Post Praetorian

darth_ender said: 

It does often seem this is the only cause worth fighting for.  I see it at almost every turn.  Nearly every atheist with whom I get into a conversation of any depth inevitably turns to criticism of religion as his or her base, rather than other points.  I believe if I were atheist, I would simply tout why I believe what I believe, pointing out the truths of evolution, psychology, geology, astronomy, and such things that one might use to strengthen the atheist position.  Now I probably would do this because of years from the other side, seeing a unique perspective and dwelling on this topic more than most.  I actually am an author (of incomplete and unpublished works, mind you).  The topics on which I dwell nearly always gravitate towards the differences between the minds of faith and doubt, and as a result, I have internally explored these topics to great depth in recent years.  As such, I believe I have arrived at conclusions sympathetic to both sides, and a desire to seek common ground rather than animosity.  One can proclaim his or her beliefs without putting down others.  That is what I believe a good atheist should do as well.

 Certainly these may be fair points...but consider that seemingly nothing in science, humanities, reason, or emotion may support a proof of atheism. Rather, such may merely be used to illuminate flaws in religion (as well as in atheism, some might fairly state).

For while the discovery of a geological record might assist in the disproving of a 6000 year-old young-earth theology, how might same support a direct claim to a world without a creator? 

Further, even given that atheism might be properly considered to be a potential default position of having no belief, how might holding such a title be particularly noteworthy in and of itself? For if none might believe in the reality of Middle Earth would any likely make such a boast with pride?

Finally, is it not debatable that the spread of atheism, even were it truly to describe the only accurate position possible, could be supported by simply referring to its track record? For might not each purported atheistic boon be met with an equal (or superior) point in favor of religion (as well as a counterclaim against)? 

It might, therefor, be more appropriate to consider atheistic rantings more to serve as a means of questioning belief-without-reason rather than a reason to hold no belief. For atheism, in its proper sense, is merely what one achieves after dismissing all religions (hopefully after fair scrutiny)...much as one might achieve starvation after rejecting all foods... 

generalfrevious said:

Post Praetorian said:

generalfrevious said:

Sometimes my life is pure hell. Why do I have such a sociopathic individual for a father? It's his conservatism, his belief that government is always bad people should be personally responsible for their actions and not live on welfare, his belief that climate change is a hoax, his religious extremism, his fucking Amway business (seriously one of the worst things to happen to me is when he joined that goddamn pyramid scheme), the fact that my mother blindly agrees with nearly everything he says, the fact that I make so fucking little at work and everyone is over 50 and I can't make friends, that the rest of my family are a bunch of right wing nutcases who agree with each other, or the misfortune of being catholic and living at home with little hope of affording an apartment because housing prices are so ridiculously fucking high in a shithole run by arrogant hippies who should all fucking die. i would be 60 pounds lighter and not be a loner basement virgin if I wasn't forced into Catholic schools because my parents were so paranoid about me being indoctrinated by the public school system, and who gang up on me whenever I disagree with them on political issues. I fucking hate them. I  sometimes wish they were dead so I can go on with my life feel better about myself. Someone help me.

Dear general, 

Your frustrations certainly can be understood and your wounds are real so let us not trivialize them, but kindly consider: if your parents were to die it would then be your responsibility to cover all expenses. At the very least it might require you to work harder. Please find some moment, memory, or happenstance in your life during which you did not have such negative feelings towards them and try to bring this event to light during times of stress and despair.

As for virginity, Catholicism, weight issues, and living arrangements: be of good cheer that all of these issues are curable--but only once you claim responsibility for yourself. Work on the weight issue by eating properly and exercising more. You will feel better about yourself and be better able to meet women. 

Since you are already miserably Catholic, you may as well take advantage of such a thing by joining a youth/young adults group where likely there are 3 girls for every boy. Dress up for the occasion and be upbeat and kind. 

For the living arrangement scenario, consider only that it is typically not about how much you earn, but how little you spend. Save your money with a view of purchasing a place instead of renting. Mortgage payments are typically lower than rent and provide a forced savings that typically also appreciates.

Regards,

Praetorian

 

 I hate my religion, but I can't leave because my parents would never approve of me being not religious. Even if I met girls at a youth group (at nearly 30), I would have to marry them just to get laid and have to go directly to parenthood. That's not realistic for anyone unless you're a religious nut.

Do you believe in your religion? If so, is not a certain level of reward purported to be indexed to one's current suffering?

If not, would you appreciate some advice on how to break the news to them gently while still maintaining a positive relationship?

And the housing issue wouldn't be a problem if all houses cost at least a million dollars to purchase in my area. Just to be able to buy a house I would have to move to another state, commute several hours a day from another city, or find another job. I would have to make a down payment of several hundred thousand dollars, which would take several years or even decades if you make 30k a year and don't spend your money on rent, insurance, bills, gas, and food.

 Do you own a vehicle? Realistically, how far might you have to travel to find a residence closer to the median price of homes in California of $430,000 while still maintaining access to your current source of employment?

In addition, a cursory search has yielded 150,000 homes that are currently available either by auction or are in a state of foreclosure throughout California. You may wish to discover the bank in possession of such homes and make a direct offer. Homes in such a condition have sold for as little as half the normal cost simply to get the property off the books.

Further, the purchase of a townhome, trailer, or condo might be a reasonable possibility. Any option to gain independence might be worth exploring.

Finally, consider: is your complaint that opportunities might be truly beyond your reach or is it more that such reaching requires a degree of effort for which you have not been properly prepared?

Help is available in the latter case so please be frank with yourself as to the situation's true cause.

You may PM me or respond as you prefer.

Regards,

Praetorian

generalfrevious said:

Sometimes my life is pure hell. Why do I have such a sociopathic individual for a father? It's his conservatism, his belief that government is always bad people should be personally responsible for their actions and not live on welfare, his belief that climate change is a hoax, his religious extremism, his fucking Amway business (seriously one of the worst things to happen to me is when he joined that goddamn pyramid scheme), the fact that my mother blindly agrees with nearly everything he says, the fact that I make so fucking little at work and everyone is over 50 and I can't make friends, that the rest of my family are a bunch of right wing nutcases who agree with each other, or the misfortune of being catholic and living at home with little hope of affording an apartment because housing prices are so ridiculously fucking high in a shithole run by arrogant hippies who should all fucking die. i would be 60 pounds lighter and not be a loner basement virgin if I wasn't forced into Catholic schools because my parents were so paranoid about me being indoctrinated by the public school system, and who gang up on me whenever I disagree with them on political issues. I fucking hate them. I  sometimes wish they were dead so I can go on with my life feel better about myself. Someone help me.

Dear general, 

Your frustrations certainly can be understood and your wounds are real so let us not trivialize them, but kindly consider: if your parents were to die it would then be your responsibility to cover all expenses. At the very least it might require you to work harder. Please find some moment, memory, or happenstance in your life during which you did not have such negative feelings towards them and try to bring this event to light during times of stress and despair.

As for virginity, Catholicism, weight issues, and living arrangements: be of good cheer that all of these issues are curable--but only once you claim responsibility for yourself. Work on the weight issue by eating properly and exercising more. You will feel better about yourself and be better able to meet women. 

Since you are already miserably Catholic, you may as well take advantage of such a thing by joining a youth/young adults group where likely there are 3 girls for every boy. Dress up for the occasion and be upbeat and kind. 

For the living arrangement scenario, consider only that it is typically not about how much you earn, but how little you spend. Save your money with a view of purchasing a place instead of renting. Mortgage payments are typically lower than rent and provide a forced savings that typically also appreciates.

Regards,

Praetorian

darth_ender said:

I don't mean this to be rude, but I find it a common tenet of many atheists that their rants are more about how others, most particularly Christians (at least in Christian majority countries), are wrong.  I mean, my thread is dedicated to putting me on the defensive.  I have deliberately taken a defensive role, inviting others to critique Mormonism.  But it seems far too many atheists (and I will agree, too many religious people) feel it necessary to elevate their stance by criticizing those who disagree rather than letting their own merits speak for themselves.  All three links you provide seem to fall exactly into that category.  I can easily blame the blogger and not you.  Don't fall into that trap yourself.  Obviously you believe you are correct.  Let atheism speak for itself.

I hope this came across properly.

This might be best understood within the context that the majority of current atheists likely either have religious relatives (who may possibly believe the atheist to be destined for damnation) or were once themselves religious. From such a perspective might it not make marked sense that the typical atheist apologetic should be less about a stand on atheism's merits (which may not actually exist in any great measure) as opposed to a seeming rant against the majority of 'mislead' believers?

For if one were to ascend the mount of atheism so as to look down upon all of the 'foolish' toiling believers who yet strive towards the impossible and improbable whilst denying themselves of the certain, is it truly a wonder that the logical assumption of the atheist might be, upon reaching such an apex, that such an arrival is a demonstration of mental prowess?

Yet should the atheist merely sit atop his mountain and make claim that his position is far superior (rather than stressing the inferiority of the position of his opponents) with what might he be expected to support such an argument? In making his apogee has he not stripped himself of supposed pretense; filled his heart with pride; and abandoned many former comrades along the way? What do such accomplishments attain that one might use to support a claim of a superior position?

Does he not share a similarity to the adolescent who has sacrificed the imagination of youth in favor of more tangible reality: instead of filling his days with wonder, hope and possibility, he must now reside within a more sober state in which his limitations must be keenly felt, his accomplishments belittled, and his expectation of a happy-ever-after truncated?

For what does the atheist possess that is so worthy of defense? So worthy of self-congratulations? Is not his position a solitary one? His discoveries self-effacing? The depths of his purposes made hollow?

For in seeking to plumb the extent of his existence has he not merely discovered that he is not, in fact, digging an all-important passageway through to the center of the Earth, but is, instead, merely playing with a plastic shovel in a sandbox? With such a reality firmly realized, what might the atheist stand proudly to defend?

Possessed said:

Post Praetorian said:

Possessed said:

imperialscum said:

Possessed said:

EyeShotFirst said:

Because my music tastes are so broad, I have developed an odd style that doesn't belong to a single genre, and I think it would be a crime to waste that in a cover band.

 The same could be said about me.  I primarily play metal, but with the attitude and fury of Stevie Ray Vaughan (he may have been blues, but he plays with more fury than metal.  Metal's fury comes from primarily the thick instrumentation and the momentum of the songwriting, but I would say alot of metal bands actually play their instruments pretty tamely.  Fast, but soft.  I play metal riffs like SRV played blues riffs... played hard and floored. )  Also I solo quite alot like Stevie Ray Vaughan mixed with some more melodic classical shredding and occasionally the random-ish outbursts of furious notes of Slayer's Kerry King, all infused in to one.  Suffice it to say I'm all over the place.  I can actually carry a song too, which is a trait most local guitarists here seem to lack.  Most of them only learn "tricks" or gimmicks, but when they play riffs or songs they just sound horrible.

Uuuh high and mighty, are we? And I was led to believe I was being the only one around here.

 You're damn right I'm high and mighty about my guitar playing, I've worked hard on it and I'm good at it. 

 Having listened to you play, I must agree: you are extremely talented...! 

 Thank you!  Although truthfully I did kind of go overboard on that post... I wasn't really trying to come off that way but I was a little sauced and I kind of lost track of how much I'd said already and before long a few sentences became a long run-on paragraph without my full consent.  :P

 You are more than welcome...you have made a fan out of one who might not ordinarily enjoy non-lyrical guitar and drum mixes...I am looking forward to playing your covers when I return home to my 11.1 surround system in August. I am anticipating feeling the full impact of the music at full throttle...currently as good as the headphone version is I suspect it is not doing it justice...

I have always enjoyed New Order...

I would consider it proper for Ceremony to be played at my funeral...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pr6SxJb-Dw

Whenever I am in a bad way I can rely on those soothing tones and discursive lyrics to bring me around...

Temptation manages to provide just the right depth of feeling to correspond with the sense of melancholy with which I am most familiar...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUjUTG3hwyQ

...and Here To Stay is just perfect regardless of mood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQwhQ4ytVFc

Possessed said:

imperialscum said:

Possessed said:

EyeShotFirst said:

Because my music tastes are so broad, I have developed an odd style that doesn't belong to a single genre, and I think it would be a crime to waste that in a cover band.

 The same could be said about me.  I primarily play metal, but with the attitude and fury of Stevie Ray Vaughan (he may have been blues, but he plays with more fury than metal.  Metal's fury comes from primarily the thick instrumentation and the momentum of the songwriting, but I would say alot of metal bands actually play their instruments pretty tamely.  Fast, but soft.  I play metal riffs like SRV played blues riffs... played hard and floored. )  Also I solo quite alot like Stevie Ray Vaughan mixed with some more melodic classical shredding and occasionally the random-ish outbursts of furious notes of Slayer's Kerry King, all infused in to one.  Suffice it to say I'm all over the place.  I can actually carry a song too, which is a trait most local guitarists here seem to lack.  Most of them only learn "tricks" or gimmicks, but when they play riffs or songs they just sound horrible.

Uuuh high and mighty, are we? And I was led to believe I was being the only one around here.

 You're damn right I'm high and mighty about my guitar playing, I've worked hard on it and I'm good at it. 

 Having listened to you play, I must agree: you are extremely talented...! 

...that was the best you could do? How about this, perhaps more memorable quote: "You're grounded..." ;-(

Possessed said:

Even when he apologizes he still somehow sounds like he's trying to talk down to you.  Typical.  He'd make a great politician though.

 *cough*

...as a former politician once said: [insert something I once said...]

You are hereby branded...The Depixelator...wear this badge proudly...but do not wear it out of doors when raining...

...indeed!

imperialscum said:

Post Praetorian said:

 Stare bleakly at the movie marquee for several moments...scratch one's head...stare down at one's portable device in search of upcoming releases...heave a great sigh at the results...then state aloud, to no one in particular, "I do wish there were fewer reboots being proposed!"

Return home. Think no more about it...

That's no method. It is merely specifying ones wish. The very basic question you need to answer here is: how do you want your wish to happen?

 In asking for an alternative method to a pursuit that was previously described as a mere wish how might one expect a deeper response? Is one to be predisposed to expect all wishes to happen?

It seems fair to wish for behavior to better align with one's own preferences without equally hoping, let alone expecting, such a thing to come about... 

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Clue had the unique feature of different endings

 The fact that it was funny was much more important than the multiple ending gimmick.

 The fact is was a FREAKING MASTERPIECES was important.

One plus two... plus two... plus one...?

 FTW

to the left of the

imperialscum said:

Post Praetorian said:

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Statements like "I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable" are just a softer version of "I want it to be banned".

 that is hard true.  saying I wish movies didn't show x, is quite different than saying I was x to be banned.

Don't be funny. If someone says "I don't want films to show x", he/she clearly specifies the wish. However the preferable method to achieve that wish is not specified. Someone preventing x from appearing in film is one method that satisfies that wish.

So what other methods are there? Performing brain surgery to change artist's mind? Assassination of artist? Divine intervention? Ban seems like the most reasonable one.

I am quite certain one could honestly wish for fewer prime-time showings of slapstick humor without being required to support a complete ban against same...just as one could desire fewer reboots without forming a committee to see about having such a ban enacted through Congress...

Then specify the alternative method...

 Stare bleakly at the movie marquee for several moments...scratch one's head...stare down at one's portable device in search of upcoming releases...heave a great sigh at the results...then state aloud, to no one in particular, "I do wish there were fewer reboots being proposed!"

Return home. Think no more about it...

imperialscum said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Statements like "I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable" are just a softer version of "I want it to be banned".

 that is hard true.  saying I wish movies didn't show x, is quite different than saying I was x to be banned.

Don't be funny. If someone says "I don't want films to show x", he/she clearly specifies the wish. However the preferable method to achieve that wish is not specified. Someone preventing x from appearing in film is one method that satisfies that wish.

So what other methods are there? Performing brain surgery to change artist's mind? Assassination of artist? Divine intervention? Ban seems like the most reasonable one.

I am quite certain one could honestly wish for fewer prime-time showings of slapstick humor without being required to support a complete ban against same...just as one could desire fewer reboots without forming a committee to see about having such a ban enacted through Congress...

boredom3031 said:

Warbler said:

imperialscum said:

Statements like "I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable" are just a softer version of "I want it to be banned".

 that is hard true.  saying I wish movies didn't show x, is quite different than saying I was x to be banned. 

There are a lot of people here that wish Jar Jar Binks wasn't in the PT, does this mean they think Lucas should have been banned from using him?  Of course not.

 

That's a banning I wouldn't mind.

 Agreed...!

Seemingly some view the human species through a somewhat noble lens: a creature able and willing to rise above its base nature (to avoid unnecessary violence, gratuitous sex, and a lack of general dignity) in order to enable itself to concentrate on establishing a stronger society, greater intellectual progress, and purer forms of beauty.

Is it not understandable then that the open engagement of others on a tangent contrary to such an elevated notion--seemingly conspiring to suggest that animals will behave as animals, etc.--truly serves to rob one of such a sense of shared dignity? For how might such a one at once believe himself to be a part of an enlightened species while equally acknowledging that a majority may prefer to instead feed the basest of instincts during a prime-time showing? 

Further, if art might at one level demand realism in basic acts, while at the same instant deny the portrayal of realistic deterrents that prevent the same happenings in one's day-to-day existence how is one to avoid a sense of cynicism? For if the purpose of such full-on displays might be to convey proper realism for the base gratification of said acts, where is the equal counter of realism in its consequence? Without a balance, are not all such portrayals willfully delusional? If willfully delusional, cheap (as it seemingly costs the participants nothing), and devoid of meaning (as it seemingly occurs at the merest convenience rather than for any special circumstance) is such a thing not simply voyeurism? If merely pornographic in substance, is it truly to be suggested that the human appetite for breasts cannot be satisfied sufficiently with a casual glance at the internet from time to time that it must needs invade all forms of entertainment? Is it genuinely the desire of the majority to fall easy victim to such a sexual obesity?

If so, is it truly surprising that one who might view the human being to have not only a mortal dignity, but truly an immortal soul, that is supposed to shine as a beacon of light for eternity, might be somewhat disappointed in the flagrant shortcomings of an industry that might seek to underline basic appetites as those most important? For how might such a moral lassitude serve to bolster humanity's self image?

darth_ender said:

Post Praetorian said:

Railroad Tycoon...Nimmar...Axis & Allies...oh, and of course my game: General Warfare.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31574/nimmar

 Tell me about General Warfare.  Are you saying you designed it yourself?  Do you have a complete description somewhere?

I designed it to be a continuous game: that is to say that while each player has a 'turn' everyone else also has a simultaneous sub-turn. All pieces have a move-range of a single distance during one's non-turn or else 2 distances during one's actual turn (a token is passed around to denote the turn of the given player). Alternately a player may choose to transport pieces in sets of three by getting them into a specific configuration: that is to say that a player may align them during their off-turn, but is only able to transport them during their actual turn. In this way one is capable of moving 3 pieces at a time during a given turn and only a single piece in-between turns.

It was designed for up to 8 players and each would have an army of 30 troops. The pieces begin in camps off of a central circular game board. A player begins by being able to move one piece per turn onto the main central board. Different sections of the central board allow for different movement patterns and rates (river, ground, bridge, etc.). Various staging areas exist to allow the grouping of troops as detailed above.

The goal is to invade and completely capture the camp of a rival player positioned directly across the board while losing as few pieces as possible to rivals on the main board who can capture one another during their actual turns by landing on the same space. A convoy piece (3 armies joined) captured in this way will lose all 3 pieces at once.

The winner is the one who has the most pieces make it into the enemy camp so one strategy is to leave some of one's own pieces at one's own camp to capture any would-be invaders. 

Do you remember anything dishonestly?

a bunch of strange men

I seem to recall a time when Chips was fairly riveting...but then there were so many others as well...

I do not excessively mind the excess...seemingly it has brought these boards back to a semblance of activity...for now we all have something to complain about...

I am not certain he should be given the opportunity to arm himself with a lightsaber at this time...

. It was so lifelike that