General Electric:
NBC including 13 stations in 28% of U.S households.
NBC network news
CNBC business television (MSNBC - co-owned by NBC and Microsoft), Court-Tv (co-owned with Time Warner), Bravo (50%), A&E (25%), History Channel (25%).
Westinghouse / CBS INC:
CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
CBS Network News
Viacom International Inc:
Paramount Television, Spelling Television, MTV, VH-1, Showtime, The Movie Channel, UPN (joint owner), Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Sundance Channel, Flix
Media Holdings
Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, Blockbuster Video, Famous Players Theatres, Paramount Parks.
Disney
ABC: 10 stations, 24% of U.S Households
ABC Network News
ESPN
Disney Channel
Touchtone Television
Media Holdings
Miramax, Touchtone
3 music labels
11 newspapers
AOL - America Online
Time Warner
CNN
HBO
Cinemax
TBS Superstation
Turner Network Television
Turner Classic Movies
Warner Brothers Television
Cartoon Network
Sega Channel
TNT
Comedy Central (50%)
E! (50%)
Court Tv (50%)
MAD Magazine
News Corporation LTD / Fox Networks
Fox Television - 50% of American Households
Fox International
Twentieth Century Fox, Fox Searchlight
132 newspapers
25 magazines
Bell Canada Enterprises
Bell globemedia Inc. (21-station CTV television network, 17 specialty television channels)
CTVglobemedia Inc.
CTV Inc.
A-Channel
ASN Atlantic Satellite Network
CKX Television
Discovery Channel
CTV News
eTalk
The Comedy Network
TSN
MTV
Chum - 33 radio stations, 12 local television stations and 21 specialty television channels
Canadian Broadcast Corporation
CBC Television
Radio-Canada
Radio-Canada International
CBC Newsworld
CBC Radio
CBC Radio One
Télévision de Radio-Canada
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The Omnipotence Contradiction - The Argument Against Theism
So yeah, you read correctly. Let's dissect and analyze the omnipotence contradiction argument. For people not familiar with this contradiction, it asserts the following:
1. God is omnipotent; therefore, he can do anything.
2. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
3. If so, then his power is limited, because he cannot do something.
4. If not, then that is also a limitation of power and something he cannot do.
This argument is an argument that tries to force a person into a position where he must, in order to answer the question, limit the powers of God and thus, admitting that God is not omnipotent. The main emphasis on the contradiction is number 2. This is asking us to weigh God's omnipotent ability to create rocks to his omnipotent ability to lift rocks. However, God is omnipotent, thus he can lift any rock that is created. It does not matter what weight it is, God can lift it. Hence, no rock too heavy for God to lift can exist, therefore such an existence of a rock is an impossibility.
Well this is an objection of God's omnipotence because he cannot create this special rock. He cannot create logical impossibilities therefore he is not omnipotent. In other words, number 4 - God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift - thus, something he cannot do - which means God is not omnipotent.
Therefore, the following argument is developed:
1. If God is omnipotent, he can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift
2. God cannot create this rock
3. God is not omnipotent
After hitting the books a bit, this argument model is called a modus tollens or the following:
p -> q
~q
------
~p
This is a pretty sound argument, doesn't it. Feels like we're being trapped in a corner. Well, let's focus on the arguments more specifically, as we have been. Let's look at this critically and think about it. Since we stated above that no such object can exist, I agree with number 2.
1. God is omnipotent
2. He can create and do anything
3. A rock* is a thing
4. Hence, God can create a rock
*The rock is the reference to our argument - the rock God created that is so heavy that He cannot lift it.
A theist believes God is the creator and ruler of the universe will agree with the first point, therefore the problem must begin with 2. Is omnipotence defined as being able to do anything and everything? Technically no, it doesn't. A theist says:
5. God is maximally powerful.
Don't confuse yourself. We situate God as the person with the maximum power and can do anything that can be done. Can God create the rock then?
6. God can create the rock.
7. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
This is a direct oxymoron. This rock cannot exist as we cannot fathom it existing. By definition the rock cannot exist. If this cannot exist, then it cannot be brought into existence and cannot be created. Therefore number 7 is a fallacy and it's a contradiction and saying:
8. God can create that which cannot be created.
Hence, 4 and 1 are not solid arguments and 3 is wrong, because this rock is not a thing at all because it's not logically "existable." Theism isn't looking too good right now.
Returning to argument 5, if God is maximally powerful, then he can create stars, planets, animals etc... This means that God can do anything that can be done and he can create things that do not now exist. As long as their existence does not trigger a contradiction.
What if there was a God that could create the illogical absurdities and have the powers of the maximally powerful being? Therefore, wouldn't he be stronger because he can do the same thing and more? But this is supporting argument 7, and we know that argument 7 is just not solid enough to base a premise on because oxymorons cannot be created.
9. If a being can't create which cannot exist then he is limited.
But this statement has holes in it. It's not asserting anything different, it doesn't assert anything new. It's also not saying anything about the very nature of God himself. If the argument cannot assert to the nature of God, then the very nature of the contradiction becomes an absurdity. Therefore, God cannot be faulted for not creating something that cannot exist because that which cannot exist cannot be created. In conclusion, God does not lack the ability to create that which cannot exist, because there is no such ability.
Theists claim, hence:
10. God is a maximally powerful being.
11. That which cannot exist cannot be created.
No contradiction exists now. The omnipotence of God has not been demonstrated to be false. The idea of omnipotence has been determined as a logical absurdity. In other words, refer to number 11.
:)
Owned motherfuckers, owned.
1. God is omnipotent; therefore, he can do anything.
2. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
3. If so, then his power is limited, because he cannot do something.
4. If not, then that is also a limitation of power and something he cannot do.
This argument is an argument that tries to force a person into a position where he must, in order to answer the question, limit the powers of God and thus, admitting that God is not omnipotent. The main emphasis on the contradiction is number 2. This is asking us to weigh God's omnipotent ability to create rocks to his omnipotent ability to lift rocks. However, God is omnipotent, thus he can lift any rock that is created. It does not matter what weight it is, God can lift it. Hence, no rock too heavy for God to lift can exist, therefore such an existence of a rock is an impossibility.
Well this is an objection of God's omnipotence because he cannot create this special rock. He cannot create logical impossibilities therefore he is not omnipotent. In other words, number 4 - God is not omnipotent because he cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift - thus, something he cannot do - which means God is not omnipotent.
Therefore, the following argument is developed:
1. If God is omnipotent, he can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift
2. God cannot create this rock
3. God is not omnipotent
After hitting the books a bit, this argument model is called a modus tollens or the following:
p -> q
~q
------
~p
This is a pretty sound argument, doesn't it. Feels like we're being trapped in a corner. Well, let's focus on the arguments more specifically, as we have been. Let's look at this critically and think about it. Since we stated above that no such object can exist, I agree with number 2.
1. God is omnipotent
2. He can create and do anything
3. A rock* is a thing
4. Hence, God can create a rock
*The rock is the reference to our argument - the rock God created that is so heavy that He cannot lift it.
A theist believes God is the creator and ruler of the universe will agree with the first point, therefore the problem must begin with 2. Is omnipotence defined as being able to do anything and everything? Technically no, it doesn't. A theist says:
5. God is maximally powerful.
Don't confuse yourself. We situate God as the person with the maximum power and can do anything that can be done. Can God create the rock then?
6. God can create the rock.
7. God can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
This is a direct oxymoron. This rock cannot exist as we cannot fathom it existing. By definition the rock cannot exist. If this cannot exist, then it cannot be brought into existence and cannot be created. Therefore number 7 is a fallacy and it's a contradiction and saying:
8. God can create that which cannot be created.
Hence, 4 and 1 are not solid arguments and 3 is wrong, because this rock is not a thing at all because it's not logically "existable." Theism isn't looking too good right now.
Returning to argument 5, if God is maximally powerful, then he can create stars, planets, animals etc... This means that God can do anything that can be done and he can create things that do not now exist. As long as their existence does not trigger a contradiction.
What if there was a God that could create the illogical absurdities and have the powers of the maximally powerful being? Therefore, wouldn't he be stronger because he can do the same thing and more? But this is supporting argument 7, and we know that argument 7 is just not solid enough to base a premise on because oxymorons cannot be created.
9. If a being can't create which cannot exist then he is limited.
But this statement has holes in it. It's not asserting anything different, it doesn't assert anything new. It's also not saying anything about the very nature of God himself. If the argument cannot assert to the nature of God, then the very nature of the contradiction becomes an absurdity. Therefore, God cannot be faulted for not creating something that cannot exist because that which cannot exist cannot be created. In conclusion, God does not lack the ability to create that which cannot exist, because there is no such ability.
Theists claim, hence:
10. God is a maximally powerful being.
11. That which cannot exist cannot be created.
No contradiction exists now. The omnipotence of God has not been demonstrated to be false. The idea of omnipotence has been determined as a logical absurdity. In other words, refer to number 11.
:)
Owned motherfuckers, owned.
Interesting Argument for the Wicked!
I was thinking about this not too long ago, and then I stumbled upon this video while browsing a site filled with videos about breaking bones, bad wipe-outs, fist fights and the such.
Firstly, before you watch the video, I have to ask you a question. I'm asking you this question for a simple and obvious reason... because most of you are like this
.
Ever heard the saying: "Choosing the lesser of two evils"? well, you're in luck. When it comes to the issue of Global Warming, don't worry... I like to think I'm exactly like you. Now, you have to question; Firstly, what the hell am I talking about? Secondly, how the hell could you put everyone into one category on such a controversial issue?
Simple answer, I'm talking about utilitarianism and global warming. Secondly, because I can, and you'll find out why i've put you all into one category.
The question(s):
You're sitting in class, your teacher is teaching a lesson when all of a sudden a crazy clown breaks into the room with a machine gun. He holds the class hostage and wants to have some fun. He points to you and says, "here, take this gun and kill one of your class mates. If you do not kill one of your class mates, just one, I will kill the entire class." Except, this clown is magical. You cannot turn the gun on him, and you can't turn it on yourself. What do you do?
Second question, to enforce the point:
You are walking down the street. There is a streetcar on the road heading up to a construction area, for some reason or another, the track-switch doesn't trigger, and the street car is going to head straight off the rails. The street car is full of people, so the accident will be devastating. You just so happen to be beside the malfunctioning track switch. If you decide to use the device, you can switch the track into one of two lanes. One lane is blocked with a team of construction workers, the other, a sole construction worker working, obliviously, on the rails. They do not notice the out-of-control streetcar approaching. What do you do?
Think about these questions for a while before you continue reading because these are good questions to ask to grab an idea about a person's ethical response. No answer is a wrong answer... there is no right or wrong to this question, as it is a question of ethics, and ethics is a set of principles that varies from person to person. So think about it before scrolling down below... and see if I accurately predicted the universal, or "common" answer. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I've seen these questions asked a dozen times and most of the time the professor predicts them correctly. I'm only following suit.
What would I do?
For the first question, I predict most of you would kill that one person, because one person dying is better than everyone in the class dying, right? Or you would kill the teacher because he's lived the longest. Well, I would disagree, and I would tell the clown to kill everyone. I do not want to have to justify why I chose this *one* person to die. Because I didn't like them? Because that was the "lesser of two evils"? I don't see it that way. Suffering is unmeasurable, the same goes for life. Life is life. You cannot accurately justify why one life is greater than another. An animal kills to survive, but that does not mean the life of it's prey is worth more than the animal that kills it. The same is for suffering. Your mother may have died, and I may have lost my fire truck, but if we both are very pained, the person who lost their mother cannot say to me "I'm suffering more than you," because they cannot accurately predict and feel what I'm feeling.
When two people lose someone close to them, they both can understand how the other feels, but they cannot say to each other "I know how you feel," because they don't. This is what makes us unique, the way we identify things to us. The points of understanding may be the same, but the feeling is always different. Telling someone that what they experience is wrong is a fallacy and incorrect, thus, I will not choose to kill another human being, in spite of the whole class facing death because of my decision.
That must mean that in question two I would choose to do nothing, that's right - nothing. Same method applies. Why should I choose who lives or who dies? Does that mean that I killed the people in the streetcar because I chose not to save them? But if I did move the tracks, I would be choosing to kill someone else. What's different about this question is that this is what we call a Catch 22 (good book), it means that there is no win to this situation. No matter what you are choosing to allow someone to die. The other question is different because the clown is choosing to kill the class, not you. Your action is his reaction to your decision, but you are not the decider in that situation. This time, you are. Still, I would rather fate take control than myself being the instigator of another persons' death. I am still instigating because I see the accident about to happen, but not doing anything, but I will not do anything about it because I feel that even if I wasn't there, the accident would have happened in *this* way.
What you would choose: I believe the majority of you would have chosen to move the tracks to the lone construction worker.
So, what about this argument on Global Warming and putting everyone in the same category? Well, here it is:
I asked you the above questions for a reason... because it perfectly applies here. The lesser of two evils would be to do SOMETHING about it... which is why I am just like you in this argument and I won't change stances on it.
Firstly, before you watch the video, I have to ask you a question. I'm asking you this question for a simple and obvious reason... because most of you are like this
.Ever heard the saying: "Choosing the lesser of two evils"? well, you're in luck. When it comes to the issue of Global Warming, don't worry... I like to think I'm exactly like you. Now, you have to question; Firstly, what the hell am I talking about? Secondly, how the hell could you put everyone into one category on such a controversial issue?
Simple answer, I'm talking about utilitarianism and global warming. Secondly, because I can, and you'll find out why i've put you all into one category.
The question(s):
You're sitting in class, your teacher is teaching a lesson when all of a sudden a crazy clown breaks into the room with a machine gun. He holds the class hostage and wants to have some fun. He points to you and says, "here, take this gun and kill one of your class mates. If you do not kill one of your class mates, just one, I will kill the entire class." Except, this clown is magical. You cannot turn the gun on him, and you can't turn it on yourself. What do you do?
Second question, to enforce the point:
You are walking down the street. There is a streetcar on the road heading up to a construction area, for some reason or another, the track-switch doesn't trigger, and the street car is going to head straight off the rails. The street car is full of people, so the accident will be devastating. You just so happen to be beside the malfunctioning track switch. If you decide to use the device, you can switch the track into one of two lanes. One lane is blocked with a team of construction workers, the other, a sole construction worker working, obliviously, on the rails. They do not notice the out-of-control streetcar approaching. What do you do?
Think about these questions for a while before you continue reading because these are good questions to ask to grab an idea about a person's ethical response. No answer is a wrong answer... there is no right or wrong to this question, as it is a question of ethics, and ethics is a set of principles that varies from person to person. So think about it before scrolling down below... and see if I accurately predicted the universal, or "common" answer. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I've seen these questions asked a dozen times and most of the time the professor predicts them correctly. I'm only following suit.
What would I do?
For the first question, I predict most of you would kill that one person, because one person dying is better than everyone in the class dying, right? Or you would kill the teacher because he's lived the longest. Well, I would disagree, and I would tell the clown to kill everyone. I do not want to have to justify why I chose this *one* person to die. Because I didn't like them? Because that was the "lesser of two evils"? I don't see it that way. Suffering is unmeasurable, the same goes for life. Life is life. You cannot accurately justify why one life is greater than another. An animal kills to survive, but that does not mean the life of it's prey is worth more than the animal that kills it. The same is for suffering. Your mother may have died, and I may have lost my fire truck, but if we both are very pained, the person who lost their mother cannot say to me "I'm suffering more than you," because they cannot accurately predict and feel what I'm feeling.
When two people lose someone close to them, they both can understand how the other feels, but they cannot say to each other "I know how you feel," because they don't. This is what makes us unique, the way we identify things to us. The points of understanding may be the same, but the feeling is always different. Telling someone that what they experience is wrong is a fallacy and incorrect, thus, I will not choose to kill another human being, in spite of the whole class facing death because of my decision.
That must mean that in question two I would choose to do nothing, that's right - nothing. Same method applies. Why should I choose who lives or who dies? Does that mean that I killed the people in the streetcar because I chose not to save them? But if I did move the tracks, I would be choosing to kill someone else. What's different about this question is that this is what we call a Catch 22 (good book), it means that there is no win to this situation. No matter what you are choosing to allow someone to die. The other question is different because the clown is choosing to kill the class, not you. Your action is his reaction to your decision, but you are not the decider in that situation. This time, you are. Still, I would rather fate take control than myself being the instigator of another persons' death. I am still instigating because I see the accident about to happen, but not doing anything, but I will not do anything about it because I feel that even if I wasn't there, the accident would have happened in *this* way.
What you would choose: I believe the majority of you would have chosen to move the tracks to the lone construction worker.
So, what about this argument on Global Warming and putting everyone in the same category? Well, here it is:
I asked you the above questions for a reason... because it perfectly applies here. The lesser of two evils would be to do SOMETHING about it... which is why I am just like you in this argument and I won't change stances on it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
World of Warcraft: An Epiphany About a Failing MMORPG
I used to be called a fan of World of Warcraft (WoW). I've been subscribed via online for a good year and a half now. I used to see the huge diversity in the game, coming from Action RPG's, FPS and Street Fighter, it was certainly a step up that combined specific elements of all three genres. Lately, however, I've been finding that there are certain flaws, an absolute behemoth of a problem that will certainly be the downfall to the game itself.
What I liked specifically about the game was that it was the most open game I had experienced up until this point. I could go wherever I wanted, assuming I had the level to do so, I could do any quest I wanted, I wasn't forced to do a quest line unless I wanted to experience a certain thing. Then I started looking deeper into the game, after playing the game for no more than four months I quit for the summer. I had to ask myself why I quit. Was it the environment? The character? The fact my friends quit for the summer and I was being a conformist? All in all I came to the conclusion that it was the game.
It took me a year later to realize... after returning in September that, outside of the character I'm making (which I adore), I hate everything about the game. WoW is the epitome of time-wastage. Period. There are hobbies, and there is WoW. There is a term in WoW that is "grinding." Grinding is the equivalent to scrubbing a giant ship deck with a little brush and bucket. WoW is grinding; your character is the brush, and the quests are bucket. You grind to 70, which for the average player, takes about two months. You have to instance grind for gear. For the average player, that process takes a good month to be totally effective (depending on whether or not you want PvP or PvE [Person versus Person/Environment]). Then, if you wish to do "end-game" content, meaning; to tackle a difficult PvE opponent/dungeon/instance with the help from 25-40 people. In other words, 25 people as a collective entity grinding to experience content. Well then... what is the big deal about WoW then? From my explanation, it appears as though WoW is not that great, right? It's not. People are attached to their characters more than content. Since WoW is such a grind, people become attached to their characters and therefore feel that after grinding so much for what they have, that it's too hard to give up. That's the addiction. Anything else and you're just fooling yourself.
Do you remember the rush of playing an arcade game, or better yet; a fighting game dojo style (Street Fighter)? Do you remember how intense it was when you're on a really hard level, or when you're fighting an opponent that is really tough that it gives you pins and needles in your hands, and makes you shake and quiver with intensity? WoW gives no such effect. Group instances are a system. A tank tanks, a healer heals, damage classes do damage. Sounds like a pretty system, right? Wrong. That's fucking boring. Where's the challenge? In 25 man raids, the boss encounters follow patterns. What's the point if they follow a goddamn pattern? Once you learn it it's FINISHED. You've beaten it, NEVER again unless you have people join who don't know what to do. What's the point of that? Does anyone feel a rush? I bet you feel accomplishment you beat the boss as a collective unit, but after a while there is no fervor to continue. With an arcade game (like Missile Defense), there isn't a specific pattern path. In dojo games, if you're doing a PvP, the matches can be INTENSE. It's always different and it's always mind numbing goodness!
We live in a Democratic society (knock on wood), with that, we know that a leader who attempts to please everyone will please no one. WoW is a system. A 1.5 second, cooldown system that fails. Blizzard has become obsessed with class "balancing" that they aren't seeing is making their characters numb. They submit to the masses of complainers. Shamans want crowd control... pallies want to be better, warriors don't want to be crowd controlled. People take their class weakness and complain to HELL about it. Those people that complain, are people that we, in the Fighting Game community, call Scrubs. People who complain about a character's weakness that they accept and then decline when they lose. That's exactly what's happening though. The forums are filled with slander, with people attempting to strut their non-existent "stuff," people complaining, people posting key logger virus' to steal your account. People berate, belittle and attack other players for their own experiences of play, saying that what they experience is wrong... reread that statement. That's like saying that you just turned four years old, but someone says that because they turned eight years old, it means you didn't turn four. It's literally that narrow-minded and stupid.
Where are the GMs (Game Masters) in all this? They allow a lot of this crap to happen. Moderation of the forums? My ass! Children browse that website and forums. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but where does that free speech end? What line is drawn in the sand? In society, there is Freedom with Responsibility. Anyone who believes they have absolute freedom is kidding themselves and living under a rock. Free speech should be no different. You should be responsible for what you say. Forum moderation is not just deleting topics of politics (because 9/10 people cannot handle a political topic for their lives), or a language filter for cursive words (which people just find alternate ways of expressing it anyway). Forum moderation is punishing people who create an environment that is uncomfortable for people. People who belittle others for the sake of their own empowerment. That is the WoW forums, and for the parents reading this who allow their children to play this game? Yeah, right. You might as well give them an Encyclopedia on Immorality while you're at it. You have no idea how many uneducated buffoons that exist in your society until you play World of Warcraft.
But let's forget the forums, because let's be frank, the forums do not represent the majority of the people that play WoW. People will complain when something is wrong, but they will not send messages of delight when it is working as intended and they are satisfied. No one is entirely satisfied in WoW. I stopped checking the WoW forums when I was attacked about what gear I decided to use. When a collective entity attacks you on no purpose other than to bring you down for stating your opinion, that's really deafening. My character had nothing to do with the discussion, in fact, there is nothing wrong with my character and what I choose to put him in. Others see it differently. Napoleon once said, "Those that are often against oppression are they, themselves, who like to oppress." Boy, do I ever agree. Ever since that, my gaming environment was bitter. I began to dislike my character, felt all that time scrubbing the deck was wasted. I kind of felt that I used the wrong soap to scrub the deck.
No, that's not it. I used the soap I wanted to use. That's my prerogative. I choose what I want to put on my character. I choose what I want to do with my time, and then it hit me. Why the hell do I choose to waste my life on this horrible game? This game is horrible. This gaming experience is horrible, this social environment is horrible. You call this a social environment? WoW is the epitome of society's materialism. The two things that come to mind when typical people play WoW is gear, gold, and friends. In that order, in that hierarchy. If someone is a really good person, but a total moron at understanding the game mechanics, if the "expert" doesn't have anything to gain other than the friendship, in most cases (in what I've seen), they leave and find something or someone to get what they want. Very few guilds are made on the premise of fun and good character, even fewer survive.
In realizing this epiphany I entered a "state of meditation"... by making a new character (okay, so I can be dense at times!). I felt that I needed to fully convince myself, to test my idea. To make sure that this epiphany was real, and these ideas of mine had real merit.
Surely enough... yes they did.
I made a new Priest. At level 35, I met a group of people whom I thought had really good characters. They invited me to their guild, full of new ones to the game. I have no issues with that. People began asking me questions, since I've been playing the game for a year and a half. People began to rely on me. I began to feel uncomfortable. The guild had many rambunctious immature tweens that made guild chat excruciatingly painful. Needless to say, I told the few "friends" I had there that the environment is just not my thing. I'm used to a more mature player base in my guilds, and I said I don't think I'd be happy there.
One of my friends, we'll call him Adam, recreated a guild. I believe it was because of my leaving and you will too in a minute. He invited people from the "old" guild into the new one. He promised me that he took the most "mature" people from the old guild. He promoted "officers," whom his character choices were people who kissed some heavy ass for power and whom of which I've seen abused administration powers from the last guild. I joined and he promoted me to the highest rank, same with another friend of mine whom of which I had grown quite fond of. We'll call him Laura. He was always nice to me and I to him. The reason why I was promoted was because I had good "knowledge" of the game. In other words, Adam wanted to play with me because I had knowledge of leading and playing the game, so he promoted me and labeled me his "sword" in order to lead and assume order. Whenever someone spoke out and expressed an opinion they didn't agree with they would whisper me and say "kick him," to which I wouldn't. You gave me a job to define. I define it my own way. No criteria equals no comprendé.
There was a guild meeting... the simpletons couldn't even keep quiet. The "guild officer introduction;" biggest waste of time ever. I can't even recall what happened it was such a waste of time. The next day I see the same shit in guild chat I did the previous day. An ol' too-familiar-feeling washed over me. The same kids acting up, the same immature player base, except, now I was in a position of "power" that I never asked for, and I'm tasked with "keeping order" and "leading" everyone with my "extensive knowledge." In other words, I'm the unofficial Guild Master.
So I leave... again. This time saying that nothing has changed. The very same people who made this uncomfortable for me were in the guild and it's not right for me to use power to get rid of people I don't like. I said that "I feel uncomfortable having a position of power and having everyone rely on my sole decision when I'm not even Guild Master. I didn't ask for what you gave me, and unfortunately the 'new player attitude' is still not making me feel that this is an environment I will enjoy." A day later, Adam disbands the guild entirely. Laura doesn't talk to me and I'm glad I'm free of those impending chains that would've strangled me in guilt if I had stayed any longer. I even invited my real life friends to the guild, that, because they weren't online at the time, I booted out of the guild because they were only there for me. Then I left. I was accused of "booting people and leaving." After explaining the situation, I don't feel it computed. After a while of repeating myself, I just put the people who asked on my ignore list.
I then get to level 63. Laura whispers me, very kindly, if I would heal for them in an instance that gives me no experience, gives me no loot, is too low for me, and I hate with a bloody passion. He, at the time is 51, and he could use many things from this instance. Adam is near the same level and he, too can benefit from this. In other words, this is a favor I'm doing for them. I, in no way benefit from this, but I'm willing to sacrifice my time to help a friend out. I do the instance, which was very horrible, by the way. I hate the instance and I hate when it's not done right. I considered them my friends, so I was willing to endure that retarded entourage for them.
We're nearing the end of a typical run (There are three floors, typically, we only do two). A Paladin asks us if we could do a specific boss. I say sure, because it's along the way. We do that boss and apparently it's not the right one. Alright... but you said it was this boss, and all of a sudden he loses all memory and says he didn't say anything. Okay. Laura, without asking me or anything, says "We'll clear the entire thing for you," at this point, I realize that clearing the bottom floor means being in this instance for an hour. I don't have an hour left in me to play. It's a beautiful Saturday morning, why the hell would I want to be online? My girlfriend will be on my doorstep in 15 minutes, I'm in my fucking pyjamas, there's no god-forsaken way for me to complete this run. I just have time for the last boss and that's that.
I interject, and state that I signed up for a typical run, not a full run (yes, in WoW, it is tradition that, for bosses that are not typically done, you state specifically what bosses you need before the run begins so everyone knows. If this is the first time doing the instance you tell the group. Especially if you're a tank). I tell them simply, "I'm sorry but I just don't have the time for a full run." "Oh," says the Paladin. He teleports to a city, and leaves the party, right before the last boss. Alright... so I say "I'm guessing you don't want the last boss then. I'm logging now then." No one replies to me after a good two minutes of silence, so I teleport to my main city and get ready to logout.
I suddenly get a rather left-field message from Laura stating how much of an "asshole" I am, and how he gave me a "second chance" and how I'm the "worst WoW player ever," and like a real chump, puts me on an ignore list right after. Not even allowing me the decency of a rebuttal. Of course, I did later anyway with another character... because that hurt coming from a person I believed was a friend, and who acted like one. I was at a loss as to why it was my fault.
So... wait... recap: My first chance was blown because I left a guild where I was meant to play baby sitter, and my second chance was blown because I did them a favor that I learned mid-run I couldn't complete. I see how I'm the culprit in this bubblegum mystery. Adam put me on ignore at the same time as well.
I found out that they both are gossipers. They talk shit behind people's backs. They act nice, but stab you in the back when you do something they don't agree with. I asked myself; "how could these two people, both five years older than me, be so narrow-minded and so belittling to another person without even considering their feelings?" and then.... it hit me.
Everything that I deemed needed proving a second time, was just proven. And thus, on the moment of reading this message, I have successfully vented my frustration, and have unsubscribed and freed myself of the clutches of the regime that is known as WoW. I repeat, I have unsubscribed, and I have never felt better about myself in a long while. My last day is October 18th and I can't wait to be free from that psychically vampirical game we all know as World of Warcraft.
Damn that fucking felt GOOD!
What I liked specifically about the game was that it was the most open game I had experienced up until this point. I could go wherever I wanted, assuming I had the level to do so, I could do any quest I wanted, I wasn't forced to do a quest line unless I wanted to experience a certain thing. Then I started looking deeper into the game, after playing the game for no more than four months I quit for the summer. I had to ask myself why I quit. Was it the environment? The character? The fact my friends quit for the summer and I was being a conformist? All in all I came to the conclusion that it was the game.
It took me a year later to realize... after returning in September that, outside of the character I'm making (which I adore), I hate everything about the game. WoW is the epitome of time-wastage. Period. There are hobbies, and there is WoW. There is a term in WoW that is "grinding." Grinding is the equivalent to scrubbing a giant ship deck with a little brush and bucket. WoW is grinding; your character is the brush, and the quests are bucket. You grind to 70, which for the average player, takes about two months. You have to instance grind for gear. For the average player, that process takes a good month to be totally effective (depending on whether or not you want PvP or PvE [Person versus Person/Environment]). Then, if you wish to do "end-game" content, meaning; to tackle a difficult PvE opponent/dungeon/instance with the help from 25-40 people. In other words, 25 people as a collective entity grinding to experience content. Well then... what is the big deal about WoW then? From my explanation, it appears as though WoW is not that great, right? It's not. People are attached to their characters more than content. Since WoW is such a grind, people become attached to their characters and therefore feel that after grinding so much for what they have, that it's too hard to give up. That's the addiction. Anything else and you're just fooling yourself.
Do you remember the rush of playing an arcade game, or better yet; a fighting game dojo style (Street Fighter)? Do you remember how intense it was when you're on a really hard level, or when you're fighting an opponent that is really tough that it gives you pins and needles in your hands, and makes you shake and quiver with intensity? WoW gives no such effect. Group instances are a system. A tank tanks, a healer heals, damage classes do damage. Sounds like a pretty system, right? Wrong. That's fucking boring. Where's the challenge? In 25 man raids, the boss encounters follow patterns. What's the point if they follow a goddamn pattern? Once you learn it it's FINISHED. You've beaten it, NEVER again unless you have people join who don't know what to do. What's the point of that? Does anyone feel a rush? I bet you feel accomplishment you beat the boss as a collective unit, but after a while there is no fervor to continue. With an arcade game (like Missile Defense), there isn't a specific pattern path. In dojo games, if you're doing a PvP, the matches can be INTENSE. It's always different and it's always mind numbing goodness!
We live in a Democratic society (knock on wood), with that, we know that a leader who attempts to please everyone will please no one. WoW is a system. A 1.5 second, cooldown system that fails. Blizzard has become obsessed with class "balancing" that they aren't seeing is making their characters numb. They submit to the masses of complainers. Shamans want crowd control... pallies want to be better, warriors don't want to be crowd controlled. People take their class weakness and complain to HELL about it. Those people that complain, are people that we, in the Fighting Game community, call Scrubs. People who complain about a character's weakness that they accept and then decline when they lose. That's exactly what's happening though. The forums are filled with slander, with people attempting to strut their non-existent "stuff," people complaining, people posting key logger virus' to steal your account. People berate, belittle and attack other players for their own experiences of play, saying that what they experience is wrong... reread that statement. That's like saying that you just turned four years old, but someone says that because they turned eight years old, it means you didn't turn four. It's literally that narrow-minded and stupid.
Where are the GMs (Game Masters) in all this? They allow a lot of this crap to happen. Moderation of the forums? My ass! Children browse that website and forums. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but where does that free speech end? What line is drawn in the sand? In society, there is Freedom with Responsibility. Anyone who believes they have absolute freedom is kidding themselves and living under a rock. Free speech should be no different. You should be responsible for what you say. Forum moderation is not just deleting topics of politics (because 9/10 people cannot handle a political topic for their lives), or a language filter for cursive words (which people just find alternate ways of expressing it anyway). Forum moderation is punishing people who create an environment that is uncomfortable for people. People who belittle others for the sake of their own empowerment. That is the WoW forums, and for the parents reading this who allow their children to play this game? Yeah, right. You might as well give them an Encyclopedia on Immorality while you're at it. You have no idea how many uneducated buffoons that exist in your society until you play World of Warcraft.
But let's forget the forums, because let's be frank, the forums do not represent the majority of the people that play WoW. People will complain when something is wrong, but they will not send messages of delight when it is working as intended and they are satisfied. No one is entirely satisfied in WoW. I stopped checking the WoW forums when I was attacked about what gear I decided to use. When a collective entity attacks you on no purpose other than to bring you down for stating your opinion, that's really deafening. My character had nothing to do with the discussion, in fact, there is nothing wrong with my character and what I choose to put him in. Others see it differently. Napoleon once said, "Those that are often against oppression are they, themselves, who like to oppress." Boy, do I ever agree. Ever since that, my gaming environment was bitter. I began to dislike my character, felt all that time scrubbing the deck was wasted. I kind of felt that I used the wrong soap to scrub the deck.
No, that's not it. I used the soap I wanted to use. That's my prerogative. I choose what I want to put on my character. I choose what I want to do with my time, and then it hit me. Why the hell do I choose to waste my life on this horrible game? This game is horrible. This gaming experience is horrible, this social environment is horrible. You call this a social environment? WoW is the epitome of society's materialism. The two things that come to mind when typical people play WoW is gear, gold, and friends. In that order, in that hierarchy. If someone is a really good person, but a total moron at understanding the game mechanics, if the "expert" doesn't have anything to gain other than the friendship, in most cases (in what I've seen), they leave and find something or someone to get what they want. Very few guilds are made on the premise of fun and good character, even fewer survive.
In realizing this epiphany I entered a "state of meditation"... by making a new character (okay, so I can be dense at times!). I felt that I needed to fully convince myself, to test my idea. To make sure that this epiphany was real, and these ideas of mine had real merit.
Surely enough... yes they did.
I made a new Priest. At level 35, I met a group of people whom I thought had really good characters. They invited me to their guild, full of new ones to the game. I have no issues with that. People began asking me questions, since I've been playing the game for a year and a half. People began to rely on me. I began to feel uncomfortable. The guild had many rambunctious immature tweens that made guild chat excruciatingly painful. Needless to say, I told the few "friends" I had there that the environment is just not my thing. I'm used to a more mature player base in my guilds, and I said I don't think I'd be happy there.
One of my friends, we'll call him Adam, recreated a guild. I believe it was because of my leaving and you will too in a minute. He invited people from the "old" guild into the new one. He promised me that he took the most "mature" people from the old guild. He promoted "officers," whom his character choices were people who kissed some heavy ass for power and whom of which I've seen abused administration powers from the last guild. I joined and he promoted me to the highest rank, same with another friend of mine whom of which I had grown quite fond of. We'll call him Laura. He was always nice to me and I to him. The reason why I was promoted was because I had good "knowledge" of the game. In other words, Adam wanted to play with me because I had knowledge of leading and playing the game, so he promoted me and labeled me his "sword" in order to lead and assume order. Whenever someone spoke out and expressed an opinion they didn't agree with they would whisper me and say "kick him," to which I wouldn't. You gave me a job to define. I define it my own way. No criteria equals no comprendé.
There was a guild meeting... the simpletons couldn't even keep quiet. The "guild officer introduction;" biggest waste of time ever. I can't even recall what happened it was such a waste of time. The next day I see the same shit in guild chat I did the previous day. An ol' too-familiar-feeling washed over me. The same kids acting up, the same immature player base, except, now I was in a position of "power" that I never asked for, and I'm tasked with "keeping order" and "leading" everyone with my "extensive knowledge." In other words, I'm the unofficial Guild Master.
So I leave... again. This time saying that nothing has changed. The very same people who made this uncomfortable for me were in the guild and it's not right for me to use power to get rid of people I don't like. I said that "I feel uncomfortable having a position of power and having everyone rely on my sole decision when I'm not even Guild Master. I didn't ask for what you gave me, and unfortunately the 'new player attitude' is still not making me feel that this is an environment I will enjoy." A day later, Adam disbands the guild entirely. Laura doesn't talk to me and I'm glad I'm free of those impending chains that would've strangled me in guilt if I had stayed any longer. I even invited my real life friends to the guild, that, because they weren't online at the time, I booted out of the guild because they were only there for me. Then I left. I was accused of "booting people and leaving." After explaining the situation, I don't feel it computed. After a while of repeating myself, I just put the people who asked on my ignore list.
I then get to level 63. Laura whispers me, very kindly, if I would heal for them in an instance that gives me no experience, gives me no loot, is too low for me, and I hate with a bloody passion. He, at the time is 51, and he could use many things from this instance. Adam is near the same level and he, too can benefit from this. In other words, this is a favor I'm doing for them. I, in no way benefit from this, but I'm willing to sacrifice my time to help a friend out. I do the instance, which was very horrible, by the way. I hate the instance and I hate when it's not done right. I considered them my friends, so I was willing to endure that retarded entourage for them.
We're nearing the end of a typical run (There are three floors, typically, we only do two). A Paladin asks us if we could do a specific boss. I say sure, because it's along the way. We do that boss and apparently it's not the right one. Alright... but you said it was this boss, and all of a sudden he loses all memory and says he didn't say anything. Okay. Laura, without asking me or anything, says "We'll clear the entire thing for you," at this point, I realize that clearing the bottom floor means being in this instance for an hour. I don't have an hour left in me to play. It's a beautiful Saturday morning, why the hell would I want to be online? My girlfriend will be on my doorstep in 15 minutes, I'm in my fucking pyjamas, there's no god-forsaken way for me to complete this run. I just have time for the last boss and that's that.
I interject, and state that I signed up for a typical run, not a full run (yes, in WoW, it is tradition that, for bosses that are not typically done, you state specifically what bosses you need before the run begins so everyone knows. If this is the first time doing the instance you tell the group. Especially if you're a tank). I tell them simply, "I'm sorry but I just don't have the time for a full run." "Oh," says the Paladin. He teleports to a city, and leaves the party, right before the last boss. Alright... so I say "I'm guessing you don't want the last boss then. I'm logging now then." No one replies to me after a good two minutes of silence, so I teleport to my main city and get ready to logout.
I suddenly get a rather left-field message from Laura stating how much of an "asshole" I am, and how he gave me a "second chance" and how I'm the "worst WoW player ever," and like a real chump, puts me on an ignore list right after. Not even allowing me the decency of a rebuttal. Of course, I did later anyway with another character... because that hurt coming from a person I believed was a friend, and who acted like one. I was at a loss as to why it was my fault.
So... wait... recap: My first chance was blown because I left a guild where I was meant to play baby sitter, and my second chance was blown because I did them a favor that I learned mid-run I couldn't complete. I see how I'm the culprit in this bubblegum mystery. Adam put me on ignore at the same time as well.
I found out that they both are gossipers. They talk shit behind people's backs. They act nice, but stab you in the back when you do something they don't agree with. I asked myself; "how could these two people, both five years older than me, be so narrow-minded and so belittling to another person without even considering their feelings?" and then.... it hit me.
Everything that I deemed needed proving a second time, was just proven. And thus, on the moment of reading this message, I have successfully vented my frustration, and have unsubscribed and freed myself of the clutches of the regime that is known as WoW. I repeat, I have unsubscribed, and I have never felt better about myself in a long while. My last day is October 18th and I can't wait to be free from that psychically vampirical game we all know as World of Warcraft.
Damn that fucking felt GOOD!
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Decline of the 'Average Joe'
Today I woke up at about 5:00am for a special trip to work. I carpooled and was dropped off because the other needed to meet a client for a certain time. Which is why I woke up so early. Sometimes I wonder why I put in the extra hours for the company I work for. Why do all of us put in extra hours at the office? Do we all love our jobs that much?
I think that the average joe doesn't necessary "like" their jobs, it's just that there is so much work to be done at the office now. I wasn't born then but from what I can gather, it wasn't like this back in the 70's, was it? I can't help but wonder why more and more people aren't taking their vacation time, why more people stay late hours, why more people in North America are depressed than anywhere in the world. There could be thousands of reasons why, but I think the main ones is the world we live in today.
With new technology something somewhere becomes easier. With the ipod it's become easier to store music, videos, etc... with faster computers it has become easier to access information. With bigger hard drives it becomes easier to store information. With computers, period, it's become easier to save information while saving resources. If you save your information electronically you don't have to waste paper and valuable time printing the pages and managing them. With cell phones you can talk to anyone from virtually anywhere, meaning you can be making deals while driving to work. Judging from the amount of people who drive while on cell phones, it seems like a common practice. When things become easier, it becomes more time efficient, with more time, it means you can do more work. With more work for the less amount of time invested, means there is more money to be made per-second than traditionally. Is it possible then, that people are just biting off more than they can chew?
People, perhaps, aren't taking their vacation time, are putting in extra hours not because they necessarily want to, but because they have to. People fear that if they take a few days off, they now have to work over-time when they come back to make up for the days they lost because all the work has piled up. How do you combat something like that?
We work because we want time off. In other words, we work so that we can afford to spend our time off in leisure.
Under the Labour Laws in Canada it is illegal, unless it's within a written contract, that any given person cannot work more than eight hours a day, and forty-eight hours a week. In order to work up to sixty (60) hours a week, the employer must have a document filed with the government, as well as a contract with the employee. This contract will expire after three years. If an agreement is to exceed the sixty hour-a-week limit, a contract and document must be filed and it will only be valid for one year.
Query: How many people actually do that? How many people actually agree to work more than 60 hours a week? Their are only 168 hours in a week. Even 60 hours by itself. You need at least 8 hours of sleep a night, so in total the amount of "leisure" hours you have (assuming you work 60 hours) is only 52 hours. Oh wait, we forgot rush-hour traffic. An hour each way, we have to dock you another 14 hours. So we're at a grand total of 38 hours a week spent with family and friends.
I would hate to see the repercussions on your social life if you do do that. How would you be able to maintain a wife? A family? A healthy social network? It's well known that it is isolation that weakens us, while conflict strengthens us, but how could someone live like this? People do this illegally every single day because their job demands it. Some people do this in order for their families to survive. So if you only had 38 hours a week for time off, there is no doubt in my mind why there is such a high depression rate in North America. What's the point of working so hard if you can't even reap the fruits of thy labour?
I am considered a "work-to-rule" kind of guy. Most people frown on that and call me lazy. To them I say that I want to balance my work and my leisure. I don't want to be consumed by work because I value my time. "Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness" - Sigmund Freud. If you love what you do and that's all there is, then you have something going for you. That brings me back to one of my first points, do people really love what they do, so much that they choose to work those 60 hours a week? Some people have no choice, but some do. It's really unfair to the people who do not have the choice, and those that do; why?
sources: Labour Laws of Canada
I think that the average joe doesn't necessary "like" their jobs, it's just that there is so much work to be done at the office now. I wasn't born then but from what I can gather, it wasn't like this back in the 70's, was it? I can't help but wonder why more and more people aren't taking their vacation time, why more people stay late hours, why more people in North America are depressed than anywhere in the world. There could be thousands of reasons why, but I think the main ones is the world we live in today.
With new technology something somewhere becomes easier. With the ipod it's become easier to store music, videos, etc... with faster computers it has become easier to access information. With bigger hard drives it becomes easier to store information. With computers, period, it's become easier to save information while saving resources. If you save your information electronically you don't have to waste paper and valuable time printing the pages and managing them. With cell phones you can talk to anyone from virtually anywhere, meaning you can be making deals while driving to work. Judging from the amount of people who drive while on cell phones, it seems like a common practice. When things become easier, it becomes more time efficient, with more time, it means you can do more work. With more work for the less amount of time invested, means there is more money to be made per-second than traditionally. Is it possible then, that people are just biting off more than they can chew?
People, perhaps, aren't taking their vacation time, are putting in extra hours not because they necessarily want to, but because they have to. People fear that if they take a few days off, they now have to work over-time when they come back to make up for the days they lost because all the work has piled up. How do you combat something like that?
We work because we want time off. In other words, we work so that we can afford to spend our time off in leisure.
Under the Labour Laws in Canada it is illegal, unless it's within a written contract, that any given person cannot work more than eight hours a day, and forty-eight hours a week. In order to work up to sixty (60) hours a week, the employer must have a document filed with the government, as well as a contract with the employee. This contract will expire after three years. If an agreement is to exceed the sixty hour-a-week limit, a contract and document must be filed and it will only be valid for one year.
Query: How many people actually do that? How many people actually agree to work more than 60 hours a week? Their are only 168 hours in a week. Even 60 hours by itself. You need at least 8 hours of sleep a night, so in total the amount of "leisure" hours you have (assuming you work 60 hours) is only 52 hours. Oh wait, we forgot rush-hour traffic. An hour each way, we have to dock you another 14 hours. So we're at a grand total of 38 hours a week spent with family and friends.
I would hate to see the repercussions on your social life if you do do that. How would you be able to maintain a wife? A family? A healthy social network? It's well known that it is isolation that weakens us, while conflict strengthens us, but how could someone live like this? People do this illegally every single day because their job demands it. Some people do this in order for their families to survive. So if you only had 38 hours a week for time off, there is no doubt in my mind why there is such a high depression rate in North America. What's the point of working so hard if you can't even reap the fruits of thy labour?
I am considered a "work-to-rule" kind of guy. Most people frown on that and call me lazy. To them I say that I want to balance my work and my leisure. I don't want to be consumed by work because I value my time. "Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness" - Sigmund Freud. If you love what you do and that's all there is, then you have something going for you. That brings me back to one of my first points, do people really love what they do, so much that they choose to work those 60 hours a week? Some people have no choice, but some do. It's really unfair to the people who do not have the choice, and those that do; why?
sources: Labour Laws of Canada
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Smells Like Government Propaganda..
I hate starting articles and writing introductory paragraphs so this will just be it.
Most people believe that the second world war is over. In some points, they are right. Very right. There is no "major" fighting in the majority of the countries throughout the world. However, there are some aspects of the wars that are still active today.
One of the biggest developments in World War II, and the events leading up to it, is the adverse effects of the little thing we like to call; "Intelligence." The field of intelligence is a wonderful thing, and a very deadly thing. For a country to be strong in it's intelligence, means that it is a potentially strong in dealing with everything any other country has to offer. What I'm getting at is similar to the saying: "The pen is mightier than the sword," which I whole heartedly agree. Intelligence is what wins wars. Knowing where your opponent is... why, and how. It is also the best defensive tools any tactician, politician, military or civilian, anyone really can benefit from "knowing."
Let's back track a little: www.dictionary.com describes the word intelligence as:
in·tel·li·gence
-noun
You would be surprised to find how many people believe that "knowledge" is the same as "intelligence." I would have to disagree.
knowl·edge
–noun
The definitions do seem similar, but one is actually understanding something as fact, and the other is the capacity to understand something as a fact. The old saying "knowledge is power" could be quickly challenged. In reference to the Method of Doubt; how do I know what I receive as information is actually true or not? How do I know that the people I employ actually present an accurate representation of what is happening out in the world? What really is more powerful? Intelligence, or knowledge? To that I answer firmly:
"Intelligence is power, only when deceiving Knowledge."
If you control the "sources" of "facts" in which knowledge is supposedly "based," even if it is untrue, you embed a false knowledge on those who read it. This is called "counterintelligence."
coun·ter·in·tel·li·gence [koun-ter-in-tel-i-juh
ns] Pronunciation Key
–noun
In other words, if I obscure your "knowledge" of things, then I technically have the upper hand even if I don't even know the "truth" of it myself. When these three things come together, and presented to a group, this coherently affects the mass psychosis of the entire group, especially if they do not know better, this is effectively called "Propaganda."
Well... what is it?
prop·a·gan·da [prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key –noun
Propaganda. It's first major debut in the world would have to be the Nazi regime. I don't really have to explain the side-effects of propaganda used well. I say "well" because it worked, didn't it? It achieved a goal even if it was brutal. In Germany amidst that time, if you disagreed, you were killed. Simple as that, meaning you feared into viewing the propaganda, which, in turn, was fearing in and of itself. But that is the life you live now.
How is this the life I live now?
Maybe I'm way off base, but it's very similar, is it not? Right now a big topic is Iran. The Iranian president saying the holocaust didn't happen, Israel needs to be wiped out. That guy. This is what you're told by your local media.
What they told you:
What really happened
Well, that doesn't prove anything, does it? I'm trying to counter one point of intelligence, from another point of intelligence that doesn't have any merit to you. A common practice from your major media networks... except, since it's from a major news network, and thrown in your face until you puke... you begin to conform to it. Those who resist while the majority begins to become brainwashed from constantly being told the same thing, are inevitably called traitors for not "supporting" your country.
So let's ask a more specific question, does Ahmadinejad really hate jews?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=25781
If he really hated jews, why would he be, supposedly "hugging" a jew in this photo? Who is Aljazeera? Most Americans have no clue what an Aljazeera is. How do you know that this media source is reliable. You don't, and can't... but the photo is pretty convincing isn't it. The photo could be a fake. Highly unlikely, but still a plausible argument. You can now see how the Method of Doubt is turning everything into an annoying conversation. However, this is exactly the mentality of the naive American. You are told to believe what only the major networks say, what your government says, and to deny all others because they are not American, and their intelligence isn't as superior to the Americans.
And what about this Holocaust thing.
Well, the Iranian president just answered that. But wait... how do we know the translator is actually telling the truth? Ahmadinejad made a pretty good argument, didn't he? We are all human. 58 million civilians were killed (which is pretty accurate), yet only one "race" was singled out. To skip the controversy in that subject alone, I'll let you decide.
So, how do we separate the bullshit from the real stuff?
That's the hard part. With the lack of Investigative Journalism that resides in the world nowadays, it's hard to have a clear picture. When your media groups are either "really right-wing" or "really left-wing" it's hard to distinguish if what someone is telling you is actually the truth and not their skewed report of bias in their leftish, or rightish favor. How do you combat that? Research. Civilian investigative journalism. Blogsphere. Open mindedness. Your politics and lefty-righty stuff doesn't exist in the realm of "truth," because the truth does not take sides. Civilians have to take control of the media that "serves" you. Right now they serve the political agenda, and not you. Which is why the blogsphere revolution has occurred.
Comparing past and present is the best way of separating bullshit. The boy who cries wolf too many times will find that no help comes to him when the wolf is actually there.
you be the judge, and you decide.
www.foxattacks.com
Most people believe that the second world war is over. In some points, they are right. Very right. There is no "major" fighting in the majority of the countries throughout the world. However, there are some aspects of the wars that are still active today.
One of the biggest developments in World War II, and the events leading up to it, is the adverse effects of the little thing we like to call; "Intelligence." The field of intelligence is a wonderful thing, and a very deadly thing. For a country to be strong in it's intelligence, means that it is a potentially strong in dealing with everything any other country has to offer. What I'm getting at is similar to the saying: "The pen is mightier than the sword," which I whole heartedly agree. Intelligence is what wins wars. Knowing where your opponent is... why, and how. It is also the best defensive tools any tactician, politician, military or civilian, anyone really can benefit from "knowing."
Let's back track a little: www.dictionary.com describes the word intelligence as:
in·tel·li·gence
-noun
| 1. | capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. |
| 2. | manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. |
| 3. | the faculty of understanding. |
| 4. | knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information. |
| 5. | the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information. |
| 6. | Government.
|
knowl·edge
–noun
| 1. | acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. |
| 2. | familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. |
| 3. | acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. |
| 4. | the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. |
| 5. | awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune. |
| 6. | something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities. |
| 7. | the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time. |
| 8. | the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited. |
The definitions do seem similar, but one is actually understanding something as fact, and the other is the capacity to understand something as a fact. The old saying "knowledge is power" could be quickly challenged. In reference to the Method of Doubt; how do I know what I receive as information is actually true or not? How do I know that the people I employ actually present an accurate representation of what is happening out in the world? What really is more powerful? Intelligence, or knowledge? To that I answer firmly:
"Intelligence is power, only when deceiving Knowledge."
If you control the "sources" of "facts" in which knowledge is supposedly "based," even if it is untrue, you embed a false knowledge on those who read it. This is called "counterintelligence."
coun·ter·in·tel·li·gence [koun-ter-in-tel-i-juh
ns] Pronunciation Key–noun
| 1. | the activity of an intelligence service employed in thwarting the efforts of an enemy's intelligence agents to gather information or commit sabotage. |
| 2. | an organization engaged in counterintelligence. |
In other words, if I obscure your "knowledge" of things, then I technically have the upper hand even if I don't even know the "truth" of it myself. When these three things come together, and presented to a group, this coherently affects the mass psychosis of the entire group, especially if they do not know better, this is effectively called "Propaganda."
Well... what is it?
prop·a·gan·da [prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key –noun
| 1. | information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. |
| 2. | the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. |
| 3. | the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. |
Propaganda. It's first major debut in the world would have to be the Nazi regime. I don't really have to explain the side-effects of propaganda used well. I say "well" because it worked, didn't it? It achieved a goal even if it was brutal. In Germany amidst that time, if you disagreed, you were killed. Simple as that, meaning you feared into viewing the propaganda, which, in turn, was fearing in and of itself. But that is the life you live now.
How is this the life I live now?
Maybe I'm way off base, but it's very similar, is it not? Right now a big topic is Iran. The Iranian president saying the holocaust didn't happen, Israel needs to be wiped out. That guy. This is what you're told by your local media.
What they told you:
What really happened
Well, that doesn't prove anything, does it? I'm trying to counter one point of intelligence, from another point of intelligence that doesn't have any merit to you. A common practice from your major media networks... except, since it's from a major news network, and thrown in your face until you puke... you begin to conform to it. Those who resist while the majority begins to become brainwashed from constantly being told the same thing, are inevitably called traitors for not "supporting" your country.
So let's ask a more specific question, does Ahmadinejad really hate jews?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=25781
If he really hated jews, why would he be, supposedly "hugging" a jew in this photo? Who is Aljazeera? Most Americans have no clue what an Aljazeera is. How do you know that this media source is reliable. You don't, and can't... but the photo is pretty convincing isn't it. The photo could be a fake. Highly unlikely, but still a plausible argument. You can now see how the Method of Doubt is turning everything into an annoying conversation. However, this is exactly the mentality of the naive American. You are told to believe what only the major networks say, what your government says, and to deny all others because they are not American, and their intelligence isn't as superior to the Americans.
And what about this Holocaust thing.
Well, the Iranian president just answered that. But wait... how do we know the translator is actually telling the truth? Ahmadinejad made a pretty good argument, didn't he? We are all human. 58 million civilians were killed (which is pretty accurate), yet only one "race" was singled out. To skip the controversy in that subject alone, I'll let you decide.
So, how do we separate the bullshit from the real stuff?
That's the hard part. With the lack of Investigative Journalism that resides in the world nowadays, it's hard to have a clear picture. When your media groups are either "really right-wing" or "really left-wing" it's hard to distinguish if what someone is telling you is actually the truth and not their skewed report of bias in their leftish, or rightish favor. How do you combat that? Research. Civilian investigative journalism. Blogsphere. Open mindedness. Your politics and lefty-righty stuff doesn't exist in the realm of "truth," because the truth does not take sides. Civilians have to take control of the media that "serves" you. Right now they serve the political agenda, and not you. Which is why the blogsphere revolution has occurred.
Comparing past and present is the best way of separating bullshit. The boy who cries wolf too many times will find that no help comes to him when the wolf is actually there.
you be the judge, and you decide.
www.foxattacks.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)