The writing is on the wall. MS is talking about making the Xbox effectively a gaming PC with a console formfactor. Sony is talking about no future playstations. The industry is moved on.
The entire console system doesn't make sense. Its more expensive... period. In every way. The quality that you get is generally a lot less. Compatibility is less. And as to ease of use... learn to use a computer or render yourself too incompetent to participate in the modern world. The level of competence required to manage a gaming PC is within the easy reach of a ten year old child. If that's too much for you... then that can only be pitied.
If you think not knowing how to US a PC is acceptable in the 21st century... and that your ignorance as to how to deal with that is your reason to stick with a console... Then you're just arguing for how you can get by whilst crippled.
What is more, the consoles are going away regardless. MS and Sony have already said that they're retiring the entire business model. There is perhaps no more console generations... or maybe only one more console generation left.
So... Do what you like. The argument is old and your side lost decades ago. You just never realized it.
This is over. Be stubborn... come up with reasons... the consoles have been a bad idea for a long time and only recently has it gotten so bad that the console companies themselves are tired of supplying the market. Its over.
1. PC gaming is the same price as console gaming for the hardware and cheaper for the games. A PC in your home is a zero sum game. You will own one. The cost of a PC gaming machine is the cost of a PC gaming system minus the cost of a conventional PC. A console will run you perhaps 300~400 USD. Add 300 to 400 to the cost of a PC and you have a reasonable gaming PC.
2. As to difficulty, the difficulty of PC gaming is only difficult if you don't know how to use a computer. The difficulty of PC gaming minus again the assumed competence with a PC which you should have anyway is about zero.
3. If you're talking about how hard the actual game is... adjust settings or get good, noob.
The fact that you're so butthurt about losing to me over and over again that you feel you need to stalk me on this site in a vain attempt to get one over on me... is really all that needs to be said here.
You made some really stupid arguments... as typical of AC fuckwits... and I slapped your stupid ass down. I don't remember it being especially difficult. You're not very clever. And rather than take that as a learning experience... here you are making dumb insult posts.
As to bad faith, he attempted to conflate redefined terms. That is text book sophistry. I offered to go through a process that would allow us to have a discussion without his sophistry operating and he refused. We can the discussion. He just has to define his terms and then we'll use those. If he attempts to conflate new definitions with old ones then I'll stop him and point out the contradiction.
You can't win here, sport. I have being right on my side.
Starwars as anyone fucking knows is space fantasy. So its like the lord of the rings in space. Its elves, fairies, wizards, etc in space. You have a dark lord. You have a quest. There is some epic struggle between good and evil.
Star Trek whilst hardly being hard science fiction with technology that is viable in actual science... STILL takes from the cultural tradition of science fiction. Its about exploration... it has a flavor of the golden age of American science fiction in that its hopeful... there are big bad aliens... but the manner in which you defeat them is star ships... phasers... anti matter torpedeos... and guts.
Its like asking why a romance novel and a mystery novel turn out differently. They're totally different fucking genres.
That is the META answer. If you want me to look at the two worlds and try to peace out why one works out one way and the other works out the other... we have to look at the worlds and ignore the stories and main characters.
In Star Wars there is a galactic republic. Like... ONE big empire that controls everything. Good or evil that is what runs the show. In Star Trek there is no such thing. The federation at best controls a fraction of one quarter of the galaxy. Now in either world there are things that cause whole planets to be destroyed. The Borg might enslave an entire world and a NEW AND IMPROVED DEATH STAR!!! might blow up a planet. But in neither case is that harm spread around the entire galaxy. There is peace and prosperity happening somewhere.
Look at those big planet sized cities they build in star wars. That shit isn't cheap. And the federation or various other powers are doing stuff all the time that is useful.
I can do that if we have agreed upon definitions. Its a core aspect of formal logical. You see this in mathematics, most fields of hard science, law, and philosophy.
First there must be established definitions and then those variables and operators are organized to form an argument. And once that is done, then a debate is possible.
If you're not in agreement with the definitions then we cannot proceed beyond that point. We have to have a sharp understanding of what terms mean. Otherwise we will talk past each other at best. It would be a waste of time.
If one person says 5=B as a starting premise and someone else says 5=Duck... then we're not going to get anywhere.
I've already demonstrated that your position is false by showing that the term has a different meaning and you also know that that meaning is considered the primary one in discussions of this matter. So... that's the end.
As I said, you can either accept that definition or change the subject. You can't both redefine core concepts and not change the subject.
Sophistry doesn't work well on people that have an adult level attention span and are paying attention.
What you're attempting to do is redefine MC as something other than what it is normally understood to mean.
If you do that, then I'll just agree that YOUR definition of MC is acceptable because you've created that situation. However, your definition of MC is not the official definition and thus is off topic.
If you want to talk about MC as it is officially understood, we can do that. If you want to talk about something else... we can do that too. However, if you try to redefine it and then gaslight me by saying acceptance of your definition means I must accept something about the official definition... then no sale.
We'll use ONE definition for each term, thank you. If you change the definition then you've changed the definition and we're talking about something else.
Violent crime actually has been flat excluding the urban blight zones since the 1950s. It went up around 1962ish and didn't decline until recently to roughly the levels it was in 1961... and the rise and fall was entirely related to gangs and drugs.
As to your larger point that everything is fine and everyone should just go back to sleep... Please go to election with that argument. I'm not even interested with the debate anymore. Its become tiresome. If you want to run with that... then do it.
Same thing the DEA does when they want to convict a known drug dealer. You set up a sting and then bust them. This is not rocket science and it doesn't violate US law. You go to the guy, pose as a jihadi... and offer him an opportunity to commit an act of terror on behalf of ISIS or something. We do that all the time.
And I warn you that if you arbitrarily reject that answer even though it is validated by court of law and is held as a standing practice by many federal agencies in matters of this kind where this box needs to get checked... I will laugh in your face.
Multiculturalism is not merely an acknowledgement that everyone has personal beliefs about whatever. We can't have a discussion about X if you define X differently than what it means. It would be like you defining a car as a cat... and then attempted to a discussion with me about automobile safety on that basis...
I'd say something about maximum road speeds and you'd say "well, I don't think any car is going to exceed 20 mph and even then not for more than a few seconds." Because you'd not be talking about a car... but a house cat.
If you think this is what MC is... then there's no reason for it be a big deal now or for it to have a new term since according to you... its ancient and demonstrably was such a minor issue for all those thousands of years that no one even bothered to give it a name until now.
MC is not just people having personal beliefs and a car is not a house cat.
The Israelis also screen people. The guy in orlando was in the system. And he should have been screened more seriously by the FBI. We need to treat these people like we do drug traffickers. Send an agent down there posing as a jihadi and try to get him to do a terrorist attack with the FBI recording everything.
This is how drug busts work and this is also how high security areas are kept free of traitors. You offer some guy 10 million dollars for the missile plans or whatever while posing as a foreign agent.
This is not rocket science. We also need to infiltrate the radical religious organizations and subvert them. Why do we have an FBI and a CIA etc if not to do this? That is their fucking job.
If everyone would just do their job as stated on the fucking side of the packaging... everything would be fine.
They don't love people that are different to them. They demonsterably don't like their own neighbors based on minor ideological differences. So that is not the objective of multiculturalism. The point is to break down the existing culture by flooding it with variant moral and ideological positions. Then once that has been broken down they presume to indoctrinate the new cultures into conforming to THEIR ideology which is a singularity.
That is the point. If they actually believed in tolerating other cultures then they'd tolerate their domestic political rivals based on the political and ideological differences there in... but they don't despite the differences being largely cultural. Its a scam.
People need to stop assuming people in politics have good or noble or honest intentions. They often do not. We do not assume this in business. We do not assume this in finance. We do not assume this in science. We do not assume this really anywhere but in politics. And of all the places where people would accept "just trust me" as an argument... I really can't think of a worse place to do that then in politics.
No. Do not just trust people when they say they are doing X for Y reasons. Verify it and place balancing automatic responses and defenses in place in the event that they were doing X for Z reason instead of Y. We do this in banking. We do this in law enforcement. We do this in business. We do it in science.
The "just trust me" argument is fallacious. I will not just trust anyone. And when they say they want multiculturalism for X reason... and X makes no sense... and X is contradicted by their other behavior... I'm going to assume that they want it for some other reason. Then I'm going to look at how tireless they are at pushing it. If they want it and want it bad then I'm going to assume its important... and not for X reasons. So why push it and want it that much when the stated reason for it is false?
And I don't have to look that hard. When this was initially being pushed in the 1970s the people doing it sold the idea to their political allies on the basis that they could gain political power by doing it. They could import voters to drowned out their political rivals. That is what Ted Kennedy said on the issue. Other quotes from other relevant players in this game from all over the western world of that time period can be cited to validate the argument.
The want MCism for crass political power. Period. Now the common rube on the street might not be that sophisticated. But since he's not worked out any of the details he's just a drone at this point. He doesn't even know why anything is happening or why anything is being cited as good or bad. He's a tool at best. So his opinion on the matter is a distraction. he'll believe what he's told to believe... demonstrably.
What is relevant is why is MCism being pushed in the first place. And as cited above... its not hard to figure out if you pay attention.
How are drug busts made? A DEA agent makes contacts... infiltrates... deep cover happens. You offer the person you want to throw in jail a deal. You offer them drugs for money or money for drugs. The Dread Pirate Roberts was busted on the Silk Road in part because the FBI/DEA offered to kill one of his associates for money by posing as an assassin.
The same can be applied if you want to check that legal box. Approach the man and look like a legitimate terrorist organization reaching out to him. Offer him the ability to participate in acts of terror. Convince him you are real. Then send him to a staged terror event that has been sanitized so that he can't actually do anything even though he thinks he can commit mass murder. Give him fake bombs... automatic weapons that don't work for some reason. Whatever. And film and record everything.
Its really not that hard, sport. We've been doing this for hundreds of years. Its not new. Local police to the FBI have been doing it since the old days and never stopped.
Now that is the boring stuff... obvious stuff... Lets get to a more interesting discussion...
Why can't YOU personally see this as an option even though it is obvious? You should be able. Why can't you?
Are you mentally blocked somehow or are you aware of the solutions and simply intentionally refuse to implement them?
Well, then possibly you'll want to do something about the terrorist attacks rather than going out of your way to make them as likely as possible. Screening people before they come into the US. Doing proper border security. Having the FBI ACTUALLY check up on reports of dangerous psychopaths in the United States.
I believe Lynch just said that the best weapon against terrorism is "Love"... if acts of terror are happening and your government says that the best solution will be for everyone to love each other... Then fear might be the appropriate response. Because the people in charge of protecting you... are idiots or worse.
Who benefits? I suppose you're going to say "but the government will get more powers to deal with this stuff thus helping the elites"... sure... and that's going to happen if the terrorism isn't controlled. Stop undermining security or people are going to freak out.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubling down on stupid doesn't save your position.
I didn't start. I finished you. You never had a point. As to confirming things... any twit can declare victory and then run away.
So, do that... No one expects an AC to join a discussion, say something retarded, then run away like a coward.
That never happens guys.
Way to break the mold.
http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
http://www.fool.com/investing/...
http://www.cnet.com/news/xbox-...!
http://news.softpedia.com/news...
The writing is on the wall. MS is talking about making the Xbox effectively a gaming PC with a console formfactor. Sony is talking about no future playstations. The industry is moved on.
The entire console system doesn't make sense. Its more expensive... period. In every way. The quality that you get is generally a lot less. Compatibility is less. And as to ease of use... learn to use a computer or render yourself too incompetent to participate in the modern world. The level of competence required to manage a gaming PC is within the easy reach of a ten year old child. If that's too much for you... then that can only be pitied.
Don't make appeals to the crowd when you're outvoted.
It makes you sound stupid. You're compounding a fallacious argument on top of being wrong even if that fallacy were relevant.
Literally... Stupid.
http://bgr.com/2014/07/14/last...
*yawn*
Entry level PC gaming is entry level. A reasonable gaming PC is entirely viable at 800 dollars... which minus the 400 dollars is 400 dollars.
If you think not knowing how to US a PC is acceptable in the 21st century... and that your ignorance as to how to deal with that is your reason to stick with a console... Then you're just arguing for how you can get by whilst crippled.
What is more, the consoles are going away regardless. MS and Sony have already said that they're retiring the entire business model. There is perhaps no more console generations... or maybe only one more console generation left.
So... Do what you like. The argument is old and your side lost decades ago. You just never realized it.
This is over. Be stubborn... come up with reasons... the consoles have been a bad idea for a long time and only recently has it gotten so bad that the console companies themselves are tired of supplying the market. Its over.
+5 on my comment. AC Troll = 0.
1. PC gaming is the same price as console gaming for the hardware and cheaper for the games. A PC in your home is a zero sum game. You will own one. The cost of a PC gaming machine is the cost of a PC gaming system minus the cost of a conventional PC. A console will run you perhaps 300~400 USD. Add 300 to 400 to the cost of a PC and you have a reasonable gaming PC.
2. As to difficulty, the difficulty of PC gaming is only difficult if you don't know how to use a computer. The difficulty of PC gaming minus again the assumed competence with a PC which you should have anyway is about zero.
3. If you're talking about how hard the actual game is... adjust settings or get good, noob.
I'm talking to the sad AC that thinks he's doing anything besides make my epeen harder by stalking me.
The fact that you're so butthurt about losing to me over and over again that you feel you need to stalk me on this site in a vain attempt to get one over on me... is really all that needs to be said here.
You made some really stupid arguments... as typical of AC fuckwits... and I slapped your stupid ass down. I don't remember it being especially difficult. You're not very clever. And rather than take that as a learning experience... here you are making dumb insult posts.
As to bad faith, he attempted to conflate redefined terms. That is text book sophistry. I offered to go through a process that would allow us to have a discussion without his sophistry operating and he refused. We can the discussion. He just has to define his terms and then we'll use those. If he attempts to conflate new definitions with old ones then I'll stop him and point out the contradiction.
You can't win here, sport. I have being right on my side.
Starwars as anyone fucking knows is space fantasy. So its like the lord of the rings in space. Its elves, fairies, wizards, etc in space. You have a dark lord. You have a quest. There is some epic struggle between good and evil.
Star Trek whilst hardly being hard science fiction with technology that is viable in actual science... STILL takes from the cultural tradition of science fiction. Its about exploration... it has a flavor of the golden age of American science fiction in that its hopeful... there are big bad aliens... but the manner in which you defeat them is star ships... phasers... anti matter torpedeos... and guts.
Its like asking why a romance novel and a mystery novel turn out differently. They're totally different fucking genres.
That is the META answer. If you want me to look at the two worlds and try to peace out why one works out one way and the other works out the other... we have to look at the worlds and ignore the stories and main characters.
In Star Wars there is a galactic republic. Like... ONE big empire that controls everything. Good or evil that is what runs the show. In Star Trek there is no such thing. The federation at best controls a fraction of one quarter of the galaxy. Now in either world there are things that cause whole planets to be destroyed. The Borg might enslave an entire world and a NEW AND IMPROVED DEATH STAR!!! might blow up a planet. But in neither case is that harm spread around the entire galaxy. There is peace and prosperity happening somewhere.
Look at those big planet sized cities they build in star wars. That shit isn't cheap. And the federation or various other powers are doing stuff all the time that is useful.
I can do that if we have agreed upon definitions. Its a core aspect of formal logical. You see this in mathematics, most fields of hard science, law, and philosophy.
First there must be established definitions and then those variables and operators are organized to form an argument. And once that is done, then a debate is possible.
If you're not in agreement with the definitions then we cannot proceed beyond that point. We have to have a sharp understanding of what terms mean. Otherwise we will talk past each other at best. It would be a waste of time.
If one person says 5=B as a starting premise and someone else says 5=Duck... then we're not going to get anywhere.
I've already demonstrated that your position is false by showing that the term has a different meaning and you also know that that meaning is considered the primary one in discussions of this matter. So... that's the end.
As I said, you can either accept that definition or change the subject. You can't both redefine core concepts and not change the subject.
Your definition is not in conformity with the context of the discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sophistry doesn't work well on people that have an adult level attention span and are paying attention.
What you're attempting to do is redefine MC as something other than what it is normally understood to mean.
If you do that, then I'll just agree that YOUR definition of MC is acceptable because you've created that situation. However, your definition of MC is not the official definition and thus is off topic.
If you want to talk about MC as it is officially understood, we can do that. If you want to talk about something else... we can do that too. However, if you try to redefine it and then gaslight me by saying acceptance of your definition means I must accept something about the official definition... then no sale.
We'll use ONE definition for each term, thank you. If you change the definition then you've changed the definition and we're talking about something else.
Fair enough. But at least it is a solution. Banning guns is not a solution. Its a suicide pact.
So something that works for the DEA or the CIA or the FBI in similar situations won't work in this case because reasons.
We can either talk about MC or not. You've chosen to change the subject. Which is okay. It just means you're now talking to yourself.
Violent crime actually has been flat excluding the urban blight zones since the 1950s. It went up around 1962ish and didn't decline until recently to roughly the levels it was in 1961... and the rise and fall was entirely related to gangs and drugs.
As to your larger point that everything is fine and everyone should just go back to sleep... Please go to election with that argument. I'm not even interested with the debate anymore. Its become tiresome. If you want to run with that... then do it.
Same thing the DEA does when they want to convict a known drug dealer. You set up a sting and then bust them. This is not rocket science and it doesn't violate US law. You go to the guy, pose as a jihadi... and offer him an opportunity to commit an act of terror on behalf of ISIS or something. We do that all the time.
And I warn you that if you arbitrarily reject that answer even though it is validated by court of law and is held as a standing practice by many federal agencies in matters of this kind where this box needs to get checked... I will laugh in your face.
You were warned.
Multiculturalism is not merely an acknowledgement that everyone has personal beliefs about whatever. We can't have a discussion about X if you define X differently than what it means. It would be like you defining a car as a cat... and then attempted to a discussion with me about automobile safety on that basis...
I'd say something about maximum road speeds and you'd say "well, I don't think any car is going to exceed 20 mph and even then not for more than a few seconds." Because you'd not be talking about a car... but a house cat.
If you think this is what MC is... then there's no reason for it be a big deal now or for it to have a new term since according to you... its ancient and demonstrably was such a minor issue for all those thousands of years that no one even bothered to give it a name until now.
MC is not just people having personal beliefs and a car is not a house cat.
Do better.
The Israelis also screen people. The guy in orlando was in the system. And he should have been screened more seriously by the FBI. We need to treat these people like we do drug traffickers. Send an agent down there posing as a jihadi and try to get him to do a terrorist attack with the FBI recording everything.
This is how drug busts work and this is also how high security areas are kept free of traitors. You offer some guy 10 million dollars for the missile plans or whatever while posing as a foreign agent.
This is not rocket science. We also need to infiltrate the radical religious organizations and subvert them. Why do we have an FBI and a CIA etc if not to do this? That is their fucking job.
If everyone would just do their job as stated on the fucking side of the packaging... everything would be fine.
They don't love people that are different to them. They demonsterably don't like their own neighbors based on minor ideological differences. So that is not the objective of multiculturalism. The point is to break down the existing culture by flooding it with variant moral and ideological positions. Then once that has been broken down they presume to indoctrinate the new cultures into conforming to THEIR ideology which is a singularity.
That is the point. If they actually believed in tolerating other cultures then they'd tolerate their domestic political rivals based on the political and ideological differences there in... but they don't despite the differences being largely cultural. Its a scam.
People need to stop assuming people in politics have good or noble or honest intentions. They often do not. We do not assume this in business. We do not assume this in finance. We do not assume this in science. We do not assume this really anywhere but in politics. And of all the places where people would accept "just trust me" as an argument... I really can't think of a worse place to do that then in politics.
No. Do not just trust people when they say they are doing X for Y reasons. Verify it and place balancing automatic responses and defenses in place in the event that they were doing X for Z reason instead of Y. We do this in banking. We do this in law enforcement. We do this in business. We do it in science.
The "just trust me" argument is fallacious. I will not just trust anyone. And when they say they want multiculturalism for X reason... and X makes no sense... and X is contradicted by their other behavior... I'm going to assume that they want it for some other reason. Then I'm going to look at how tireless they are at pushing it. If they want it and want it bad then I'm going to assume its important... and not for X reasons. So why push it and want it that much when the stated reason for it is false?
And I don't have to look that hard. When this was initially being pushed in the 1970s the people doing it sold the idea to their political allies on the basis that they could gain political power by doing it. They could import voters to drowned out their political rivals. That is what Ted Kennedy said on the issue. Other quotes from other relevant players in this game from all over the western world of that time period can be cited to validate the argument.
The want MCism for crass political power. Period. Now the common rube on the street might not be that sophisticated. But since he's not worked out any of the details he's just a drone at this point. He doesn't even know why anything is happening or why anything is being cited as good or bad. He's a tool at best. So his opinion on the matter is a distraction. he'll believe what he's told to believe... demonstrably.
What is relevant is why is MCism being pushed in the first place. And as cited above... its not hard to figure out if you pay attention.
How are drug busts made? A DEA agent makes contacts... infiltrates... deep cover happens. You offer the person you want to throw in jail a deal. You offer them drugs for money or money for drugs. The Dread Pirate Roberts was busted on the Silk Road in part because the FBI/DEA offered to kill one of his associates for money by posing as an assassin.
The same can be applied if you want to check that legal box. Approach the man and look like a legitimate terrorist organization reaching out to him. Offer him the ability to participate in acts of terror. Convince him you are real. Then send him to a staged terror event that has been sanitized so that he can't actually do anything even though he thinks he can commit mass murder. Give him fake bombs... automatic weapons that don't work for some reason. Whatever. And film and record everything.
Its really not that hard, sport. We've been doing this for hundreds of years. Its not new. Local police to the FBI have been doing it since the old days and never stopped.
Now that is the boring stuff... obvious stuff... Lets get to a more interesting discussion...
Why can't YOU personally see this as an option even though it is obvious? You should be able. Why can't you?
Are you mentally blocked somehow or are you aware of the solutions and simply intentionally refuse to implement them?
Well, then possibly you'll want to do something about the terrorist attacks rather than going out of your way to make them as likely as possible. Screening people before they come into the US. Doing proper border security. Having the FBI ACTUALLY check up on reports of dangerous psychopaths in the United States.
I believe Lynch just said that the best weapon against terrorism is "Love"... if acts of terror are happening and your government says that the best solution will be for everyone to love each other... Then fear might be the appropriate response. Because the people in charge of protecting you... are idiots or worse.
Who benefits? I suppose you're going to say "but the government will get more powers to deal with this stuff thus helping the elites"... sure... and that's going to happen if the terrorism isn't controlled. Stop undermining security or people are going to freak out.