Social Smash 4 Social Topic 2.0

[Kenith]

Religious moral debate on my Smashboards? Sheesh...
I'm just going to derail this.

 

[Kaye Cruiser]

Okay, so all I'm getting from all of this is:

Neat.

So, what is everyone hoping for at E3?

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

All I know is, it's hard for me to consider humans "more" valuable than humans when they are single-handedly responsible for permanently erasing so many unique creatures from the face of the earth. But then again, all creatures hunt other creatures, without that level of awareness that are slowly exterminating another species. So that doesn't make them any more moral in that regard.

The way I see it, no matter no you look at it, we may be smarter and more dexterous, but that doesn't make us better.

Survival of the fittest

They should have been stronger animals

 

[Substitution]

So, what is everyone hoping for at E3?

The salty tears.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Well, think of it this way. You're a human being, right? They were humans. They felt the exact same amount of pain that you do. In addition, you probably have family right? How would you feel if someone you loved was killed? If you can't relate to the pain of life, if you can't look out your window and realize that there are people out there suffering just because they exist and no other reason, you need to open your eyes.

Now I'll debate Nintendo and Art calmly, but tend to get a little worked up when people think that murderer is "OK". I can't change you're mind in any way, but I strongly advise you to re-evaluate your philosophy.

I don't think that anyone here would say that murder is permissible (at least, not as a general rule).

For matters such as these, one must differentiate the cognitive and emotive factors in the formulation of an opinion/philosophy/viewpoint/worldview/etc.

Here's a short treatise on the subject that I whipped up because of Internet boredom. 8D

Spoiler

People can abstract emotional experiences they aren't privy to. As per your example, I can conceive of the pain of Hiroshima victims, and can extrapolate upon my experiences to discern how I might feasibly react at the death of a relative -- even though I was not witness to the events of Hiroshima circa WWII.

But this is an intellectual exercise. You can hold a given intellectual (/philosophical) position without your emotions aligning along similar poles -- and this, because emotions are not something you decide upon, but rather experience in reaction to something. Emotion (and experience) can direct your thoughts and ultimately your behaviour, but if that prior emotional experience is lacking, you can't reach a position from that emotion-centric path.

Which is to say, I can in principle view the events of Hiroshima as a tragedy, but I can't genuinely feel sorry for the victims unless I have a prior emotional foundation for such feelings to arise (whether from actually witnessing the Hiroshima bombings, or being subjected to analogous experience by which I can then abstract the experiences of those victims). If I try to force myself to feel sorry (or force myself to feel anything), then such a feeling will be inauthentic, since it becomes a game of cognitive dissonance (i.e. I'm declaring that I feel X, but I don't actually feel X).

You might then ask why someone might not feel sorry for the Hiroshima victims (or be capable of such). But like emotions themselves, the experiences that mold a person and their emotional capacity are not necessarily in their control.

In short, a person can think that murder is morally impermissible (for whatever reason(s)), but whether or not they feel that murder is morally impermissible is contingent on emotional reactions and experiences, which are seldom ever the choice of the individual to decide to pursue. You can't thereby fault a person for experiencing, or not experiencing, emotion X to the degree Y.

As a result of all this, there is little use in telling someone that they should feel X, Y, or Z. You can appeal to another's emotions, but whether they end up feeling anything (or thinking they feel anything) will be up to variables beyond their conscious control.

The issue worth discussing, then, is the positions that people actually hold, which have been attained via cognitive (reasoning, introspection, argumentation from others) and emotive (past experiences, emotional abstraction, emotive tools like empathy, conscience, etc.) elements.

So yeah. Fun stuff indeed.

 

[Pazzo.]

Religious moral debate on my Smashboards? Sheesh...
I'm just going to derail this.
View attachment 15353

Not trying to turn this into a flame war, but I see your point. I apologize for my lack of tact.

Here's another:

 

[Morbi]

It doesn't matter if you were there, would you like to be in that situation? Unless you're a masochist, we'd all say no.

Can we give out life? If you can't, then we shouldn't give out death. Humans are flawed, and another human has no right to judge when someone dies. Now, laws are written by humans, but they're based on the same principle, that no one can simply decide when someone dies. Look at it as theft in the highest degree.

And what's this modern law? We know that there has been a penalty for murder by Hammurabi's laws, and those were written over 4000 years ago.

On animals: I believe that humans are made in the image of God, but if I had to give another reason, I'd say it's because an animal can't feel on the same level as humans. Animals don't create art, they don't inspire to learn, but none of that justifies killing animals frivolously or without cause anyway. But my reason still stands, if it came between my dog and another human's life, I'd go with the human, because of my faith/philosophy. You can call it flawed if you'd like, but last I checked, you'll go farther in life if you have someone on your side. Denying them sympathy tends to turn them away.

*sigh*

No, I would not like to be in that situation.

How do we discern these "rights," it sounds as though they are supposed to be something inherent. Although, based on the objective fact that we have murder, I would argue that is clearly not the case. This premise seems very overt.

I just used the word "modern," I did not necessarily mean anything by it other than that notion that they are arbitrarily written and they do not even apply to every person. Poor diction on my part.

Ah, I see... the religious perspective. I cannot argue with that one. As for your absurd scenario: I would go with the human; remember what you said about family, that applies to my cat.

 

[Rebellious Treecko]

Okay, so all I'm getting from all of this is:

Neat.

So, what is everyone hoping for at E3?

And personal bias:

Or the Grovyle from PMD2.

 

[Rocket Raccoon]

I HAVE MORE LIKES THAN I DO POSTS!

I'M OFFICIALLY A NO ONE!

 

[Sehnsucht]

I HAVE MORE LIKES THAN I DO POSTS!

I'M OFFICIALLY A NO ONE!

My likes exceeded my post count when you were still in diapers, sonny.

 

[Substitution]

I HAVE MORE LIKES THAN I DO POSTS!

I'M OFFICIALLY A NO ONE!

We should make a support group.

 

[Kenith]

My likes exceeded my post count when you were still in diapers, sonny.

Yeah, but you farm for yours. He earned his with well-timed good opinions (and the occasional gif or comic)

 

[Pazzo.]

*sigh*

No, I would not like to be in that situation.

How do we discern these "rights," it sounds as though they are supposed to be something inherent. Although, based on the objective fact that we have murder, I would argue that is clearly not the case. This premise seems very overt.

I just used the word "modern," I did not necessarily mean anything by it other than that notion that they are arbitrarily written and they do not even apply to every person. Poor diction on my part.

Ah, I see... the religious perspective. I cannot argue with that one. As for your absurd scenario: I would go with the human; remember what you said about family, that applies to my cat.

Alright, I can go with that. I think I derailed from my original point (primarily because I'm a terrible debater), but thank you for respecting my views, and I will do the same. But I do admit that I can't feel sorry for some like that psycho that you mentioned who killed his dog.

(Seriously, I failed debate class, what am I doing here debating? )

I don't think that anyone here would say that murder is permissible (at least, not as a general rule).

For matters such as these, one must differentiate the cognitive and emotive factors in the formulation of an opinion/philosophy/viewpoint/worldview/etc.

Here's a short treatise on the subject that I whipped up because of Internet boredom. 8D

Spoiler

People can abstract emotional experiences they aren't privy to. As per your example, I can conceive of the pain of Hiroshima victims, and can extrapolate upon my experiences to discern how I might feasibly react at the death of a relative -- even though I was not witness to the events of Hiroshima circa WWII.

But this is an intellectual exercise. You can hold a given intellectual (/philosophical) position without your emotions aligning along similar poles -- and this, because emotions are not something you decide upon, but rather experience in reaction to something. Emotion (and experience) can direct your thoughts and ultimately your behaviour, but if that prior emotional experience is lacking, you can't reach a position from that emotion-centric path.

Which is to say, I can in principle view the events of Hiroshima as a tragedy, but I can't genuinely feel sorry for the victims unless I have a prior emotional foundation for such feelings to arise (whether from actually witnessing the Hiroshima bombings, or being subjected to analogous experience by which I can then abstract the experiences of those victims). If I try to force myself to feel sorry (or force myself to feel anything), then such a feeling will be inauthentic, since it becomes a game of cognitive dissonance (i.e. I'm declaring that I feel X, but I don't actually feel X).

You might then ask why someone might not feel sorry for the Hiroshima victims (or be capable of such). But like emotions themselves, the experiences that mold a person and their emotional capacity are not necessarily in their control.

In short, a person can think that murder is morally impermissible (for whatever reason(s)), but whether or not they feel that murder is morally impermissible is contingent on emotional reactions and experiences, which are seldom ever the choice of the individual to decide to pursue. You can't thereby fault a person for experiencing, or not experiencing, emotion X to the degree Y.

As a result of all this, there is little use in telling someone that they should feel X, Y, or Z. You can appeal to another's emotions, but whether they end up feeling anything (or thinking they feel anything) will be up to variables beyond their conscious control.

The issue worth discussing, then, is the positions that people actually hold, which have been attained via cognitive (reasoning, introspection, argumentation from others) and emotive (past experiences, emotional abstraction, emotive tools like empathy, conscience, etc.) elements.

So yeah. Fun stuff indeed.

That's actually pretty good. We should do this again some time, and hopefully I have you two on my side.

No kidding, did both of you take debate in school or something?

 

[Morbi]

It doesn't matter if you were there, would you like to be in that situation? Unless you're a masochist, we'd all say no.

Can we give out life? If you can't, then we shouldn't give out death. Humans are flawed, and another human has no right to judge when someone dies. Now, laws are written by humans, but they're based on the same principle, that no one can simply decide when someone dies. Look at it as theft in the highest degree.

And what's this modern law? We know that there has been a penalty for murder by Hammurabi's laws, and those were written over 4000 years ago.

On animals: I believe that humans are made in the image of God, but if I had to give another reason, I'd say it's because an animal can't feel on the same level as humans. Animals don't create art, they don't inspire to learn, but none of that justifies killing animals frivolously or without cause anyway. But my reason still stands, if it came between my dog and another human's life, I'd go with the human, because of my faith/philosophy. You can call it flawed if you'd like, but last I checked, you'll go farther in life if you have someone on your side. Denying them sympathy tends to turn them away.

I apologize for being so very pessimistic. I have fun with debates like these; I do believe this perspective to an extent, but for the purpose of discussion, I was asserting more "extreme" notions to incite some discussion. I do not know why I do it (boredom), I argued with Bidoof for an hour regarding the premise that Hitler was a great man. That was indeed a glorious moment of my pathetic life. Anyways, it is now time for Bankruptcy Law! Yay! So on that slightly more pleasant note; I must go, my people need me.

 

[Glyphoscythe]

I HAVE MORE LIKES THAN I DO POSTS!

I'M OFFICIALLY A NO ONE!

You're officially AWESOME!

I saw a guy standing on the side of the road with a cardboard sign that said, "Smile, you are amazing". So I'm just passing that on to you because you weren't there to experience it.

 

[Kenith]

So, what is everyone hoping for at E3?

Realistically?

Unrealistically?

 

[Sehnsucht]

Yeah, but you farm for yours. He earned his with well-timed good opinions (and the occasional gif or comic)

I come from a long line of Like Farmers. You city folk have lost your way, with your fancy machines and such.

And if I were actually capable of forming opinions (good or otherwise), I would most certainly share them. I'm always checking into that Unpopular Opinions thread and marvelling as to how people can actually think things as a principle. XD

That's actually pretty good. We should do this again some time, and hopefully I have you two on my side.

No kidding, did both of you take debate in school or something?

A debate club in high school would have been so cool. But there sadly weren't any.

It must then be that I have the mind for general amateur philosophizing. If there is ever a topic you (or anyone else) desire to discuss in this manner of open discourse, my inbox is always open. 8D

 

[Rocket Raccoon]

I would like to make a list of people who helped give me my 2,000 likes.

@ Rocket Raccoon

I DID ALL OF THE WORK! YEAH! OF COURSE, Y'ALL NEVER GAVE ME ANY IDEAS! I DID IT!

Spoiler

I would like to give thanks to all of the people who clicked that like button. KEEP BEING AWESOME!

 

[Wario Bros.]

 

[Substitution]

Huh, I always hoped for a future Zelda game.

 

[Pazzo.]

I apologize for being so very pessimistic. I have fun with debates like these; I do believe this perspective to an extent, but for the purpose of discussion, I was asserting more "extreme" notions to incite some discussion. I do not know why I do it (boredom), I argued with Bidoof for an hour regarding the premise that Hitler was a great man. That was indeed a glorious moment of my pathetic life. Anyways, it is now time for Bankruptcy Law! Yay! So on that slightly more pleasant note; I must go, my people need me.

I'm often guilty of being a bit accusatory at times... but hey, we're all people.

Wait... you debated that for an hour? I would love to read that.

Well, thanks for your time anyway. Remember, you help contribute to the current speed of the earth's rotation.

A debate club in high school would have been so cool. But there sadly weren't any.

It must then be that I have the mind for general amateur philosophizing. If there is ever a topic you (or anyone else) desire to discuss in this manner of open discourse, my inbox is always open. 8D

I was in one... but I didn't necessarily 'fail' it, I was just
'passed over'.

Alright, I'll remember that. I'd like to think of myself as an 'unemployed philosopher', but I need more opportunities to hone my skills.

 

[Sehnsucht]

**** yeah Pushmo World.

 

[Glyphoscythe]

I am hoping for the glorious revival of Ganondorf at e3. I don't think my prayers have been reaching the Dark Lord...

I am also hoping for something that will prove a lot of people wrong. Doesn't matter what it is, I just want a large portion of Smash speculators to be taken down peg. I want it to irritate a lot of people, because I am fueled by spite! (I'm kidding, sort of).

 

[Rocket Raccoon]

 

[Pazzo.]

 

[The Original Robot boy]

Heres a random MK8 exploit. If you jump when you drift the speed boost will last longer. I don't see this ruining online. Maybe...

i like it when he jumps make him funny especially with the laugh

 

[Rebellious Treecko]

When I looked at the revamped Royal Raceway I thought: "Oh dear, the graphics are great and all, but they'll probably remove the option to visit the castle to make the track "cleaner and straightforward", even though there's no real reason to" and sure enough, they did.

...why?

 

[Deleted member]

So, what is everyone hoping for at E3?

Disappointment.

Oh & hoping for some comedic goldmine from someone to make a hilarious screw up for E3

Remember this

 

[Kaye Cruiser]

Welp, even though I expected this, there goes any plausible reason for me to go out to the store and buy these two Smashes. ¦D

 

[Sehnsucht]

Disappointment.

Oh & hoping for some comedic goldmine from someone to make a hilarious screw up for E3

Remember this

Welp, I know how I'm going to be playing Smash U.

 

[The Original Robot boy]

Okay, so all I'm getting from all of this is:

Neat.

So, what is everyone hoping for at E3?

I'm hoping for :

Spoiler

Veterans =

Newcomers =

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Realistically?

Unrealistically?

Those are all unrealistic for E3.

 

[Deleted member]

Those are all unrealistic for E3.

Yeah man, we gotta add a CoD Soldier to Smash for the realism!!! Take out those colors too, we can't have that! We also gotta have a B-B-Bloody Screen! SO REAL!!!

Oh god please don't do it

 

[Kenith]

Those are all unrealistic for E3.

Why? There's no better time to show most of those characters.

 

[The Original Robot boy]

Why? There's no better time to show most of those characters.

I can see them all happening except one

 

[Radical Bones]

E3 Predictions

Veterans:

Newcomers: Mii, Pac Man... and one way or another, we'll know Ridley's fate.

 

[UltimateCyborgOverlord]

Pushmo was a surprisingly really fun game! I'll be sure to get the HD game of it on Wii U.

In other news, I got Mario Kart 8 today. Ohhhh nelly! This is IMPRESSIVE! I'm SO tempted to have it take the number 2 spot away from Mario Kart DS, heck it even comes close to taking the number 1 spot away from Mario Kart 64 on my personal list. If the battle mode wasn't so gimped it might have done so. So for now until DLC comes and fixes that... it'll be at number 3.

For reference, my PERSONAL list of best to worst Mario Kart games:

1. Mario Kart 64: It's timeless, it's classic, the music is great, there's not a track I don't like, it's just as fun to play today as it was 15 years ago.

2. Mario Kart DS: It comes SO CLOSE to overtaking Mario Kart 64, with some of the best tracks in series history, the mission mode certainly helps, and it's really fun. There's a dud track or two (particularly thinking of Desert Hills and DK Pass) and some of the music isn't all that memorable, so it's at number 2.

3. Mario Kart 8: It is SO tempting to make this take the number 2 spot away from DS, or perhaps even the number 1 spot from Mario Kart 64. The graphics are GORGEOUS! Some of the best I've ever seen ever! The music is just as good as Mario Kart 64, and just like 64, there's not a track I don't like. Even the ones that I didn't particularly care for from the previous games have been reworked and made good! The ONLY thing keeping this down here at number 3 is that the battle mode is seriously gimped. If Battle Mode DLC ever comes, this position will be reorganized but... man, it was SO close!

4. Mario Kart Double Dash: The two characters per cart gimmick is pretty fun, and it IS home to some of the series's very best tracks! But the character specific item thing REALLY throws balance out the window... where characters like Toad and Toadette get a mere Golden Mushroom for them or Koopa Troopa and Para Troopa get triple Green and Red shells respectively, Bowser and Bowser Jr get an enormous Bowser shell that pretty much covers the entire track.... no such thing as balance in this one.

5. Mario Kart 7: This one was OK. It was rushed, and it shows. It's not bad, but it's not great either. That's really all there is to say on this one.

6. Mario Kart Super Circuit: It's good in that it's exactly what it sets out to be... a Mario Kart game on Game Boy Advance... it's nothing particularly memorable though.

7. Mario Kart Wii: I've never had so much ragequit in my life! Oh wow! Between the CONSTANT Blue Shells and the CONSTANT POW blocks that are near unavoidable lest you JUST SO HAPPEN to be in the air when it goes off at that precise moment. That and most of the tracks weren't particularly great in this one either, some of which are actually really frustrating because they border on the poorly designed. The half-pipe trick in and of itself is terribly thought out. It's supposed to give you a speed boost, but the act of driving up it and hanging in the air takes more time than any speed boost is worse. Worse yet, there are a couple tracks that require you to use it, often to terrible results. DK Summit has you use the half pipe to get through the thick snow because if you don't you get stuck in it, and you still might get stuck in it if you hit the pink snow. PLUS there's the Dry Dry Ruins with the hallway with sand on the floor. You can't just drive through the sand you need to speed boost through it, half pipe being the most readily available means, but the half-pipe has a tendency to either send you into the wall or turn you around entirely, therefore causing more trouble than it's worth. It's incredibly annoying! Artistically speaking the tracks just felt.... "safe"... boring... they exist. If this game isn't out to make you ragequit, it's out to bore you.

8. Super Mario Kart: The only thing worse than ragequit is cheap, borderline broken, and messy. The AI is obnoxious, they can do all kinds of things you the player cannot regardless of the character you choose. They can pull items out of their rear regardless of whether they drove over an item panels or not, many of said items being unavailable to the player, they can jump over banana peels and red shells whenever they desire, and just be really annoying (particularly Mario and Luigi with their "whenever we want em" Invincibility Stars... you'll never be more paranoid in your life). Plus Item Panels are one time use, so when you drive over them, it's over. The simple act of turning is way too difficult. It's too easy to overturn, and if you do that you spin out, but many of the tracks are kinda poorly designed with the idea that you're supposed to make sharp turns in mind when turning in and of itself is a life threatening thing. Coins are mishandled here since the simple act of getting bumped is enough to spin you out if you don't have coins. How this game got a sequel, I'll never know, but I'm glad it did, because the sequels are much better. If you play this game, you'd better play as Toad or Koopa Troopa, because you'll have an obnoxious time if you don't.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Why? There's no better time to show most of those characters.

There is a better time.

Like this week.

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Why? There's no better time to show most of those characters.

I don't think Ridley's in. Captain Falcon I think will be secret and Mewtwo will be too. Though Falcon wasn't secret in Melee. Just my opinion I guess. shrouded by a troll face

 

[The Original Robot boy]

E3 Predictions

Veterans:

Newcomers: Mii, Pac Man... and one way or another, we'll know Ridley's fate.

Please i hope there's no miis...... and thats when i meant one because i just have a feeling sakurai is gonna drop the notion down