Wait....Didn't this entire flick ooze bad acting? Why'd they have to whittle it to a couple scenes? I do seem to recall some Texas child that had his debut in this one though, can't be all bad-As I recall he seldom opened his mouth and stole what little of the show there was to redeem...

Will they be trained in bad acting as well?

Why can't any of these fake-homemade viral ads ever look like they're really candid? The surprise was spoiled for me before the bear ever showed up just because of how it was shot and the bad acting.

Finally someone states it outright, I usually think yahtzee exaggerates his criticisms for effect, but he's spot on here: Borderlands was the most boring game ever. I cant for the life of me understand why anyone would like it even a little. Bad acting, terrible "humor", and every billionth gun more boring and generic than the previous billion boring generic guns. And that's not even mentioning the horrible "collecting garbage" system to build stuff. I'd really rather take a real-life job as a garbage collector. At least then it wouldn't be virtual garbage.

For obvious reasons, I haven't picked up BL2, and don't intend to.

@shinyblurry


We seem to be getting into a lot of repetition in this thread, so rather than going line by line, I'm going to attempt my points and reactions to yours with fewer quotes, hopefully hitting the important themes. I don't want to minimize anything you've said, so if I skip anything you feel is a separate issue and is cogent, feel free to draw my attention back to it specifically, but check first and see if you can't answer that same point with something I've already said in here.

Before any quotes, I'll give my own overarching point: Life without a higher purpose may be ultimately meaningless (I'll get more into what sense I mean), and that makes life more difficult than if there were ultimate meaning, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the existence of Yahweh. You cannot derive Yahweh's existence (or any deity or pantheon) from your claim that life is easier that way. [Edit: Turns out I never actually get to that conclusion in my comments below, so you might as well address it here, but after you've read the rest.]

My overarching point is to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance inherent in your position ... if this world is not under the sovereign control of God, it is doomed to destruction ... You live as a Christian does, judging what is good and evil … these are just chemical reactions in your brain … why be a slave to chemicals?… you have no rational justification for … saying your sense of right and wrong is any better than the psychopath, or that yours should be preferred.

There's no cognitive dissonance in my mind –at least, not about doing the right thing. I acknowledge a life without God has no ultimate purpose, and that in the grand scheme of things, the Earth is going to be swallowed by the Sun in a few billion years and nearly all traces of humanity will disappear with it, and at that time, nothing anybody has ever done will matter because there will be nobody left for whom it can matter. With that in mind, it does seem odd that despite realizing this, I would still care about doing the right thing.

But the fact is that somehow, in the context of my own little 80-year microblip in the lifespan of our planet, I do care. I just do. I have nothing more than a pet theory about why I care. I care, and I care a lot. I suppose I'm somewhat curious as to why I care, but it's not of primary importance for me to know. I just do, and it's pleasing to notice that just about everyone else around me does too. The only question for me is how to follow this desire of mine to be good given my circumstances.

And why should I reject being a slave to chemicals? The chemicals MAKE ME FEEL GOOD, remember? Should I purposefully do things that make me feel bad? Why on Earth would I even consider it? Ridiculous.

I reject the description that I live my life "as a Christian does", as if Christians invented or have some original claim being good. All humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof, believe in the value of humans (or, any societies that don't value humans go extinct very quickly). We all generally shun murder and violence, foster mutual care, enjoy one another's company, feel protective, have a soft spot for babies and so forth, and have been doing all of this as a species since before Christianity began.

So I would turn it around and say instead that it's Christians who go about their lives living like normal humans, but thinking they're being good because their religion tells them to.

I can claim that I have a stronger sense of what's right and wrong than the psychopath simply because they are defined as lacking that sense (or, perhaps non-psychopaths are defined as people having that sense). And you're right that I do not claim that my way of determining which actions are appropriate is inherently superior to the psychopath's. As it happens, my way of determining morality puts me among the overwhelming majority, and so it's relatively easy for me to mitigate the negative impacts of people like that by identifying and avoiding them. I don't say that my way should be preferred to the pshychopath's; I just notice that it is, and I'm grateful for that, and for the fact that psychopathy is not a choice.

You're drowning in a sea of relativism, where a justifies b and b justifies c and c justifies d, and this goes into an infinite regress.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example of a justification to infinite regression that would cause some kind of problem unique to non-thesitic morality?

People worship because they're made to worship … 1 Romans says that God has made Himself evident to people in the things He has made. So, rather than people worshiping because they wanted to avoid meaninglessness, they worship because it the most natural thing for them to do which matches their experience.

I don't accept that it's any more natural to worship Yahweh than some other deity or pantheon or idol, and I can't imagine how you could justify such a position without referring to dogma. Ask a Muslim. He'll tell you with the same conviction that Allah is the natural way and show you his own dogma. 100 years ago, a Japanese would have told you it was natural to worship the Emperor, and today he'd say it's natural to worship ancestors. My point is that any worship will satisfy our natural urge to worship, which is why almost all people worship something, and the object of worship you're brought up around is the one you're most likely to be comfortable with worshipping, naturally.

People don't naturally conclude life is meaningless; they know from their experience that it is very meaningful. They are taught it is meaningless through philosophy and the ennui that comes from modern life. You will never find a population of natural atheists anywhere on the planet.

The problem —and one that I fell into myself— is the conflation of two senses of the word "meaningless". For example, I can say without conflict that the planet and humanity is doomed and so forth, so our actions are ultimately meaningless, AND that interacting with people gives meaning to my life. Now, in the first sense, I mean there's no teleological purpose to my life. In the second sense, I mean certain people and things in my life give fulfillment/bliss. If by "natural atheist" you mean people who have no supernatural practices including ancestor worship or anything, then yes, you're right, I don't believe such a society exists. To me, this points to the universal human tendency to worship something—anything, and to feel better about life when we do so. Slaves to chemical reactions in their brains, as far as I'm concerned.

I can speak on depression because I used to be depressed. I know what it is like, and having come out of it, I am qualified to speak on what I can clearly see as being the number one issue; hopelessness.

Your anecdotal evidence about depression doesn't make you an authority on *the single cause* of depression. Some depressives follow your pattern, and others don't. I don't. When I'm depressed, my feeling isn't hopelessness. In fact, these days, I'm feeling rather hopeless, but I'm not depressed.

If someone feels it right to hurt and steal from you, who are you to tell them that they ought not to do that?

I would never say that someone "ought not to do" anything on objective moral grounds. If I ever said something like that (I wouldn't use the words "ought" or "should"), it would be on the understanding that this person either knows the local laws and is violating them, or more likely shares a moral foundation with me, is acting against it. Either way, that person, upon consideration, would probably prefer not to be doing that mean thing, and is only doing it to satisfy some other need of theirs that they consider higher than their need to do the right thing by me. (This isn't to justify the bad act, but to show you how I think about bad acts and the people who do them. In other words, I don't believe people get encouraged by Satan or anything to do bad things.)

[me:]There’s nobody who’s going to judge my soul when I’m dead, so in that sense, once I’m dead, it won’t matter to me in the least what I do now once I’m dead because I’ll be dead.

[you:]You say this with certainly but I think you have to recognize that this is your hope. I wonder where this hope comes from? Since you've never been dead before to see what happens, what makes you so sure about it? Could this information about life after death exist in the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of things that you don't know?

It's not my hope. I believe that dead is dead. Much simpler than your belief. Much more likely too. You're implying that I'm following some faulty reasoning about the afterlife. Among the things I don't know are an *infinite number of possibilities* of what could happen in the afterlife, one of which is your bible story. My best guess is nothing. Since nobody's ever come back from the dead to talk about it (Did nobody interview Lazarus? What a great opportunity missed!), nobody knows, so there's no reason to speculate about it ever. Your book says whatever it says, and I don't care because to me it's fairy tales. I'd have to be an idiot to live my life differently because of a book I didn't first believe in. Just like you'd be an idiot to live like a non-believer if you believe so much in Yahweh.

I would also ask how you think the brain understands the complex moral scenarios we find ourselves in and rewards or doesn't reward accordingly? Doesn't that seem fairly implausible to you?

It's quite plausible. I'm no biologist, but I'm sure there's a branch of evolutionary biology that deals with social feelings. My own pet theory is that these feelings are comparable to the ones that control the behaviour of all communal forms of life, like ants and zebras and red-winged blackbirds. It's evolution, either way, IMO.

What makes someone a bad person?

In the absolute sense, religious faith, only, can bring that kind of judgement as a meaningful label.

In the relative sense where I would colloquially refer to someone as "a bad person" (my prime minister, Stephen Harper is an example), I mean someone who has shown they are sufficiently disruptive to other people's happiness due to acting too much in their own self-interest that they're best removed from influence and then avoided. But I would only use that term as a shorthand among people who knew that I don't moralize absolutely.

Do you think this could have something to do with the fact that the bible says you should do things you don't want to do, or that you should stop doing things you don't want to stop doing?

An interesting question, but no. I don't believe it because everything I see points all religion being a human invention.

Your atheism leaves you in the position of not being able to tell me that something like child rape is absolutely wrong. In your world, there is no such thing, and if everyone thought it was right, it would be.

Your hypothetical is an appeal to the ridiculous. It simply is a fact that just about everyone —including child rapists, I'm guessing— believes that child rape is wrong for the simple reason that it severely hurts children. If it increases a person's suffering, then it's wrong. I can think of nothing simpler. Your hypothetical is like one where a passage in the bible prescribed child rape. Would it be OK then? Does the bible that say that rape is wrong? Does it say you cannot marry a child?

[me:]Yahweh’s morality is nowhere near as simple as a secular morality. Where in those two commandments of Jesus does it say that using condoms or allowing same-sex couples to marry is wrong? In fact, saving lives, preventing unwanted pregnancies and allowing all loving couples to get married are ways to love your neighbour, and they’re exactly what I would want my neighbour to do or advocate for on my behalf.

[you:]God wrote His commandments on our hearts, which is the reason your feelings tell you what is right and wrong.

And elsewhere…

[me:]First, you’re talking in circles. If Harris’ model of morality is arbitrary, then so is Jesus’ model of “do unto others…” because they amount to pretty much the same thing, and what one person wants his neighbours to do may not be the same as someone else’s, etc. At some level, we’re going to have to determine for ourselves what’s right and what’s not.

[you:]We have the freedom to obey or disobey God. The one thing God will never do is make you obey Him. In that sense, you have to determine whether you will do what is good or evil.

In both cases, you didn't address my point. 1) I'm stating that Yahweh's laws are far, far more complex than secular morality. You countered that Yahweh's laws were as simple as Jesus' two rules. I showed that was wrong with my AIDS in Africa example (condoms saving lives). You can address that, or you can agree that Yahweh's laws are more complex that Harris' model of secular morality. 2) I also pointed out that Jesus gave us a moral model that requires the individual to determine for themselves based on fixed criteria what's good and what's not. "… as you would have your neighbour do unto you…" implicitly requires the individual to compare their actions with what they themselves would want someone else to do to them. That means relying on their own understanding. This contradicts your other statements that we shouldn't rely on our own understanding. You see? To follow Jesus' second law, you must rely on your own understanding.

[me:]Third, do you picture a world where everyone suddenly agrees that torturing babies is OK? Do you really believe that without religion people have absolutely no internal direction whatsoever, and will accept torturing of babies as acceptable? I don’t. So, no, Harris’ moral system does not allow for the possibility of torturing babies.

[you:]This is really an argument from incredulity. I'm sure no one pictured an entire society could be convinced that killing millions of jews is a good thing, but it happened.

So your answer is yes? You think that without religion, society may decide torturing babies is good because it decided that killing Jews was good?

It's a bad comparison anyway. Genocide happens all the time, even in religious societies (by the 1939 census, 94% of Germans were Christian, FWIW). You can't compare this with an entire society suddenly deciding that torturing children is morally correct. If I ever heard of such a baby-torturing society existed, I'd immediately assume it was in accordance with their religious belief, rather than just what they all decided was OK, wouldn't you?

[me:]If you think I’m being ridiculous, what do you think is more likely: that a society somewhere will suddenly realize that they feel just fine about torturing babies, or that a society somewhere will get the idea that it’s their god’s will that they torture babies? Human instinct is much more consistent than the will of any gods ever recorded.

[you:]What about all of Pagan societies throughout the ages that sacrificed their children to demons?

You're making my point for me. Paganism is religion. Non-believers would never justify a habit of killing their own children.

The fact is, in a meaningless Universe you simply can't prove anything without God. You actually have no basis for logic, rationality, morality, uniformity in nature, but you live as if you do. If I ask you how you know your reasoning is valid, you will reply "by using my reasoning".

You're slipping back into solipsism. We agreed not to go there. I'm not going to answer any of those things.

I've seen some bad acting and sets in porn and thought "Wow, it can't get worse than this..."


I was wrong.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-fr
ancisco/nKjWD/
http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU
Not that I expect you to concede the matter, but to imply that no gay person EVER in the history of humanity has attacked a Christian because of what they believe is pure sophistry. There are bad actors on both sides of the issue, and since Christians are the big-dog in the US of course there is a lot more bad acting on thier side. I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it. If the real message is true tolerance - which it SHOULD be - then both sides need to clamp down on thier offenders. Yeah - Christians need to repent and start acting more Christlike too. You can disagree with the gay lifestyle and not have to persecute it.


Ok, I will concede that you have "something approaching a point". I don't condone violence of that type.
And while two wrongs don't make a right, frankly, I can understand where they're coming from.

And just for the record... Even the NSPA and JEA (the hosts of the speech) condemn Savage and pretty much call what he did bullying...

http://studentpressblogs.org/nspa/?p=363

"In his attempt to denounce bullying, Mr. Savage belittled the faith of others – an action that we do not support. Ridicule of others’ faith has no place in our programs, any more than ridicule of the LGBT community would."

They get a round of applause for an ACTUAL apology, as opposed to the load of bull Savage puked up trying to 'nuance' his way out of an apology.

won't even begin to try to explain to you how ironic it is

Perhaps - then you see the point. You took the bait. You see - how is is possible for MY generalized comments about liberals to be hypocritical and ironic, but Savage's comments are 'nuanced'? You can't have it both ways. Just admit it. Savage was a hypocritical, bullying jerk who stuck his foot in his mouth and showed the world he's a bigot. He should just apologize for it. A REAL apology - not the stupid "sorry you don't really understand me..." crap he spit out.

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-francisco/nKjWD/
http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU

Not that I expect you to concede the matter, but to imply that no gay person EVER in the history of humanity has attacked a Christian because of what they believe is pure sophistry. There are bad actors on both sides of the issue, and since Christians are the big-dog in the US of course there is a lot more bad acting on thier side. I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it. If the real message is true tolerance - which it SHOULD be - then both sides need to clamp down on thier offenders. Yeah - Christians need to repent and start acting more Christlike too. You can disagree with the gay lifestyle and not have to persecute it.

YAY! Three of my favorite things ... comedy, horror and bad acting. It's been a treasure trove of viewing this evening =oD

Maybe he's a construct as well. Just because we hear keystrokes and a bit of surprise in his voice doesn't mean he's human.
>> ^Ghostly:

It's fine, he's not paid to think either, perfectly realistic
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
>> ^mxxcon:
as a tech demo, it's shit.
as an emotional story, it's pretty good.

Funny, i was thinking the exact opposite. As a tech demo it's showcasing some very impressive facial animation. As a short story, it was poor. Cliched, convenient and rushed.
"You're defective, I have no choice but to disassemble you."
"Pretty please with sugar on top?"
"Oh, alright."
His reaction to her being sentient is as if this sort of thing happens a lot, not "Oh my god, how is this possible? Maybe we should study this" astonishment. If it does happen a lot, why let her free this one time? We don't get any feeling from him as this being the straw that broke the camel's back (could just be bad acting/direction on the male character's part). It's just "Oh, you're sentient. Ok, just this once I'll let it slide... Wow, what a weird occurrence. Ooo, it's lunch time!"

It's fine, he's not paid to think either, perfectly realistic
>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^mxxcon:
as a tech demo, it's shit.
as an emotional story, it's pretty good.

Funny, i was thinking the exact opposite. As a tech demo it's showcasing some very impressive facial animation. As a short story, it was poor. Cliched, convenient and rushed.
"You're defective, I have no choice but to disassemble you."
"Pretty please with sugar on top?"
"Oh, alright."
His reaction to her being sentient is as if this sort of thing happens a lot, not "Oh my god, how is this possible? Maybe we should study this" astonishment. If it does happen a lot, why let her free this one time? We don't get any feeling from him as this being the straw that broke the camel's back (could just be bad acting/direction on the male character's part). It's just "Oh, you're sentient. Ok, just this once I'll let it slide... Wow, what a weird occurrence. Ooo, it's lunch time!"

>> ^mxxcon:

as a tech demo, it's shit.
as an emotional story, it's pretty good.


Funny, i was thinking the exact opposite. As a tech demo it's showcasing some very impressive facial animation. As a short story, it was poor. Cliched, convenient and rushed.

"You're defective, I have no choice but to disassemble you."
"Pretty please with sugar on top?"
"Oh, alright."

His reaction to her being sentient is as if this sort of thing happens a lot, not "Oh my god, how is this possible? Maybe we should study this" astonishment. If it does happen a lot, why let her free this one time? We don't get any feeling from him as this being the straw that broke the camel's back (could just be bad acting/direction on the male character's part). It's just "Oh, you're sentient. Ok, just this once I'll let it slide... Wow, what a weird occurrence. Ooo, it's lunch time!"

>> ^joedirt:

Am I the only one who saw that as clearly bad acting? Like someone play acting drunk and doing a poor job?
I invite you to look at the BAC tables:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
At over 0.30 this dude should have been unconscious or having trouble standing, and his motor skills seemed fine. Now, some hardcore alcoholics are able to have higher BAC with less lethal effects from decades of drinking, but I'm pretty sure this was just a gimmick to portray Ron Paul supporters as drunks.
Watch him walk at the end, and his ability to lean back with arms cuffed behind his back. There is no way he was 0.3 BAC.


Alcoholics can often exceed what would be considered normal standards, often by large amounts.

>> ^joedirt:

Am I the only one who saw that as clearly bad acting? Like someone play acting drunk and doing a poor job?
I invite you to look at the BAC tables:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
At over 0.30 this dude should have been unconscious or having trouble standing, and his motor skills seemed fine. Now, some hardcore alcoholics are able to have higher BAC with less lethal effects from decades of drinking, but I'm pretty sure this was just a gimmick to portray Ron Paul supporters as drunks.
Watch him walk at the end, and his ability to lean back with arms cuffed behind his back. There is no way he was 0.3 BAC.


Good call, I thought something seemed a bit off with his behavior in general for a drunk. His use of sarcasm directly towards the camera just before he gets in the car is a pretty clear sign of lucidity.

Agree, he's acting.

>> ^joedirt:

Am I the only one who saw that as clearly bad acting? Like someone play acting drunk and doing a poor job?
I invite you to look at the BAC tables:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
At over 0.30 this dude should have been unconscious or having trouble standing, and his motor skills seemed fine. Now, some hardcore alcoholics are able to have higher BAC with less lethal effects from decades of drinking, but I'm pretty sure this was just a gimmick to portray Ron Paul supporters as drunks.
Watch him walk at the end, and his ability to lean back with arms cuffed behind his back. There is no way he was 0.3 BAC.