Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 12, 2016, 11:36:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Check out the latest RPG news!
377389 Posts in 15102 Topics by 2334 Members
Latest Member: Malekoth
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Re: Suikoden Topic on: September 22, 2011, 02:19:07 AM
I'm with Lard/Leyviur. I'd really rather them just drop the series if they're going to make more terrible like Tierkreis. It's essentially shallow re branding at this point.

As previously stated by others, The draw to Suikoden was that it emulated a historical perspective on a world that was developed further with each installment. The character count and castle building was an interesting facet as well, but I didn't see it as quite so integral to what defined the series as the fictional history and setting. I can't really think of any other series to accomplish this, and it's a shame that the brand name is all that's left with a few of the gameplay aspects(though even they are becoming diluted).

It's different but similar in a way to something like Breath of Fire, where the defining component was the Dragon based storyline. The shared world was nice and interesting but not quite as integral to the series definition as in Suikoden. If a new Breath of Fire came along and it was in a new world but retained the Dragon aspect, good. If it was Breath of Fire with a storyline featuring, I don't know, a main character who is a circus fire breather with no mention of Dragons, then it's just shallow brand manipulation.
2  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 03, 2010, 08:21:06 PM
Again, I’ll repeat the things you have said: you’ve told her she doesn’t understand, she’s illogical, delusional, irrational, hateful, and that her views are rubbish
None of this is disrespectful. She didn't understand, she has been illogical, irrational, and at least has some underying hate involved in her homophobial. This is not belittling to say or condescending. It is so if I said these things in a mean spirited way, yet I simply approached from an argumentative perspective.

It's quite ridiculous that you equate me considering her one view of homosexuality being rubbish as me considering her 'views' being rubbish. You've just turned a singular into a plural without cause.

You really love this word, huh?
You really love the fallacy huh? In addition to mischaracterizing what I'm saying.

I completely agree. However, if you challenge someone’s views by name calling, than you *are* being disrespectful. If you’re not sure how to refrain from doing this, please look at your fellow posters in this thread.
Except that I have not once called anyone a name in this thread. Nice try though.

Lucid, the nature of a belief, of faith, is that you hold it to be true. You can’t fault someone for that. Sure, you can disagree with their beliefs, but you can’t expect them not to believe fully what they believe. Again, if you want to try to persuade someone to change their views, telling them that what they believe is “sinister,” is not really going to do anything but harden beliefs and make you look just as bigoted as what you claim them to be, especially when what you're basically doing is calling billions of people's Holy books sinister.
No , it isn't like calling billions of peoples holy books sinister at all. You're really bad at this, I'm sorry. I've specified certain beliefs stated that have an underlying sinister nature to them. It's you who are attributing these to a greater whole which I have not involved.

And no, I can fault someone for considering their beliefs to be absolute fact over mine. I am open to my ideals and interpretations being wrong. These peope are not, and I find their willingness to shut out other beliefs as possibilities offensive. I've stated time and time again that I am open to the possibility that my ideas aren't the sole absolute correct ones. CastNuri has basically waved her hands in the air saying that no logic or rules of discourse apply to her, and yet she tries to have an argument within the context of those anyways. You can't have both. Either you start out by acknowledging you can't have a serious debate/argument about these things, or realize so. To her credit she eventually realized this, but for a while she just tried the old you can't dispute my beliefs because they're my beliefs stuff. Which is fine, but has no place in an argument.

Stay focused on the issue at hand and leave out the racism comparisons. To you, they may be related, but to people opposed to homosexual behavior, they are very different things. Trying to connect them, again, is counterproductive to your arguments.
No it isn't at all. You're basically saying comparisons involving minorities and their situations in the social structure of society can't be used. This is patently absurd.

Was that last bit really necessary? Again, this is dismissive and condescending. Do you really not see that?
You're the one accusing me of things I have not said, stated or implied. Stop projecting your own behaviour onto me.
3  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Facts About You! on: August 03, 2010, 03:16:03 PM
I think the beach is over-rated.  Gimme a tour of Europe instead of some sand and water
I think europe is over rated, give me a tour of the stans instead of middle class NA vacation spot.
4  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 03, 2010, 03:07:09 PM
The thinking here is wrong for a number of reasons (in no particular order):
1)   Ever hear the quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
2)   One can defend a part of someone’s belief system without agreeing with all of what that person says or does.
3)   I’ve mostly been taking issue with the belittling and condescending tone that Lucid has shown to CastNuri (Starmongoose and everyone else have been nothing but respectful, I might add). No one’s mind is changed by ridicule and name-calling. If you believed the above things, I would try to understand the context in which you formed the opinions and maybe try to argue with you from that context, but just dismissing your views and even you as a person will not bring about any sort of resolution or change.
I've not once ridiculed or name called. Nor have I belittled or condescended. Enough with your ad hominem already. Challenging someone's viewpoint is not disrespectful. I contend that it's CastNuri that has been disrespectful through her subtle homophobia, and contention that her beliefs are akin to fact. Sure, she dresses it up in niceties but the sentiment is rooted in the same sinister doctrine. She may not be as extreme as a fundamentalist but the beliefs she's expressed are no different than a polite anti mixed race believer who doesn't argue against their right to mix, but thinks it's wrong nonetheless.

Not one person has said she has no right to say what she wants or believe what she does. I've even mentioned on a few occasions that I support that notion. Perhaps if you'd actually read posts instead of skimming through so you can say what you've already decided you'd actually have something significant to contribute to the discussion.
5  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: RPGFan Community Photo Thread: 2007 Edition on: August 03, 2010, 02:47:02 PM
The instant Thoren puts on a red shirt, he's a goner.
6  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 01, 2010, 05:19:49 PM
No, it's delusional to present it as fact or an absolute truth when you can't. Which is pretty much what CastNuri holds to be the case.

Look CastNuri, if you can't actually have a serious debate about this that 's fine. It's just kind of ridiculous of you to present your perception as fact within reality. Yes, if you want to believe that definition is completely malleable and holds no true weight except that of your own, thats your issue I suppose. Just realize that you're supporting a questionable creation source with your own logic then.
7  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 01, 2010, 03:23:20 PM
Generally accepted by whom? I know you have this absolute and assured definition of reality (and me calling my view reality is just unacceptable!) so I'm not going to argue anymore. I'm just saying that believers find non-believers just as delusional as non-believers may find some believers-- you may object to the phrasing but not the fact, even if it makes absolutely no sense to you (after all, that's the whole point).
You're not arguing about reality though, you're speaking of perception, two similar yet wholly different concepts.

You're pretty much saying that you use your own perception based definition of things but at the same time attribute them to an objective reality and use the same actual definition. You can't have both here. If a believer finds a non believer delusional then they aren't using the actual definition of the concept. They are making up their own. You can't then go on to state or pretend that it's the same thing.
8  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 01, 2010, 02:23:26 PM
From your point of view, this is delusion. Just remember that from our point of view, your reality is a delusion. Even if it doesn't fall under your definition of delusion, it at least falls under ours.
What? no.

We're not talking about 'my reality'. I can cease to exist and reality will function as it always does. We could remove all sentient consciousness and reality would still flow nonetheless. A definition of something like delusion is grounded in our collective consciousness which exists within this reality. I mean, you're basically saying definition is meaningless, and can be altered at whim. You can do that on an individual level, which would force you to ignore the reality you exist in with everyone else. Which would be delusional.

It's like saying you don't think a cat is a mammal, it's a reptile. You can't continue to argue that this is just 'your reality'. A definition has a set of rules prescribed to collective reality under the umbrella of an objective nature. Only our perceptions of reality can truly be altered, and that's why we add definition to our world. When you believe in something as you do, you're altering your perceptions, not reality. When you believe your perception is paramount over the collective reality, that's the point which you're ignoring that reality in favor of your perception. That's what belief in supernatural is basically, collective individual altering of perceptions of reality. You haven't actually created another reality through this though as you'd have to interject your perceptions through some objective means into collective reality.

I can percieve reality different from you, but I can't have a different reality than you.

I mean, if we take what you're saying to be actual, you're  basically arguing in favor of other possibilities of creation. If I exist in a reality outside of yours and I believe say, my cat is is the creator of the universe then by your own logic god cannot be the one and only creator as there exists a multiverse of realities. Created by whatever the people who exist in each reality believe in.
9  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 01, 2010, 01:27:19 PM
I just wanted to say that people can have my sentiment without being irrational... which I realize now is probably not something I can convince people because it's a matter of opinion.
Not really, rationalism does have rule that follows logic. It's not really an abstract bendy concept. You can ignore that for sure, but you can't claim whichever viewpoint follows a rational path.

I meant they don't understand it the way many believers do: that they comprehended my views with a different set of rules. This topic has taught me that I shouldn't really expect people to understand it that way anyhow.
If your views exist outside of reality and don't even have an absolute tie between communities beliefs or rules(not all muslims, christians, etc, think alike) then isn't that more akin to delusion by its very definition?
10  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 01, 2010, 04:50:43 AM
I'm not sure who you mean by most people, can you elaborate?
11  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: August 01, 2010, 04:39:35 AM
There's a difference between lacking detailed knowledge of a religion and understanding the conceptual basis for the ideals it carries. Most monotheistic religions in particular have quite similar structure, but varying stories and rules.
12  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: July 31, 2010, 08:38:52 PM
Most trouble states react to pressure, especially western, by giving them the finger. Like in the recent case in Iran with the woman sentenced to death for adultery. There's a petition against that but all it'll probably do is ignite further anti western sentiment or at the very least provoke the Iranian officials to go for the old don't interfere with us, you western outsiders line. I'd imagine something similar could happen in this case. Not that it's not good to make the effort, but it can be difficult to get these countries that cling to ridiculous ideals to look past them.
13  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: July 31, 2010, 02:51:12 PM
You’re right, I do feel that you have been disrespectful to her. Your whole tone has been pretty condescending since the beginning-- repeatedly talking down to her, telling her she doesn’t understand, she’s illogical, delusional, irrational, hateful, and that her views are rubbish.
I have not once stated that her views are rubbish. I have said that the view that homosexuality is wrong is rubbish. Thanks for mischaracterizing what I'm saying yet again. She is being hateful about homosexuality in my opinion, I don't believe I've purported it as anything else. She hasn't been rational or logical either in many instances. It's not disrespectful to point these things out in an argument. If I criticized her harshly for these things, then you may have a leg to stand on in what you're saying, but as it is you don't since I haven't done so. She has every right to hold these views and is the one who has to deal with them for the most part. This doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge or argue views like this however. I have not once 'attacked' her or her views, so get off it.

You basically have nothing to actually argue here, and are instead attempting to place a negative connatation on the tone of my argument which doesn't exist.

That's definitely not all his post was about. Maybe you should reread it.
The only other thing adressed in his post was more lack of understanding of the nature of rhetorical logic and definition.

This is what she’s been saying the whole time!  The mystery is in the how.  
Right, and I've never spoke against that. I've simply stated that I can't believe in what she does because it removes mystery from the universe for me. I didn't say all mystery. It removes a large part of mystery though and this is what isn't arguable. CastNuri even admits this herself. The mystery of what created us isn't there for her.

Oh, and thanks Lucid. Hostile and close-minded... yep, not disrespectful at all.
Calling homosexuality undeniably wrong is quite hostile and close minded in my opinion, it doesn't matter how you say it. It's not disrespectful at all to state this.
14  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Re: most unappreciated RPGs? on: July 31, 2010, 12:25:10 PM
Goddammit golden sun was awful. It was a handheld port of Beyond the Beyond with some goofy puzzles and a GF system added on. That is all >:C
Thank you.
15  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Maybe it's the weed - but I find this horribly amusing... on: July 31, 2010, 12:02:19 PM
Ok, so you're willing to admit that this is your opinion? That you are not trying to pass this off as fact?
My opinion lies in the belief of existence of an entity such as god. However, it is rhetorical fact that an absolute cannot be passed in accordance to the definition of the word. If the absolute in this case is the origin of creation, then other concepts of origin cannot be considered and thus not passed. If they cannot be so, then according to its definition. mystery cannot be held about the concept of origin and creation. Let me state it again, if you still haven't understood. This is rhetorical fact. You can't have an opinion on the definition of these words. Yes, mystery can still be held under the umbrella of creation, but not about the creator itself.

And no, his post was pretty senseless/pointless. All that can be gleamed from his post was that some people think differently than others. Which really adds nothing to the argument.

Seriously, it just seems like you have a problem with my argument coming across as a little ascerbic. Which really isn't the case. It's an argument. I don't feel I need to state my respect for the other persons opinion constantly. Since I haven't said anything disrespectful then I think it's best to assume I do respect the other persons argument. I'm just countering what I believe to be fallacies in logic and language. You're projecting some kind of hostility and closemindedness on me that isn't there. As said, CastNuri is the only one so far to possess any such qualities.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!