantom. Seriously, the Phantom? That project was started by a guy who had a history of running investment scams. The people who are behind the Ouya are recognized names in the gaming industry and have the support of a lot of indie developers. There's no guarantee that this will end up being a big commercial success, of course, but you clearly haven't even taken a look at it if you think this is a second Phantom.
Slashdot, what happened to you?
Why the hell would I want to produce software for a piece of hardware that can be hacked?
I don't know, why do people produce games for Android or Windows? Both of those platforms practically encourage hacking. And if we're talking about platforms that can be easily hacked despite the manufacturers' intentions, there's iOS, the Wii, the PSP, the DS...
I never said buy Windows, I said boot into Windows.
Ahh, I get what you mean.
Let me rephrase what I said, then: people like you are a plague on the software industry and don't deserve to play games in the first place.
If your a GNU/ Linux user who likes to game then why don't you dual boot or virtualize?
Probably because they don't want to spend a few hundred dollars for a Windows license and have to reboot every time they feel like playing a game into an operating system that they're uncomfortable with.
Sure, Linux isn't the ideal gaming platform, but look at it from this perspective: if it does what you want and you prefer it over Windows, why not use it?
I can see you're trying to joke, but the sad thing is that many of your examples are true:
Restaurants - Tax for not wearing the right clothes.
Many restaurants won't even let you in if you're not wearing the right clothes, and if they do you can expect sub-par service because you don't look as good. And don't forget restaurants that automatically add 18% to your bill if you have more than a certain number of people in your group!
Tax for asking for modification to your orders.
Again, many places already will charge you more if you ask for a modification that causes them to spend extra time on it or use more expensive ingredients.
Stores - Tax for not wearing the "approved" shoes, since you are causing more wear on the floor.
Again, you won't even be let in if you're not wearing shoes at all.
Government - Tax for being obese.
There's one that's actually not true! Unless you count the heavy taxes on the types of food and drug products that obese people tend to consume more of.
Tax for not being married.
Let's talk about filing income taxes jointly, and how I went from owing the government about $500 per year to them giving me a refund of $1500 after I got married.
Tax for not belonging to the right religion.
So did you know that religious organizations don't have to pay taxes on their property, among other things? And many states have legislation that makes it so that you can't hold public office if you're not religious at all.
Schools - Taxed for being stupid.
The parents of stupid kids may not be taxed individually, but the money spent on kids who repeat years comes from somewhere...
Imagine Super Mario Brothers if it were made today;
I know it doesn't make as good of a strawman argument, but I think it'd probably end up a lot like, oh, New Super Mario Bros.
If the believers are even capable of criminalizing somebody for "blasphemy," then they're already hurting people and need to be stopped.
It's a shame that numbers you've made up off the top of your head are meaningless, especially when youre entire argument is based on them.
If Microsoft can block Pirate Bay, for whatever reason, then what is to stop them from block Apple or Redhat or any other site that they determine is "harmful" to their users? Censorship is censorship. It is a very slippery slope when anyone in power claims censorship is for the good of the people.
Nothing is stopping them. It's their own private servers and they can do whatever they want. Ever been to a forum that censored certain words or banned users for inappropriate behavior? The first amendment only applies to the government. It is perfectly legal for private organizations to control what data people send through their servers. As for whether it's moral or not -- if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. There's no slope at all here.
Multi-player isn't ready, so instead of delaying another 3-6 months to get it just right, they're releasing it anyway. That would be unthinkable with the old (pre-WoW) Blizzard.
They didn't say multi-player isn't ready, they said PvP isn't ready. Cooperative MP is ready, and that's really the big draw of the game anyway. PvP in D2 was a joke, anyway. Considering that they weren't originally planning on PvP in D3 at all, I don't think it's a big loss.
Forgetting that this is Blizzard here and it's usually okay to rely on their promises, is it really best to accept and pay full price for an incomplete game expecting them to patch stuff in later on? It's a very terrible habit for a consumer to pick up especially in this age where expansions don't exist and shitty DLC is rampant.
They weren't originally intending to include PvP at all, so as far as I'm concerned, the game will be complete without it.
I also don't think that it's fair to just forget that we're talking about Blizzard, who has made expansions for pretty much every game they've ever made, and they're working on one for SC2.
So am I the only one who read this as the PvP won't be ready at launch and the skill and rune system is so fucking annoying you have to watch a video and use a calculator to figure out how the damn thing works?
PvP not ready at launch? Fine, whatever. Go play in the arena in WoW or Starcraft if you want to have fun throwing yourself at other players. PvP not being ready tells me that they're concentrating on making a decent single-player/cooperative game. I do not want PvE to be neglected for the sake of making PvPers happy.
And having a complex skill system is a good thing. Complaints like yours are the reason why we get systems like WoW's, where you can click on damn near any random combination of abilities and have a perfectly viable character, and all you have to do to win in combat is press 1-2-3-4. I will gladly take a system where I actually have to take time to learn how it works and then spend time evaluating how the different options interact, and then maybe I'll even have to crunch some numbers to figure out what the most efficient options are.
In short, attitudes like yours are responsible for the decline of western RPGs. Stop it.