logo Sign In

Tiptup

User Group
Members
Join date
4-May-2006
Last activity
26-Apr-2012
Posts
1,696

Post History

Post
#272239
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272239/action/topic#272239
Time
Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Wait you get emotional over video games HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Let me catch my breath...

See the problem lies in the whole "I told You , you were nutty." Never was said, indirectly I called you nutty. Your fallacies were two fold, directly telling me "Fuck you" and believing "fuck you" is a lighthearted reply to someone you don't know, these are fairly obvious differences for someone who has completed 8th grade

.....emotional over games hahahah, that's too much


Strange. On the one hand you act as if your fragile mind cannot withstand the barrage of a single strong word (because it clearly offends your oversensitive, womanly understanding of propriety), but then on the other hand you insult people's intelligence and emotional sanity at the merest drop of a hat. You're curiously hypocritical and, as a result, I still don't feel sorry for you. The naughty word may have hurt your feelings, but I think you need to grow thicker skin.

As for what you said about "getting emotional over video games" and being "nutty," I stated no logical fallacies in response to that. With the normal, logical understanding of your statement, you clearly communicated that people who "get" emotions about a games are being "nutty" in your "opinion." As you said, you "indirectly" called me nutty. Nowhere did I discuss the "direct" or "indirect" nature of your words; therefore, you make a clear logical fallacy when you accuse me of such. (Is this making sense to you?)

I didn't say "fuck you" by itself, nor do I believe "fuck you" to be lighthearted on its own (in general). In fact, you're the one making another logical fallacy by stating that I believed or said that. If you actually go back and look, you will see that I said, "Fuck you too." This can easily be understood as lighthearted by virtue of the fact that you never said "fuck you" first (and thus my reply was silly), and because I was simultaneously admitting that I got emotional when Aeris died with the same statement (which is, as you have noted, quite humorous all by itself). I suppose that I'm sorry that you're currently plagued with irrational anger and sensitivity (going through your period?), but I believe that if you had been thinking clearly you would not have misunderstood me in the way that you did.
Post
#272120
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272120/action/topic#272120
Time
Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
and to be honest if people get emotional over video games IMO thats a little nutty, I didn't get a lump in my throat when Aeris got smoked by Sephiroth.


Fuck you too.


You just finished perching to me about video games and now your going to cruse at me like some kind of child. Even if you are joking theres no reason for that or if you are legitimately upset that I have no care about something that happened in a video game, I hope you try and seek some professional help, that and you get some kind of beating from a random person.


I'm sorry, I didn't intend to "perch" to you and "cruse" at you.

You called me nutty, and if I can't make a lighthearted reply to that then you're the one who clearly has issues.
Post
#272106
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/272106/action/topic#272106
Time
It's a stupid statement to say that story never matters in a game. Story can be incredibly important if it's important to the gameplay. For instance, role-playing is a very enjoyable kind of game, and if you're going to make choices as a character, you better have a good story for him to exist within. On the other hand, if the gameplay of a particular game doesn't require much of a story to be fun (like Doom), then we shouldn't expect an amazing story. (Though, even the progression of the game itself provides a kind of story in itself in the case of Doom.) We can't say that every game should have an in-depth story and we can't say that good stories never matter to gameplay.


Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
The physics engine looks very advanced, and uncontrolled characters having bio-mechanical AI if thats not a step towards the perceived limitations of video games I don't know what is...I guess nothing impresses the rest anymore, or you've just seen it all already somehow.


Lucasarts has never impressed me, but perhaps this game might change that. However, this will not be the first game to use realistic physics to govern the movement of objects. Maybe it will be the most advanced game to date in this regard, but we have yet to see how much they have truly accomplished. And gaming companies have been claiming the ability to program advanced forms of AI in their games for years. We haven't played the game yet, and that will be the real test. Pre-release hype is a waste of time to become overly invested in. Even successful physics or AI advancements are useless if the game itself isn't fun.
Post
#271991
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/271991/action/topic#271991
Time
Originally posted by: GhostAlpha26
this is like no game anyone has ever seen or played before


Uhh, that's a bit of a stretch I think. The physics engine does look impressive, but other games have had good physics engines as well.

Otherwise, while I will say that I enjoyed the classic-sounding stormtrooper voices, why does this guy look more powerful with the force than Yoda and the Emperor combined?

Edit: Grammar!
Post
#271961
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/271961/action/topic#271961
Time
Well, I know I could get used to it eventually, but it's retarded that I'd have to. I still own most of these games anyways. I just wanted to own them in a more reliable form (since my old cartridges and NES aren't working as well as they used to). I guess I was just pissed that I hadn't looked for a warning about the control interface. I simply assumed the control setup would make sense and purchased the collection on the basis of the awesome games alone. :\
Post
#271960
Topic
What the fuck??? : George is definitely gone "bye bye"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/271960/action/topic#271960
Time
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Again, I LOVE ESB.... no complaining here or anything like that....

but, if you were to show that flick to someone who has no idea what SW is... who has never seen the ANH... they'd be completly lost and going "Whaa?" every 2 minutes. Imagine the Wampa cave with no prior knowledge.... how the hell is he making that thing fly into his hand... then who is this ghost? You can go on and on...


Yes, but you can say those questions might be a lot of fun for a new viewer. Plus, nobody knew that Jedi could manipulate the position of objects using the force, so even Star Wars fans had some newness by that point. And lastly, as Gaffer pointed out, Episode I presented the same amount of questioning for someone who hadn't seen the original Star Wars first.
Post
#271722
Topic
What the fuck??? : George is definitely gone "bye bye"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/271722/action/topic#271722
Time
I agree with you on a lot of what you're saying, CO, but I disagree about Empire having no beginning, middle, or end. The introduction and the presentation of the conflict between the rebellion and the evil empire are far more subtle than they were in the original Star Wars, but they are still clearly present. After that the main plot to the movie flows as the rebels attempt to evade the evil empire as a simultaneous struggle occurs between the elite, Jedi warriors of each side. The emotional climax of the movie is when Luke realizes he is the son of Vader and as Han is carried off by a bounty hunter. It's dark and the good-guy rebels don't win, but it's a complete story in its own way. It ends with some cliffhanger elements to be sure (the good guys plan to rescue Han, and clearly Luke's struggle will continue), but these cliffhangers were presented in the epilogue and the original Star Wars had the same thing to a degree; the beginning, middle, and end to Empire Strikes Back are not ruined by them.

Anyways, I don't mean to say that Empire is better than the original Star Wars to the degree that it doesn't need it. In fact, on its own, it's definitely not as good as the original film if you ask me. But, it's still an amazing film on its own, and coming from the perspective of the OT saga, I believe it is the best of the bunch.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and about what George said, it's kind of sad that our minds are conditioned to believe he could have seriously meant that. Clearly he was making a joke at a publicist award show, but at the same time he clearly lacks respect for the entire series (in its originally-beloved form) to some degree.
Post
#270981
Topic
Most Epic Pictures
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/270981/action/topic#270981
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
By "merely killing them for sport" I meant to say, hunting and not taking, or wasteful and reckless hunting habits. I met a guy once who bragged about shooting over 150 small game birds in a day. He proudly showed me a picture of himself proudly holding his shotgun surrounded by dead birds. If you shoot a few of them you can go home and pluck them and cook them fair enough, but he kept going merely because he was enjoying himself, and he went way too far. The majority of those birds ended up being thrown away, if any were used for food at all. They are a pain to pluck so it is not like you can call up your friends and say I got a few two many do you want some? Because very few people are willing to do all that work for such a tiny amount of meat. You have guys who will hunt deer, and when they make a kill they will just leave it. You are only allowed a certain number a deer every year, by abandoning them and pretending you didn't get anything allows you to get a better deer later and lets you kill more. These types of hunters are reckless. You have a lot of guys who do things like this and it makes hunters in general look bad. Both of these examples are illegal and if somebody doing either of them were to get caught he would have a hefty fine and possible jail time, but you would be surprised how many people get away with things like this. By "merely killing them for sport" this is what type of behavior I was referring too.


Yeah, I was already guessing that to be your belief and totally agree with your condemnation of the behavior you condemn. It's really sick to senselessly kill and waste animals like that. In addition, I don't like people that enjoy hurting animals at all. That's even more twisted.

And, Gaffer, I do understand your concerns about factory farms and hunting for sport. I personally don't like factory farms and try not to get meat that would have come from one, but at the same time, there are worse ways for animals to live their lives. I think of it as giving the animals a life they probably don't enjoy very much, but at the same time I can't really say they're purposely being mistreated (well, up until the slaughtering takes place of course). And in terms of hunting for sport, I meant that hunting for sport, with the intent of using the animal respectably and doing nothing cruel to it, can be perfectly fine to me on its own. I don't think the fact that the experience is a "game" makes it wrong or disrespectful by default. In fact, I believe the sport aspect can make harvesting an animal even more honorable since the animals are wild and often have a good chance to get away.
Post
#270950
Topic
Most Epic Pictures
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/270950/action/topic#270950
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
I am completely against pointless killing of animals, or merely killing them for sport.


"Merely" killing for sport, cruelly or unwisely ignoring other proper concerns is definitely wrong, but I would like to clarify that killing animals for sport is not wrong by itself in every instance. There are honorable and wise approaches to killing animals for sport, and we simply have to keep them in mind if we engage in such sport. (I personally don't hunt animals and never have, but I respect the tradition.)
Post
#270944
Topic
Most Epic Pictures
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/270944/action/topic#270944
Time
First off, it is clear to me that many animals have powerful abilities to think thoughts and feel emotions. They learn, dream, communicate, form social attachments, and sometimes even invent new methods and new tools for themselves. However, human beings dwarf animals in these regards by an enormous factor. In fact, the comparison is so drastic that we can almost say that animals are completely incapable of doing those very same things in the way we understand human capabilities described with the same language. However, the reason for this is not obvious by any means.

If all life is “equal” where one form of life should not be considered of a higher value than another, then it should be just as easy to argue that we shouldn’t eat or kill plants either. Simply because we need them to survive shouldn’t make a fundamental difference if we are fundamentally identical. In this sense we should at least regard the consumption of plant life as a necessary evil. Certainly we can find relative differences in “value” between one plant and another plant, between a plant and an animal, between one animal and another animal, between animals and humans, and even between one human being and another human being, but if our fundamental potential is the same, there is no moral distinction between any kind of life, and the value of everything is merely reduced to utilitarian concerns.

I believe there are fundamental differences between plants and animals, and between animals and humans, despite the fact that we all share certain fundamental qualities. It is these observable differences in our fundamental natures that define the rights of human beings, animals, and plants. Rejecting this set of logic and reasoned priorities is a foolish approach to the world and can lead to evil, unethical behavior on our part (I’ll touch on that in a bit).


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Sarcasm aside, if forced, would I sacrifice a non-human animal for a human? Of course. I'd be sad about it, but, ultimately, I do hold human life in slightly higher regard than animal life. Our intelligence is much superior to that of other animals, but most humans seem to take some ego trip with that statement. Or the statement in the Bible where God puts man in charge over the animals. Most people don't seem to realize that that makes animals our responsibility rather than our playthings to do with as we wish.

I agree with that statement completely. Human beings should care for the natural world and animals in particular. Animals are not there for us to abuse, or treat without regard for their mental capabilities. It is morally wrong for us to destroy them for unwise or cruel reasons.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Ever since ancient times, man has used animals for food, shelter, and a myriad of other purposes. Why? Because he had to. Just like animals have to eat other animals to survive. Well, guess what? The world isn't like that any more. As has been stated, we are superior to animals. We don't have to kill other animals to survive. We have been inspired and have created other means of sheltering and feeding ourselves that don't necessitate us to resort to murder. That's why I'm a vegetarian.

Now I must disagree somewhat. First, human beings “need” animal protein. Second, human beings “need” animals as a natural resource to support many different parts of our economy. Third, animal populations (such as those of seals) “need” to often be kept in check (particularly with the way our “advanced” society affects the natural world in unnatural ways) and a good way to do this is to allow human beings to harvest animals. Fourth, human beings “need” to stay in touch with the natural world and its cycle of life and death, and harvesting animals keeps us tied to this beneficial reality.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
And it's strange. As advanced as we are now, we give much less respect to what we kill than our ancestors, who had to kill animals did. Ancient tribes respected the life that had to be lost to sustain theirs. They were grateful to the animal and didn't waste a part of it. But nowadays, we raise animals on factory farms, who have no other life than being prepared for food. They are abused and slaughtered. I'll start faulting animals for their part in the food chain when I see a tiger herd up a bunch of antelope and keep them all around in horrible conditions until he's ready to kill them.


I completely agree that many modern techniques for raising animals for slaughter are certainly undesirable (from the standpoint of compassion and health). Thankfully the free market seems to be offering alternatives (though at higher prices) and we can consume animals that have been raised for slaughter in better conditions if we choose.

However, I would highly disagree that factory farms are evil. They offer generally clean food at amazingly low cost. This can have many benefits, not just in our “advanced” society, but in others as well. For instance, considering the level of starvation in the world, such techniques could do a lot of good. What you “need” is often relative to what you want to do.


Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
By the by, I also find it quite hilarious how all of you seem to think we equate factory farms and meat eaters with Hitler's genocide of the Jews when Hitler himself was a vegetarian. Yeah, kinda hard to live down (you don't see many vegetarians hyping that aspect of the history), but I still find it quite humorous when you make that bizarre and ironic of a comparison.


We aren’t equating animal consumption with cannibalism or Nazism. We’re simply asking people like Mark or LS to describe the level at which they equate humans with animals. Also we desire to have them describe the consistency with which they approach their view of the world.

I actually find it quite interesting that Hitler was a vegetarian. It might actually point somewhat to the ethic that allowed him to devalue human life in pursuit of personal power. The Nazis were generally strong environmentalists in a Darwinist sense. They saw us human beings as animals that had evolved to our level because we were the strongest, and the strongest always survive (supposedly). They then saw other classifications of human beings (“races”) as expendable in pursuit of superiority in the same way that one animal will treat another animal as expendable in order to advance its evolution (according to Darwinism). They believed that man alone had a unique destiny, and they believed they were collectively working to bring about the ultimate form of mankind. It’s crazy shit, but pretty complicated and impressive in terms of a reasoned, teachable ideology.

While modern “animal rights activists” are quite different from Nazis in the sense that they seek to preserve all life, they are similar in the sense that they believe animal life and human life to be fundamentally the same. Both ideologies believe that humans competed with animals and took on a higher-evolved form of animal life. The difference is that one sees our fundamental equality as something that we all seek to evolve away from, with competitive survival and distinctions of utilitarian value as the ultimate goal of life, while the other sees competitive survival and distinctions of utilitarian value as a necessary evil of lesser-evolved beings, with the fundamental equality of all life being the most important concept that we are all evolving toward. But, both fall into the trap of making life a concept to be valued only practical reasons and reject the fundamental basis for our system of ethics. I firmly believe that human beings are not simply of a higher value than animals in some relative sense like this.

When we approach the idea of “animal rights” from the standpoint of basic ethics (the way we determine what is normally right or wrong), we can very clearly begin to see that animals cannot have rights in the way human beings do. Human societies protect the lives and the freedoms of human beings because that protection reinforces the idea of mutual respect. I respect your right to live and your right to exercise your authority as a human being because I want you to similarly respect my equal rights as another human being.

Animals, almost by definition, do not and cannot respect human beings as if they were making an ethical choice to do so. From a scientific standpoint, animal life flows toward equilibrium with the rest of the natural world, a state that is unchanging over time unless acted upon by external factors, much more like our physical surroundings than any kind of being with a historical, moral mind like our own. Just as plants, weather, rocks, and other aspects of our environment have no understanding of right or wrong (good and evil), animals also display the exact same kind of neutrality.

Unless we consider a non-human capable of displaying a moral consciousness on our level, we should never, ever equate the fundamental value of human beings with other forms of life. Our higher value is not just because we can accomplish more, it is because we have a mind that can discern right from wrong, and then act on the basis of that very discernment. That is the fundamental basis of our laws and all of our human morality. And while we certainly have animal aspects to our nature, we have something more than that, and I will not back down from people who wish to cheapen human life by ascribing the fundamental worth of an ethical being to animals when they clearly exhibit no such thing.
Post
#270899
Topic
Did Anakin's fall start with Qui-Gon?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/270899/action/topic#270899
Time
Originally posted by: musicman
It's especially frustrating with the context of the line, "Obi-Wan once thought as you do." Where is Obi-Wan pleading with Anakin, trying to figure out what's going on, trying to get him to come back? There already wasn't enough talking between Anakin and Obi-Wan, but what is said just seems so irrelevant to what's happening.


I know, I had always thought that meant that Obiwan would have tried reaching out to Anakin more than the PT portrayed. Plus, did Obiwan know that Anakin wasn't truly at fault in anything he did? That a weird alter ego, named Darth Vader, had taken control of Anakin's body? (As George wants us to believe?)
Post
#270790
Topic
Most Epic Pictures
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/270790/action/topic#270790
Time
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
tiptup i must admit i didnt read any of your last responses.
your just ignorant and uneducated. bottom line.


Verily, I am put to shame.


Oh, and thanks for the defense, C3PX. Though if she wants to believe I am ignorant and uneducated, she is free to do so. It would be nice if she were willing to explain why she believes that about me, but I am still even more interested in an explanation of her morality and she is certainly offering nothing on that end. So, if she's quiting, I'll quit too.
Post
#270447
Topic
Most Epic Pictures
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/270447/action/topic#270447
Time
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
since the majority of your replys were nothing more than fluff i will pick apart the two major ones.

Comfortable, pillow fluff?


Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
you must be a highschool student to come up with a statement like this.
lol
tell me genius, what do they use seals for mainly?
human consumption?
i think not.

Oh, I’m sorry. You said, “i don't see how someone who kills animals as a career has a life anymore worth while than an animal themselves.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t you required to kill an animal before consuming it?


Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
and the reason why the Nazi's committed genocide in the first place?
this has what to do with seals?

thanks for comparing apples and shovels idiot.

Well, you clearly equate human life with animal life to some large degree. Do you now fault me for asking probing questions about the extent of that ethic? Or are you now saying that the genocide question was entirely too difficult for you to grasp?


Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
but of course you didnt try and explain yourself did you?
i guess you figured it would have made you seem more cool to post a statement like you did and run off like a coward.



Hmm, well, just what you would like have explained about me? I’m willing to assist.

I’d think it would be obvious that a man, trying to make a living, and probably trying support a family, is of more value than a baby seal. Call me crazy, but I didn’t know I actually needed to say that. Do you feel better now that I have made this opinion of mine clear?

And as for running off as a "coward," perhaps I am one, but I am unaware of how my earlier post in this thread speaks to that. Perhaps you can explain that to me? You know, being the brave, wonderful individual that you are, I’m sure you’ll calmly explain to me all of your clearly rational thoughts.

As for trying to sound “cool,” I’m not sure what you mean by that. If you refer to the brief nature of my post, I did not want to detract from the lighthearted feeling of this thread by initiating a boring discussion within it. I simply thought that expressing my shock over your lack of ethical sense would have been sufficient. Though, I suppose when looking back, I should have anticipated your response.


I see that you have mastered the use of quote tags, LS.


Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
perhaps maybe this man should try actually doing something productive with that grade 12 education he got. but i see why you feel it necessary to stick up for people with your level of knowledge.

hey if your all about animal slaughter for pointless purposes other than monetary reasons, so be it. but maybe you should use your hands like the animals do. go try that with a bear and let me know how it works out.


Well, I’m not sure of the man’s level of knowledge actually. I was defending him in the sense that his life should not be forfeit if he simply takes the life of an animal.

Otherwise, I’m a professional bear wrestler. Didn’t you know that?


Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
in the meantime ill order one Tiptup fur coat.
tool


You strike me as a very friendly and loving person, LS. I had no idea you were going to respond to my simple questions regarding your beliefs in this way. I take it that you’ll want to see my family raped and murdered next?