Michael Archer

The default mouse that comes with Dell computers. Mine's worked amazingly for about 9-10 years. After considering this for a second, I think mouse critics are kind of like food critics. What's the big deal about mice (food)? It moves the cursor across the screen (you eat it); that's really just about it. I think an ergonomic keyboard is more important, personally.

The previous two posts are perfect examples to why rep means nothing and should be removed, and why people who instantly judge other people solely by their rep are idiots. I think we should replace rep with an objective standard that can't be influenced by other people. What about post count? I'd think it's ok to assume if someone has a high post count and they haven't been banned yet, they contribute to the forum. Or how about time spent on forum? I'm not a moderator or an administrator, so it's not my problem; but I'm certain the intelligent people responsible for maintaining this forum can come up with a better, meaningful standard.

alphabetagamma, what makes you think rep actually means something? Why do you feel that people with rep lower than you are inferior? ThatSmartGuy, I agree. I tried to address it from a philosophical standpoint, but it doesn't seem like people are reading what I'm writing (what's new?).

It seems you're confused about what you're talking. Let me help you; I know that there are dictionaries posted on the internet, but you don't seem to know how to use them. See, I can post definitions and claim you're not using the words correctly in a fallacious, obnoxious, patronizing, and juvenile attempt to discredit what you said. The only difference between you and me is that I'm joking.

You controlled a little ship at the bottom of the screen, could only strafe left and right and had to use bombs, missles and your machine gun to destroy a hundred waves of alien ships. I found a link to it here. It was long, repetitive, but a shitload of fun. Do I need an emulator to play this or do I just install it on my Windows machine and run it?

I don't like .MKV (it's probably a stupid reason, I know) simply because on the .MKV's I found, the audio lags a bit (at least on VLC). This could be attributed to many things, but the WMVs and the .AVIs have always worked no problem. Don't not make it .MKV just for my sake. I'm sure it's a good format; it's just that I like to stick to what I know.

Bullseye, everything in existence has an identity and only one identity. If it exists, it has an identity and therefore it can be known. You're right that just because you look at a chair, does not make it a chair. Humans do not decide reality, rather they perceive it. So, if perception gathers conclusive evidence and that conclusive evidence says that it's a chair, then we are objectively certain that it is a chair, contextually. If you say, "it could be a sink and you're perceiving it incorrectly because you might be plugged into a machine that's distorting all your senses (i.e. The Matrix); you never know!", I would simply dismiss that as an arbitrary claim, since there's no way to prove it right or wrong; unless you provided evidence it did not function as a chair. To say we can never be certain of anything is a blatant contradiction. This means that no knowledge is possible and assumes omniscience as the standard for knowledge (it's not). Also, if nobody can be certain of everything, that means everybody can be certain of anything they want--you can't refute that if you accept the first claim. It's a paradox.

Once again Bullseye, you somehow manage to misread my post. Again, an arbitrary claim is neither right or wrong; it has no epistemological status whatsoever. I never said that your claim of a creator was wrong; I said it was it was arbitrary i.e. a personal whim that has no grounding in reality (since whims and thoughts exist independent of reality) and has no place for human cognition. If I wanted to sink to your level and patronize you in an attempt to refute you (like you did when you posted those definitions), I could've said something like "you're wrong; there's no creator, rather there's a sentient Alien Dick species from another galaxy watching your every move and judging if you can come to Dickland," or another equally arbitrary comment. Instead, I simply dismissed it as arbitrary. Claiming something arbitrary is actually worse than being wrong; at least something that's wrong has an epistemological value. Your beliefs do seem like a personal whim; you (or anyone else) has yet to produce evidence in reality that shows there is a creator. You say you had a personal experience with God, but you say that you have no physical evidence; this leads me to conclude that it only happened in your mind. And like I said before, thoughts and feelings exist independent of reality i.e. whatever went on in your mind has no bearing on reality. If you can prove with evidence (something in reality) there is a creator, that's fine and we can discuss that. If you just spout claims without evidence, those are arbitrary and can not possibly be discussed. "Knowledge" in one of your definitions (just curious, where did you get those definitions?) means "certain understanding". "Certain" means "indisputable" i.e. conclusive, legitimate evidence is provided for it, with no evidence to the contrary. Evolution is not opposed by anything, but arbitrary claims; it has nothing to do with how many people oppose/support it. It matters what they're supporting i.e. if it's conclusive evidence grounded in reality, follows valid epistemological rules, doesn't contradict already established knowledge and therefore is not an arbitrary claim unlike the claim of a supernatural being. In our perception of the world, evolution violates no previous knowledge and connects and explains older knowledge. In our context of knowledge, evolution is a fact since it has conclusive evidence supporting it with no evidence to challenge it. Humans are not omniscient, so context is important here. All human knowledge is contextual.

I don't know whether to welcome or shun this new "country." Are they succeeding to form a freer, capitalistic nation? If so, welcome to the world, South Sudan! Are they succeeding to form another Islamic dictatorship? I think this is probably what will happen; I doubt the Sudanese even know what freedom is. In that case, it's even more important that we invest in Israel.

.WMV and .AVI are both great formats. WMV has never failed me, but .AVI is more universal. Not too keen on MKV, though. I don't want to vote and skew the results. If I could vote twice, I would.

I like my rep right now: the negative Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Just beat Dark Carnival on Expert; took me and three other guys 2.2 hours. Damn, that campaign is hard. Do voice command binds still work? I want to bind a key so that every time I press it, Nick says, "Tits!" I see lots of voice command spamming videos on Youtube. Do they still work?

I would definitely play on an Accursed Farms server. Someone set it up! I would, but I can't; bandwidth, computer limitations and all.

My impression of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia comes from reading about other people who have lived there. Have you lived in the Soviet Union? What's your point? In terms of what "capitalism" means, I'm going by the definiton that Wikipedia gives: "Capitalism is an economic system structured upon the accumulation of capital in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.[1] Income in a capitalist system takes at least two forms, profit on the one hand and wages on the other." When I talk about "capitalism," I'm talking about lassiez-faire capitalism. What kind of capitalism are you talking about? What laws do you say that you like from the Soviet Union?

Hamburglar, did you see Yahtzee's review? "The psions are now plasmids, the hybrids are now splicers and the wrench is now...well, a wrench, but it's a different kind of wrench." Yeah, I got that feeling too. The villains are incredibly shallow; all they say is, "Hey, look at me! I'm a socialist! Down with the capitalist pigs!" What kind of behaviors would these be? That's not what I said. I said that Objectivism holds that reality is objective (your thoughts and feelings have no impact on reality) and that humans can view things objectively e.g. a human can point to an objective chair and say "I know for certain and objectively that this is a chair." They are not omniscient i.e. they don't know all things to the extent outside human cognition and outside of context since this is by definition impossible. They can know things, but knowledge is contextual.

This thread makes me sad; both sides, make me sad. Bullseye and the rest of the creationists make me said for proposing arbitrary, metaphysically impossible, and epistemological invalid claims. The other side makes me sad for entertaining such claims. I shall now attempt to end this thread; I do not expect to succeed. Bullseye, your claims that there is a supernatural creator is arbitrary i.e. the claim has no evidence provided and is not a result of a direct observation. The theory is neither right nor is it wrong: it's simply arbitrary and has no epistemological status or place in human cognition. Evolution is supported by many facts, observations, physical evidence and research; evolution has no theory opposing it. Something is considered "knowledge" when all facts point to it and there is are no theories or evidence opposing it (arbitrary theories don't count). If you're not satisfied with the theory of evolution: propose your own theory, do your own research and come up with a better model that's supported with better evidence. Knowledge is contextual and in this context, evolution is a fact. To the rest of you: next time you're presented with an arbitrary claim, don't try to consider whether it's right or wrong: simply identify it as arbitrary, dismiss it, and continue talking as though it's never come up.

I can't decide between Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time. I really liked the clock in Majora's Mask, but Ocarina of Time's dungeons for the most part were better. Was I the only one frustrated as hell with both of these games? Also, has anybody gotten through one or both of these games without ever having to consult a guide? (When I say "have to consult a guide," I mean in the sense that you were hopelessly stuck and didn't know how to progress where only a guide would help you.)

Well, if you want to be specific: when I say "capitalism" I mean "lassiez-faire capitalism" i.e. pure, uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism. Basically, in lassiez-faire, there's a complete separation between economics and the government exactly like the separation between the church and government. As I imagine Dave would say: "Good capitalism, like all property being privately owned. None of this half-assed, government regulated, mixed-economy crap." I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the middle class slowly replaces the working class in capitalism. Before capitalism, there were only two classes: the working and the elite classes. From what I understand, the middle class only came from the industrial revolution where there came a demand for more efficient labor. The middle class is the life and blood of capitalism and the economy; the "capitalist class" as you call them are only remnants of the past where the middle class is the present and future and they will eventually become the capitalist class. How exactly are they exploited? I've never understood the Marxist argument. How are the capitalists exploiting the working class anymore than the working class are exploiting the capitalists? Both groups see each other as a way to make money and make deals accordingly. A worker voluntarily assumes the responsibility of his job description and gets paid accordingly; if he doesn't like it, he's free to find a capitalist who will pay him better. This is not exploitation. What is exploitation however is how the socialists treat the capitalist class: the capitalists work, but the fruits of their labor are forcibly taken away from them i.e. the capitalists are slaves in socialism. Why do you not call this exploitation? If by "exploitation," you mean making the masses slaves, then I refer you to socialism i.e. the theory that says that man does not have the right to exist for himself and his own effort and that his life does not belong to him. Slavery does not get any more literal than that. State benefits (i.e. forcibly taken money from those who earned it to give to people who did not) is socialism, not capitalism. Same thing. People won't buy things they don't want or need; ergo if you make a product no one needs, no one will buy it and thus no profit. It is true that people without money (unproductive people) will not be able to satisfy their needs. As for their plight, they would have to rely on charity i.e. the voluntary giving of people who earned goods to people who did not earn it. The productive people in a charity still retain their autonomy. If there are not enough charities, that is unfortunate; however, this does not justify you or the government putting a gun to the head of a businessman who rightfully earned his money to pay for someone who did not i.e. this does not give you the right to rob people. Robbing: whether conducted by a lone individual or a government sanctioned by a majority vote is wrong, period. So? Capitalism doesn't support mediocrity; you either make a good product or you lose to someone who does. I've never come across a more ignorant statement. War: right now, we're at war with middle-eastern countries. These countries are run by Islamic dictatorships. Islam is a nihilistic ideology that holds that man does not have right to exist and make a profit for himself, but exists to serve others. Islam declared war on the semi-capitalist west because they hold capitalism and human production immoral. Any Islamic country (to be fair, any statist country) relies on war, since they can not produce any goods. Only capitalism is the system of production, so statists have to forcibly take from the people that produced it i.e. they have to wage war. Again, observe that all wars in the 20th century were initiated by statist and not capitalist countries. Starvation: Are you kidding me? Obesity is a problem in the capitalist United States for one thing. Also, my mother used to live in communist Yugoslavia. She said that one of her favorite things to eat were bananas and ice cream; the only problem was that bananas and ice cream were ridiculously expensive that it was a luxury she could only afford once in a while. When she came to capitalist Canada, she was amazed about how much choice in food there is and she was even more amazed about how bananas are the cheapest fruit and ice cream was readily available to everyone. This is not a one-time story: Ayn Rand said that when she was living in communist Russia, the only thing people talked about was food since they were so hungry all the time (millions of peasants died from starvation). This is not suprising: the way to make the most amount of food is by free men who are willing to produce as much as they can so they can strive for their own happiness. Next time you walk into a grocery store, take a look at how much selection you have; this is all possible by capitalism and production and not the use of force. Alientation: What exactly do you mean by that? Crime: Crimes such as robbery are tools of the looters. Before money can be robbed, it must be created through production by honest men who created it for profit. Money is the tool of creators who made it for their own purposes, not the robbers. Blaming crime on the capitalists is similar to blaming rape on a victim. Cuba, China and the U.S.S.R; like you said, were all slave countries. Capitalism is incompatible with slavery. I think the best demonstration of this was the US Civil War i.e. capitalist north vs. statist south. Abraham Lincoln said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Thankfully, the US government successfully defended capitalism and the slaveholders were crushed. "Viable to do so" is not indicative of a free-market and therefore, not of capitalism. To call the Soviet Union "capitalism" is so ridiculous, I feel like an idiot for entertaining this. Capitalism is a system of free-trade i.e. traders are free to trade with one another in the best way they see fit for any reason they want. In Soviet Union, the only purpose of "trade" (which was really extortion) was to "serve the people and country." In capitalism, you're allowed to live for yourself; in statism, you're not. I think you need to look up "free-market," because I don't think it means what you think it means. Free-market means that trades are voluntarily, prices are controlled by supply and demand, but most importantly that people can trade in whatever way they see fit. If for profit, for sport, it doesn't matter--the point is that it's free. Why do you assume to speak for all Europeans? I'd assume that most would not want to be part of your sick, statist experiment. That's fine, I respect your right to disagree with me. But answer this question: By what right do you have to forcibly take something that does not belong to you? By what standard do you extort people? Emphasis mine. I think I've said enough on the subject of Anarchy. True, but only those who deal with the government. The vast majority of businessmen have nothing to gain from war. Capitalism is a system where men are free to produce and are free from the initiation of force (this is how men produce best). Therefore, a capitalist country does not need to go to war to thrive and prosper whereas a statist country does. How does one judge whether a theory is good or not? How do you say, "this is a good theory?" The only standard I can think of is how it works in practice.

Remember: reality exists independent of consciousness i.e. it doesn't matter if there are different viewpoints of "A". The Law of Identity says that "A is A" and that is it. Values can be ascribed to "A" by different people (people choose their own values), but it's fundamentally the same thing. Kind of like how 1=1+0. 1 and 1+0 are different statements, but they're fundamentally the same thing. A real life example would be our perception of a chair: You might say "A comfy place to rest and relax; this is a value I want to pursue" and I could say "A tool for promoting sloth and obesity; I do not want to pursue this." Although we've chosen different values, the objects we perceive are fundamentally the same thing i.e. the chair is a chair and not a table. "A is A" is an axiom and in order to try to refute it, you actually have to agree to it. If you say "A is not A and is instead B" then you're accepting that something exists that is called "A" and the identity of "A" is that it is "A." The characteristics of "A" are all those characters you posted earlier, but they're all identical: they're all "A." Something that exists can only have one identity and the identity of "A" is that it is "A." It's a bit confusing, I'll admit. Objectivism does not claim humans are omniscient; it claims that reality exists independent of consciousness and that existence exists ("A is A") and if it exists it's knowable. This does not mean we know everything, it just means that knowledge is possible but it has to be obtained through the use of reason.

I'm actually cool with that, Bullseye. Seriously.

I don't like the word "brony" (nor do I label myself as one) for the exact same reasons I don't like the word "gamer;" Yahtzee summed up my feelings on labels/titles pretty well. I wake up in the morning and have a cup of coffee. Then I go to school, come home and do my homework. In my free time or during the summer, I like to play video games and generally just browse on my computer. Other times, I like to read or post on this forum, or play chess. And other nights, I like to watch a movie or an episode M*A*S*H; Seinfeld; The Office or My Little Pony. I am normal.

Bullseye, who's to enforce that system with no government? As I said before, "Rational Anarchism" is a contradiction. Reason and the mind can not coexist with Anarchism i.e. mob rule/rule by force. I don't understand: how can a capitalist business man who produces goods instead of seizing them and who's land is taxed to pay for the war effort be pro-war? Statism is the theory that a man's life doesn't belong to himself, but it belongs to a collective. The statist thinks that some men have the right to initiate force on others. In that sense, Anarchy is statism. What? Capitalism is a system of individualism and the respect of individual rights. Napoleon thought that some men had the right to initiate force on others. The free market and the mind can not function under the threat of force. Maybe not, but a communist or islamic dictatorship that relies on the initiation of force on other people has no right to exist. A free country is always justified in destroying a dictatorship, since a dictatorship has no rights.

Can someone find someone who's never heard the MLP theme song and then play the TF2 version to them without subtitles? I wonder if they can understand what they're saying; I doubt it.

That's fine, I can accept that. Just keep in mind that quantity of evidence is not the same thing as veracity of evidence i.e. just because it's lopsided, doesn't make it true. And that there is peer-reviewed evidence that it's possible humans are not causing it. Also that climate change denial is not remotely the same as evolution denial. The supporters of the latter rely on the use of arbitrary claims. Good night. I will continue discussing the implications and whatnot.

Guilt by Association fallacy. Seriously, how many of these are you going to use? The difference between me and BTG is that BTG spouts arbitrary claims and insists that we disprove them. BTG puts the burden of proof on the negative. From Merriam-Webster: Definition of Consensus: general agreement ; unanimity I think I am confused. Exactly. I could also show you scientists who say that the world is flat. Because we're not scientists, if we tried to present sources, all that would end up happening is one calling the other side a liar. This is why I personally don't discuss scientific evidence in a field I know little about. I'm saying that just because there's on opinion shared by the majority of scientists does not necessarily mean it's factual. There's also research by some that says there's no correlation between human's emissions and temperature rises, just not as much. And then you heavily implied, "therefore, they're right and you're wrong." That's ad Populum and Argument from Authority. No, no, no. I'll say it one more time: your assertion that humans cause global warming because of this fact is ad Populum and Argument from Authority. The scientists are probably not committing these fallacies (they may committing other fallacies along with those, I'm not sure. I'll assume they're not until evidence is presented), only you are.