This is why I'm NOT seeing the movie. I love sci-fi and I'm ok with a bit of non-realism but I could tell from the trailer it was going to pass my "stupid" threshold by a lot...

Amazing work, and well done, but please don't lose sight of the fact that it's not realism that makes video games fun.

shinyblurry: If the wonderful Creator of this Universe, the one who gave you life, who knows your entire life from start to finish, your most intimate thoughts and deeds, better than you do in fact, came to your door, you think you would have the superficial reaction that you have described? You think, with all you have done in life laid bare before Him, you would engage in some cynical dialogue with Him? If you're going to engage in a hypothetical then how about some realism? It's also irrational to say you wouldn't serve God if He revealed Himself to you.

Me: Think on this. If a god made me, then any response I make would be the expected response. Going out of my way to reflect a response that is contradictory to my character would in turn be a slap in the face. I will reply in character. I cannot foresee any reason why I wouldn't respond as I've described. Who are you to tell me how I would act. It is NOT irrational to say I wouldn't "Serve" a god that reviled it self to me. It is not in my chemical makeup to be controlled by any such hierarchy. I will not bow to any deity for any reason. That is my chemical makeup.


shinyblurry: You say, you have no idea why anyone would want to worship God, yet you have seen the glory of the Heavens He has created; if some being did create them, did in fact design this entire Universe, He certainly would be worthy of praise.

Me: Why? Because you said?
I expect if there was a God and he created this thing we call existence, I doubt it was a big deal to create it. It's not like much time was put into it. It has so many flaws. It is the most un-perfect thing ever created so it wouldn't garner any praise at all. In fact, I imagine that our existence is much like a drawing from kindergarten that hangs on the fridge compared to what perfection could possibly be. So no, no praise at all.

shinyblurry: Praise is something that comes natural to human beings, and we give it all the time for even trivial things.

Me: Um, no it's not!

shinyblurry: We are all built to worship, and it comes out in a myriad of ways if not directed towards our Creator.

Me: Um, no we're not!

shinyblurry: People worship money, power, celebrity, drugs, technology, themselves, etc.

Me: I don't worship ANYTHING, I don't think you truly know what worship means. To give stock in something isn't worship. It's a means to an end. tools of our existence, and fruits of our labors.
If I like something, it isn't "worship" to engage in it. It's a learned experience given to us through a continued release of dopamine to the pleasure center of our brain. It's a chemical response. It is EXACTLY what we are supposed to be feeling according to the makeup of our own personal existence.

shinyblurry: God has no *need* of our worship. He has ordained it not just because He deserves it, but because worship is a natural expression of the joy, love, and gratitude we feel towards God, for the great things He has done and continues to do in our lives.


Me: What? That doesn't even make any sense. Do you listen to yourself?
"He doesn't need it, therefor he ordains it because he feels he deserves it."
That is one big contradiction.

If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love. If the wonderful Creator of this Universe, the one who gave you life, who knows your entire life from start to finish, your most intimate thoughts and deeds, better than you do in fact, came to your door, you think you would have the superficial reaction that you have described? You think, with all you have done in life laid bare before Him, you would engage in some cynical dialogue with Him? If you're going to engage in a hypothetical then how about some realism? It's also irrational to say you wouldn't serve God if He revealed Himself to you.

What God wants for you is to repent of your sins, which means turn away from them, and believe in His Son. Through that comes love and forgiveness, as well as eternal life. God loves you anyway, but He wants you to know Him personally. You say, you have no idea why anyone would want to worship God, yet you have seen the glory of the Heavens He has created; if some being did create them, did in fact design this entire Universe, He certainly would be worthy of praise. Praise is something that comes natural to human beings, and we give it all the time for even trivial things. Why you wouldn't be grateful for what God has done and does do for you each and every day is the mystery. We are all built to worship, and it comes out in a myriad of ways if not directed towards our Creator. People worship money, power, celebrity, drugs, technology, themselves, etc. You have alters in your life that you make sacrifices to. What God wants is to adopt you into His family, as a son. God has a plentitude of being. God has no *need* of our worship. He has ordained it not just because He deserves it, but because worship is a natural expression of the joy, love, and gratitude we feel towards God, for the great things He has done and continues to do in our lives.

>> ^Sagemind:

Absolutely not, why would a person do that?
First off, He isn't real so your question makes no sense to a sane person.
Second, If some entity showed up on our doorstep and fulfilled the definition of perfect, I'd congratulate him on his/her perfectness. (what a sad life that would be).Then I would berate said person for bragging and rubbing it in everyone's face. Then I would continue on with my life.
Why would I change who I am or give anything of myself to he who may already have it all (as is claimed).
I will forever wonder at the concept of worship. Why some people need to lay themselves at someone else's feet like undeserving dogs is beyond me.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let me ask you this question. If God is undeniably perfect as I claim, would you repent from your sins and turn your life over to Him?

>> ^ant:

Why would you still want to hear the phone line after the successful connection?

I assume the creator thought it would annoy people to wait through 30 seconds of modem noises before anything happened, but that detracts from the realism I would've appreciated.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Any martial training lacking combat realism is useless OR a sport. Krav Maga teaches to never stop fighting and use any weapon. It initiates the adrenalin dump, and gets people used to being hit, even wearing protective gear.
I respect Master's dedication but the rest us won't spend decades and thousands learning how to imitate a drunken animal for a fight with an excellent chance of never taking place.
I submit: not even a martial arts "expert" can subdue more than 3 attackers at a time unless he has some kind of weapon. A guy with zero training hopped up on adrenalin and wielding a knife has an excellent to even chance of killing or severely wounding Master Squirrel.

Much as it pains me to admit it, QM is at least partially right. A very good martial artist can take down two people at once. More than that and there are just too many variables.

And yes, give some idiot a knife and the situation gets serious. It's possible to disarm them, but it's not easy and there's a very good chance of getting hurt in the process. If you come against someone who knows how to use a knife, run like hell.

That said, self defence is not the only reason to study martial arts. I have neither the desire nor the expectation of ever getting into a fight again, but it won't stop me training.

Any martial training lacking combat realism is useless OR a sport. Krav Maga teaches to never stop fighting and use any weapon. It initiates the adrenalin dump, and gets people used to being hit, even wearing protective gear.

I respect Master's dedication but the rest us won't spend decades and thousands learning how to imitate a drunken animal for a fight with an excellent chance of never taking place.

I submit: not even a martial arts "expert" can subdue more than 3 attackers at a time unless he has some kind of weapon. A guy with zero training hopped up on adrenalin and wielding a knife has an excellent to even chance of killing or severely wounding Master Squirrel.


>> ^vaire2ube:

And any fighting style where you're not actually hurting the opponent is worth ?? Its all just show. The comment above about the people who know being dead? Yea.
If these maneuvers were completed, pain or death would be inflicted. This is perfection not brute strength.
Ask Bruce Lee sometime if he can hurt you

Very creative idea, as an animator maybe I'll steal it. But I wasn't 100% impressed with the attempted realism, too many edits that took away from focusing on the details.

LOL Oh god, the realism theme killed me LOL

LOVE IT!



Also, and this is nitpicky, but couldn't the sound-guys have just plugged in the microphones and kept the mics on the tables silent for a little more "realism"? I KNOW IT'S NITPICKY BUT COME ON!

Anti-realism is not a term that is conventionally applied to language. You were employing a metaphor. That's fine; that's how all language works. There would be no words, and no dictionary to look them up in, if we didn't use metaphor.

This belief that a word can have only one narrow and arbitrary meaning, which its enforcers have memorised and to which they will allow no opposition, is dangerous and stifling to discourse. It's particularly bizarre in the context of this discussion since I'm sure, if we could be bothered to check, we would find many examples in dictionaries and other scholarly instruments of the term 'fascist' applied much more loosely than I've proposed here. It's often used, legitimately, as a simple synonym for 'bully'.

You'll notice that far from insisting on my own, I allow your meaning, and Webster's and mine all together. I only say that mine is better, being a pruned and perfected incarnation of its relatives. If we didn't prefer our own ideas to those of others there would be no point to independent thought at all.

I think you ought to read my posts more carefully and assume, for the sake of scientific inquiry, that I might be as smart as you are.>> ^Kofi:

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.
I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.
Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.

yahtzee is becoming an ever increasing twat. So MW3 and BF3 are THE worst games of 2011?? REALLY? What exactly is so bad about them? That they are sequels? That they make tons of money and are not "original"? They also have great sound design, great graphics (at least BF3), solid single player campaigns (although BF3 still trails behind) and great multiplayer gameplay (even though, contrary to what most people believe, they are two very different types of game. One is twitchy, fast and completely unrealistic, the other focuses more on cooperation, realism, and overall giant maps).

I understand perfectly why he may dislike both MW3 and BF3, but disliking something doesn't automatically make it the worst of something.

By Yathzee's unbelievably moronic standards, both MW3 and BF3 are incomparably worse than Call of Juarez. Which, by the way he somehow forgot out of the list of the worst games. Think about that nugget for a second. Not to mention MANY other shitty games (and shitty by all standards. Bad graphics, bad gameplay, bad sound, buggy, etc).

Sounds like you are in love.

In reply to this comment by vaire2ube:
We don't. But here is what one can do about it:

"Adopt a view -- model-dependent realism -- the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."

In conclusion, Vote Ron Paul or something.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How do we know that the reality we perceive is true?

http://videosift.com/video/TYT-
Have-Republicans-stopped-pretending-theyre-not-racist?loadcomm=1#comment-1376479

We don't. But here is what one can do about it:

"Adopt a view -- model-dependent realism -- the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."

In conclusion, Vote Ron Paul or something.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How do we know that the reality we perceive is true?

http://videosift.com/video/TYT-
Have-Republicans-stopped-pretending-theyre-not-racist?loadcomm=1#comment-1376479