AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I understand the premice behind you just walking into any building and automatically shooting everyone up, but I garuntee it's more because of the fact that it's probably the 5th or 6th building they've walked into where everyone's automatically started kiling you. Every single game I play I always try and go the route of "always self defense" but after the Nth time that you've done just that to be met with bullets, you begin to sense a pattern. In my experience playing violent video games, it's always been that, and never that the violence has been so ingrained that I never actually think that there's a peaceful alternative.

It's why I love games like Fallout, and Skyrim...

...there actually ARE those peaceful alternatives so long as you don't just walk in and shoot everyone.

Yes, but even those games have situations where no matter what you say, it will always result in you having to fight them, showing you that sometimes there is no other solution.

Oh I know. What I'm saying is that most sane people will realize that a video game condones violence simply because it's the mechanism with which the actual game operates. When I have to shoot up a vault full of people, I don't think "This must mean I have to solve ALL of my problems with violence" I think "This vault must have a story line that can only be progressed by killing people."

And as far as walking into a situation guns blazing, that's more because I realize that the people I'm dealing with need to be shot in the face.

Like if I've been in cahoots with the NCR the whole time, those Legionaries probably aren't going to entertain the idea of sitting down to a cup of tea.

D-vid wrote:Yes, but even those games have situations where no matter what you say, it will always result in you having to fight them, showing you that sometimes there is no other solution.

I swear nine times outta 10 violence is the solution in Fallout 3 or skyrim. New Vegas was better in that regard, you could make it through the entire game without laying a hand on anyone.

And there are a bunch of video games out there that don't have violence at all. You're limiting yourself if you only play manshooting games.

Aye. If I have the possibility, I try avoiding killing people, by using sleep darts or sneaking or whatever mechanics to non-lethaly solve the mission the game gives you. Unfortunately I suck at stealth so oftentimes I still have to kill them.

On the off-topic of RPGs where you don't have to kill people, Vampires The Masquerade Bloodlines is pretty great in that regard (up to a certain point).

D-vid wrote:A lot of conflicts can not be solved with words though. Someone who is hellbent on killing a whole bunch of people will not change their mind all of a sudden just because you tell them they shouldn't.

Of course, but that's something else entirely than thinking of violence as the go-to method.

TheStranger wrote:Children are depraved little bastards, video games arent going to make that better or worse

I'm with TheStranger on children being depraved little bastards - at least in the absence of parental/guardian/role model influence and/or education.

Left to their own devices children exhibit just how depraved and monstrous human beings can be without the teaching of morality, ethics, history, etc. - things which are not built into our DNA*.

I'm pretty tired of video games/movies/the internet being blamed for children/individuals committing acts of violence when really it's just bad parenting - the parent/guardian of the child/individual concerned ultimately being responsible for whatever that child/individual was exposed to - and whether or not that child/individual is armed with the capacity to discern between fantasy and reality - i.e. it's okay to shoot a guy in the back of the head in a fantasy video game enivronment - but it's a big no-no in everyday life.

But I guess - generally speaking - judging from the amount of times video games get blamed for this kinda thing - parents and guardians don't want to accept the blame for the misdemeanors of their children - which I guess means they never really understood the fundamental responsibilities of being a parent/guardian in the first place.


*though a psychological predisposition toward violence or compassion arguably is built into our DNA (per survival of the fittest - violence generally wins out over compassion - sadly - except perhaps in the instance of raising one's offspring (so complicated)).

This reminds me of a comic art spiegelman did

Lolita wrote:the friendzone doesn't exist

it's bodaciously that simple

i don't owe you shit for you acting like a decent human being to me and if you want sex out of me and i don't want to give it, then tough shit

there is no "legitimate friendzone" because it doesn't exist; it's an excuse that guys make up when they don't get sex out of a girl they wanted sex out of

discussion over, new topic. continue on this path and this thread is locked.

I hope it's okay to talk about in this thread, because I disagree with this.

Though things in life are always situational I know some people who feel like they're always shut in a "friendzone" but they don't want to get in the girl/guy's pants, they really feel like they'd be a good match for them. I don't agree with people feeling this way and then turning on their friend and being a jerk to them. However, I feel like if we always stereotype people who even mention the word "friendzone" and belittle them, then they'll feel like their friend is in the wrong and is a big jerk. Plus, they won't wanna listen to reason because they felt insulted.

Plus, that's kinda sexist to think just narrow "friendzoning" to guys' excuses. I do mainly see things about guys using this term, but I'm sure girls use it too. Using the term just because someone refused sex isn't necessarily true either. Maybe people just have a loss for better words, and I know some people that really feel like they're forever restricted from crossing the line from friendship to relationship.

I dunno, I just wanted to say this. I'll stop if it's not allowed, within reason. (I wasn't sure why we couldn't discuss it anyway other than it being a text screen cap thread.)

Same here. I've always felt it to be a lot more complicated than just the jerks who try to play nice to trick sex out of a girl. There are instances where a guy has tried to interact with a girl with the intention of developing a relationship, but for some reason the girl has it in her mind that he's not byfriend material. I've also seen it done where the roles have been reversed. Hell, being a guy, I've done this for a number of reasons, none of which involve sex.

Besides, I thoroughly dislike the idea that sex is the only thing that seperates it. No matter who I ask, and how many times I ask, it comes down to sex being the key factor in the "friendzone", yet when I look into what exactly constitutes a "relationship" vs a "friendship", it's always that sex is important, but not the most important factor. That's another reason I dislike it when people automatically jump on the term like a wild dog...all it tells me is that the sex IS what makes the relationship to them, depite that not being the case when pressed further. So then it is just about sex, and society is wrong, or it's more abotu sex, and it makes absolutely no sense to get so worked up about the idea of the "friendzone".

I maintain that the reason the friendzone exists is due to miscommunication in the interests of both people that is "resolved" (rather "brought into the open for both to see it's happening") only when both people are able to be frank about their feelings. It's perfectly reasonable for a person to not be attracted to someone who is attracted to them, and they should not be obligated to like that person just because that person likes them in return.

But it's stupid to discount the other side. We've all had unrequited crushes, and it sucks to be on that side of things, not because the person is a jerk for not seeing the relationship that way/wanting your naughty bits, but because your feelings aren't the same as the other person. It's the same as considering yourself a friend to someone and them telling you that you're just acquaintances and not really even friends. It can feel dismissive or even a bit alienating to go through something like that. On the other side of things, the people who "initiate the friendzone" (though it's really just bringing up the point that they're not interested in that way), also often have feelings about it. If it's a long time friend, there can be a bit of regret for not feeling the same way (not that they should feel it, but hell, everyone has these twinges against their better judgement), worry about hurting that person, and concern that this might make things awkward. It can often feel like knowing a deep secret from the other person that you don't want to feel responsible for.

It sucks for both sides of the issue, and just because there's jerks that think that being nice to people to get in their pants and getting spurned by them is terrible doesn't negate that friendzoning exists.

The operative point of friendzoning though is that people have to be legitimate friends that care about eachother for it to be a friendzone. If the person has a motive for getting close to the other person, that's being a manipulative asshole.

It's stupid to blame the other for being put in the "friendzone", you can't blame someone else for not being interested in you, and if you waste all your time trying to get with someone that isn't interested that's pretty much your own fault. The exception is that there are unfortunately people that will take advantage of a person's infatuation, leading them on to think a relationship might be a possibility so they get showered with gifts and attention.

If you look it from the "seduction" (don't really know how to phrase it better) perspective, friendzoning is usually a consequence of you failing to properly communicate your intentions, as Kamak said.

I never really saw the friendzone as just something people get overly angry about "because the other party won't love me" because even that is too restricting to what actually happens. It's more when you start developing feelings for someone you consider a close friend, and they don't reciprocate those feelings. That's always more depressing than it is angering because any sane person would realize that the other person isn't feeling (or not feeling) the way they are out of spite. It's never (or more "shouldn't") about blaming the other person, but more hating the fact that the situation even exists. It's been said before, but sometimes you can't control your feelings, whether it's feelings, or a lack of feelings for someone.

Also, depending on how people cope, they might get angry at the other person in the situation. It sucks, but we all make bad choices. I'm sure there's people who have said nasty things about an ex that they didn't really mean after a break up and such. The problem is when people feel wholly justified in their anger. These are the people who maintain that those that friendzone are stuck up assholes that don't know a good partner if they came up and bit them. These people don't move past their anger, and in many cases are the people who actively schemed the whole "step 1: be friends, step 2: fuck" bullshit.

But it can be frustrating for the person being put in that situation, especially if they daydreamed about it and find it hard to open up to other people. Their misplaced anger at the other person isn't justifiable or "right" in any way, but it's understandable. I just hope that if they are mad, they keep it away from their friend and just vent elsewhere, otherwise, when they come to their senses, they'll have lost a friend (who might think that's all they ever were to you).

All the same though, I kinda hate that every person who feels frustrated with the friendzone or makes this mistake of anger gets painted under the same brush as the genuine assholes. What needs to be remembered is that things on the internet are current, often fleeting, feelings on the matter, and are not indicative of how the person is at all times GENERALLY. I'm sure all of us have had bad days, and it'd be stupid to be labelled as a racist/misogynist/etc. for something you did at one point in time that you normally wouldn't do. Certainly people have every right to say you've burned their bridges with you, especially if it was a personal thing, but I think people are too quick to read something online and go "well, I liked that person before, but now this one post about them bitching about their ex makes me think they're a terrible person."

It just sometimes gets to me that people can assume that someone's actions are how they usually are, but expect people to be aware and forgive them when they have a bad day. It's a bit of a problem of understanding and empathy (since it's really hard to read people, especially over the internet and when you don't have much to go on in some cases) mixed with the subconscious ego-centrism of people, but I think for people, sometimes, it's easier to just think "this person's an asshole" and write them off rather than assume they're a person like you with faults and fluctuating emotions and situations.

But that doesn't necessarily make it right.

shazza wrote:also i think this conversation should move to taboo or some other forum and stop clogging this thread.

So I guess we can talk about eugenics or something now - just let me first clear up some things you may have misread (apparently):

shazza wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:I respect Angelina Jolie's actions because it was her choice to take that preventative step (though it was drastic).

The thing that bothered me about it was how she spoke about it publicly - purportedly to 'encourage' other women to be more 'proactive' about this kind of thing - now that's all well and good, but not everybody has the kind of money Angelina Jolie does to pay for reconstructive surgeries...

...and that's the thing isn't it - these things are an important part of a woman's identity/self image - otherwise why have the reconstructive surgery at all?

Making the argument that only guys care about a woman's appearance in regard to her breasts - or belittling their comments on that basis and pretending that women couldn't care less about their breasts is just a fallacy.

I read an article (i cannot remember where though,) where she specifically stated how shitty it was that most women can't afford to take the kind of life-saving action that she can. i still don't think it's wrong of her to encourage any woman who can to take preventative action for a disease that kills hundreds of women a year. the fact that she even is doing this can be pretty inspiring to the population - celebrities aren't supposed to get sick y'know.

Celebrities get sick all the time.

Encouraging people to take preventative surgery is all well and good - but any kind of surgery is itself not without risks - just opening somebody up can itself cause chemical changes in the body which trigger cancer cells to activate. I'm sure Angelina Jolie can afford the best surgeons (and plastic surgeons) cheddar can buy, but not everybody has that option - and her extreme/drastic level of surgery may not be correct (or necessary) for all cases. Her decision was right for her - but surgery is never a walk in the park and should not be made light of.

shazza wrote:as for reconstructive surgery - idk man maybe SHE likes her own tiddies?? some women like their tiddies. they think they look great. if she wants reconstructive surgery then why not let her have it? i hardly think she's thinking "i won't ever be beautiful without my tits."

Maybe you misread what I was saying because that's pretty much what I was trying to say.


Onto eugenics:

shazza wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:The other worrying thing about someone taking drastic measures like this based solely on genetic probablility is that it's a stepping stone towards eugenics (a topic far too complex to go into in full detail here) - deciding someone's potential for a given disease/validity for a job/probable time of death - based purely on their genetic code; For example an employer might say you are not eligible for a job because your DNA says you have less physical stamina than another interviewee - or that you are more likely to catch colds (and have more time off work) - or because your DNA says you'll die in three years time.

Is that a world you want to live in?

Being pro-active about cancer is one thing (and I respect that) - but to have your lifestyle and life decisions dictated by your genetic code is something else entirely - and it is something to be wary of.

i am 90% positive there are laws against that NOW. and there are also people who let their genetic code dictate major choices like career, having children, etc because if you have a heart murmur you probably shouldn't be an athlete, and if you carry a gene for a serious genetic disease, you probably shouldn't have kids, and i 100% respect people who sacrifice those kinds of things for the betterment of the gene pool. if you KNOW you have a genetic disease and procreate, that comes off as extremely selfish.

I appreciate that you probably didn't mean that to come off so patronising - but if you say to somebody who has a genetic defect: "Well done for not having kids; You're working toward the betterment of the species." you're liable to get a kicking from all kinds of genetic disease charities.

To put that in perspective - would you have told Stephen Hawking's parents to not have children had they known the genes they carried had the chance of putting him in the unfortunate situation he's in? Had they not had children, history would have been denied one of the world's greatest thinkers (arguably). As much as it's Angelina Jolie's choice to go ahead with this pre-emptive surgery, it's anybody's choice to have children. You can't go around telling people who have a genetic disease (or the potential for genetic diseases) that they can't have children; It escapes me right now, but there's probably a word for that which is synonymous with genocide!

When is a genetic disease not a genetic disease?

Genetic diseases can be misleading things. For example sickle-cell anemia in normal circumstances has a detrimental effect upon the subject - impeding the functionality of their blood - but in the presence of the malarial parasite it is a beneficial trait because the body's immune system can more easily identify and destroy blood cells infected with the parasites - a 'healthy' human without the sickle cell trait suffering worse symptoms from the malarial parasite. Knowing that - can you say with any degree of certainty that breeding out all 'imperfect' genes from the human gene pool is really such a good idea; Who's to say that an unforeseeable future disease might not fall foul to what we would classify as a 'genetic defect' in a normal circumstance?

The strength of a species lies not in its 'perfect' subjects - but rather in its lunatic fringes; It is better to have an array of genetic anomalies present in the gene pool rather than have everybody have a 'perfect' set of genes.

To quote a fictional character: "Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death."

Meaning that if a virus/bacteria comes around that preys on the 'perfect' set of genes - and nobody has any genetic anomalies that on the off chance provide a defense against that virus/bacteria - then the whole species dies out. Game over.

Eugenics bothers me for a number of reasons - not only the one listed above:

Who decides what traits/mutations are undesirable? An extra finger on each hand might seem freakish to some - but isn't something like that actually beneficial in terms of human evolution - providing the subject with improved dexterity - so they're better able to utilise devices like keyboards, etc. So then, is 'breeding out' or suppressing the genetic trait that gives rise to such mutations really in the best interests of humanity?

Long-sightedness could also be seen as a defective genetic trait - but don't those people in fact have better visual acuity in some circumstances? Is it really such a good idea for everybody to have a baseline field of vision?

The genes for autism and bipolar disorder could also be seen as undesirable - but if not for our autistic and bipolar ancestors would we as a species be as accomplished in the fields of mathematics and art? If we breed out autism and bipolar disorder are we breeding out mathematical and creative genius - are we instead 'stunting' humanity on the path to 'perfecting' it?