A Link to the Past, Conversation, Debates, Egoraptor, HMK, Internet, Ocarina of Time, Presentation, Speedrunning, Storytelling, Zelda

Zelda: A Link to the Past vs Ocarina of Time

Dear Diary,

So about let’s say…… July 1, 2014 Egoraptor put out a video as part of his Sequelitis series about A Link to the Past vs Ocarina of Time. If you’re not familiar with this series, I’d go youtube it right away. His one on megaman is probably universally loved. His analyses is always very intelligent and usually funny as well. Even if you end up disagreeing with him these videos tend to make people think about video games in a critical way that many other critics don’t inspire in people, at least that’d be my guess.

However, his A Link to the Past vs Ocarina of Time video is much more controversial then the previous videos he had made. This ended up with a lot of backlash and criticism since one of the aspects of the video was to harshly criticize Ocarina of Time. This game is so well beloved that people rushed to it’s defense since when they played it they obviously liked it. However if you want to continue reading my post, you probably should watch the video because I’m not going to highlight all his criticisms and some of this post may be confusing without earlier interpretation.

So in retrospect looking back at the game Zelda: Ocarina of Time I can easily say this was a positive part of my life growing up. This game is firmly cemented into my nostalgia and thinking about the game. However when I went to replay it more recently I found myself having trouble enjoying myself. I really WANTED to enjoy myself, but most of the game’s mechanics were just frustrating. I realize now that a lot of what made it hard for me to enjoy are the very things Egoraptor pointed out. The huge amounts of unnecessary dialogue, the jumping through hoops to get things done, the waiting design for all the enemies of the game, the uninteresting puzzles of looking around the room, and one he didn’t point out… the horse very easily losing momentum because it got near a wall but didn’t actually touch it.

So, does Egoraptor have a point? Yes. Yes Egoraptor has many good points. So the question is… why did I like this game growing up? Nostalgia is an after affect, it can’t make you like a game while you’re playing it. Maybe you could make an argument my love for Zelda games in general is what made me walk into Ocarina of Time with nostalgia from previous games blinding my sight to the glaring problems of the games but… I’m not going to buy it.

So, there has to be something of worthy content in these games that it got so firmly placed in my mind as a great game. One thing Egoraptor touches on that most critics of Egoraptor must not have noticed he said. “A 3D world with delicious sound and amazing graphics, at the time. Each dungeon and each town unique and has it’s own energy to it. We were all floored! This felt like what gaming was leading up to.” about 4:19 in the video.

This is a MAJOR part of what makes the game so nostalgic. The game was so beautiful created in terms of sound and visuals. The theming also was really well done. Now the music wasn’t terribly done in A Link to the Past but… every dungeon has basically the same theme. Since the graphics were limited, everything just didn’t look as spectacular either. So when you entered a dungeon it did “feel so epic.”

However, I don’t think that covers the entire span of why this game was good.I do think that this is a big part of it, but there were other things that were well done. So let’s talk about Egoraptor’s criticisms of how the storytelling went.

“It’s this kinda of like misdirection of what you should care about ,in Zelda, that really bugs me about Ocarina. Like let’s take it’s story for example. Ocarina’ story provides you with a context for it’s quest. That accomplishing this will save this or change this but it refuses to acknowledge the players innate sense of wonder and drive to quest and fight. Players want to fight bosses, they want to be rewarded for their efforts, they want to enter a dungeon, see what’s inside and succeed against enemies. But you gotta put tat feeling aside, there are more important matters at hand.” Around 19:50 of the video.

“I think the idea that you’re told you’re a hero saving a kingdom is at least somewhat unnecessary. When it’s an order delivered by the game, it becomes a task it’s like a job. The message should be in that as a player, you’re idea of fun ends up making you a hero.” Around 20:40 of the video.

This point makes me cry it’s so spot on. However, let’s dig a little bit here into A Link to the Past. You totally get orders delivered by the game. When the game starts you get an order right away to go save the princess. You’re cut off from so many areas until you finish the story aspect of the game. Then once you get out you’re also given marks on a map of what you’re supposed to do.But there are a couple differences. One the story aspect of A Link to the Past that you have to complete is mostly GAME PLAY oriented. Ocarina has this too, but the text provided just overwhelms the little pieces of game play attached to it. Also with A Link to the Past you get much more open area to explore once the beginning story part is achieved. You’re not quite as restricted as you are in Ocarina. You can ignore a lot of the marks on the map. More importantly there’s just so much you can do without going straight to where they tell you. The amount of optional things that you can do in Ocarina of time is severely limited. It isn’t non-existent, it’s just not as prominent as it was in Link to the Past.

Another bit of digging will show that there is HUGE amounts of dialogue in A Link to the Past that sits around telling you you’re a hero an you have to save princesses and in the end the world. This is so clear in the game. I certainly think this could have and should have been toned down. Egoraptor’s criticisms of Ocarina can easily be applied to A Link to the Past, but he doesn’t and here’s why I sympathize with it. In Ocarina of Time they have CUT SCENES. Yeah there are a couple in A Link to the Past, sure, but because of the nature of Ocarina of Time’s cut scenes they end up taking WAAAAAAAAAAY more time. It’s just so much more glaring in Ocarina of Time to the point where it’s impossible to ignore This is happening, your time is being wasted and you’re being told why what you’re doing is important. A Link to the Past has it but you can generally just ignore what they’re saying and get back to the adventuring, which takes up far more time in the game. Another reason why it’s less problematic is that it kinda builds up the “You’re a hero” aspect of it. It doesn’t start by insisting you’re the hero of time, it starts by just needing you as purely an ends to means. Zelda’s in terrible danger and calls out for help. Then you are told if you get the masters word you’ll have the sword with the power of evil’s bane. It’s not till you reach the darkworld that they really start hammering home that you’re probably the hero. In fact some of the princesses question whether or not you are the hero even when it becomes increasingly obvious you are. So does A Link to the Past have similar problems to Ocarina in terms of the story telling you what to do? Yes. Is it as overtly problematic for the game? Absolutely not.

“I don’t buy the argument that they’re [semantics and dialogue] only they’re only there to enrichen the world with story.” About 21:30 in.

So, does having dialogue, background, and stories enrichen a story? I’d say, yes. However, it needs to be done well and I’d say the majority of Ocarina’s wasn’t done well. To take an example of what I think was done really well was Baldur’s Gate by BIoWare released for the computer in 1998. I do think some of the dialogue could have been toned down, but let’s take a look at the book items. The books that aren’t important all have a similar cover. You know that those books have no monetary value in the game, they have no story value, they don’t boost your characters strengths. The ones that do have a different look to them, you don’t need to go digging through them to find value. However, they bring story and background to the game you wouldn’t find elsewhere. Want to know the history of the sword coast? You CAN read it. You want to know the history of the fateful coin? You CAN read them. They’re all there for you to choose to ignore or use. Even if you did read them, you don’t have to read them again in a replay making them not a hindrance to the flow of the gameplay in a replay. This is even present in the weapons. You get a special weapon, it has a story you CAN read but don’t have to. This is absolutely brilliant. In Ocarina of Time you have to listen to the Deku tree sit around and tell you the history of how their world was created. Sure, this can be interesting… but you HAVE NO CHOICE. If they had taken a more Baldur’s Gate approach to this it would enrichen the story WITHOUT devaluing the gameplay.

Okay, so I’ve taken a lot of time criticizing Ocarina of Time, so time to give it one more thumbs up aspect to the game. So as I mentioned, the dialogue and story was mostly done poorly. There’s way too much and it’s unavoidable and hard to ignore. However, there is one part they did fantastically well that wasn’t done as well in A Link to the Past. So if you’ve played the game you’ll know that you do three dungeons than go to collect up the master sword. You go to grab it and then Ganon explains that you helped him get what he wanted. Then you go through a five minute set of cut scenes explaining that you’re now older so you can use the master sword and save the world yada yada yada. Although Ganon’s little bit of dialogue is not bothersome, the cut scenes are horribly long.However once you leave the temple of time you walk out and EVERYTHING’S DIFFERENT. The second you leave the temple the entire tone of the game has changed. Death mountain looks like something evil and magical has happened to it, the town is completely gone and full of dead creatures. Where the castle was there is now this giant fortress of doom. You got to know this world and now it’s changed completely. You don’t even need the cut scenes to feel this immense curiosity and to feel the weight of what happened to this world you’ve gotten to know as young link. You’re instantly drawn to try and learn about how time has affected every. This is an aspect of storytelling them did well and could have done with the same affect if they left out the majority of the dialogue. This device is teaching you about the game by playing it. A Link to the Past had something similar, where there’s a world that’s ALMOST the same and you want to explore what’s different, however this has no story implications really. It’s interesting, but not as driving motivational wise as Ocarina of TIme. I think the game deserves some major props for this little piece of storytelling material. Does it make up for ALL of the problems? Certainly not in replayablity, but  for a first play-through I’d say yes.

So one last minor thing I think I’d mention about the game that Egoratpor didn’t touch on and I don’t think he had to. Speedrunning. I watch A Link to the Past Speedrunner quite often and certainly enjoy what I see, but in terms of the tricks the Ocarina of Time ones are just much more interesting visually. I think this is more of a 3D thing, since the visuals are just generally more interesting, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

I wasn’t going to make this blog, but when I got into the debates in the comments of a very weak response to Egoraptor by HMK I figured I’d weigh in on this.

I will say this though, because of how GREAT the story telling was done Majora’s Mask is definitely my favorite Zelda game.

Sincerely

~WateredDownPigSaliva

Standard
Burden of Proof, Conversation, Debates, Dishonest Tactics, Idiots, Internet, Thinking about what you say

Citing YOUR sources on the internet

Citizens of the world, a very new update has been found about the world! A meteor shower of shit and poopie is coming down this very second and will crush fucking everything! How I know this? Well if you don’t believe me you fucking look it up, you have fingers, why can—-

Dear Diary,

Have you ever noticed that people on the internet are some of the laziest assholes ever? I feel like the internet gives us the power to be more educated and put our ideas out there for everyone to see. However seriously everyone wants to be taken, at the same time no one wants to seem to do the work to be taken seriously.

Increasingly I find if someone makes a claim that is either interesting, unbelievable, or clearly a flat out lie when I ask someone to say…. CITE THEIR SOURCES…. they refuse.

In fact when I ask not only do people not cite their sources but they tend to make the most ridiculous claims I’ve ever heard. Even though they made the claim that needs proof the lazy fucks demand  sometimes that I cite their sources for them. They say if I want proof I should look it up, that I have fingers, that I’m a poor baby I need to google, or something like that. Isn’t this… something they should be saying to themselves? What we have here is a misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works.

How does this work? Well if someone makes a claim they basically have to prove their claim, not demand someone else disproves it. Now if someone doesn’t have support for their claim they may make that clear… that they can’t prove it. This humble position is fine. However, people often result to other tactics, like the one mentioned above demanding someone else get their proof for them.

Some other tactics I’ve ran into are trying to then demand proof be raised for claims earlier made in the discussion. Now, if a claim has been made and it’s truthfulness has been questioned then yes…. that claim should be then verified with proof by the holder of the burden of proof. However it is a dishonest tactic to pretend you are skeptical of a claim that was made to distract people from the fact that your claim has come into question. It’s kind of an order of operations problem here, your claim was questioned first…. deal with that claim then move onto the others. I even once had someone demand I give proof for a claim that he earlier mentioned HE AGREED WITH.

So why would people be so insistent on avoiding giving proof for their claims? I can simplify this into two categories and then expand the categories a bit into sub categories.

They either are LAZY or LYING.

Now, this is an over simplification a bit, so let’s deal with each category one at a time. Let’s start with being lazy.

So in the lazy category we have several situations kind of on a spectrum. One is that the person is actually remembering the source they had, have seen and have looked it over, but either doesn’t want to or can’t find the source. I can understand this to a degree in terms of can’t find or it’s damn hard to find and not worth the time, but then this should be admitted. If you can’t find the source say you can’t find it. If you tried to find it and said this is too big of a hassle, then say you can’t find it. If you simply do not want to find the source, then say you don’t want to. If you make a claim, don’t put it on the other person, either admit you won’t find the source and say it’s reasonable for them to not accept your claim or go find the fucking source.

In terms of the lying, this can’t be broken down in a way that’s at all helpful to understanding the situation. And by lying, I mean, knowingly deceiving someone. I don’t mean saying something you didn’t realize wasn’t true. So, if someone is trying to not cite their sources because they know it’s not true they are clearly just being a scumbag in that particular case, if not a walking monstrosity in their entirety. I mean let’s think about this for a second…. if there is no proof for their claim out there and they’re asking you to find the proof this is basically a wild goose chase. This is why anytime someone asks YOU to find the proof for their claim, you can simply point this out how ridiculous it is for you to find the proof or disproof of their claim.

Cite your damn sources or show some humility, you have the fucking internet at your fingertips. If you’re talking on the internet then…. you can find your sources most of the time. This is really simple and if you refuse to do it you’re painting yourself as lazy or a liar and neither is a flattering picture.

Sincerely

CentWothADollar

Standard
Conversation, FaceBook, Holidays, Idiots, Internet, Presentation, Thinking about what you say, Words

Facebook, we need to talk

Dear Diary,

It’s come to my attention, that like most parts of my life, I have a love hate relationship with a certain entity known as Facebook. Except this like having a love hate relationship with a drunken person telling horrible stories, showing me great pictures, and introducing me to people… all while feeding me crack. You see, it’s really hard to quit Facebook. It’s not that I need to though, that’s the one problem with the analogy. It doesn’t quite suck the life out of me or anything it just… never fails to disappoint me.

Facebook has it’s charms. People post political stuff and since I get to choose what people’s post I see and what pages I have I tend to mostly see things affirming my already hard to move political position. People post funny pictures I can laugh at or cute pictures. People post updates that are generally important, like my minecraft friend posts things about the server. I also get to stay connected vaguely with people I never would. Not that I need this or any of these things mind you, but  it’s generally nice.

Then there’s Facebook’s dark side. Southpark did it well when they made fun of the obvious faults which is people posting what they ate for dinner and how it was good, but it’s evolved beyond that point. I learned the hard way this new years eve that holidays bring out the worst in everyone’s Facebook use. People saying “Bring it on 2015!” or people telling me their new years resolutions… giving vague shout outs to friends and family, I just couldn’t care less. These things are NOT interesting and no one really cares. However people feel they need to do this to reaffirm the people around them that they’re important or something. Even my close friends and family, whom I respect greatly, post this nonsense. It’s like personal thank yous are too much work so they need to give a vague shout-out so that anyone who wants to be thanked can then feel thanked. I guess it’s efficient, but it seems so cold.

Facebook also is a battleground for wars that don’t seem to have purpose or goals. People posting hearts truck things and then getting into raging arguments where they basically just bash each other. I’ve seen some of the calmest smartest people I know get into raging arguments where they can’t act like adults and say nothing productive. It’s like watching two monkeys at a zoo throw poop at each other. And I probably will make a whole post about this but at the moment will just touch this idea that NOBODY cites their sources or thinks they should have to. People will even delete posts if the other person makes too strong of a point…. this is the worst place for discussion but it makes people feel like some sort of warrior.

Now I’ve seen the poem about Facebook and the internet and how we NEED to spend more time in the real world and although I think that CAN be good I don’t fully agree. People spending time on the internet is totally valid if that’s their life, it’s where I get the majority of my social contact. I won’t go as far as to say people need to STOP using Facebook or they need to spend more time face to face. However I will say it’s the people on Facebook that make it so unbearable. People need to THINK about what they say, THINK about whether or not it matters and post things wisely.

So Facebook I suppose WE didn’t need to talk at all… I just wish the users would be smarter about their use. One can dream. Last night i dreamed of insects erupting out of my hand like an ant hill and a cockroach somehow got stuck under my fingers. I woke up and checked my hands to say the least.

Sincerely

~TheManInYourWindow

Standard
Art, Idiots, Poetry, Presentation, Thinking about what you say, Words

Poetry, my long friend and enemy

Dear Diary,

You know what poetry is? It’s often an artistic thing people do when they want to say one thing so they purposefully say another. No no no! Not being a complete idiot, although similar, poetry has merit. When poetry says another thing it’s usually to paint a picture in a way you haven’t seen or simply display the information in a way that hasn’t been considered. Here here here, this is confusing, let me give you an example. Let’s say I want to say someone smells and also take a shot at their sister, I can say “You smell like the rotting fetus in your sister’s toilet.” Now, he doesn’t actually smell like that… and his sister didn’t actually abort a fetus. The point is it’s poetry! It’s painting a picture that’s much more invoking of emotions than truthful statements are. Not that it’s always needed. If I were to try and paint an evocative picture than what happened during the witch and Jewish people hunting’s that Christians did during medieval times then there’s nothing more that I need than the informative truth. For instance to say they put someone’s abdomen on a pot filled with mice and then heated up the pot so that the mice tunneled through the person looking for an escape…. that is what happened and it gave sufficient emotion just by being the truth. I could lace it with metaphorical poetry but, what’s the point? It’s completely unnecessary.

So now that you know what poetry is, let’s talk about a couple things that has been intensely bugging me about poetry….

Poetry doesn’t know it’s place. It has merit, it’s great for invoking emotion where emotion might be missed, it’s funny and brings color to things that sometimes is lacking any sort of intrinsic interesting awe, disgust, or laughter. However, sometimes I’ll be discussing something philosophically and poetry will rear it’s head and fuck everything up. For example, let me tell you a story I’ve had for a while now:

Once I was on facebook and someone posted the very clever “The earth would just be eh without art.” Take out those letters you get eh, they’re also expressing their love for art by saying it is so intensely needed that the earth would lack basically all value without it. So I said “Although I love art and generally agree, I find that nature would be enough for me.” (Paraphrased, I didn’t save the actual conversation) So she responded “I would argue that nature in itself is art.” So I responded “Well,  you’d be wrong. Art is defined by something that is intended to be art. Nature not having intent therefore can’t be defined as art, so it’s not art.” My comment was deleted and then the person scolded me in a private message (Which her comments accumulated likes by the masses of mindless idiots who didn’t see my very reasonable response) that she was a poet and she could make words more than their definition.

So what’s the problem here? She said “I would argue” and “In itself.” The in itself makes it impossible to fit the definition and the I would argue says she’s moving from poetic talk to philosophical discussion. In philosophical discussion definitions are important and if she can’t be trusted to use actual definitions of words and at any moment and without warning change the definition of a word from a poetic standpoint means she’s  completely worthless in a philosophical discussion. Now poetry certainly can be used to paint a philosophical point and people can change the definition of a word in a philosophical discussion from the popular use, but these two things have specific timing and rhetoric to them. The poetry to display a point must be contained so it doesn’t leak out to every aspect of the discussion. The definitions must be clearly defined if getting away from popular understanding. If you’re not following these rules you’re simply using dishonest tactics. Poetry needs to know it’s place, using metaphors and misusing words is great in poetry but not in philosophical discussion. This is a complete misuse of poetry.

My second thing I dislike about poetry is that people don’t understand that being confusing isn’t a merit in poetry. Certainly good poetry can be confusing, but that doesn’t mean being confusing is a good thing. It’s happenstance. Being confusing for no reason doesn’t make it good poetry I’d argue that it actually makes it bad poetry. If there’s a point to the poetry and I can’t dig it out of the riddling language and convoluted mess of words than I get nothing out of it. Sometimes it might be pretty to read, the words are well chosen, and then it might be good poetry for that. However I often see that not only is the poetry not pretty to read or look at but also at the same time it has hidden it’s meaning so well that it’s completely lost for readers to find.

So poetry my good friend and enemy, how I love and despise you. But really, if I’m honest, it’s not you who I despise. The fucking morons who misuse and abuse you is where my disgust goes. You poor broken soul how I’ve never seen a more clear case of abuse of one’s entire entity than poetry’s unhealthy relationship with people who want to be seen a master worker of words. Let us all take a moment of silence for poetry.

Sincerely

Iloledatyourmom

Standard
Debates, Idiots, Presentation, Thinking about what you say

Presentation of ideas

Dear Snow,

I’m sorry I’m melting you to write this message, but I have to write it down now. It’s lucky I have three gallons of orange juice and drank seven cups of coffee earlier, otherwise I’d have to make my message much shorter.

I wanted to talk about this odd circumstance I’ve been having lately. I end up having a discussion with an intelligent person who disagrees with my political ideology. Honestly, this is great! How much I respect when I post something on my facebook that he greatly disagrees with me and tells me why. This is sincerity too, not sarcasm. I Sincerely respect the fact that he doesn’t back down when he thinks I’m wrong. I love this. However there is this sort of… problem. It’s the way he talks to me. It’s not that he’s not intelligent, but it’s so 100% clear that he obviously thinks he’s much smarter than me. This is deeply troubling because I sincerely respect him. What am I supposed to do? Every time he talks he clearly explains his points, I most of the time understand what he’s saying… but he doesn’t seem to respect me. Once he even said “Much better” like he was my teacher. Like I was really lost in my own stupidity and ability to discuss things and he was proud that I revised my essay and finally got better. Not that it isn’t true that maybe I had to present my ideas better but… really? Why am I being talked down to? Do I really deserve such disrespect? Then once he completely misrepresented my ideas and it took a symbolic crowbar to pry the apology out of him. I repeated myself three times and he only then finally realized I wasn’t saying what he thought I was saying. Even then he went on to say that he apologized when he didn’t. Only then, when I asked him to show me his apology, did he realize he had not done it and I got an apology out of him. It shouldn’t take this much work to get a little respect.

What’s going on here? Well it’s presentation. It’s fine for him to think he’s smarter than me… I often think I’m smarter than the person I’m debating. It’s hard not to when you see someone make logical fallacies that are obvious to you but they’re oblivious to. But, first off I don’t always do this and second off I don’t try and throw this in their face. Not that he was trying but… he seems oblivious to how he’s doing it. And it’s all about presentation. If I’m wrong I should be convinced I am, but if he presents it in a way that more seems like he’s patting himself on the back then it’s really hard to not feel like he’s seeing you as some sort of idiot child. In the end I just really feel bad, because, it’ll hurt him if he keeps treating people like this. So really this is more venting my sadness than frustration. I really hope he realizes the kind of person he’s become, because he’s not a bad person… what am I supposed to do?

Sincerely

AnIdiotChild

Standard
Conversation, Presentation, Thinking about what you say, Words

Assuming the worst

Dear Diary,

I knew you couldn’t stay away from me, thanks for coming home. I wanted to say that all this time I didn’t assume you were trying to hurt me, that I thought it was possible but I tried to wait for some evidence for it before I really took faith in the idea….

It reminds me of something I saw recently. Someone on facebook posted the status “If you don’t walk DOWN an escalator, you’re just a lazy fuck.” Let’s analyze this for a second. Does that really make any sense? Certainly, lots of people who use escalators are lazy and might even be lazy while using it… but can we really say that if you’ve done this you’re a lazy fuck? Now his point is, that walking down an escalator is less energy intensive. Walking up requires you to spend energy, walking down it doesn’t. Technically that’s not correct, but his general idea is that it’s so little you might as well round it down to nothing. I’m willing to agree with that, but let’s think about this for a second… while you’re thinking read this story I just wrote for you.

Josh Gregman had been with his girlfriend Francine for three years. He loved her with all his heart and so she did him. However, she had gotten a job to move to an entirely different country. They both didn’t believe in the idea of “the one” but they loved spending their life together. However, Francine firmly believed that a long distance relationship wouldn’t work. Ya know what, Josh agreed, but he just got his dream job right in the very town they were living in. What were they going to do? Well Josh was willing to give it up for Francine. He rushed to the airport before she was going to leave, his grandmothers engagement ring in his hand. He found her right after he got up the escalator and professed his love for her. He said he’d stay here, he’d move with her, but she should marry him. Francine however told him she couldn’t take away his dream job. After much tears, begging, Francine pulled away from him and drifted off into the crowd. Josh Gregman had lost her forever… so as he turned and got on the escalator he could barely move. He just stood there, thinking on the life he could have had but would never have now…

What a lazy fuck right? Wait, no, that doesn’t really apply. He wasn’t being lazy, he was in shock! This is probably the minority of people using escalators but… it probably isn’t an impossibility. Let’s use more realistic examples. What if I have terrible knees and going down stairs and slopes hurts them? I know someone who has this difficulty. What if you’re exhausted from running around all day looking for your lost child and finally found it (Or didn’t) and just didn’t have the energy at that moment to walk down the escalator, needed to take a moment to breath. WHAT IF you just wanted to relax? Take the day slow? NOT hurry to the next point in life? If you’re AT ALL creative you can come up with millions of COMPLETELY VALID stories why someone might not be walking down the escalator. I mean seriously, you need just enough creativity to come up with at least ONE other explanation other than “Lazy fuck.”

I want to take this beyond this example though. I see it all the time in everyday life. Someone cuts you off in traffic, or on the sidewalk. Someone doesn’t say bless you. Maybe someone just mumbles out a hi rather than being excited to you. Maybe there are explanations you don’t see behind these actions you instantly deem negative. Certainly there are people being lazy, mean, cruel, insensitive, ignorant, arrogant, condescending…. but maybe sometimes you’re just missing all the details to make a correct assessment.

Either way, that Josh guy is a lazy fuck.

Sincerely

TheBirdHumpingGyrocopter

Standard
Debates, Idiots, Thinking about what you say

Does it matter who said it?

Dear Bathroom Stall,

I know that you don’t like me as much as my diary does, but I’m kinda out of options at the moment.

So, I wanted to talk to you about something I’ve noticed people doing. In our last conversation we talked a lot about whether or not someone was being dishonest in a discussion and discussed a particular tactic. I wanted to talk about another tactic, again whether being done intentionally or not, that I found particularly dishonest.

This topic is a little more complex however, let’s give it a try. Let’s say I’m in a conversation and I’m trying to make a logical deduction about something. I’m taking premises and then coming out with some conclusion based on the premises. Regardless of whether or not my deduction is valid or my premises good, the person quickly jumps to counter my argument by talking about me as a person. He makes claims that I’m a bad person, I’m obnoxious, maybe that I’m a liar and a thief or maybe that I’m some sort of immoral person. Is this a proper way to respond to a logical argument?

Now let’s break this down, because again, this is more complex. So the general rule with logical assertions is that it shouldn’t matter who makes the statement. If the statement holds objective truth, does it matter who says it? If Barney the Dinosaur says that the Vatican is in Italy does that mean he’s wrong because he’s Barney? What if some evil person said it… like Charles Manson, if he said the Vatican is in Italy would he be wrong? No… he’d still be right. So it doesn’t really matter who says something as long as it’s completely true.

So that’s the simple part, but what about credibility? These are easy questions, what if some random person who had some huge morally questionable motive to prove something correct makes a logical assertion based on premises you know nothing about? Like some horrible xenophobic person said that there was a negative correlation from foreigners coming into our country and IQ. What then? Well, IF what s/he said was true… it wouldn’t matter if s/he was awful. Maybe you question where s/he takes it, but if you can look up the facts… look at the pole or study and determine that s/he is absolutely correct on that one assertion. However, maybe you can’t find these said studies. You might take their character as a way to question their credibility, question whether or not these sources are good… whether or not they’re lying. However, regardless of their character that doesn’t CHANGE what the truth is.

So I guess, in a discussion, if someone tries to make a logical assertion just try and identify if the assertion is correct rather than attacking someone else.

But I know you bathroom-stall, you never attack other people… they just write all over your face. I’m sorry L

Love

IcicleOnMyBooBoo

Standard