Random Gaming Thoughts

[MrPopo]

I see "rights" as actions the government is not allowed to infringe upon. They are a political construct, not a natural construct.

[nullPointer]

Over the course of history hundreds of thousands of people have in fact been murdered on the basis of what they said

It still doesn't mean that they weren't free to say what they said.

They were so free they got killed for it. Sure, and jail is just a room

I think it just comes down to whether you conflate 'freedom' (as in you're free to do something) with 'freedom from consequence'.

I think you're saying they are one and the same (i.e. you're not truly free if consequences still dictate your course of action (thanks Maynard)), whereas I'm saying the action and the consequence are separate and distinct from one another. (i.e. I say something inflammatory with no consequence. Later I say the same thing, but this time I get punched. Was I 'more free' the first time I said it? In my purview, no because the consequence was a different thing than the catalyst. Or was I 'equally free' both times since the possibility of consequence was still present the first time? I would say Yes, but in order to enforce freedom from consequence in this example one would need to regulate that possibility, which I'm not sure is possible).
I'm not sure we'll find the middle ground here, but it's certainly an interesting conversation to have.

Wonderswan is the most underrated handheld of all time.

[Gunstar Green]

Over the course of history hundreds of thousands of people have in fact been murdered on the basis of what they said

It still doesn't mean that they weren't free to say what they said.

They were so free they got killed for it. Sure, and jail is just a room

Let's take a step back. Erik_Twice, how would you implement a system that allows you to say whatever you want without fear of reprisal from anyone?

No, no, let me ask you instead

Do you believe you have any kind of right right now? The right to vote, for example?

(Also just "Erik". We've known each other for long enough for that)

Freedom of speech is the issue that started this and you by and large have the right to say what you want, at least in the United States. Things have gotten hairy in other countries with "blasphemy laws" which I find repulsive.

The issue you're having is you don't have the ability to control other people's actions. Risking other people on the Internet thinking you're an asshole is not the same as getting shot for having a belief someone else finds offensive. The first example is of other people expressing their own right to criticize you, the second is of someone breaking the laws designed to protect your right to say whatever you want in the first place.

So rights are only such as the law provides. If you want to say there's no true freedom because ultimately rights are limited by those laws (with the freedom of speech in the United States you can't threaten or incite violence for instance) that's fine. That's a worthy argument .

If you want to say the rights are meaningless because someone can criticize you back or break the laws designed to protect those rights in order to silence you, then I take issue with your argument because those examples are irrelevant unless you live in a place where the law will turn a blind eye towards your murder which is an unfortunate reality in many parts of the world.

So ultimately stop being a pansy and post your article because tumblr feminists are not going to shoot you.

(Just kidding there, do what you ultimately feel comfortable with.)

[Erik_Twice]

I think it just comes down to whether you conflate 'freedom' (as in you're free to do something) with 'freedom from consequence'.

You are always "free to do something", I just think that this "radical freedom", as Sartre would put it, is such a low-bar so as to be not only meaningless but also kind of masturbatory.

(Obligatory comic on the subject: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/51 )

I see "rights" as actions the government is not allowed to infringe upon. They are a political construct, not a natural construct.

By why shouldn't they infringe on those rights? Why should a goverment not be able to, for example, prevent a strike by force?

So ultimately stop being a pansy and post your article because tumblr feminists are not going to shoot you.

(Just kidding there, do what you ultimately feel comfortable with.)

I simply got awfully close to getting into the whole Gamergate thing with Journalistic Distrust and it was read by less than a thousand people. So I'm writing about F-Zero for now.

[Forlorn Drifter]

I see "rights" as actions the government is not allowed to infringe upon. They are a political construct, not a natural construct.

By why shouldn't they infringe on those rights? Why should a goverment not be able to, for example, prevent a strike by force?

That's going to depend on the economic idealism the government is based on. In a capitalist economy, for example, the government should only be involved if the strike becomes violent or destructive. A peaceful presentation, for whatever reason it may be created, has the right to run its course as long as there is no threat of harm to a person or the property of a person or group. It also gets into freedom of speech there, and where the lines are drawn. If they are chanting "no work without higher pay", then nothing is wrong. If they chant "higher pay or else" it gets iffy. If they chant "higher pay or we kill the boss", their freedom of speech becomes a threat, and is thus no longer legal, or a right.

[MrPopo]

I see "rights" as actions the government is not allowed to infringe upon. They are a political construct, not a natural construct.

By why shouldn't they infringe on those rights? Why should a goverment not be able to, for example, prevent a strike by force?

Why are photons at a wavelength between 450 and 495 nanometers called blue when they are perceived by the eye? Because that's how we've defined it. The fact I called it a political construct should have tipped you off that it's just an arbitrary definition.

[darsparx]

*sigh* decided to try and load WoW on my computer now that I have it back and yeah...forgot how big that game is....as much as i want to play ff1 and beat it out yeah piscodemons suck

[Exhuminator]

What exactly is your road block with Final Fantasy man? I'm sure somebody on this board can help you push through. That game has become your white whale. Harpoon that sucker or forever sail in shame.

[GSZX1337]

I finally beat StarCraft about week ago. I think it's going to be a while before I play the expansion, but I still want some RTS action. I know about (and posted in) that thread from earlier this year, but I'm thinking about playing some Star Wars RTSes (maybe with Force Commander for shits and giggles) or maybe going further back with Dune 2.

[MrPopo]

Dune 2 is pretty rough. Go with Dune 2000, as it's basically Dune 2 on the Red Alert engine. Even then you'll definitely see all the parts where it's one of the first major RTS's and so is on the simple end of things.

Empire at War is a pretty decent Star Wars RTSish. All the combat is real time, but there's a turn based overall view and once in combat you have a fixed number of assets based on what you did in the turn based portion.