Recent posts by Finnis21 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

You make great points, donseptico, but the 1:1 disagreement works both ways.

You explained really well why we will never, ever know the truth behind what really happened, bar a video surfacing somewhere.

When one person’s testimony is literally all we have (and the injuries do, at least circumstantially, corroborate), then it has to be evidence of some kind. The prosecution could argue on behalf of Martin, and that is what they did, but “his” testimony isn’t any more valuable than Zimmerman’s.

Imagine this: Two men come forward, accusing each other of assault. Each man says that the other punched him, and then they punched back in retaliation. They both have black eyes.

Who gets convicted of assault? Sans further evidence, neither of them.

Unfortunately, this is that case. Zimmerman and Martin (even as the prosecutor, by proxy), both don’t have any evidence. Zimmerman has some physical injury that shows that Martin at least displayed some aggression, although it could have been in retaliation, or as an instigator. We will never know. But the law is clear on what happens here. “Neither of them” are guilty, because we don’t know what happened. If Zimmerman is telling the truth (and we can’t say that he isn’t) then it was valid self-defense. Case closed.

Also of note, he did disobey instructions, but, from what I know, ignoring the instructions from the dispatcher does not actually constitute a crime because it wasn’t given by an officer of the law. Terrible idea, sure, and relevant to the case, yes, but he, technically, had a right to confront Martin. (Not a right to shoot, assault or threaten, but confront, yes). Since that was not against the law (not even disobeying a police officer, technically), the first illegal action, legally, would have been an assault by Zimmerman that we can’t prove.

This is why the prosecution didn’t have a case, and never really did. We can’t conclude that Zimmerman provoked the attack. We just can’t.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

I’m not sure if myself or the article was misinterpreted, but I don’t think that the message was: Nobody was racist in this situation.

Not at all. As a matter of fact, I think that the evidence that we have clearly points to the fact that Zimmerman is racist. Lots of people are unfortunately arguing that he was not, but I think it is pretty clear that that is wrong.

The article I linked, on the other hand, makes the very specific point that :

in the case of whether or not Zimmerman should be found guilty of the murder of Trayvon in this very specific instance and given the available evidence in context of the law

race is not an issue.

To elaborate, a horribly racist racist man is, under the law, allowed to use lethal force in the case of self-defense against a minority of any kind. The racist-ness of the man has no impact on that right, and it applies to all levels of racist-ness, from colorblind to KKK.

According to the evidence legally available to the court and the whole world, (and completely independent to the races of the individuals involved), we have no legal reason to believe the fact that it was not self-defense. The standard of “what is self-defense, and what is needed to prove it” is pretty clear in this country.

Also, note the negative nature of that sentence. I’m not saying that we have lots of reason to believe that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, we just have too little reason to believe it WASN"T self-defense.

However, I digress.

In this situation, despite how likely it is that Zimmerman is racist (almost certainly), race really isn’t the issue in the case. Issue in their life, sure. Issue in the truth? Definitely. But not an issue in the quality of the case.

I think a better point of the article is that the prosecution really didn’t have a case. I hate to say it, as I lament the loss of innocent Trayvon as much as anyone, but it really seems that the prosecution was political, not realistic, as far as the law is concerned.

The biggest issue that I take with this entire situation certainly isn’t the verdict (it really was fair, given the evidence and the law), but, instead the reactions from BOTH extremes of the situation.

Zimmerman is NOT a hero. At freakin’ all. He made some terrible calls, bad decisions, and was involved in a horrible situation as a result of it. He profiled, and an innocent paid for it.

However, this outcome of this case does NOT mean that we can go around shooting black youths, now, and we CANNOT break the law and deny the civil rights of someone just so SOMEONE pays for an unfortunate death. A conviction for Zimmerman would just as surely destroy the civil rights of individuals who those who are angry about the verdict would desire to protect.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / George Zimmerman - Found NOT Guilty!

I genuinely hate to post without posting a great my own thoughts and instead relying on the thoughts of others, but I can’t say it better than this guy.

I’ve read a great deal on this case (as I’d bet most of you have), and this is, by far, my favorite article on the subject:

http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=18715

Important points:

Zimmerman made some serious mistakes.
Trayvon made some serious mistakes.
As far as we know, both parties likely had the power to diffuse the situation, and did not.
Contrary to popular belief, the case had nothing to do with “Stand your ground” laws.
Race and racism, in many forms and from many groups, is an issue in this culture, no doubt. But it was not the issue of this trial, and for good reason.

Just my (or, rather someone much more articulate than myself) two cents.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Avellah, don’t you see the contradiction in expressing that anything is ok, so long as it is what they believe on the inside, yet simultaneously suggesting that polygamy is objectively wrong, or immoral?

What if, “what they believe inside” is that they love two people. Even if you believe that’s impossible, (which I believe you do and don’t hardly blame you for it), but isn’t it “not [your] decision to make”? May you be “shutting [your] mind off”?

I mean, I’m not disagreeing that polygamy is very different from homosexual marriage, you are quite right that it is different (although “in every way possible” is impossible to quantify).

But, “where DO we draw the line?” What if they are “proud of who they are”? I mean, you could say pretty much exactly what you said in suggesting that people have the right to have polygamous relationships.

To say it in other words: you are telling a group that they are wrong, because you know better. “They do not truly love their husband or wife if they choose they don’t want to spend their life with them and them only.” Don’t you think that the people you are arguing against are saying the same thing? “They do not truly love their husband or wife if they are the same sex.”

If people can’t make that call, what gives you the right to make yours?

Someone’s culture, the way they were raised, taught them that homosexuality was wrong. You are saying that that doesn’t it make it right, and I agree.

But didn’t your culture, the way you were raised, teach you that polygamy is wrong (or, more specifically, that it is impossible for a man or a woman to truly love more than one individual, even to the point of “being with” both of them)? Why does that make you right?

[EDIT: Just to avoid any accidental misunderstandings (or deliberate ones), this isn’t, of course, an argument in support for the legalization of polygamy, and neither is it an argument against the legalization of gay marriage. It is simply an effort to test the logical construction of a particular post]

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / What characters would you like to see introduced to Super Smash Bros 4?

Originally posted by randomboy839:

Geno.

This. About a thousand times. It would be the only character I play.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston

Ha, no arguement there Azolf. I think that’ll always be true with fast-food.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “save a cow” ad campaign, though. You mean the whole “eat more chicken” shtick? I always thought that was just a joke. You know, “haha look cows are advertising for a chicken place. How appropriate”.

Or are they really trying some kind of animal friendly save a cow thing I just haven’t seen? What does it have to do with northerners?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Thoughts on Chick-Fil-A Being Barred From Chicago/Boston

I’m with Ketsky on this one. I mean, I can get on board with barring businesses that discriminate, particularly since there are federal laws against it.

However, while the President may have views that are offensive to a group of people, or are even prejudiced, I haven’t seen any evidence of discrimination, and I’ve been on top of the story pretty well.

Remember that rainbow oreo thing a while back? If it would be wrong for a local government to ban oreos because of their public show of support, then it would be equally wrong to ban chik-fil-a for expressing an opposing view. Before you decide you don’t agree, remember also that chik-fil-a isn’t running ads on the topic, as, to my knowledge, all of the controversy simply comes from a personal statement by the president, and isn’t present in the companies policy or behavior. So, in other words, the message from chik-fil-a isn’t being presented near as strongly as the oreo thing was.

I feel like any local gov has no right to ban chik-fil-a because of a personal belief of the President of the company with no evidence of discrimination of any sort from the business itself. If they were discriminatory (say, in hiring practices), then the federal government would be interested as well.

EDIT: I guess what I’m saying here, to summarize. Is Chik-fil-a homophobic? Or is the president? Is that the same thing?

We are casually saying things exactly like “if chik-fil-a is homophobic” “chik-fil-a justifies its homophobia” “chik-fil-a shoves religion down our throat”.

They do not hand out bibles with the happy meal, they do not refuse to serve or hire homosexuals, to my knowledge, and, frankly, I see no discrimination. I see prejudice from the guy who runs it. Those are completely different things. Sure, you could speculate that it will come out in company policy, but until there is clear evidence of that, and not knee-jerk reactions to how prejudiced the “chik-fil-a” (as if it were a person handing out sandwhiches), judgement on the company needs to be held.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Racism should be allowed.

It is important to distinguish, here, the difference between prejudice, racism, and discrimination.

Sociologically speaking, these three, while often talked about together, are defined differently, and have vastly different implications.

Prejudice is, more or less, the emotional part of the trio, the state of our feeling about another race or group. Prejudice is passive, and simply describes attitudes.

Racism is similar, and also passive. Racism is often thought of as less the emotional side of it and more the thinking side of it. The decision, so to speak. Racism is the expressed or not expressed belief or idea about another another race or group. It is distinguished from emotional or “gut feeling” and is defined as the thought or belief.

Discrimination is the only active part of the process. Discrimination can be violent, hateful, damaging, oppressive, and so on. Discrimination is when our prejudiced “feelings” and our racist “beliefs” come to effect our actions.

So:

Prejudice: Feeling

Racism: Belief

Discrimination: Action

Therefore, racism, in its pure form, is not violent or bloody or even very impactful on another individual. It is not until it translates into discrimination that bad things happen.

This leads us to the logical point that has been brought up already: Racism is not illegal. Neither is prejudice. We can feel or think whatever we want. In many forums, we can even say whatever we want, although this comes closer to discrimination, which, in many instances, is illegal.

And it makes sense. The only part that is illegal is the action part, discrimination. Many would argue that discrimination is still legal in many forms, and they are probably correct, but it is the only form that we can criminalize.

Therefore, when we get to hate speech (which may be a reflection of racism), we get a form of discrimination that needs to be assessed to see if it is doing damage to another group. Performing what should be defined as a criminal act. That is where the discussion needs to go.

“Should all forms of discrimination be illegal? Is hate speech or verbal expression of racism discrimination? Is it damaging to the point that it necessitates criminalization?”

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Steel Battalions -- a one out of ten. (or thereabouts)

This isn’t a review for the new steel battalions game, sorry. Every review that’s currently out there right now says about the same thing so I really don’t have anything to add. But this experience has been a first for me, personally.

I usually agree, more or less, with mainstream critics and reviewers from magazines, websites, and heck, even Amazon. Every once in a while I break from the norm a bit (I absolutely loved Brink), but those instances are few and far between.

However, before reading any reviews, out of plain curiosity I downloaded the demo for the new steel battalions game (it requires Kinect)….

… and absolutely loved it. I’m not sure why, but I had a boat-load of fun. I enjoyed the environment, the controls, the kinect actions, and, generally, the mood. Sure, the characters are backwards stereotypes who think the f-bomb is the third used word in the english language, but it was all part of the campy-yet-fun atmosphere. (Not unlike Evil Dead 2. Bruce Campbell is my hero.) I was, honestly, all ready to go pick it up in the next few days.

Then I got online and began looking up reviews. I don’t need to post any summaries, its just getting 1s, 0s, or bottomed out reviews from everyone, hailed as the worst Kinect game of all time by huge names in the industry. The funny thing is, I’m not really arguing with any of the reviewers. Heck, I made most of the same observations as they did, and I have no interest in debating or fighting about any of it. The only difference in experience I noticed is that I didn’t have NEAR the failure rate on the Kinect controls as it seems like everyone else did. Motions failed maybe 5% (if that, by the end of playing the demo 3 times I had it down pat) of the time, which is 5% too much, sure, but it was a trade off worth the playing if you ask me.

Now here is the weird part. Suddenly I’m less excited about getting the game, and feel the temptation to just forget about it altogether. Reading all of the reviews has seemed to convince me (and while I’m aware of this, it still concerns me) that the game must really suck. While I have no interest in trying to determine if thats an objective fact or not, it doesn’t change the fact that I had an awesome time playing the demo, and wasn’t bothered by the controls enough to worry playing farther through it.

So, am I crazy for taking the reviewer’s word over mine? I am, right? I don’t know, its just an odd observation about my own thinking that is a bit new for me.

For the purpose of discussion, does anyone else have similar experiences (not about steel battalion, or maybe about steel battalion, I don’t care)? Anyone else love something that critics universally, absolutely, and unequivocally despise?

Does anyone else take the opinions of “experts” over their own, when it comes to as subjective a medium as game reviews?

Also, on a side note, assuming I still get that game (I think I still plan on it, dang I had fun with it), one good thing about the critical failure of this game is that the price is going to absolutely tank (no pun intended). I plan on picking this one up for a bargain in a few weeks. Yeah!

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Gaming standards?

Careful not to confuse “standards” with “definitions” as well.

An FPS MUST be made in first-person view for it to even be an FPS. It is not an unwritten rule, by breaking the rule it would exit the definition and be something different. FPS actually stands for “First-Person Shooter”. In addition, for it to be true to the name, FPS, yes, it needs something “with which you can shoot” considering the whole, y’know, “shooter” part of “First-Person Shooter”. It is probably the case that some first person games without shooting implements have been called FPSs in the past, but, really, it isn’t correct.

So, which there certainly some standards gamers have come to expect, that isn’t a good example. A definition of a genre or gameplay mechanic isn’t a standard, it is simply a label used to categorize games, and games fit in by definition.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / New Sim City

Ah. I wish I had a computer that could play it. Still, the Sim city franchise will always have a place in my heart. I played the heck out of Sim City 2000, after playing the original before that on an old black and white display macintosh. Put many hours into the Super Nintendo game as well.

Love the games, but just don’t have a gaming PC anymore. Now if they’d release it for Xbox, I would definitely make a go of it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / MineCraft!

4. Freakin’ awesome building blocks to show off to all the ladies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Self Mutilation as Freedom of Speech

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I wouldn’t understand how this could possibly fall under “freedom of speech”. Self-mutilation should be fine, but I certainly wouldn’t cover it under freedom of speech.

Is self-mutilation any different from a hunger strike? Does the right to hunger strike fall under freedom of speech?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, or anything, but I thought I’d ask. I don’t think that self-mutilation is a good idea for expressing freedom of speech either, but is hunger striking really any different?

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / So last night, whilst I was playing Age of Mythology....

I support this.

And as for the method of gathering faith, I suggest that units must spend time at a pokecenter complete with Nurse Joy running the show.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Godfather / Why do crews SUCK!

You know what the problem here really is, Sourfoe.

Let me sum it up really really simple, because I’m pretty sure you have something intellectually wrong with you.

I am challenging your opinions, and you are responding (yes, even in your massive jumbles of large words and fragment sentences) with “nu-uh!”

I am asking “why” you have a certain opinion (because I feel it is inconsistent), and you are saying “because”.

You aren’t giving any reasons.

You are saying, “I don’t want to role-play. However, non-mafia crew names bother me.”

Do you know what I’ve been asking that you haven’t answered? Here, I’ll put it in bold so you can’t miss it, ok?

WHY DO NON-MAFIA CREW NAMES BOTHER YOU?

Now don’t say, “because they bother me”, or “because they are stupid”. Why are they stupid? Why do they bother you?

In three immensely idiotic posts you have failed to answer that simple question.

Let me make this clear. I don’t have any problems with your opinions. I have problems with you assuming we should all feel the same way without giving us any actual REASONS for your opinions.

And just so we’re clear, I’m not coming back to the thread because I won’t argue with the irrational, so consider these question rhetorical from me. Give you something to think about. I know you’ll still post some wall of text, so go ahead and get the last word, but don’t extend any invitations for a response.

Good day

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Godfather / Why do crews SUCK!

You know that being really insulting doesn’t make you any more correct, right?

I was actually pretty civil, and I will remain that way, and I was just pointing out that your opinions are kind of ridiculous and nonsensical, that’s all.

So I won’t exactly address everything you said because you really just repeated yourself, and I would be doing the same, and that isn’t a good way to have a conversation.

But I do have a few questions. If you don’t want us to role-play, then why bother having appropriate crew names? I mean, gratz for picking an Italian name for your crew that is appropriate, I genuinely think that’s pretty cool (no sarcasm). But, why do the other clan names bother you, except that it is not “fitting” the game (i.e. no role-playing, even a little bit). I mean, the reason people who play D&D get mad when you name your character “Long-John Dick-Waver” is because it isn’t role-playing well enough, even though the character name has no impact on the game.

I understand that this isn’t D&D, but the question remains. If it has no impact on the game (the crew names don’t), then why do they matter? The same reason I can’t have my Lvl 12 dragon slayer Dick-Waver. :P Not role-playing enough.

And (this is more important, so address this if anything), I really don’t think you are right about the last thing you said (not the Halo sucks part).

Killing people is wrong, but we still do it in CoD, right? Heck, in the very game we are discussing we steal from people (and kill their loyal henchmen). Isn’t that wrong?

So your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises. The point of the game is to amass money and build a big… uh… neighborhood, and, well, take advantage and dominate other players. The point of the game is to take advantage, play politics, and try to be the best (there really isn’t any “winning” is there?). Just like the point of Halo is to kill (or collect flags, or race, or get a golf ball in a hole, whatever floats your boat).

So…. while your opinions are totally valid for what they are, I think that your weakest complaint is that people are taking advantage of each other since, you know, we’re supposed to by the design of the game.

Just sayin’. Didn’t mean to offend, and I’m certainly not bothered by you, but just wanted to offer some constructive criticism to your opinions (that is the only reason we share them right?)

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Godfather / Why do crews SUCK!

You point #2 contradicts and betrays your point #1.

According to your first point, we should remember that it is a mafia themed game and so we should behave in some semblance to role-playing by choosing appropriate names. I’m not saying that you are insisting on complete role-playing, but obviously you would like some sort of immersion or throwback to the fact that we are in a mafia-themed situation, and we are, in fact, members of a mafia.

That’s all fine and dandy, and I totally see where you are coming from.

But, now, what are mafia thugs like? Oh right, they are sleazy, slimy, extortionists who love to use people for maximum gain.

However, your point #2 is criticizing players for being sleazy and using people. According that point, we should be up-front and generally moral to the other players.

Do you see the inconsistency?

If you want to us “immerse” ourselves in a mafia-themed game, (particularly one that is designed to reward self-interest, do NOT forget that) then don’t criticize people for behaving in a mafia-themed way.

The name of the game is to extort and abuse people for power. Its like complaining about how we should talk out or differences in Halo. You are missing the point.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Godfather / Armory Set Bonuses

Thanks there Fedjin.

Let me make the problem we are all having very clear.

I have equipped entire “sets” of items via the armory. The set was located in one row, and was the same level.

In fact, right underneath the boxes where I have the items equipped, it says something along the lines of “10% cash and resources bonus”. It indicates that we SHOULD be recieving the bonus.

I imagine most players stop there, and assume they have the bonus.

However, upon checking my production before and after equipping the proper items, there is NO change. In addition, on the summary report of resources and the myriad of bonuses to our rates of income, the bonus for “equipment set” is zero, regardless of whether or not I have a proper set equipped.

So, please, no one assume that we are not equipping the sets or doing it correctly. I’m pretty sure this function is broken (at least in my game.) Maybe some more people would like to try it out by really checking their resource income rate and not just checking to see if it says you are getting the bonus in the armory, when, in fact, you may not?

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Godfather / Armory Set Bonuses

Same. Definitely have the same item, and in the armory it says that its on, but before and after resource production is no different, and it is not figured into the collection table.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Clash of the Dragons / Error creating character

Same. Would love to but I can’t play the game. I would love it if the developer could come in and comment. :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Command and Conquer

Gonna break the mold here and say I prefered RA1 to any of the other C&C titles. Next to RA1 and each of the expansions, counterstrike and aftermath, I’d have to go with Tiberium Sun (part of the original C&C storyline).

Maybe I’m dating myself, but I remember when RA2 came out and I didn’t like the direction they were taking with that, let alone 3 or 4. Not a hater, I like C&C all around, but I suppose I fall victim to nostalgia over the original RA. So many hours on that one. Such fun :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / The Halo topic

Originally posted by M4g1cW4lru5:

I think it went down after 1. I liked 2 and 3 but I feel like 1 was by far the best. HAlo Wars I only played on the 360 but that was trash and ODST. I didn’t play Reach because I knew I would hate it.

To each their own, I suppose. Personally, I loved Halo Wars. I was a huge RTS fan, back in their hay-day. Put hundreds of hours into C&C Red Alert, Age of Empires, and Star Craft.

RTS’s undoubtedly work better on PC, but Halo Wars is hands-down the best incarnation of one on console, and it was nice to get a new one in the famine of decent RTS’s at the time.

I still play the game from time to time, and really enjoy it. If nothing else, the simplicity of it (a major complaint, and I understand) manages to make the game more easy to balance for the Devs, and so it turns into a relatively balanced game that seems to rely more on team work (in team games) than build order or APM. It kind of broke the mold on what skills you need to succeed at an RTS, and some people didn’t like it. That isn’t a positive aspect for everyone, and rightly so because opinion’s on that are highly subjective, but I enjoyed it.

Then, of course, you have the people who bought the game on day one, had absolutely no idea what the game was like and just bought it because they thought it was the next installment of Halo. They didn’t play the demo or watch a trailer or anything. Then they returned it the next day all disgusted and junk. They fail to realize that the game wasn’t for them. If you exclusively play FPS’s than you don’t need to play halo wars. The game was for people who wanted to play an RTS. Simple concept, but some people have a hard time grasping it. I’m grateful, however, for them. I got a used (cheaper) copy of the limited special order edition cause of them ;)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mitt Romney, and Religion

That is right, issendorf.

In addition, I might add, you may not think so, but Mormon’s and the Mormon church are largely respected worldwide. Not with every group, of course, but many individuals and governments, particularly in foreign nations where the prejudice against Mormon’s does not run so deep, behave very positively towards the LDS church.

LDS leaders travel all over the place and regularly meet with local and national government and spiritual leaders. Naturally, they regularly participate in worldwide humanitarian opportunities and are active participants in communities both within and without the U.S. There are actually more members of the LDS church outside of the U.S. than there are inside (bet you didn’t know that. Right along with the fact that there are more LDS members in California than in Utah).

Let me make this clear, however, before anyone jumps on me. I’m not saying that these facts further qualify Romney as President, or are reasons he should be president. I am simply suggesting that the fear of “having a Mormon president will make the whole world lose respect for us” is not as simple or clear as some are suggesting.

The whole world does not view Mormons as a group of absolute crazies as some are seeming to imply.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mitt Romney, and Religion

Karma, I’m not going to break down every sentence of your post or anything. Mostly cause thats hard and I don’t know how to do it, so I’ll just respond generally. :)

I think you are not understanding my position. I tried really hard to make it clear, but I’ll do better this time around. You are thinking that I (like several others on this thread perhaps? I don’t know) desire to disregard everything Maher says. I tried to specifically say that I’m not doing that. I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater because I genuinely just want to throw out the bathwater.

I am not saying, “Maher made a bad argument, therefore everything he says is wrong”. I am saying, “Maher made a bad argument.” Period.

That particular argument (against mormons) is poor, biased, fallacious, does not follow, full of irrelevancies, and telling of personal ignorance.

Let me make this clear, because no one is getting it from me it seems, I am not saying that Maher should be completely disregarded about everything.

You really, really missed my point on a few marks too. I never said Maher said a person of faith shouldn’t EVER be President. You put words in my mouth. I implied that *by Maher’s reasoning" that would be the logical conclusion. It was a demonstration of how it was poor reasoning, and explaining how it was a bad argument. Maher’s reasoning does not exclusively apply to Mormons, although he is acting like it should.

I’m not arguing that Mormons aren’t weird or whatever. That is all irrelevant. And I’m not sure where you were going with the whole “relative yardstick” thing. I felt like that actually validated my point.

You said yourself it is an ad hominem argument.

Let me make this very clear. I am not arguing that Maher is wrong in all things, and I have no idea why you think I did. Maher made a bad argument, and I am pointing out the error and prejudice of said argument. I don’t apologize for disagreeing with a bad argument, and pointing out the flaws and prejudice. But why people seem to assume “wow you must really hate that guy and everything he will ever say!” will always elude me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Mitt Romney, and Religion

Originally posted by Winnabago:

Once again, ad hominems are meaningless, regardless of any truth in the insults. That was my point. It doesn’t matter how much of a hyper-liberal, socialist assclown he is. That doesn’t make him wrong about everything, because wrong about some things=/=wrong about everything.

Which, again, is separate from not wanting someone who believes absurd things to be president, because Maher isn’t running for president.

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I’m arguing that Maher is wrong BECAUSE he is making an ad hominem argument, not because he is an assclown.

Remember that absurdity is relative. Is a lot of absurdity worse than a little? At which point does it become so? Wouldn’t different people disagree about how absurd a particular belief is? As far as I’m concerned, any religious beliefs have some absurdity to it. If there weren’t than issues like Faith wouldn’t exist, and no one would argue about it. By your, and Maher’s, argument, no Christian, Muslim, Jew or any other religious person should ever be President.

More than that, anyone with a belief that some (anyone?) consider(s) absurd is disqualified! Alternative medicine? Vegetarian? Pacifist? Aggressor? Sincerely enjoys Linkin’ Park? You could strike down any presidential candidate who believes something “absurd”.

You are free to believe that, of course. I’m certainly not fighting that. But applying the “too absurd to be president” label to exclusively Mormons is immensely absurd, and more than likely a reflection of prejudice, in itself.

Maher’s argument is an ad hominem fueled by hatred and prejudice, no question. My observation is not an ad hominem here, but an actual critique of his argument. Don’t apply double standards here.