As much as consoles are becoming like PCs, I'd still probably take the console version of game nine times out of ten. I like being able to relax on a couch while playing a game, and I don't have to worry about getting distracted by things going on in the background.
There is nothing to stop you doing any of these things with a PC instead of a console.
While true, I still would take the console over the computer. That being said, my reasons are veering into emotionally subjective land so I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion.
"Emotionally subjective land" tends to be "I have never actually seriously considered this question land." It's the same with religion.
Now, now. That's not necessarily the case.
It could also be "I know I'm wrong, but I don't want to change my mind, so I'll just pretend to be classy and bow out, when I'm actually cowardly."
It could also be "I'm right, but I can't win an argument, so I'll run away without making it look like I'm running away."
There are other possibilities as well.
Pretty much my default these days is that if you walk away from an argument, then that's the same as admitting you are wrong. Being unable or unwilling to defend your position just tells me that your position is undefendable, even if you are actually right.
The moral? If you can't back shit up, keep your mouth shut.
"Emotionally subjective land" tends to be "I have never actually seriously considered this question land." It's the same with religion.
Or it is admiting that something is so completely subjective that no one will ever be able to make an iron-clad case for any one view point and any debate that may ensue (while possibly bringing forth interesting tidbits of information - in which case it is better to step back and learn anyway) is an exercise in futility at best and willfully participating in a flame war at worst. I am not saying that is the case in this instace, but it is something to consider before you color someones statements.
It would be nice to know which of these (or other) options is the case here. Perhaps coloring isn't the best way to find out, but it is the most entertaining.
@Kate: You're right, but Scott already covered it.
No, Scott's statements were not at all what I was suggesting. Admittedly he did say "There are other possibilities as well." However, the gist of his examples and the point of mine were in no way similar.
Even if something is 100% subjective, one's opinion is garbage unless it can be defended. Choosing not to defend it removes said person from the discussion and effectively invalidates whatever they espoused. It means the person does not likely have any thought or rationale behind their sentiment. It is, at best, the last bastion of the intellectual coward.
Even if something is 100% subjective, one's opinion is garbage unless it can be defended. Choosing not to defend it removes said person from the discussion and effectively invalidates whatever they espoused. It means the person does not likely have any thought or rationale behind their sentiment. It is, at best, the last bastion of the intellectual coward.
Indeed. Allow me to illustrate with example.
Let's say I come into a forum and I say, "I really like Fist of the North Star. It is a great anime." Now, nobody can argue and tell me that I don't like it. I'm the only one who knows what I like and don't like. But then again, I've never seen anyone try to say that. Nobody argues against the person, trying to tell them they don't like what they say they like. Instead, they argue against the thing, telling them that the thing itself is crap.
In such an argument, you must challenge yourself. You must ask yourself, and answer, difficult questions. What parts of Fist of the North Star do you like? What parts of it do you not like? What is it about the parts you like that makes you like them? What is it about the parts you don't like that makes you not like them? Why do you like it? Why should other people watch it? What redeeming qualities does it have?
If you say you like something, or if you say you hate something, you better damn well be able to answer these questions very thoroughly. Sure, your personal taste is subjective, but if you can't explain it, you'll be crushed. Liking Apple Jacks because "you just do" doesn't cut it.
Even if something is 100% subjective, one's opinion is garbage unless it can be defended. Choosing not to defend it removes said person from the discussion and effectively invalidates whatever they espoused. It means the person does not likely have any thought or rationale behind their sentiment. It is, at best, the last bastion of the intellectual coward.
This implies that someone has a vested interest in defending their point to others\to certain people\within certain circumstances. This is not always the case. Just because one does not wish to partake in a debate does not necessarily equate to them being incapable of defending their point of view.
Just because one does not wish to partake in a debate does not necessarily equate to them being incapable of defending their point of view.
In almost every case I've encountered, the person is unable to defend their opinion, especially in this forum. If you're unwilling to defend a statement here, you'd best not make it.
Just because one does not wish to partake in a debate does not necessarily equate to them being incapable of defending their point of view.
In almost every case I've encountered, the person is unable to defend their opinion, especially in this forum. If you're unwilling to defend a statement here, you'd best not make it.
Your personal sample set and your interpretations of other's actions seem skewed at best.
This implies that someone has a vested interest in defending their point to others\to certain people\within certain circumstances. This is not always the case. Just because one does not wish to partake in a debate does not necessarily equate to them being incapable of defending their point of view.
Regardless of whether they bow out due to lack of ability or lack of will does not matter. If you don't defend yourself, you forfeit.
Let's say we're playing a game of Quake. The other player has 40 frags. I have 2 frags. I'm losing big time. Then they decide they just don't want to play anymore, and they quit. The result? I win. They forfeited. It doesn't matter what the reason is for their quitting. You quit, you lose. End of story.
This implies that someone has a vested interest in defending their point to others\to certain people\within certain circumstances. This is not always the case. Just because one does not wish to partake in a debate does not necessarily equate to them being incapable of defending their point of view.
Regardless of whether they bow out due to lack of ability or lack of will does not matter. If you don't defend yourself, you forfeit.
Let's say we're playing a game of Quake. The other player has 40 frags. I have 2 frags. I'm losing big time. Then they decide they just don't want to play anymore, and they quit. The result? I win. They forfeited. It doesn't matter what the reason is for their quitting. You quit, you lose. End of story.
You are setting up a situation in which there is a given, vested interest and a possible "win" scenario. Neither is a given in any debate.
Scott is in fact actually personally wrong that he dislike's firefly.... Noone with a show called Geeknights should be physically able to dislike Firefly. Scott actually likes it and doesn't know how that actually feels.
You are setting up a situation in which there is a given, vested interest and a possible "win" scenario. Neither is a given in any debate.
No, I'd argue it's a situation where someone makes a claim to an opinion who clearly has no rational backing to said opinion and thus backs away from discussing it further. lackofcheese clearly cannot articulate a rationale for the opinion, in which case it is effectively irrelevant if ever brought up.
You are setting up a situation in which there is a given, vested interest and a possible "win" scenario. Neither is a given in any debate.
No, I'd argue it's a situation where someone makes a claim to an opinion who clearly has no rational backing to said opinion and thus backs away from discussing it further.
That may well be your inferred opinion based on limited information. I am simply saying that there are other possible rationales and interpretations.
ITT: Liking the taste of strawberry milkshakes == ¬ liking the taste of strawberry milkshakes.
So according to Scott, responding to a rowdy bunch of guys who offhandedly call your mother a whore as you pass and getting the crap beaten out of you before they leave you behind means you won whereas you would've lost if you had ignored them.
I like how this thread went from Hulu not being free, to Netflix streaming, to console wars, to yet another debate about validity of opinion.
Regarding the last item though, I do pretty much agree with Rym on this issue, even if it does come back to bite me whenever someone starts grilling me on politics, since I try to stay away from it as much as possible. I take no stance because I have no research to back it up with.
But yeah, to get back on topic, this article is the most perfect example of how Gizmodo is a piece of crap. The thing they try to parse out of the quote is the one thing, if you read the original article, that the executive rules out.
Seriously Scrym, you don't want to play the Uncharted series or the Ratchet & Clank series? I get the feeling that you haven't played any of those games and are quickly passing judgment on them unfairly. I think you guys would especially like Uncharted as it's really good and the atmosphere is really nice.
Scott just bought an Xbox 360 for 2 $15 games. I don't think they're interested in a PS3.
This is why I take my time and beat each game/read each book/watch each movie or anime I get one at a time until I'm finished and move on to the next one. I don't know why people have this impulse to get something immediately as it comes out and just put it on a waiting pile (in Scrym's case) and just pace themselves. The stuff isn't going anywhere (unless if it's controversial enough or fails hard enough to be taken out of retail) and you can just get things later so what's the rush?
Comments
It could also be "I know I'm wrong, but I don't want to change my mind, so I'll just pretend to be classy and bow out, when I'm actually cowardly."
It could also be "I'm right, but I can't win an argument, so I'll run away without making it look like I'm running away."
There are other possibilities as well.
Pretty much my default these days is that if you walk away from an argument, then that's the same as admitting you are wrong. Being unable or unwilling to defend your position just tells me that your position is undefendable, even if you are actually right.
The moral? If you can't back shit up, keep your mouth shut.
Additionally, there are two separate cases of the option I put forth:
"I really hadn't thought of that before, but I don't want to admit it."
or
"I refuse to even consider what you're suggesting."
It would be nice to know which of these (or other) options is the case here. Perhaps coloring isn't the best way to find out, but it is the most entertaining.
Let's say I come into a forum and I say, "I really like Fist of the North Star. It is a great anime." Now, nobody can argue and tell me that I don't like it. I'm the only one who knows what I like and don't like. But then again, I've never seen anyone try to say that. Nobody argues against the person, trying to tell them they don't like what they say they like. Instead, they argue against the thing, telling them that the thing itself is crap.
In such an argument, you must challenge yourself. You must ask yourself, and answer, difficult questions. What parts of Fist of the North Star do you like? What parts of it do you not like? What is it about the parts you like that makes you like them? What is it about the parts you don't like that makes you not like them? Why do you like it? Why should other people watch it? What redeeming qualities does it have?
If you say you like something, or if you say you hate something, you better damn well be able to answer these questions very thoroughly. Sure, your personal taste is subjective, but if you can't explain it, you'll be crushed. Liking Apple Jacks because "you just do" doesn't cut it.
Let's say we're playing a game of Quake. The other player has 40 frags. I have 2 frags. I'm losing big time. Then they decide they just don't want to play anymore, and they quit. The result? I win. They forfeited. It doesn't matter what the reason is for their quitting. You quit, you lose. End of story.
So according to Scott, responding to a rowdy bunch of guys who offhandedly call your mother a whore as you pass and getting the crap beaten out of you before they leave you behind means you won whereas you would've lost if you had ignored them.
Regarding the last item though, I do pretty much agree with Rym on this issue, even if it does come back to bite me whenever someone starts grilling me on politics, since I try to stay away from it as much as possible. I take no stance because I have no research to back it up with.