Well as for the too big for the screen shpiel, my guess would be that your view mode on the tv is the problem. It's probably in zoom. Set it to normal. I don't know what the technical name is, but most tvs have different display settings like "Zoom 1", "Zoom 2", "4:3", "Stretch", "16:9". That's assuming you've got a widescreen. If you've got a standard def tv, then I can't help you.

And the brightness deal I can't help you either because I just popped the game in for 15 minutes, and then took a break for breakfast... hopefully I don't run into the same problem.

[QUOTE="Shot_Rocker"]

lol I agree (last time... promise!). I mean it seemed like a good idea to quote at first... but I think the length of the posts got out of hand (just a little bit, though:P).

But anyways, I think I understand now why it is that the mods let this thread keep going... to teach people why you don't discuss religion, politics, personal beliefs, or any other fun touchy subjects on the PS3 forum. I mean, this stuff can really drag on!

But yeah, I gotta bow out of this thread because it feels weird taking a break from life's other commitments, of which there is plenty at this time of year, to come on here and talk about some serious stuff when I could be using that time to do something that doesn't involve nearly as much thinking (like COD4, duh! I mean, there's a new map pack out people!). So, it was fun dancing with ya lilchuloai. Good luck with your grad studies, or whatever.

And, in hopes of not saying something that will draw this thread out any longer, I'm gonna say two things that I think most people can agree on: One, GTAIV is gonna be freakin awsome. And two, whoever put out that fake memo that said their going ahead with the early release of GTAIV because the game's been leeked is a jerk. Was it you lilchuloai? Come on, admit it! It was, wasn't it? haha

lilchuloai

Good man, good man, I made my post before I saw yours, but yes I agree with everything stated here, although I did enjoy the brain exercise and it is good timing to get the neurons flowing in time for finals, but yes this is a lesson and a warning which is what I wanted in the first place (until a worthy adversary spoke up). As far as the memo....maaaaaybe....but really whoever did must have had one hell of a laugh getting all those people's emotions cooking, but a jerk nonetheless. What is your psn, I believe this conversation has done enough that we can exercise our thumbs sometime?

After reading your second to last post I see that we were on the same page in terms of exiting the debate at the stage it was at, and that post was certainly a good way to leave it. And I enjoyed the debate as well. Like you said, its unexpected to find someone who has the patience and self-control, not to mention the smarts, to engage in something like this. As far as my psnid, are you sure we're ready to participate in something where there has to be a clear outcome? It would be foreign territory for us haha. The addy is distinct_fit. But don't fret if I don't respond to the add right away, I have a couple finals in the coming days so my gaming time will be limited in the short term.

[QUOTE="I_pWnzz_YoU"][QUOTE="Shot_Rocker"][QUOTE="lilchuloai"]

Wow you had to work on this one for a while, I saw you online last night when I responded, but I understand you can't craft a well written piece off the top of your head which is understandable as most can't. Sorry to break it to you, but you are the only one interpreting anything that's been presented, I've only taken your words as what they are YOUR WORDS, that is something you can not honestly claim you have been doing, as if you took my original words as MY WORDS then it would have read "instead of poisoning forums with your false truths, do some research and grow a mind of your own," and obviously from the rest of my post the false truths I was referring to was the relation of a war to a videogame (my major problem and reason to post) and the declaring of nudity as WRONG, which I also made clear that was one of my issues with the OP....now you can take that and twist it to mean whatever you want so that you can write your small essays (well-structured though), but the only fact is that you are basing your argument on an image of what I was referring to that you have created yourself and I am not responsible for.

I will disregard your third paragraph because you are in no position to tell me what my intentions were with my wording and posts, now that is truely immature, and I would not steep that low but apparently you have, which is once again your choice

I will agree to disagree with you on the whole semantics bit because as you said we are students of different fields, and as I've stated numerous times it's all perception and my reality is quite different from yours, I don't ask you to change yours or accept mine, but it appears you ask that of me with your snobby little insults thrown in parantheses.

You preach open-mindedness yet condem free-thinking that is the contradiction I referred to, and once again this all falls under your field of study, because in my reality society does not DEFINE a strong-minded individuals priorities, there are individuals that are not giving in to the mind raping from the society we live in, and I say that as my opinion (must I say this so you don't mistake it for fact), as well as the fact that those under society's "control" are sheep (as am I, but I strive to prove I am actually a wolf in sheep clothing), I never said there were people completely "free from society", but there are people who know and have discovered truths that shatter the ideals of our society, and it is these people that are trying to "wake up the sheep" as I stated, you must have never had any mind-blowing life-altering experiences that would give you the power to think outside of societies influences, but I have.

Here you are once again taking my words out of context to create a contradiction, because I was referring to NEW DISCOVERIES which means things that are not learned or have not been done before hence the word NEW, these discoveries are made through trial and error, not told to you by someone else, directly or indirectly. I never said in that statement that the study of others' experiences is out of the question, the point I was making is that the OP should look outside of what they are TOLD to think their whole life, and do research, to grow a mind and formulate unique thoughts that may be of great importance to society....I see no contradiction there, but once again, if you do, that is your perception and I have no control of that.

Overall, you are contradicting your entire first argument against me because you are presenting all of your ideals about new ideas, how they are formed, and what they consist of as fact (you are saying new ideas are this and that, and they are not this and that)...which I thought was unknown according to yourself? I merely presented my points I never said that anyone has to believe it, I simply asked that the OP do research and not base his thoughts of what is right/wrong solely on beliefs that I'm relatively sure were spoonfed to him his entire life (as I was spoonfed the same thoughts..which I've rejected through experiences and research), and I asked the OP not to water down a sensitive situation like the war (which he did all on his own) by comparing to a videogame and in turn derailed this thread down the path it has gone. Now you can continue to put on your freedom fighter cape and we can debate this forever, but you have jumped into an argument that had nothing to do with you to defend another, but your points are bland and generic...have a great day and I look forward to your next essay, maybe tomorrow?

ck02623

I really do appreciate you assuming that because I am online, I must immediately be responding to you. It's quite flattering, really, because it just means that you are eagerly anticipating my next response. Thank you for that.

As for the clarity of your initial responses (One of which I can't find, so I'm guessing it was deleted), don't assume the distinction was so clear. You started by stating your shpiel about the war and video games, and then went on to tell the OP to go and listen to his pedophilic leaders (which obviously is a shot at catholic priests). The moment you related his war/video game/nudity ideas to his religion, you blurred the distinction that you claim was so evident in your post. So our discussion went exactly where you allowed it to.

Next, if you actually look at that third paragraph of my last post, you'll see that I wasn't talking about your actual intentions, but, rather, the way you were coming off. You obviously have control over how you present yourself and your thoughts to others, and if you're completely oblivious to that, then you've got a problem. So, if you come out insulting someone's core beliefs, I could care less what you were intending, I'm more interested in what you did and/or failed to do. What matters are your words or actions with regard to other people, which is what I was referring to. I apologize if you're too "mature" to notice that.

As to your notion of perception: obviously, you are trying to influence my reality (or, at least someone's). If you weren't, you wouldn't be participating in this little debate we've got going on. And you're right; I shouldn't put little insults in parentheses. Instead, I should just integrate them wholly and openly into my posts like you do, right?

Also, once again, I don't think you get what I mean about society, which is why you see a contradiction there. Maybe "priorities" was not the right word (when I used it though, I was talking about it in the latent sense, not explicitly stated priorities), so I'll try to put it differently. Without society defining what is needed, new ideas can't emerge because society hasn't yet found a use for them. I'm not talking about specific ideals or anything like that, because that is a really murky area since there are so many things that can be defined as society, so I'm just talking in a general sense here. So, for example, a researcher who may discover the cure for cancer wouldn't have to done so if cancer was not deemed to exist (probably a bad example, but whatever). Or if you want a revolutionary thinker (and an example I'm more familiar with) we can use Karl Marx because he's pretty well known. He criticized the fundamentals of the society he lived in and formulated ideas that were very radical and different. He wouldn't have needed too, though, if 19th century capitalism wasn't so darn bad to everyday people (he also said some crazy stuff, but you mentioned people "that discover truths and shatter ideals about society", and he's an example). In both examples, revolutionary things are discovered because society created the conditions for them to be discovered.

While I find your sheep and wolf analogy cute, I'm more of the belief that people are dependant on each other to survive. That's why we need things like laws and institutions, and, also why we justify their shortcomings.And, a lot of times, it's those deficiencies that force us to think of new things. And I've had so many "mind-blowing life-altering experiences" that I've been humbled by the discovery that we are never free of society(ies)'s influences because in some way, shape, or form they are with us every moment of every waking day.

And, finally, the difference between what I was critiquing you for and what I/we am/are doing here is that you were pretty much scorning the OP's personal beliefs basing it on the ideas that you are think were "spoon fed" to him because that's what you claimed happened to you, which is supposing a lot. I, on the other hand, am using the ways you've chosen to present yourself and the things you specifically posted, and trying to substantiate my position against them (which you weren't doing with the OP) as best as I can. As for the "bland and generic" quip, it's definitely much easier to use pejorative terms than to say something worth saying, as you have quite adequately demonstrated.

STOP QUOTING THIS!!!!

Yeah

lol I agree (last time... promise!). I mean it seemed like a good idea to quote at first... but I think the length of the posts got out of hand (just a little bit, though:P).

But anyways, I think I understand now why it is that the mods let this thread keep going... to teach people why you don't discuss religion, politics, personal beliefs, or any other fun touchy subjects on the PS3 forum. I mean, this stuff can really drag on!

But yeah, I gotta bow out of this thread because it feels weird taking a break from life's other commitments, of which there is plenty at this time of year, to come on here and talk about some serious stuff when I could be using that time to do something that doesn't involve nearly as much thinking (like COD4, duh! I mean, there's a new map pack out people!). So, it was fun dancing with ya lilchuloai. Good luck with your grad studies, or whatever.

And, in hopes of not saying something that will draw this thread out any longer, I'm gonna say two things that I think most people can agree on: One, GTAIV is gonna be freakin awsome. And two, whoever put out that fake memo that said their going ahead with the early release of GTAIV because the game's been leeked is a jerk. Was it you lilchuloai? Come on, admit it! It was, wasn't it? haha

Wow you had to work on this one for a while, I saw you online last night when I responded, but I understand you can't craft a well written piece off the top of your head which is understandable as most can't. Sorry to break it to you, but you are the only one interpreting anything that's been presented, I've only taken your words as what they are YOUR WORDS, that is something you can not honestly claim you have been doing, as if you took my original words as MY WORDS then it would have read "instead of poisoning forums with your false truths, do some research and grow a mind of your own," and obviously from the rest of my post the false truths I was referring to was the relation of a war to a videogame (my major problem and reason to post) and the declaring of nudity as WRONG, which I also made clear that was one of my issues with the OP....now you can take that and twist it to mean whatever you want so that you can write your small essays (well-structured though), but the only fact is that you are basing your argument on an image of what I was referring to that you have created yourself and I am not responsible for.

I will disregard your third paragraph because you are in no position to tell me what my intentions were with my wording and posts, now that is truely immature, and I would not steep that low but apparently you have, which is once again your choice

I will agree to disagree with you on the whole semantics bit because as you said we are students of different fields, and as I've stated numerous times it's all perception and my reality is quite different from yours, I don't ask you to change yours or accept mine, but it appears you ask that of me with your snobby little insults thrown in parantheses.

You preach open-mindedness yet condem free-thinking that is the contradiction I referred to, and once again this all falls under your field of study, because in my reality society does not DEFINE a strong-minded individuals priorities, there are individuals that are not giving in to the mind raping from the society we live in, and I say that as my opinion (must I say this so you don't mistake it for fact), as well as the fact that those under society's "control" are sheep (as am I, but I strive to prove I am actually a wolf in sheep clothing), I never said there were people completely "free from society", but there are people who know and have discovered truths that shatter the ideals of our society, and it is these people that are trying to "wake up the sheep" as I stated, you must have never had any mind-blowing life-altering experiences that would give you the power to think outside of societies influences, but I have.

Here you are once again taking my words out of context to create a contradiction, because I was referring to NEW DISCOVERIES which means things that are not learned or have not been done before hence the word NEW, these discoveries are made through trial and error, not told to you by someone else, directly or indirectly. I never said in that statement that the study of others' experiences is out of the question, the point I was making is that the OP should look outside of what they are TOLD to think their whole life, and do research, to grow a mind and formulate unique thoughts that may be of great importance to society....I see no contradiction there, but once again, if you do, that is your perception and I have no control of that.

Overall, you are contradicting your entire first argument against me because you are presenting all of your ideals about new ideas, how they are formed, and what they consist of as fact (you are saying new ideas are this and that, and they are not this and that)...which I thought was unknown according to yourself? I merely presented my points I never said that anyone has to believe it, I simply asked that the OP do research and not base his thoughts of what is right/wrong solely on beliefs that I'm relatively sure were spoonfed to him his entire life (as I was spoonfed the same thoughts..which I've rejected through experiences and research), and I asked the OP not to water down a sensitive situation like the war (which he did all on his own) by comparing to a videogame and in turn derailed this thread down the path it has gone. Now you can continue to put on your freedom fighter cape and we can debate this forever, but you have jumped into an argument that had nothing to do with you to defend another, but your points are bland and generic...have a great day and I look forward to your next essay, maybe tomorrow?

lilchuloai

I really do appreciate you assuming that because I am online, I must immediately be responding to you. It's quite flattering, really, because it just means that you are eagerly anticipating my next response. Thank you for that.

As for the clarity of your initial responses (One of which I can't find, so I'm guessing it was deleted), don't assume the distinction was so clear. You started by stating your shpiel about the war and video games, and then went on to tell the OP to go and listen to his pedophilic leaders (which obviously is a shot at catholic priests). The moment you related his war/video game/nudity ideas to his religion, you blurred the distinction that you claim was so evident in your post. So our discussion went exactly where you allowed it to.

Next, if you actually look at that third paragraph of my last post, you'll see that I wasn't talking about your actual intentions, but, rather, the way you were coming off. You obviously have control over how you present yourself and your thoughts to others, and if you're completely oblivious to that, then you've got a problem. So, if you come out insulting someone's core beliefs, I could care less what you were intending, I'm more interested in what you did and/or failed to do. What matters are your words or actions with regard to other people, which is what I was referring to. I apologize if you're too "mature" to notice that.

As to your notion of perception: obviously, you are trying to influence my reality (or, at least someone's). If you weren't, you wouldn't be participating in this little debate we've got going on. And you're right; I shouldn't put little insults in parentheses. Instead, I should just integrate them wholly and openly into my posts like you do, right?

Also, once again, I don't think you get what I mean about society, which is why you see a contradiction there. Maybe "priorities" was not the right word (when I used it though, I was talking about it in the latent sense, not explicitly stated priorities), so I'll try to put it differently. Without society defining what is needed, new ideas can't emerge because society hasn't yet found a use for them. I'm not talking about specific ideals or anything like that, because that is a really murky area since there are so many things that can be defined as society, so I'm just talking in a general sense here. So, for example, a researcher who may discover the cure for cancer wouldn't have to done so if cancer was not deemed to exist (probably a bad example, but whatever). Or if you want a revolutionary thinker (and an example I'm more familiar with) we can use Karl Marx because he's pretty well known. He criticized the fundamentals of the society he lived in and formulated ideas that were very radical and different. He wouldn't have needed too, though, if 19th century capitalism wasn't so darn bad to everyday people (he also said some crazy stuff, but you mentioned people "that discover truths and shatter ideals about society", and he's an example). In both examples, revolutionary things are discovered because society created the conditions for them to be discovered.

While I find your sheep and wolf analogy cute, I'm more of the belief that people are dependant on each other to survive. That's why we need things like laws and institutions, and, also why we justify their shortcomings.And, a lot of times, it's those deficiencies that force us to think of new things. And I've had so many "mind-blowing life-altering experiences" that I've been humbled by the discovery that we are never free of society(ies)'s influences because in some way, shape, or form they are with us every moment of every waking day.

And, finally, the difference between what I was critiquing you for and what I/we am/are doing here is that you were pretty much scorning the OP's personal beliefs basing it on the ideas that you are think were "spoon fed" to him because that's what you claimed happened to you, which is supposing a lot. I, on the other hand, am using the ways you've chosen to present yourself and the things you specifically posted, and trying to substantiate my position against them (which you weren't doing with the OP) as best as I can. As for the "bland and generic" quip, it's definitely much easier to use pejorative terms than to say something worth saying, as you have quite adequately demonstrated.

[QUOTE="I_pWnzz_YoU"]

[QUOTE="ck02623"]Please lock this stupid thread. This is the most immature, insensitive lump of trash I have ever seen; it's sucking away the IQ of everyone who reads it guynamedbilly

Agreed. 100% useless.

Haha. It's like a soap opera... you can't stand that your watching, but yet you can't turn away.

You really know how to manipulate words to dance around issues, I'll give you credit for that, you clearly attacked me for saying what was "real and what wasn't" the only thing i said that was real was the war and soldiers fighting there, the only thing that I said wasn't was a mythical man that controls all things, and that is my belief, presented in broad daylight, as it was before, to call something false is not saying you know the truth, this is not an "if not b then a" situation, if you know any college psych. There can be many truths to one falsity and once again you are assuming that I know all these things, and I am flattered that you compliment my intelligence to be that high, thank you! The OP brought religion in to this, so your argument in that regard is directed in the wrong spot, by the way the OP made his beliefs clear so I assumed nothing.

You are clearly not deep into a college curriculum, but let me make it easier on you and add a word "common knowledge of most college level SCIENCE education courses" because indeed research is what all of us graduate science students do, and whether or not you believe that discoveries are made or are a byproduct of humanities influence is just semantics, the fact of the matter is ALL doctors, professors, any strong-minded individual (maybe even yourself) does research to learn things when they can't experience things on their own, I never once said that discoveries were to be made about religion or beliefs, I said research, in general, to grow a mind, and research and experience are the only tools to grow a mind, after all most research is the study and application of others' experiences to experience something NEW (to the person doing the research of course), but as I said..just semantics..we could argue that for lifetimes, you once again have crafted all of these assumptions of what I was referring to, and that is the basis of your post and it's a very weak tactic since I was clearly not talking about anything you are, to think that ALL people are burdened with your "none of us are capable of thinking for ourselves, in the true sense of the term, simply because we are members of humanity" is a very sad point of view and I must disagree as there are many of strong minded individuals who are striving to wake the sheep up to the reality of things, I guess you have never met such a person...that I am sorry for. I'm glad you found the Word thesaurus but all of your fancy language aside, there is no substance to your post and I feel bad that you have to resort to that tactic as well, but as you said "its that time of the year" so I can not hold that against you, by the way you contradict yourself a little too much...you may want to reread and edit your points before you click the submit button next time

lilchuloai

First off, the contradictions aren't in my words. It's your faulty interpretation of my words as they are not intended to be interpreted that places them there. Of substance, on the other hand, there is plenty, if only you would put a little effort into understanding what I'm trying to say, because I really don't think you do.

Second, I don't know how it happened, but I think we're branching out and having multiple concurrent arguments at the same time, despite the fact that all of your points seem to be crammed together and a difficult to discern. I just hope that I can separate mine to make them easier to read than yours.

Next, the thing is that you didn't present your statements as simple belief like you claim to have. I mean, you were clearly projecting that you knew better than the OP with the language you used, even if that's not what you intended, that's exactly what you did (and probably the OP too, I can't remember… this thread has become quite long). Let me reiterate, there's a difference between presenting your beliefs, and provoking others with your beliefs. You did the latter, but seem to think you were doing the former.

As for the nature of discoveries, it's not mere semantics. The nature of what we know and how we know is the starting point of all inquiry; scientific, or other. It influences and permeates how we go about finding answers. At times it can severely limit what we learn, while other times it can expand our horizons considerably, all depending on which perspective is used in which context. So I don't think it's appropriate to undersell it as semantics. But I will agree with you on the fact that the debate between specific epistemological perspectives has been going on for centuries, so I doubt we will come to a solution on a Gamespot forum (especially considering that you are of the school of natural science, and I'm from the social sciences).

Next, I don't think you fully understood my point about free-thinking (or, lack thereof) and humanity. After all, I didn't add the phrase "in the true sense of the term" for nothing. I am not saying we are all sheep, but rather products of our social interactions. Of course we have the capacity to decide, to think, and to believe for ourselves, but the society to which we belong determines our priorities. New ideas are discovered when society reorganizes its priorities to make people focus on crafting new ideas. It has nothing to do with strength of mind, and you would have caught that if you were actually paying attention (try it sometime, it can do wonders). Show me an individual capable of thought that is free from the influence of society, and I will show you an individual who you will not be able to understand (not just because of language, either).

So, this is where I took issue with your point of view on broadening our minds. I had a problem not with your call to research – everything I've written thus far is a product of things I've researched over the years – but rather the idea you initially presented that we do not discover new ideas through other people. For reasons already mentioned, that's exactly how we discover new ideas. And, as a matter of fact, your last post supported that ideal, even though it contradicted your earlier statements. Initially you said discoveries "do not come from other people but from trial and error". Which is what I had a problem with, but you changed positions in the last post when you said people "research to learn things when they can't experience things on their own". You even go on to say that in order to grow our minds we require the "application of others' experiences to experience something NEW".I believe this is evidence of the fact that you didn't fully understand what I meant in my last post (which is kind of ironic/embarrassing coming from someone who told me to reread my posts before I submit them). Remember how I said that new discoveries are made through our existing theoretical frameworks? Well you pretty much took that point, and ran with it in your last post. Basically, new ideas are the culmination of existing influences and ideas in conjunction with one's own personal aptitudes.

The fact that it appears we are in agreement on something major brings me back to my first point: nobody is in a position to tell anybody else to "do some research and grow a mind of their own" because ideas originate from others (which just means they are derived, not necessarily imitated). Just because one person's framework is more varied than someon else's does not make it more valid just more eclectic. So, to, as one person put it, flame someone about their most fundamental beliefs is highly inappropriate – and flawed – from either perspective.

wake up and smell the brew pal, the war is real, my family is over there right now risking life, there is no unknown to that...further, as I stated everything is perception, in my existence GODS and all of that is imaginary, and that is also not unknown...in my existence, which by the way is what matters to me and what matters when I am making a point based on my existence...and none of my language insinuated that my belief system is what occurs to others, may I politely ask you to quote any such language and explain as I fail to see any substance in that statement? Also could you explain where I became a hypocrit...I believe I said that one can believe and make their own choices, so by believing and making my own how am I a hypocrit? As far as your credibility, I will gladly submit my credibility when it comes to you, as you serve no importance in my life and I expect the same in return, research does not mean looking at thoughts and/or ideas of someone else...if I may reach into the common knowledge of most college level education courses, research is the basis of NEW DISCOVERIES, which do not come from other people but from trial and error, now maybe you haven't journeyed that far in life to understand that, but calling me ignorant for having done research myself and discovering things myself and learning things through my research...which in turn builds my mind, is absurd and might I say "ignorant and hypocritical", as a freedom of living I have every right to criticize anyone I so choose, and as he watered down a REAL LIFE situation like the war by comparing it to a videogame, I am sure I am not the only one who felt the need to criticize him. And I must agree with your box metaphor since everyone lives in a box of their own perception, good point friend! This argument was predicated on the direct comparison of a video game with a REAL LIFE war, and there is no open-mindedness present in that statement, thus your point about that is completely off topic. Nobody, but you, is arguing right from wrong, the fact is that I was disrespected by the OPs statements about war and I expressed my thoughts, never did I or the OP say we were right or wrong, you also have a wonderful day

lilchuloai

Well first off, I'm breaking what you've been saying into two points. First, you took offence to the OP's relation between soldiers and a video game character. That's fine. I have little interest/opinion in that matter because I am not of the U.S. and have little personal stake in the issue, and, as such, I wasn't referring to that in my posts. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

What I was referring to in my posts was how you managed to mesh in attacks on religion and, more specifically, what you suppose to be the, OP's beliefs. First off, you didn't present your views on beliefs from a personal level, as you claim. You used imposing rhetoric like "false truths", "propaganda", and "you are a pawn". In order to know what is "false" and "propaganda", you must obviously know what the antithesis to false is, and that is what is true. So by striking down someone else's beliefs in as such a strong way as you did, you by default claim to know what is wrong with those beliefs and what should replace them. Presenting your views is one thing, but directly attacking someone else's is another, so don't play coy.

Next, clearly you must have misunderstood the premise of the "common knowledge of most college level education courses" because to claim research as "the basis of NEW DISCOVERIES, which do not come from other people but from trial and error" is frankly incorrect and I'm pretty sure you just made it up. For the purpose of relevance, I'm going to be talking about beliefs from an anti-realist perspective, because to look at something that is subjective from an objective standpoint (which is traditionally how trial and error is used) doesn't make sense. All research and findings of "new discoveries" occur within theoretical frameworks that are learned and influenced by everything around us. In today's world that can be media, family, organizations, scholars, friends… you get the picture. So, when new discoveries are made, we acknowledge them because they are deemed relevant within our theoretical framework. And, every "new discovery' that is made, is tainted by those frameworks; we only discover them because society told us what it is that needs discovering. That means that none of us are capable of thinking for ourselves, in the true sense of the term, simply because we are members of humanity. Discoveries about beliefs don't exist outside of us waiting to be discovered, we simply choose to discover them based on how others have influenced us.

And, finally, my open-mindedness reference was at people subscribing to their beliefs so vividly that they denounce that which isn't in accord with equal vividness. It's one thing to have personal beliefs because, like you said, we all have the right to criticize and believe what we want, but when people begin to publicly espouse that harsh criticism it builds tension and serves no other purpose other than to provoke. For example, how you used that strong rhetoric I mentioned before to insult the OP's beliefs, or how a lot of religious folk denounce atheists as evil. My point was for people to keep an open-mind to others' personal beliefs, or, at least, pretend to in order to keep the peace. Like, if people are arguing about one thing, i.e. violence and sex in video games, stay on the topic. There's no need to get personal, which many people on both sides of the religious/non-religious coin have a tendency to do.

PS: I apologize to those that read it, for the longevity and dryness of this post. It's that time of year when exam have to be written, and research papers must be submitted, so I'm accustomed to making simple thoughts go on much longer than they should.

[QUOTE="Shot_Rocker"]

And do you like representing hypocricy? My argument was based on the OPs bringing of the soldiers into this argument about a videogame, I did not once say my beliefs on religions are indeed fact, you assumed that on your own. 99.99999% of everything is perception so you create your own world, and if I'm that powerful in it, I thank you!!

lilchuloai

Well, the jist of my post was not directed specifically at you. It was a general post directed a lot of the positions presented in this thread; I just took a couple of examples that I remember reading in the thread. After going back and rereading the posts I realize that some were evident in your post, and some were not, but, again, it wasn't directed specifically at you. My other post prior to this one, one the other hand is another story.

[QUOTE="AuthenticM"][QUOTE="lilchuloai"]

Don't you dare compare the brave soldiers out there fighting for the people they love to a GTA character, these situations are not connected in any way, the killing that was brought up was GTA-related and you bringing up our soldiers is ignorant and simple-minded.

lilchuloai

He probably brought it on purpose so he could talk about God and the War on Terror at the same time. lol, and US politicians claim there is a separation of church and state in their country. Laughable.

Oh, as for the rest of your post: epic win

There are quite a number of things in your post that I have to point out. You seem like you claim to know what is "real" and what the "truth" is, but in reality, that stuff is really unknown. I mean, your essentially condemning the OP for imposing his beliefs on to others, and then coming back by using language that insinuates that your belief sytem is what actually occurs, and everyone that doesn't comply is in the dark. That, to me, seems very hypocritical.

You also lost all credibility with me when you said "do some research and grow a mind of your own". Hmmm.... OK, so your sollution to conformity to look at research, thoughts, and ideas that originated from someone else? Like, how ignorant can you seriously be? Criticizing the OP like you are is like criticizing someone living in a box, while you yourself are sitting in a box. Personally, I think the whole idea of open-mindedness is supposed to be predicated on not closing out all the possibilities, and I believe you and the OP are doing exactly that. That's what so frustrating about this argument - one side says they are right for the same underlying reasons the other says that they are right.