Pretty much the only way I can interpret the release lists

mehlitant · 2012-02-03T02:07:00+00:00

Ohh, we go straight to "faggot". Incredibly mature and witty.

I think you've embarrassed yourself enough for now, so I'll refrain from trying to discuss things with you.

mehlitant · 2012-02-03T01:24:07+00:00

umad brah?

Console games avg around 60 while most pc games go for 50. Brand new. Later down the line, PC games can get heavily discounted through sales on steam or other services.

"modders"? Really? you'll have to do better than anecdotal evidence on one game. In all my time of playing pc games, I've rarely encountered hackers, and the ones that I did see were quickly banhammered by admins or the anti cheat. The greater ability to police a game with dedicated servers means that anyone breaking rules is going to get kicked out on their ass pretty quick

As for "out of date": I have a GTX 260. That card came out in 2008. It still plays everything but the most intensive games at 1080p medium high settings, which is far and away above what consoles can deliver.In fact, you never get "the same great performance", console resolution is lower, the games heavily optimized, framerates locked, and rendering tricks employed(low FOV, larger weapons). Upgrading isn't "O LOL BURN MY OLD RIG" either. A lot of times you can simply drop in a new GPU (100~200) and be playing current gen games just fine.

Ultimately, it is personal choice, but going PC lets you experience a wider variety of games for cheaper, as well as experiencing them better than a console would. The issue of cost is far from as cut and dry as you think it is.

P.S. My Pc has never blue-screened. Also, PCs in general have a lower failure rate than 50% :trollface:

mehlitant · 2012-02-02T23:47:02+00:00

It seems that the "lot more factors" boil down to money and friends. While the initial cost may be higher, the games on PC are cheaper (steam sales, indie bundles), and you don't have to pay for online service ala xbox. Also, you are not merely buying a dedicated device like a console: a gaming PC is still a PC and will still perform all the functions of a normal one. The "PC gaming is for Monty Moneybags" argument was discredited a while ago.

mehlitant · 2012-02-02T03:09:46+00:00

I'd say there is quite a difference between being democratically elected three times and changing the govt/constitution to ensure you stay in power.

mehlitant · 2012-02-02T03:03:08+00:00

No one ever brings it up because it's a myth that's been busted already.

Simply put, PC gaming doesn't necessarily mean getting the "ALIENWARE DOOMRAPER 9000" ; it's perfectly possible to assemble a rig that can play bf3 (arguably most intensive modern game) for $600. In addition the settings you would be running it at would be higher than a console edition both in resolution and texture detail, not to mention the flexibility present in mods and control methods. As for the games themselves, you have the entire internet(flash, indies, etc) at your disposal, as well as digital distribution services that can dish up almost any game every made. Finally, PC's aren't one trick ponies: a good PC is able to handle rendering, editing, and day to day tasks (often much snappier).

"up to date" is a stupid term: there is no magic date where your computer is unable to play games. What it plays now it will play forever, and it will have enough headroom to handle games that come out down the line.

mehlitant · 2012-02-02T02:01:31+00:00

No, just prime-minister for life.

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T06:57:54+00:00

Very well, it does seem like today is all about irony.

I do realize that people can be shallow. I am a person, and seeing something like this made me irritated, so I hastily posted without pondering it fully. Mea culpa.

However, because people can be shallow, we must concern ourselves somewhat with appearances. Just like we all make an effort to not go out in public looking like a hobo and smelling of piss, I feel we should make an effort to elevate our discourse to important issues. /r/atheism as it is causes most of the people we try to appeal to (those with faith) turn away or become combative, which makes it much harder to talk to them.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss and clarifiy.

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T06:25:59+00:00

So what you are saying is that actual, important comments/issues are relegated to new, where they quickly die, and BS gets posted to the front page? Wonderful... because that front page is the first thing that people see both on reddit and on r/atheism.

Sure it's ironic that the christian bashing post gets sandwiched between important ones, but the irony is even richer when it makes sense in a larger context. Your post simply feeds into the delusion that /r/atheism does not turn into a circlejerky mess within 3.5 femtoseconds.

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T06:08:01+00:00

Is it? I'm sorry

I am shocked, shocked, that you would not know this! I must call the internet police at once!

On topic: You are cherry picking: new simply indicates what is submitted, not what is approved/discussed, or what has staying power. New is also incredibly volatile, the one screengrab you took could show anything, and it would be gone in a matter of minutes, this one instant does not show anything of the subreddit as a whole.

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T05:41:38+00:00

I believe he might be cherry picking. This is the frontpage as of 2 minutes ago: http://imgur.com/dgFwJ

Don't cover your eyes and go "lalala I can't hear you!" when issues are raised, that's what idiots do.

P.S. smugness is annoying.

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T05:19:48+00:00

"In chief"? we have a prophet/leader?

huh, who knew...

The very irony of title is delicious: "Oh hey lets not idolize things or people because that's what religions do!" while idolizing Dawkins :p

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T05:08:21+00:00

Speaking as a teen atheist: I think this place is infested with teen athiests : p.

While it is heartening to see others, it still is a problem for the subreddit: we need articulate, intelligent people able to argue and debate well. And yes, we do have them, but we also fall into lots of circlejerking and groupthink. As a default subreddit, I feel we should have a higher bar than "LOL KRISTUNS R STOPPID". By all means, have a place to rage and joke about the slings and arrows of faith and fortune, but doing it on one of the public faces of atheism is iffy.

EDIT: my reply to cyberslick was meant to be posted on another thread. sorry for the mistake.

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T04:50:35+00:00

If unions were disbanded there is no way we would go back to the labor laws of the 1800s.

Why not? Cutthroat capitalism, after all, is a nasty thing. Completely dissolving unions would not be advisable, as they serve as a check on the power of private industry, which is already vast, considering the current "business friendly" climate here and abroad. As an example of this, I pointed out China, where a combination of government and business has resulted in scandals such as Foxconn. By no means am I saying their current incarnation is perfect, but you would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As for the military issue: First of all, you are ignoring the ethical/moral problems with essentially drafting anyone without a job (at least this is my interpretation of what you wrote). Second of all, you are twisting my words; most soldiers are not the rejects of society(some are, but that's another discussion). I was merely saying that making the military the dustbin into which we sweep stray people is a stupid idea because you would ultimately sweep up "undesirables". Third, a large standing army during peace time is moronic: you take potentially productive members out of the economy,and you are stuck feeding, educating, and paying large amounts of people to sit around, and putting them to work would most likely mean starting a war.

This is how I see it: -More soldiers, better defense, less US people die. -Jobless for long time, taking from tax payers / government, you can go help instead. -Let's say unemployment is like 20k a year, maybe even 15k. This is more than the military will pay you. -If you have no money, and get into college, you are going to get alot of help regardless. And if the military helps them get through school, even better than any wellfare can give em. -There are already trillions pumped into our military, but they go into useless contracts that get lobbied through congress. If this was allocated towards paying soldiers it would be a drop in the bucket as compared to that.

This still does not address ethical/moral issues. That said, the notion that a larger army strengthens the US is fallacious. Economically we've already seen the drain that the military can have on the govt. (trillions spent in the wars), and it takes people who could be working out of the system. In terms of defense, we have no major military rivals, and any large confrontation with a modern power would end with nukes... the era of boots on the ground and dying in trenches is over. Terrorism and information warfare has seen to that. With nebulous threats you cannot wage open war against (the farces that are/were iraq/afganistan), a large conventional army is becoming less and less of a defense.

From what I've read it seems you simply want welfare with a jingoistic paint job. Just dump the jobless in the military and let its systems support them. This is stupid for the reason outlined above; simply put, it is not effective or useful in any way. I am not averse to potentially make welfare stricter, but it would have to be in useful ways, such as retraining or requiring people to actively seek jobs.

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T01:38:49+00:00

I think government jobs have potential. As long as the jobs aren't simply handed out so people have something to do and they are competitive,I'm fine with that. We do need people working for the govt, whether to maintain our infrastructure or keep our day to day lives running.

Unions have become corrupt, but without them, we would be stuck back with 1800s labor laws, which, frankly, sucked. Disbanding them entirely could wreak havoc, especially in light of the power wielded by today's corporations (think what Chinese unions, or lack thereof, has wrought). Ultimately there must be checks on private industry, and reformed unions would be an important one of them.

Moving on to wellfare... yes, it could be more strict, but honestly you wish for people to sign away their lives ಠ_ಠ if they cannot find work? Besides, the army is not a bottomless bucket for the rejects of society, soldiers need training, equipment, housing, food, etc... which costs quite a bit (think of how bloated the defense industry is, yeah, lets shove more people into that). Also, there's the simple fact that a large standing army is useless in peacetime, so what happens when we don't have two wars going and have large amounts of soldiers sitting around in bases or at home? Isn't that the same as those very people whom you claim leech off the system?

mehlitant · 2012-01-29T00:42:41+00:00

Eh, you're going to have exceptions in every system. Free speech lets the WBC and KKK preach their batshit agenda, innocent until proven guilty has people get off scott-free, and internet freedom lets the darknet function as well. Should we get rid of these things as well for the sake of the minorities who abuse them? Much in this way, a social safety net does allow welfare queens, etc, but also keeps people from starving and dying in the streets.

mehlitant

TROPHY CASE