|
Post by atolm on Jul 5, 2016 14:41:45 GMT
Dude likes the game.com, but doesn't like burning rangers. weird world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 28, 2016 4:22:07 GMT
if you want to pay 200$ then get a framemeister for a little more. I've seen it looks better than old crt's only thing worse is no lightgun games. that's where you need a crt for and I need one for as well My only issue is im not 100% sold on the framemesiter yet. Its likely an option I will check out but Im waiting for the next step in that technology. The Light Gun game issue is still big since some of my favorites on Saturn are of that genre (HOTD, VC, Area 51). However another board member mentioned a possible solution in the future even for that. A 4K framemeister? Yeah... that might be a while if they even make it. Micomsoft likes keeping their products around for a while.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 27, 2016 3:34:55 GMT
I thought the game was awesome back in 1998, other than being fairly short.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 23, 2016 3:32:40 GMT
Finally ordered a scart switcher. Bandridge manual 5 port, around 40 bucks with shipping from ebay.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 21, 2016 21:15:05 GMT
As a writer I'm sure you understand the meaning of words and the way we interpret words is quite important. Which is why I started my post asking you to rebuke my definition and analysis of the origin of the way we see and use the term morality. Without using a common definition for the word 'morality' we can not honestly discuss it. You keep going in circles. Your definition is based on your opinion. No one can rebuke "the correct answer is out there". There is no way to, that doesn't make your argument correct. Not all societies agree to your definition of "general well being for all citizens". The generally accepted definition is a set of values held by a person or society, not all that extra stuff you tossed in there. You're asking him to rebuke something that is based on your own subjectivity. How do you not get this?
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 21, 2016 14:24:38 GMT
You pretty much summed it up better than I could. Objective morality removes human emotion and experience from the equation, and it would definitely not be preferable. Your saying humans can't figure out for themselves what work best to organize themselves to live the way they want.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 19, 2016 14:50:30 GMT
Hence the game's moral ambiguity that Martiniii spoke of. You sure you got user names right there? The guy was arguing for objective morality. From his first post said following a "higher power" has it's flaws, but the only way to the right path. Then said morality was concrete like gravity. Then basically accused me and bultje of approving of the slaughter in Orlando because I merely suggested in the context of the game, the response to the destruction of their air base with the destruction of Zoah may have been morally justifiable to the Empire. He even went further to pigeonhole the authors of this awesome work of fiction by saying we missed their intent because of them being Japanese of the modern era. There's one simple problem objective moralists run into they can't get around. They have no proof that morality is anything but subjective. All forms of religion that answer to a higher power are forms of objective morality. If you're going to claim something exists, you need to provide proof. The simple fact I can't disprove you is NOT evidence for it's existence (like sonnington saying there's an answer even if we don't know it. I can't disprove that statement, doesn't mean it exists). Just like when someone says there is a god (whichever one they believe in), the fact no one can disprove that statement is not in itself evidence for it's existence. If you're going to claim something exists, the burden of proof lies on you, not me to disprove it. Any argument they make regarding what this supposedly objective morality should be is going to be rooted in opinion.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 18, 2016 22:31:56 GMT
According to packaging at segaretro it does include a converter to play different region games, but it makes no mention of RAM expansion. Makes me think it's just a double capacity memory card that can play non-ram imports.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 18, 2016 3:14:42 GMT
Ok, I'll bite. Yes at that moment in time Song A happens to be the "best" choice for the group. But so what? Are you implying that Song A was always the ultimate answer (even if they didn't know it) in this analogy? Who's to say the group won't grow tired of hearing it and then want to change over to Z? Maybe they'll be introduced to a song outside of that control group they've never heard before and like that better. If that's the case, then song A can never have been the answer. People chose song A because they made a subjective determination at that point in time. So again, all comes down to opinion.
How can you "objectively" say there's a best fit answer (even if we don't know it) for morality when at anytime it or the parameters might change due to subjectivity? For objective morality to even be a thing there must be a concrete and finite solution regardless of what people think. You made a blanket statement regarding the meaning of morality which I don't agree with. You said ALL societies take into account X amount of different things. No they don't. I already mentioned women, there's others with caste systems. I'm not going to nitpick the details of every region of the world. Your definition of morality is a SUBJECTIVE determination that you came up with based on your own unique experience.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 18, 2016 1:33:06 GMT
I'm sorry, that just doesn't work. You still have "best" attached to your second question which is truly subjective in nature, and as a consequence is still a subjective question regardless if there is one answer simply because you've thrown in an extra variable.
Even if I could tell you the answer say, 5 million people enjoy this song, and they also find it the best. That in no way qualifies that song for true "bestness". I could simply then say, but I hate that song.
If you had instead asked "what song in the world the largest etc.. etc..." then yes, you could get a truly objective answer because you aren't presenting the pretense of "best", which is a subjective judgement on your part you've already inserted into the question. Your results from that truly objective question would merely tell you the song that is being listened to the most,or POPULAR not that it's the best. and that answer will change
The only scientific factual objective observation you or anyone can make about any song regarding it's content is that it's a series of pressure waves transmitted through a fluid medium, picked up by the human ear and transferred to the brain. Once it gets to the brain that's the end of your objectivity. Majority rules cannot define "goodness,bestness" in the way you want regarding objective morality, because there will always be SUBJECTIVE differing opinion.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 22:43:03 GMT
sonnington, I'd thought I'd use your example of objective morality to make my final point.
When you say there's always an objective answer out there that deals with ultimate of health, well being, progress etc.., you run into the same problem Theists do when they explain their version of objective morality, that being hubris. In both examples humans are given some sort of special status or preferential treatment in the universe. In the theists' case, that being out of all the galaxies and possible worlds in the basically infinite expanse of the universe, some sort of intelligent being decided to pay special attention to one species on on specific planet and tell us what to do.
In your definition, of the ultimate of X, X is still based on the subjective desires and concepts of mankind. You are then projecting that out as if it applies to everything. What are the odds, again based on the expanse of the universe that there is some best answer that just so happens to fit with our wants and understandings based on all the possible forms life could take? Even if you say we aren't special and health is the benchmark for all living things you still have a problem. Right here on earth there are living creatures (parasites, bacteria etc..) who's "well being and overall health" requires us to be the opposite. I don't believe humans are special in the universe. I don't think there's some sort of grand concept ultimate answer that takes us specifically and our unique needs or concepts into account. "subjective morality" is a tautology
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 5:08:26 GMT
I find it rather simple to break it down, all societies base their morals off of an overall desire for good health, happiness, and advancement for the largest number of their own people. Therefore we can ascertain these fundamentals are inherent to the definition of morality. I would agree with you that probably the best you could hope for morality would be the least amount of suffering possible, but your statement is simply not true. There are plenty of societies in which women are 2nd class citizens. Either through lack of education or forced surgeries. Even when the population of them may be a bit more than 50%. Are you saying this society is truly seeking the happiness and good health for the majority of it's citizens? Even if they truly believe this is for the "good health" of their women, wouldn't that still be a subjective opinion? Or it's possible they don't care at all.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 3:20:46 GMT
First of all, that's an incredibly super loaded question with more factors than I can list. Environment, social structure and consequences, trial and error, changing religious beliefs or lack there of, famine, struggle, war. etc.. etc.. , but that in no way means that morality is absolute and will reach a finite conclusion. They are constantly evolving to suit our needs. Like I said earlier, it's an invention. Not a discovery. and like any invention, mankind will constantly tinker.
I'm going to rephrase this. Different groups or individuals will have gone through their own unique set of circumstances that led to their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 2:48:04 GMT
I really don't know how else I can explain it to you. We're going around in circles. According to my logic and reasoning killing people based on personal orientation is wrong. This train of thought is due to the society I was raised in. Maybe according to his logic they were sinners or something, I don't know or really care. That doesn't mean I can't imagine him having those morals and why he chose to act the way he did.
And again the statement you made: " if you believe morality is subjective, then you can't condemn the Orlando shooter. If you think it's wrong, but someone else thinks it's right, then you have no better reason than they do to believe the way you do" is itself a moral belief that you hold.
My better reason is my society and the rules we chose to live by.
lest you forget, we PAY people to judge.
|
|
|
Post by atolm on Jun 17, 2016 1:54:05 GMT
That's interesting. Let me ask you a silly question, since morality is subjective, what makes his values are less valid than your own? Would you say his values are incorrect? If so, what makes his values wrong and your values right? Is it arbitrary? I honestly don't understand why this is so complicated. I already answered this. Good music is up to the listener, I still think you have terrible taste in music and am judging you in doing so. Even after I just said "good music is up to the listener" I'm going to say your music is bad. This isn't a contradiction, it's an opinion because what I believe to be good music is what pleases MY ear. I morally feel his morals are BAD because I think it's crazy to kill people because of their personal orientation. Simple as that. And as I said before, Your line of questioning with the preoccupation with needing to weigh the validity of others' morals, is in fact itself a unique moral belief you yourself hold that obviously I don't share.
|
|