Some Movies

So, I've finally gotten around to seeing two of the year's highest-rated films, and I'd like to share some thoughts on them because I can.

Iron Man
Not too much to say here.  It was a bit light on action, but I guess they just had to get the origin story out of the way, and from that perspective it works.  Even so, I kind of wish there were more than two fight scenes in the entire movie.  Also, I can't quite work out why they saved the song Iron Man for the end credits.  There were so many places where it would've been awesome and fitting, but they wait until the very end.  That's kind of dumb.

Wall-E
Everybody should see this movie.
No, really.
Okay, I don't like to talk about myself, but there are some things you should know to help you understand exactly how good this film is.
I'm a huge fan of Rifftrax and Screenwipe.  I read The Comics Curmudgeon frequently.  I watch Zero Punctuation and the Nostalgia Critic religiously.  TVTropes is my favorite website.  In other words, I fall really, really well into the 'cynical bastard who hates everything' accentuate-the-negative archetype.  It's important for you to understand this so you know just how out of character this statement is.
This romantic children's film about robots who fall in love had me on the verge of tears for a good half an hour after it was over.
Any film that can pull that off is a goddamn masterpiece.

And, a bonus non-review:
Twilight
I haven't seen this movie.  Even so, there are two statements I can make that don't need any qualifications whatsoever.
1. The Dark Knight was a better Gothic drama.  Well, duh.
2. Wall-E was a better love story.  I'd say that it's sad when your vampire romance (and god DAMN that's a stupid genre) can't even be as good a love story as an animated movie about a trash compactor who falls for a floating egg, but when that movie is Wall-E you honestly don't stand a chance.

Everyday Shooter Review

Genre: Top-down arena shooter
System: PC (Steam), PS3 (PSN)
Price: $10

Everyday Shooter is an album of games exploring the expressive power of abstract shooters. Dissolute sounds of destruction are replaced with guitar riffs harmonizing over an all-guitar soundtrack, while modulating shapes celebrate the flowing beauty of geometry.

-From the official site (also contains download links and a trailer

Judging from the above, you might write off this game as some kind of pretentious 'games are art' faffery, but you shouldn't because that would be stupid and you'd miss out on a fantastic game.

Everyday Shooter is a top-down dual analog left-to-move-right-to-shoot arena shooter in the vein of Geometry Wars. However, it separates itself from the standard 'me too' copy of the above by throwing in several important changes to the formula.

The first of these is that the game consists of levels instead of one big point-gathering arcade-style endeavor. This may not seem to big or innovative a change, but it does open up the way to the other major gameplay change: chaining systems.



The phrase 'chaining system' is basically the game's way of saying "These levels play differently." And they do play differently. Each level requires a different approach to scoring and surviving ('scoring and surviving'... mirrors life, that does), and while the differences aren't always so major, by the last level you're basically playing a completely different arena shooter.

As an example, the first level starts out like your standard shooter; your move your little dot around the screen and shoot enemies which drop points for you to collect. But then, a little ways in, a different sort of enemy floats by. You shoot it, and it creates a circular field that kills enemies on contact. Shoot the field, and it grows bigger and lasts longer. Strategic usage of this can net you some serious points.

Then, the second level changes it up; instead, you get a big foe that's connected to a bunch of little ones. Kill the big one, and all the other enemies die, giving you a few seconds to collect the spoils before the next wave comes in. The levels keep changing things around on you, and it's fun to try to figure out how to pull it off in each level.

Another feature of note is the game's unlockables; scoring points in the main game gets you 'unlock points' which can be used to purchase a number of things; extra starting lives (you'll need them), graphical effects, "single play" levels (you purchase a level, and then you can choose to play it separately from the main game), and a shuffle mode which changes the levels' order.

However, the real crux of this game is the music. Everything in this game makes a guitar sound, from menu selections to killing enemies to player deaths, and it's all fantastic. The levels all have some really nice original compositions behind them, and the various sound effects compliment it really well.

Of course, every game has its flaws; for one thing, it's rather difficult (or maybe I just suck) and the tutorial dialogs that show up on the first level you play every time are annoying and can't be turned off. The music also isn't for everyone; if you don't like guitars and lots of 'em, this isn't the game for you.

Overall:
Gameplay: A simple top-down shooter with a lot of variety. 9.5/10
Presentation: Minimalistic, but rather effective. 7.5/10
Music: I love it, but it's not for everyone. 9/10
Plot: N/A
Score (not an average): 8.5/10
Final Thoughts:
This is a fun little shooter, and it's only $10. Go get it.

Mini-review: The Dark Knight

You should all see this movie. Unless you are a small child who will be traumatized by people getting their faces burnt off and small children much like yourself being held at gunpoint. Then you shouldn't see this movie. Other than that, you should.
I really, really liked this movie. It works on multiple levels, and I think that's what makes it so great- you don't need to appreciate the psychological edge to it in order to enjoy what happens. But it sure as hell helps. Because the psychological edge is what makes Batman, Batman. It's what Schumacher never did get (or, at least, apply to the films) and what Burton most certainly did.
I think this is my favorite incarnation of the Joker. It's a different character from his other portrayals, that's for sure. He's less of a 'trickster' than before, but the ratcheted the 'violent sociopath' way up. And I think that makes it, in a bizzare, twisted kind of way, more compelling. At the very least, it allows the filmmakers to explore the very concept of a man with no morality, no guilt, a man who just enjoys watching the world burn. And I think that they really understood what they were working with, and that's why it works so well.
Anyway, awesome movie and you owe it to yourself to see it.

Mediocre Storytelling Theatre

Hi all none of you out there. I'm here to inform the nonexistant masses of a new blog I've set up on Wordpress called Mediocre Storytelling Theater. Basically, the idea is to showcase MSTs and recaps of the worst of the worst. Right now I've got some Gonterman crap, and I've got another (long) comic I'm going to start doing soon, but that's it for now.

Mediocre Storytelling: The Blog

I set up a blog over on Wordpress with the intent of highlighting some of the worst examples of every kind of media there is. It's on Wordpress to separate me personally from the project. Right now I've only got a Gonterman comic, but more will come later.

On the Reality of Perspective

Ah, yes. The eternal struggle of perspective, the battle of idealism versus cynicism, the half (Full? Empty? Empty? Full? Empty? Full? Full? Empty? Empty? Full? Full? Empty? Full? Empty? Empty? Full?) glass. Optimism vs. Pessimism.
I like to think of myself coming between the two. I consider myself a cynic (when we're talking about the sliding scale of idealism vs. cynicism, I come in very strongly on the latter with some more idealistic points... oh, just read on, I'll explain it), and I like to think of it as the in-between of optimism and pessimism, albeit with some leaning. I'm not optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic to the point of being unreal about it. I judge things based upon their value; if logic dictates that something should work, I assume it will (but prepare for it to not; even though I know it will probably work, I steel myself up for it to not- that way, if it doesn't work I won't be dissapointed, but if it does I get to be pleasantly surprised), and the same applies for something that shouldn't.

So, there's that. What of idealism and cynicism, then? Well, I have a good deal of contempt for the doe-eyed kind of idealism, the 'if only we could all work together' kind of thing. Well, yes, if we all got along, there would be no fighting. But that's irrelevant because people will never get along like that. You can't get rid of prejudice or hate, you can only beat it back for a bit. Here's the thing, though, where some idealism shines through in my beliefs: Just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Yes, there will always be racists, but that doesn't mean you should just let the KKK be. Yes, there will always be war, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't advocate pacifism. People will always have misunderstandings and fights, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least try to be diplomatic. That is where I hold idealism: In the belief that if something is bad, you should try to do something about it even though you can't really eliminate it.
Now, on another note, what I hold in even more contempt then the 'getting together' thing is the darker, more sinister kind- the "If everything was the way I want it to be, the world would be perfect." The idealism of hate, as it were. Now, this is kind of an odd concept, is it not? "There's nothing idealistic about hate!" But... is there?
Let us all accept that idealism is the belief that the world is a generally good place. My point does not shine through here, so let us carry it along a bit. Let us say that you believe the world is a generally good place. Now, unless you're a delusional nutjob, you know that bad things happen, because that's not really something that can be denied. So, the idealist I speak of now, the hateful idealist- not all idealistic people, mind you- believes that all that's wrong with the otherwise good world comes from people being different. You see? I'm speaking not of people who think that the world is a generally good place, I'm speaking of people who think that the world is a generally good place aside from what they hate. I think you see the danger in idealism I'm attempting to portray. Now, obviously, there are cons to cynicism, and done improperly cynicism can lead to atrocities, too. That's something I could figure out but don't really want to right now; I'll get back to that some other time.
Now, cynicism: Cynicism in current understanding (let's not get into ancient Greek philosophies) is the belief that people don't act out of virtue. I hold this as a general principle; I don't assume that people do things because it's the right thing. Sometimes they do, yeah, but it's a general principle. For every tale of a man saving a drowning child (I can even justify that as a mere survival instinct- it's natural to save other humans from dying so the species doesn't die off. Now, here's an interesting topic- when people don't help others. Here it comes down to people being self-centered- the effect of being in a rush, due to society's constant nagging about being on time, and the effect of believing something someone else can handle it. In the man-saves-child story I just made up, there are some factors that explain this away- first off, there was presumably nobody else there/ trying to do something, and also the fact that it's a child. People have a tendency to be kinder/more sympathetic towards children. I guess 'cuz they're cute.), I can give you somebody killing off people they think are stains on society (idealism run amok, see above) or somebody not pausing to help someone because they're in a rush (lack of virtuous action) or a madman getting popular support for his insane ideas (people can be easily manipulated, I'm sure we can all agree that's a rather cynical concept). However, I also hold another concept that stems from this- that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing. The right thing is the logical thing, the choice that has the highest probability of doing the best thing for the largest amount of people.
To illustrate this, let me give you a scenario: You're Biff Bukinshins, fantasy hero extraordinare (sp? Doesn't seem to be in the dictionary...). Why? Because fantasy/sci fi is where this kind of illogical idealism seems to occur the most. Anyway, your lovely female companion has been kidnapped by the evil something-or-other and you can either save her or prevent the evil army from raping and pillaging several highly populated towns. Now, what's the logical thing? Clearly, the second one. But you can't just leave her! That'd be callous. So, you save her. And then you have enough time to stop the evil army, too. Now, this is all well and good in fantasy, but real life doesn't work like that. In real life, the best thing to do is to put stopping thousands from being slaughtered above saving your girlfriend. Yet, authors seem to have this crazy idea that you should save her. In fact, many believe this so much that if someone suggests they do the thing that actually makes sense, they're portrayed as a callous monster, or at least an unfeeling Vulcan. What's up with that? Sewioushly. Anyway, that's what I mean when I say that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing.
So, what am I getting at with this? Well, basically, I wanted to explain my ideals so people can have a better idea of where I"m coming from and because I think there's a great deal of discussion to be had on the topic, although that's kind of stupid of me because nobody reads this.

Currently listening to: Radiohead/Pablo Honey/Creep

Yew insulted mah mooziks!

I've noticed that I tend to get... well, really, way too upset when people insult my music. And by 'way too upset,' I mean upset at all. I've always felt that the only legitimate musical criticism is that music is too bland, too sterile, to middle-of-the-road to hold any kind of real feeling or meaning, because everything else comes down to personal taste. Even so, people saying that a bad I enjoy is bad kind of puts me off. It's stupid, I know, but that's how it is.
Anyway, I hate to make posts about myself, so I'm going to look at this phenomenon at large.
I've noticed that this happens with most everything- movies, video games, etc... And that's how we get console wars. People who write off another system's killer app without playing it just because it's on that other system, you know? They're morons.
I can't think of anything else to say, honestly... so, uh, yeah: people get upset when you insult the things they like.

More "Yes, Your Teen is Crazy": Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll

So, I'm doing the second chapter now. I must say, I now appreciate a little better the work that goes into those recaps at the Agony Booth.
He rants about how we're surrounded by sex and drugs and blah blah blah. I've heard it before, and I'm just going to come out and say it: Ever hear about the 60's? You know, psychedelia, the sexual revolution, free love, that sort of thing? Drugs don't really have the same kind of acceptance now, nor does random sex with strangers (thanks, AIDS).
Then he talks about what it's like to be a teen. Well, not really. He even says that these little anecdotes about sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll are from his clients and that no adult understands the culture fully. This is good, except we run headfirst into the issue of skewing towards the troubled teens that I mentioned before. They don't send stable people to psychiatrists.
More talking about his troubled clients, and then how alcohol kills more than hard drugs. This is actually a good point, for one main reason: it's commonly and openly done by adults, but kids aren't allowed. It creates a certain amount of rebelliousness and shines light on hypocrisy for teens. The funny thing is that European countries don't have nearly the same kind of alcohol problems we do here, and that's despite having considerably lower drinking ages. It's the forbidden fruit thing.
He rattles off some numbers that I kind of doubt, they seem kind of overblown (50% of deaths are alcohol related? Really?), but I'm not going to go into it. More suspect statistics, and then ranting about how we're not doing enough. So.. very... dull...
Well, actually, there's something interesting here in that he says that other country's might be amazed at the whole thing. Well, no, not really. Most Western countries do approve of booze, so... yeah. Anyway, not that great a metaphor.
Now he rants about the other drugs, the illegal ones. God, it's like health class all over again. At least he won't show us line drawings of naked people... right? Please say he won't. Please? Anyway, drugs are purer now. Yawn. Say something I haven't heard before, dammit!
Oh, and then he says how adults don't make sense with this whole drug thing. I think he should continue on this angle- namely, very few people are logical and rational. I'm sorry, but that's the facts as I've seen time and time again.
Sigh. Teen drug use is spreading. Yeah, I'm certain he's right here. Hey,the 60's called, they want their drug abuse back. That's their shtick. ("I Am the Walrus," anyone?).
Ah, yes, the sex page. This should be a hoot.
Let's see... you wanted to get laid as a teen (no duh)... oh, right after I start the 'settle down, this could take a while' format, we hit something. Okay, here goes.
He says that we let more sex references in 'family hour' television. Um, dude, that's what I like to call "No big deal." Either you're too little to get it, or you get a little chuckle. It's nothing. I mean, this is almost like saying that acknowledging sex exists is bad. And that's just stupid.
And then a six-year-old corrupted by South Park by a friend. Now, I don't really watch South Park- from what I've seen of it, it seems to be the kind of show that confuses vulgarity with humor- but this is kind of dumb. Basically, they taped it and then tricked their parents into believing they weren't seeing it with a VCR trick. I can't bring myself to care.
Then he talks about early puberty onset and tells an admittedly disturbing tale of six-year-olds playing a game of stripping. Um, okay, that's odd, but, um... yeah.
Then he talks about how 'scary' this is because of drug experimentation. Okay, what the hell is wrong with you. These things that you're talking about have absolutely no relation whatsoever. This is what I like to call a 'non-sequiter.'
He then says that boys who have sex too early become "emotionally cold and cynical." I don't know that that's such a bad thing, though. I'm a heavily cynical person, and it all boils down to knowing how people work. I think it's just rational, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I am.
Okay, blah blah blah kids have more sex blah blah blah statistics blah blah blah look just shut the hell up already. This book... ugh. It's like I'm getting hit over the head with a Grecian column made of obviousolium.
Girl upset who does drugs and sex. Yeah, okay, it happens, I know this, do you think that I didn't? Maybe he thinks the parents need to be written a huge reality check. That would justify it, I guess.
And now we're moving on to music. Okay, I'm calling shenanigans on this one two- "what your kid refers to as rock 'n roll?" Seriously? How clueless are you? First off, rap and R&B are the most popular genres right now. Secondly, what I call rock 'n roll is a now-defunct genre from the 50's that evolved into what is now called 'rock.'
Oh, I was wrong. Sorry, I won't jump to conclusions again. Basically, 'rock 'n roll' is a term that "encapsulate[s] all of the other forms of adolescent acting-out behaviors." I still call shenanigans, because I have never heard this term used anywhere by anyone else.
He states that youth violence has gone down. Thank you. I am so sick of people saying that it's gone up when it just #$*!ing hasn't. He seems to be fed up with the insane rules and restrictions and paranoia. See, we can agree on stuff! Oh, and then he says that it's 'not necessarily' "reacting hysterically to overpublicized rage events" and that, once again, it's a cultural shift. Why do I suspect I'm about to hear of things that I have never seen happen?
Okay, kids hit unfaithful girlfriends. Never heard that one before. Son threatens violence to his mother. Once again, a nutjob can not be taken to account for the whole. He notes that it happened several times. Gasp! A couple dozen families have major issues with violence? Wow, that's so totally indicative of the whole, because it's not like there are thousands of families in the nation!
He says the violence has gotten worse. Worse, but less frequent? I dunno, seems fair to me.
And now it's on to the acceptance of guns. I just can't make myself care. Ah well. It think I'm going to fastforward a bit, if anything interesting or different happens, I'll go in depth. If not, you didn't miss anything.
...
More violence on TV. Shut up.
Violence in video games gets a passing mention, I'm sick of that, too.
Here's something. He says that studies have only found a correlation between increased severity and increased media violence. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually cite any of these studies. He then goes on to insinuate that this is all a technicality and it's 100% certain that increased media violence is a problem but the companies don't want you to think that. I don't need to tell you how stupid that is. He says he asked kids about it and they said it did affect them. The funny thing is, this proves nothing because the logic is "how can I see that all my life and not be affected?" which is the same exact logic they've used before. And I have an answer, too- you're a functioning human being who can tell the difference between people getting beat up and cheap laser effects setting off sparks around an incredibly fake monster suit (yes, I am talking about Power Rangers here. My mom never let me watch that show when I was young enough to want to because it was 'too violent.' At this point, though, I couldn't care less because Power Rangers is incredibly dumb). He then gives some BS about how it's because that's what are society is like. Wait, what? This guy makes no sense. I might not be describing what he's saying well enough, but trust me- there is no good explanation given for any of this nonsense.
He then talks about parental beatings and how they're bad. Glad to see that. I'm pretty sick of parents lamenting about how they can't hit their kids and that's making them turn out bad, because that's nonsense.
There's more suicide. Yeah, yeah, yeah, shut up. It's nothing new. He then says that you can look at a sleepover party and two of the kids will have 'come close' to killing themselves. He does know that the 'two out of ten' does not literally mean that any given ten kids will have two who exhibit a behavior, right?
Now he says to get rid of guns because your kids can kill with them. No crap. I'm for gun control, though- look, Mr. White-Middle-Class-Suburban-Dad-Who-Doesn't-Hunt, NOTHING is going to come in the middle of the night and kill you, okay? You DO NOT NEED A GUN.
Evidently, trickle-down works with 'the economics of guns.' I understand it's a metaphor, but TRICKLE-DOWN DOES NOT WORK.
He argues against guns, but not very well and it's all very stupid. Basically, all teens are troubled and will use guns to do bad things if they get the chance. Guns are too effective at killing (well, duh). Locks won't keep your kids away (the key has to be somewhere, right?) He says that he can name six kids who killed themselves with guns that were locked up in six seconds. That's not a good argument, actually. All that proves is that six kids did and you memorized the names.
And... the 'kids have gotten so violent' bit is over. Good. It was stupid.
Well, it's over. No more preview chapters. He also wrote a book for teens, though...

Yes, Your Teen is Crazy- Who the hell do you think you are?

So, I came across this book called Yes, Your Teen is Crazy. I didn't want to pass judgment right away, so I read some excerpts. And early on, I run into some problems.
First off: The main statement- "Your teen can't be reasoned with because they are not a properly functioning person"- is the main issue here. What the hell kind of message does this guy expect teens who come across this to take from that? "You can't possibly function well, so don't bother?" I call shenanigans.
And then there's another bit that bothers me. It's in the first chapter, where he talks about how you can't parent the same way (Or the exact opposite thereof) your parents did. I'm willing to accept this- attitudes and understandings of parenting shift over time- but then he pushes it off the cliff into BS-ville. That happens when he completely glosses over the fact that by his own very logic, this book will be completely irrelevant 20 years or so from now. At first I figured that he just didn't get it, that it's just a case of someone not thinking forward, just dismissing the issue with a "Well, we had it wrong then, but we have it right now" and not realizing that people have been saying that for centuries. But then it seems that he is aware of this and says that 'What your parents did worked then, but you have to do it differently now.' However, he doesn't go anywhere with this. Look, you can't just do that, okay? Teens are still teens, the only thing that's changed is people's understanding of how to deal with us. Unless you can back up that statement, don't make it, please. Oh, and then he goes off on a tangent about his son's sloppiness and 'questionable' taste in music [music?]. He then actually goes on to explain the joke. Yes, we get it, you think that you're opinion in music is the ultimate, and any deviancy is wrong, hahahahahaha. Once again, people have been saying that for centuries and the joke just isn't funny. I'm 100% for flippancy and humor, but do it well. And then he tells a joke about a psychologist reaching a conclusion about a 13-year-old without looking at him and saying that he's right "because he's 13." The author then says that this is 100% correct. If you can see the issue with this, you have common sense. If you can't... what the hell is wrong with you? You can't just generalize like that. I'm going to respond to his next section (because I made this an in-depth recap of the first chapter a while ago without really meaning to) with this: 'Did you hear? Slavery is okay because black people's brains don't work right! Science said so!' The issue is that science can and has been proven wrong, but I suppose that, unless I can find an issue with the studies themselves, I can't argue against that and my complaints basically fall apart. I only hope that I can find an issue, because I'm not willing to accept that I'm mentally handicapped by virtue of being in a certain age range.
So, let's see... Jay Giedd, from NIMH (Ha! We can't listen to them, they're mean to rats.) took pictures of children's brains over 9 years. They find that the corupus callosum has great growth over that time, and this is important to intelligence, consciousness, etc. Okay... so I don't have a complaint there. I'm not going to argue that changes don't happen to the brain during puberty, but I doubt they make such a big difference as they say. I think I have reason, at least, on my side: What is the evolutionary function of a brain that is gimped for several years during puberty, and beforehand? I mean, think about it- 18 years to maturity can't be beneficial when you're a nomadic hunter-gatherer, can it?
Oh, and now it's the old stuff about the prefrontal cortex. No argument I make here will be effective, because most people seem to have decided that the cortext grows, and that's why teens aren't as good as real people. I don't feel that it's worth it.Oh, a quote I can pull out. Let's do it.

"Emotional control, impulse restraint, and rational decision-making are all gifts to us from our prefrontal cortex, gifts your kid hasn't yet received."

I call shenanigans. I could argue that myself and other I know who are the same age don't exhibit this more often than your average adult, but that's not solid enough an argument, if only because people will say that I'm making claims about myself that can't be backed up. So, okay, how about this: Many adults don't exhibit this. The argument here is "Your teen doesn't have these things, but after puberty, adults do." I can't argue that the first part is incorrect, but I've got plenty of ammo for the second one.
AIDS-HIV link deniers. Holocaust deniers. 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The people who believed the Swift Boat campaign. Alien abductees. The KKK. Young Earth Creationists. Anyone who has ever been on the Jerry Springer show. All of these people have several things in common- first off, they are not rational. They are as far from rational as you can get. These are people who deny the facts that they don't like. These are the people who don't believe what they can see. These are nutjobs. Oh, but they're not representative of all adults, right? You can't just name a bunch of nuts and say they represent the whole. Well, of course not. Do you really think that I would try and pull that off? But, here's the thing- the reason this is a good argument is that there are enough people in each of the aforementioned categories that it's almost scary. These aren't just one or two or three or a dozen people, they've got a good number of followers. Oh, sure, it's not enough to say that all people are that way, we've gone over that. But, you see, it's all about how it gets that way. It only takes one nutjob who just so happens to be charismatic enough or selling an idea that people like enough to get followers, and then... well, then Hitler happens. People will believe anything if you sell it to them right. And it's not just the nutjobs, either. Ever hear of the Asch conformity experements? And the Holocaust itself, it's all got to do with this. Hitler was an insane bastard, let there be no doubt to anyone about that. But, here's the thing- he was charismatic. He could play people. He promised salvation, and people believed him. He told them that he needed total power, and people gave it to him. And then... well, then it all went to hell. Children weren't the ones putting Hitler into power. I know it sounds like I'm making a morality play here, appealing to the (well-deserved) dislike everyone has of Hitler and what he did. But it just demonstrates my point- adults don't make good decisions, either.

Well, that was a satisfying rant. But back on topic. The book then talks about Dr. Deborah Yugelun-Todd, who ran a study that verified the previous one. Well, good to see that we're sticking to the principle of peer review. Some adults are shown a picture of a scared person, limbic system and prefrontal cortex work together, they can tell they're scared. Teens didn't. You know, I'd like to see these pictures. I'd need more to go on to make an argument against this. Now he says that positive things can be 'hard-wired' into adolescents, including sports, music, etc. I'm actually kind of scared that he's suggesting we hardwire music into people- music, at least in schools, always seems to imply the stupid orchestral stuff. I mean, I know people like it, and more power to them, they're allowed to, but I don't. I'm just concerned that we create an issue here where teens aren't allowed to express themselves musically in the form that they like because of parents. If you're parents don't like you listening to, say, death metal, they're not going to be happy with you writing and performing death metal, regardless of your personal right to express yourself in any form you like.
He then talks about how things can become set in the teen years. Yeah, sure, fine. He goes on to talk about depression, rage, alienation... Well, I don't know about you, but I think we need more of that stuff. It makes some damn good grunge.
Then he talks more about how teens don't think right. Look, shut up, okay? Oh, nevermind, you wouldn't care, anyway. Why should my view count? I'm just a brain-damaged adolescent. Carry on. Let's see... teens can't interpret visual cues on other people... it's only temporary... children make bad decisions (no crap, it's called 'learning' and it happens, it doesn't prove anything- once you screw up the paint job with a pressure washer, you'll have learned to not use the pressure washer, it's not indicative of any neurological dysfunction). Oh, and teens are like angry toddlers that can't think right. I feel so very good about myself now. Thanks, book!
Talking about god- oh, sorry 'mother nature,' I guess we're trying to avoid favoring any religion (except, evidently, Wicca). And now he says that teens think they're capable human beings. That's... that's actually bad for my argument, because if he can back up that statement, it means that anything I say can be written off as "you only think you're good enough." Except he doesn't actually back it up, so... yeah, not a problem.
And now, anecdotes and bad jokes. Huzzah!
Okay, some idiot ruined landscaping, can't really be called indicative of the whole, some kid ruptured a gas can with a lawnmower, and then he goes and compares their reactions when asked why to that of a dog. Yeah, real classy, there. I mean, that's not an insult at all.
Now he talks about there being no 'why,' they're just insane. Sigh. I'm certain adults never do stupid, impulsive things, isn't that right? Yeah.
The next one's about not answering questions. Boring.
An actually funny story involving a teenager playing with a Tinky Winky doll. Still stupid and not necessarily indicative of the whole, though.
Mood swings. Look, we !*#%ing know this. It's the oldest teen cliche in the book. Yes, teens have mood swings. It's for the exact same reason pregnant women do- it's the hormones. Unless you're going to write a book about how pregnant women are crazy, don't bother with this.
Oh, oh, oh, this is farking great. Direct quote:

"Their days are typically saturated with messages that loudly and publicly delineate their failures and worthlessness."

Yes, this is just great. I mean, it's not like a book about how they're insane just by being a teenager being advertised on the morning news does that, right? Nope, not in the slightest. And then he tells people to be understanding. Hypocrite.
And then he gives a story about a girl he worked with. He "uses the "we're both adults, so you choose" tack." I mean, seriously? It's kind of like he never thought anyone would pick this apart, it's just all so easy.
Reading the story, I think I've found the issue, the reason he doesn't seem aware that non-crazy teens exist- he's a psychologist whose job it is to work with these people. It's all so obvious now. He interacts with problem teens, and then he applies the same tactics he uses to his teens, which frames them in the same light. He only sees the ones with issues. I might be wrong there, but that would make sense, wouldn't it?
Okay, once again I call BS. He says that you can't talk to your teen like you would another adult because they're nuts. This just doesn't work. I like to think that I can hold my own in conversations with adults; and that's the thing- if you're telling your child to, say, clean up their room, it's entirely different from talking to your cow-orkers or friends. When you talk to them, you're not commanding them or telling them off, and that makes all the difference. Adults would probably react to you in the same way if you were telling them to do things, but you don't do that to them, you do it to your children. That's the real issue.
He talks about how admitting that you have child problems is 'disheartening and infuriating.' Well, here's a newsflash- reading a book about how being a child automatically means that you have problems is, too. Now, I understand that I'm not the target audience, and that I'm not supposed to read it, but that's exactly why I am. I know better what it's like to be a teen than any adult because I am a teen, and I'm reading it to counter claims that wouldn't otherwise be countered. It's a self-perpetuating myth- a man who works with problem teens writes a book about problem teens to be read by parents of problem teens, which means that we've got a bunch of people all agreeing with each other. I'm breaking that perpetuation by reading it. You see how that works? Now, once again, I may not be correct, but it makes perfect sense and I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't be.
Oh, thanks a lot, book. I don't qualify as sane. Great. Now, okay, maybe that would be a true statement if we're talking only about the teens that have issues, the ones whose parents would be reading the book, but the statements here are broad. They're applied to all teens instead of just troubled teens, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Then there's an actually kind of funny joke about 'Uncle Louie' telling your child that these are the best years of their life when they're actually pretty bad.
And, wow, he makes an actually valid point about how people think they were better as teens when they weren't. I've held that viewpoint for a long time, it's all part of my larger "Certain things are always true of society; wide social movements happen in different times; basically, all the broad, defining social events repeat themselves with slight variation" philosophy. He then says that there's a problem in that parents are starting to view teens more and more as adults. I think that's a step backwards. He says that his clients are scared in non-sturctured, adlutless environments. I'd say the same is true if you let a bunch of adults run loose without any structure or a more responsible person to guide them. I mean, you can't really try to claim that adults never go to parties, get drunk, and have sex with random people they don't really know.
He then says that you give them control, the screw it up. Okay, look, there is a reason for society's power structure, and that is exactly it. You make some random Joe from off the street president, and he is going to screw up. Look, you're going to make the argument, where's the proof? I'd like to see it, because right now, all I see is bare assertions. He continues on that note a bit and then the chapter ends. Maybe I'll do chapter 2 sometime, but that has to be the end because that's all the samples he has.

Beyond Good & Evil- BUY THIS GAME

Beyond Good & Evil was released last week on Steam. It was $10, I had heard it was a very good game, so I decided 'what the heck, why not?'
I'm glad I did. It was an amazing game. To understand why, I'll break it down into your standard game review subjects.

Plot- This is a bit of a mixed bag, unfortunately. The story is... well, interesting, I guess, but it's predictable. The plot itself twists in ways that are heavily foreshadowed, and it doesn't really cross any lines. The game doesn't really go 'Beyond Good & Evil,' either, except in the sense that it sets up the good/evil divide right off the bat and then subverts it within about 5 minutes. After that, it fits distinctly and directly into 'Good & Evil,' despite some hints that it won't. This is a shame, a real shame, because the story is masterfully told. The execution is absolutely brilliant, and it makes you care despite the predictability, which is quite a feat. I really, really wish this game had lived up to its title, because then it would have easily been one of the most brilliant games I have ever played, instead of simply one of the best. Even so, YOU MUST BUY THIS GAME. I can't stress that enough. According to Wikipedia, Micheal Ancel (the man behind this game and Rayman) is working on a sequel that Ubisoft has yet to confirm. Now, that's just the most recent word, and it has probably changed since then, but they just might make another one if this Steam release sells well enough, and that is why you must get it. You see, the game basically tells an average story very, very well, but maybe, just maybe, if they made a sequel, they might end up telling an amazing story very, very well. And that simply must happen. This game is so good at what it does, it should- nay, it deserves to, tell a better story.
Graphics- I don't really care much about graphics, but they don't look dated, which is quite a feat for a 5-year-old game. A word of warning, though- I had some strange graphical glitches while playing. That may just be my rig, but be aware of that.
Sound- Does the job well, nothing too special outside of one song that you hear during a couple of fights that has some nice guitar work on it.
Gameplay- This game does a lot, and does it well. There's standard Zelda-style on foot combat, a camera mode that controls well, and there's lots of stealth. I'm particularly fond of the stealth sequences because they bring a certain amount of open-endedness to the game- the first time you do it, you can only really sneak by, but soon you'll be given the option to quietly eliminate the guards (which is what I did most of the time). In some cases, you can even get out in the open and fight them- they seem invincible, but they are defeatable once you figure it out. There's also a hovercraft, which controls very well and opens up some racing segments, which are pretty good diversions.
Replay Value- I'd play through it again. There are lots of collectibles- pearls, which can be used to buy ship parts, disks, which contain information and can be played at certain points, and a 'collect-em-all' aspect with the local wildlife- in the beginning, you're introduced to a long-running sidequest which allows you to photograph the animals for money and rewards. The main plot is pretty short, though- it's about 10 hours, and that's with stopping between dungeons (there are three, but they're all very large, so it works out fine).
Overall Score: 9/10- Great

Seriously. Buy this game, because this game is great and cheap, but also because enough sales just may result in an even better game being made.

Liberal Logic

Here's a fact that should come as a surprise to exactly nobody: Conservapedia really ticks me off when I'm not laughing at it. Let's look at their article on Liberal Logic, which relies almost solely on generalizations (surprising no one). Read along, the assertions are on the original article, my refutations here.

1. Their reference here basically amounts to "Liberals use circular reasoning because some guy who's against ID uses circular reasoning because we said so."
2. PROVE IT. Give me evidence- and once you've given me evidence, PROVE that it's ALL liberals. They do have a point, though- you'll never see a conservative complaining about something because they feel that it goes against their beliefs and morals! Wait...
3. I've never seen anybody claim this.
4. Conservapedia clearly doesn't understand citing sources. I know this because their little source link thing here doesn't SOURCE ANYTHING other than baseless assertions.
5. ...No. Just no.
6. Conservative (Not all conservatives, mind you, just the nutjobs that inhabit websites like this) logic: One liberal uses circular reasoning, therefore all liberals use circular reasoning. (See #1)
7. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy: Not running for president. John McCain: Running for president. Big difference. The sad part is that these guys probably supported the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which did EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE CRITICIZING, but also HAD NO REAL PROOF TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT (other than 'I don't remember it like they say it happened,' but than again only one of them actually served with Kerry.
8. ...THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE YOU MORON.
9. Finally, a REAL sourced statement. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the hell they're criticizing here. What is wrong about that quote? What? I honestly don't know. This is another example of my refutation of #6, by the way.
10. ...What? Once again, Conservapedia has managed to make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
11. Because conservatives never tell other people they should be ashamed for their actions.
12. More baseless accusations. SOURCES. DOES YOU HAVE THEM?
13. Once again, what the hell are you talking about?
14. I have never seen "insisting that an atheistic culture cannot harm anyone," and I've only ever seen "insisting classroom prayer can cause harm" in the sense that people might be offended by it, which is ridiculous in and of itself, I admit... unless we're talking about mandatory prayer and not voluntary prayer, in which case IT CAN INDEED CAUSE HARM by forcing views onto children that they may or may not hold.
15. Your logic does not make sense. 'Doing X decreases the risk, so not doing X increases the risk' is NOT A LOGICALLY VALID ARGUMENT.
16. Your grammar sucks. Also, your argument doesn't work either.
17. GIVE ME SOME GOD DAMNED SOURCES.
18. I'll respond with a link to some REAL statistics, which Conservapedia has not done. Here's a study which shows that abstinence-only education does not reduce the occurrence of teenage sex.
19. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THAT'S AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT, PROVIDE SOME FREAKING EVIDENCE.
20. I have no idea what's going on in this one, either.
21. I... I've got nothing to say, it's just too damn stupid.
22. I'm going to assume that this is vandalism, because NOBODY can possibly be that dumb... can they? If they can... wow, I didn't think it was possible for me to have less faith in humanity, but that'd do it alright.

I hate Conservapedia.

Telltale wins the internets.

http://telltalegames.com/community/blogs/id-324

WIN.
WIN.
WIN.
Really, this is too awesome. Telltale making a Strong Bad series of episodic games? I love H*R, and I love Telltale's games, so this is about as good as it gets.
And that statement makes me realize that I have terrible priorities.

Urge... To kill... Rising...

Atheist Debate « The Truth Shall Set You Free

Fundie idiot. Sigh.
I'm here to debate, so let's take the paragraphs one at a time and refute them.

By Ray Comfort

This name becomes important later.

I’m sure that we all agree that there is a big difference between the word “Black” and what we commonly call “The ‘N’ word.”

Um... yes?

One describes an ethnic group, the other has extremely negative connotations.

Your point being...?

In the same way, there is a big difference between the word “Christian” and the word “religious.”

Yes. That difference is called SPECIFICNESS.

History shows that religion has been accompanied by ignorance, intolerance, and superstition.

Christianity can replace religion here, and it would still be correct.

Religion has fought the progress of science, and has been responsible to more wars than any thing else in history.

Agreed.

I say that because I am not here representing Roman Catholicism, or the traditional Protestant church.

... So only Catholics and Protestants are evil?

They would no doubt distance themselves from me and
my beliefs, as quickly as you would distance yourself from a skunk with
severe halitosis.

Yes, because you are INSANE.

“Religious” Webster’s Dictionary: “Pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.”

Now we're spouting definitions?

I am neither a monk, nor am I part of any religious order.

Um... Christianity is a religion, you believe in it, you presumably go to church, YOU'RE PART OF IT.

At the risk of causing you to roll your eyes in
expectation of what you may consider the usual nauseating arguments for
God’s existence,” I am going to give you my three point outline, in
which I will present my case:

Well, at least the structure is good... if not the grammar. You'll see.

• The Evidence of Creation.

• The Evidence of The Bible.

• The Evidence of Conscience.

Meh.

Then I will speak briefly on the subject of
evolution and make known to you details of the $250,000 offer for
anyone who can offer any scientific evidence for evolution.

....................... Wow.

1. The Evidence of Creation.

Theory–Coke can, banana (ridges/groves, non-slip, outward indicators, tab, bio-degradable

perforated, point at top, right shape, curved).

What the fark?

Leaves.

Car–no maker?

Order in creation.

What?

Sir Isaac Newton said, “This most beautiful system
of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel
and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Yes, because Newton's theories have never been proven wrong by anyone. I mean, yes, things like the laws of motion have been shown to be correct time and time again, but the theory of relativity did contradict some of Newton's theories.

But how do you scientifically prove God’s existence?

I'm going to say you can't, not because he doesn't exist (I'm agnostic), but because it's not a knowable thing. We can't prove or disprove God.

The English word “scientific”–from the Latin words: “to make” and “knowledge.”

I doubt this, but etymology isn't my strong suit.

Building builder.

Painting painter.

Worse. Than. Failure.

Exactly same applies to the existence of God: “For the invisible things of Him…” (Romans 1:20)

Um... No.

Scientist Stephen Hawking is his book, A Brief History of Time said,

Thus begins the string of quotes.

“It would be very difficult to explain why the
universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God
who intended to create beings like us.”

Yes, DIFFICULT. Not impossible.

Albert Einstein didn’t believe in the God of the Bible, but he wasn’t a fool. He knew that there was a Creator.

He theorized that a Creator was the most viable explanation.

He said, “God does not play dice [with the universe].”

Yes, but God wouldn't be playing dice if he didn't exist, right?

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit
of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of
the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the
face of which our modest powers must feel humble.” (The Quotable
Einstein, p. 152).

Believe it or not, Einstein's religious beliefs aren't actually proof of anything. Sure, he was a brilliant scientist, but that doesn't mean that everything he believed was automatically correct.

God’s existence is axiomatic.

If it was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Arguing about the existence of a Creator is intellectually demeaning.

No. No it's not.

It is like arguing with “The Sun is Not Hot Club,” about whether or not the sun is hot.

... What? I mean, the comparison is ridiculous.

That’s why the Bible says, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.”

The Bible said it, so it must be true! I'm beginning to suspect that this was written with the sole purpose of reinforcing people's religious beliefs.

“The Atheist Test.”

Is this a title or something?

Two questions: Hawaii, Tibetan yak. Some things we don’t know.

I can't even to begin to fathom what Ray's talking about here. Those are nouns, not questions.

Thomas Edison “We do not know one-millionth of one percent about anything.”

We probably don't, just because there's so damn much to know.

The statement, “There is no God” is an absolute statement.

The statement, "There is a God" is an absolute statement.

Absolute knowledge “No gold in China.”

What?

Don’t need absolute knowledge to know that there is gold in China.

Huh?

This circle represents all the knowledge in the universe.

...Que?

It is possible, in the 99% of the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there is ample evidence to prove that God exists?

Is it possible, in the 99% of the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there is ample evidence to prove that God does not exist?

If you are reasonable, you will be forced to say, “Yes, it is possible…so I really don’t know.”

Agnosticism. Love it! Also, the argument here works both ways. EPIC FAIL.

Therefore must say, “With the limited knowledge I
have at present I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no God, but I
really don’t know.”

Therefore must say, “With the limited knowledge I
have at present I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a God, but I
really don’t know.”

2. The Evidence of the Bible.

If we have problems with parts of the Bible, we should listen to Mark Twain, who wisely said,

But you can't have problems with parts of the Bible, because that's heresy. I mean, seriously, this is coming from someone who unironically posts Chick Tracts.

“Most people are bothered by those passages of
Scriptures they don’t understand, but for me, I have always noticed
that the passages that bother me are those I do understand.”

... I don't think Twain meant what you think he did.

He was right. It’s not things that men can’t understand that make them hate the Bible. It’s the things they can understand.

... What?

The Bible is full scientific and medical facts,
written thousands of years before man discovered the. See “Science
Confirms the Bible” tract, and Scientific Facts in the Bible book.

... NO. Seriously, you're citing farking CHICK TRACTS now? What the hell?

The facts, plus its many 100% accurate prophecies prove that the Bible is supernatural in origin.

NO. NO. NO, a thousand times NO! Evidence. Give me some.

3. The Evidence of Conscience

So now we're arguing that A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG exists. Look, right and wrong are subjective things. Is a conscience really any more than a set of basic ethics, instilled by parenting and quite possibly genetic heritage?

I am now going to move from addressing your intellect and speak directly to your conscience.

Hah! Good luck, I donated mine to a bunch of orphans.

This is because the word con-science means with knowledge.

... No. Just no, okay? I'm not even sure what's being said here, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong.

If your conscience is allowed to do its duty, it will speak to you of God’s existence.

No.

But if you deny that inner knowledge, according to the Bible your conscience is “seared.”

Deadened.

No. Also, more Bible quotes? Your book written by some guys 2,000 years ago that claims to be the work of God PROVES NOTHING.

So I am going to speak directly to it, in an effort to resurrect it.

Shut up.

To do this, I will use a few of the Ten Commandments–what the Bible calls the Law of God.

Wait, so you're going to convert Atheists using the Ten Commandments, which they, being atheists, DO NOT BELIEVE IN?

God’s Law is like a mirror.

... No, I'm pretty sure it isn't. Actually, I'm pretty sure I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. In other words, THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.

Not a pretty sight (this isn’t pleasant, but it won’t take long).

You're going to posts pictures of yourself?

ALTERNATELY: You're going to pleasure a woman?

This is most necessary for me to present my case for the existence of God, so please bear with me.

Fine.

Would you consider yourself to be a “good’ person?

Mostly, yeah, but nobody's perfect.

Here’s the test to see if you are morally clean: Have you kept the Ten Commandments?

No. I worship a Buddha made out of crackers, you see.

Have you ever told a lie?

Have you ever stolen something?

Jesus said, “Whoever…lust…”

So, if you tell someone their ugly shirt looks nice, use Limewire, or acknowledge your carnal instincts, you're going to hell.

Then, by your own admission, you are a lying,
thieving, adulterer at heart (But I say unto you, That whosoever
looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already in his heart. Matthew 5:28) and you have to face God on
Judgment day, whether you believe in Him or not.

More Bible quotes. I'm not going to point out why that's wrong anymore. Also, being attracted to the female sex means you cheat on your wife? What if you lust after your wife? Also, you're not going to get anywhere by threatening atheists with God's judgment.

If He were to judge you…Heaven or Hell?

I'd assume that he wouldn't be enough of a d--- to send me to be eternally tortured for what can only be described as minor transgressions at best.

I don’t believe in Hell!

We're getting to him!

If I stand on a freeway and say, “I don’t believe in trucks.”

Then you're an idiot. Which, actually, you've done a pretty good job of demonstrating.

The good news is that God doesn’t want any of us to go to Hell.

No? Then why does he? If he's omnipotent, then he doesn't have to send ANYONE to hell.

He provided a way for us to be forgiven: The Cross.

If God really wanted to forgive us, wouldn't he just do it instead of all this mind game Jesus BS?

Finally, I would like to speak for a moment about EVOLUTION

This should be good.

Let me make it clear that I do believe in
variations within species. Some dogs appear to have evolved from large
to small (or small to large), but no “evolution” has actually taken
place.

So you're covering your ass from the most obvious of scientific arguments. Great.

They are still dogs.

Yes, because evolution happens GRADUALLY over a period of MILLIONS OF YEARS. I suspect that you're just scared of wrapping your head around the concept.

So I do believe in something called “microevolution”–variation within a species.

Because otherwise your argument would be slightly less thick- a difficult feat, I assure you.

However, there is no evidence for man evolving from primates, commonly known as “the theory of evolution.”

There is, actually. Is the current theory of evolution necessarily PERFECT? No. Will it likely change over time as we learn more- unlike, I may add, religious texts? YES.

Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research so rightly stated:

According to a quick Wikipedia search, this person doesn't exist, nor does the NCSR. Now, Wikipedia isn't the ultimate resource, I admit, but as a rule of thumb, if the Wiki doesn't have it, it's probably not all that legit.

“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

So a person that may or may not exist said something that may or may not be true? Great!

Sir Arthur Keith (Sir Arthur Keith wrote the
foreword to the 100th edition of Origin of the Species) said,
“Evolution is unproved and unprovable.”

Yes. It's a theory- as in 'an unproven idea on how something works based upon the best data available.' Basically, for the time being, it's the best we've got.

Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said,

I was going to look this guy up, but I don't have to. More on that later.

“I myself am convinced that the theory of
evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be
one of the great jokes in history books of the future.” (The End of
Christendom, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1980, page 59).

How is he qualified to say this? He's a JOURNALIST and PHILOSOPHER. You know what he's not? A biologist or any other scientist that would be studying evolution. You know who is qualified to make this claim? A biologist or any other scientist that would be studying evolution.

Dr. T. N. Tah-misian of the Atomic Energy Commission said,

Of what country? Please, share.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is
a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be
the greatest hoax ever.” USA Today March 21, 2001

Without knowing more, I can't make a judgment, but the data available suggests that he's not exactly the best person to ask about evolution.

“Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in
the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise,
if not scrap, current theories of human origins.”

Yes, REVISE. As in CHANGE. As in TAKE THE NEW DATA THAT HAS BECOME AVAILABLE AND USE IT TO MAKE A BETTER THEORY.

Reuters reported that the discovery left
“scientists of human evolution…confused,” saying, “Lucy may not even be
a direct human ancestor after all.”

So scientists update the theory, either on Lucy or on evolution. I don't know how the hell this supports your argument, Ray.

The phrase “scientists of human evolution” is an oxymoron.

Shut up. Really, shut the hell up. You don't have ANY proof to back up this statement.

Evolution isn’t “scientific.” It’s a theory.

It is a theory. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. THEORIES ARE SCIENTIFIC- well, the theories in question, anyway.

If you go to www.raycomfort.com to will see an offer of $250,000.

This is where the name becomes important.

Dr. Kent Hovind $250,000 “to anyone who can offer any scientific evidence that evolution is true.”

From Wikipedia:

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and a conspiracy theorist. He is most famous for creation science seminars, which aim to convince listeners to believe in biblical creation and to reject evolution, the Big Bang, and the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth.
Hovind's views are criticized by the scientific community, and even
some fellow Young Earth creationist (YEC) organizations like Answers In Genesis (AIG).^[2]

EPIC FAIL.

Take him to court. Become famous. Make this another Scopes trial.

Why would I take him to court?

But you won’t, because you can’t. All you have is faith in a theory.

All you have is faith in a book.

Evolution is actually a religion.

It's a scientific theory. If people want to make it religion, to take On the Origin of Species and idolize it and refuse to believe anything else, whatever, that's there business. They'd be wrong, most likely, and I'd make fun of them for denying facts, but they can still do it.

Dictionary: “Religion”: “A set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe…”

That's one definition of many. Religion is a very abstract concept which is hard to pin down definitively.

The belief of evolution even has its own religious language: “We believe, perhaps, maybe, probably, could’ve, possibly.”

No, it's "We think this is what happened, that's what the evidence suggests, but it's possible we're wrong, and if we are, we'll change our beliefs so that all the available data points to our conclusion." Compare this to "I believe, therefore it's true." I seriously doubt that you understand science.

The founding father of the faith is Charles Darwin.

He's a guy who OBSERVED THE WORLD AROUND HIM and MADE CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON THOSE OBSERVATIONS. That's all.

The god of the religion of Darwinism is referred to by the faithful as “Mother Nature.”

No, that's Wicca.

She is the one who is responsible for everything we can see in creation.

I'm going to take a time out here and point out that On the Origin of Species does not, nor does it attempt to, disprove God as a creator. I'm sure that, if questioned, Darwin would have said that God worked as a theory on the origin of life itself- that God made life, and then life changed over time to adapt to new environments. HOWEVER, even if we accept God as the creator of all life, where did God come from?

What’s more, she’s very attractive to sinful men. They gravitate to her like a moth to a flame.

I'm not even going to bother with this. Just shut up, okay?

Why? Because she’s deaf, blind, and mute.

...?

Mother Nature doesn’t hear anything, she doesn’t see anything, and what’s most important–she doesn’t say anything.

...?

Mother Nature doesn’t have any moral dictates.

ETHICS. LEARN THEM. People don't need some book to act ethically.

So, if you make her your creator, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT

No, you can't, because YOU STILL LIVE IN SOCIETY and SOCIETY WILL, IN FACT, PUNISH YOU FOR THINGS LIKE MURDER OR ADULTERY.

…every sinful pleasure can be enjoyed with no qualms of conscience.

I think he's talking about the belief that sex is a natural thing that is perfectly okay between loving couples regardless of whether they're married, heterosexual, etc.

That’s why evolution is so appealing.

Because it doesn't say 'DO AS I SAY OR BURN FOREVER?'

Such a belief system is called “idolatry” (making up a non-existent god to suit yourself)

I... I just... Wow. Dude, I could make just as substantial and argument based upon the conclusion that YOU commit 'idolatry.'

It is a transgression of the First and Second of the Ten Commandments.

Still threatening PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE with it, I see.

To believe in the theory of evolution takes a great leap of bind faith.

To believe in Christianity takes a great leap of blind faith.

Like little children, they believe without the need of a thread of evidence.

You know, I really want to go to a room with a bunch of Kindergarteners, ask them to prove that Santa exists and then see how the results compare to fundamentalist arguments.

The theory doesn’t disprove the existence of God.

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO.

It just reveals that those who believe it are truly
capable of faith in the invisible… and confirms Napoleon’s great
observation:

SO ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTIAN GOD. I mean, DAMN! What is WRONG with you!?!

“Man will believe anything, as long as it’s not in the Bible.”

I don't even know where to begin here. Well, actually, I do: You are a man. You believe in what is in the bible. Therefore, it is impossible to make this statement.

That's all he wrote.

The Legend of Zelda: The Movie

IGN Video: Legend of Zelda Movie Trailer Movie - Legend of Zelda Movie Trailer Debut (HD)

A couple of thoughts went through my head as soon as I saw this.
1. Bad idea.
2. Really, you're not going to make this work.
3. Then again, it could be kind of cool. I just doubt that anyone can do it right.

After watching the trailer, I've made some predictions.
1. In the upcoming days, this will be revealed as an April Fool's prank.
2. If it really is a movie, then it's going to be bad.
3. I'll probably see it anyway.

God does not love dying diabetic children.

Praying parents' other 3 kids removed - Yahoo! News

I like to call this 'bad parenting.'
Look, no matter what your religious affiliation, YOU DO NOT PRAY FOR HEALTH. YOU GO TO A DOCTOR. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE DOCTORS.
Don't count on God healing your children. Sheesh.

A quick word on Scientology

I'd just like to speak (type) for a moment about Scientology. I'm not going to ask for any Anonymous-style raids or anything; in fact, I recommend just ignoring it- organizations looking to take money from gullible rich people is nothing new.
The thing I'd like to say is this:
Don't attack the people, attack the organization.
Why is this? Well, my point here is that by going after people who are Scientologists, you only make things worse all around. I don't know if people have been targeting individuals per se, I haven't looked into raids themselves, but it's a very important thing.
See, here's the problem: What are Scientologists? Really, when you get down to it, they're gullible rich and/or famous people, and you don't attack people for being gullible. Instead, you mock their gullibility. You don't say "You're gullible, die!" You say "Hey, everybody, look! This is such a great example of gullibility! It's rather silly. Don't be like that."
At the very least you can (hopefully) prevent people from acting gullible- and, if you're lucky, you might even convince a gullible person to change their ways.

I'm dissapointed in you, Mexico

Exclaim News: Mexico Declares War On Emo
I'm going to sum this up for you: Subcultures are beating up other subcultures (specifically emos) in Mexico.
This is the stupidest thing ever. They're physically attacking people for being emo. I mean, come the hell on! Just because they dress differently and listen to different music and have a different and incredibly pessimistic (Author's note- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a cynic. There's a difference- namely that I'm just as convinced 'everything is horrible' is just as bad and baseless as 'everything is wonderful) worldview. Come on, people! This is utterly ridiculous. I can't even begin to understand how someone sane would go from "I find emos annoying" to "Kill people belonging to an arbitrary social grouping!"
I blame prejudice and the mob effect- some nutjobs decide that they're going to harm people for no good reason and then the group goes along because the group is a bunch of massive sheep.
Look, I don't farking care what your opinion on emos is, they're people too, whether or not you like it. They deserve to be treated fairly. Do I even need to point out how low we've sunk when I need to make points about FARKING HIGHSCHOOL SUBCULTURES that I could make about race or sex*?

*Not that definition, you perv.

TV Reviews: Phineas & Ferb

If you don't follow the goings-on of Disney Channel (god I envy you), you probably won't have heard of a new show they've got. It's called Phineas and Ferb and it's better than the majority of what they show... but then again, that's not hard when your competition is Hannah Montana. God I hate Hannah Montana...
Anyway, the show itself is actually okay. It's rarely witty and not very often funny, but it's somewhat entertaining at its core.
The basic concept is "Kid does improbable stuff with his brother," and when it's just that it works. Phineas is basically an idea guy who says "Let's do this" without any thought to the consequences. Ferb is probably the best character on the show- he rarely speaks, and when it does it's in a vaguely British accent. These quips usually bring the funniest parts of the show.
And now I'm going to talk about the failings- namely, everything else. First off is Candace, the obligatory stereotypical 'You annoy me, let me talk to my friends on the phone all day long' teenager. She annoys me to no end. First of is the fact that she's voiced by Ashley Tisdale,(a one- woman "all star voice cast" apparently, as the only other notable voice actor in the show has a name that I can't recall and plays a bit character that I don't think I've ever actually seen. Admittedly, I've only seen two episodes, but still.) who I absolutely hate, and her only purpose in the show seems to be acting as a foil to the main characters and being hurt by random objects, presumably to meet all Disney Channel shows' quota of mindless, unfunny physical comedy. All the other characters are one-dimensional supports, from the peppy teamwork inducing Girl Scout to the parents. I don't really like the theme song (it's much better if you cut out the vocals), and it just doesn't live up to the standard set by the 90's.
Also of note is the subplot in each episode involving the pet platypus, who is a secret agent who combats the evil and incompetent Professor Doofenshmurtz. These subplots are usually the funniest part of the show- They follow a set formula, sure, but so do all superhero shows, and the way it plays out could be described as downright satirical by those inclined to look for wit in children's shows.
Conclusion: An okay show that has its moments. Doesn't live up to the standard set by the greats. Better than most of the crap Disney spews out.

I'm going to take a moment here and talk about the aforementioned standard. The 90's had some great cartoons- and I mean really, genuinely good shows. Disney had some good ones- Darkwing Duck is one of the greatest syndicated cartoons of all time, largely thanks to the hero's character flaws, but I think I have to give the award to Warner Bros. They produced some of the best cartoons ever- Animaniacs, Tiny Toon Adventures, Freakazoid- hell, even Histeria!, the show produced specifically to fill in the requisite educational spot was great(they honestly didn't have a problem with making fun of revered historical figures, and I respect that immensely). Freakazoid! in particular introduced a unique brand of wit- I still hold Animaniacs as the superior show, but both it and Tiny Toons were technically modern updates to the classic Looney Toons formula. Sure, they did it a hell of a lot better than any of the other shows of their kind, and I always enjoyed the Warner siblings' sarcasm and parody. Freakazoid!, on the other hand, was a hilarious and spot-on parody of superhero shows, and did it in a way that I really admire. It was satirical without being "Holier-than-thou," and, more importantly, it had no proper fourth wall whatsoever. They would often place archival footage in the middle of the show, would have parodies of broadcasting officials deliver public service announcements about the show, and the hero would often talk to the viewer directly. In one episode, they put an advertisement for a toy in the middle of the show. Long story short, it just worked and we should make more shows in this manner.

----------------
Now playing: Foo Fighters - Have A Cigar
via FoxyTunes

An Unwise Idea: Some Experiments Should Not Be Run

Now, an idea hit me just a little while ago and seemed like a good idea at the time, but now that I think about it more it's not a wise thing to do. However, it still strikes me as one that should be shared, as community reaction was the whole concept behind it to begin with.
The idea was to put a post under a false account name on the Telltale Games forums, the support forums specifically, complaining about how a pirated version of the game doesn't work in Vista and saying that I'd complain to the government if it didn't get fixed. The whole thing was really an experiment in community reaction- the Telltale community here is one of the best I've seen on the internet, you see. Most of the people there are intelligent and loyal to Telltale, which is one of the best games companies I've ever given money to thanks to not only the quality of their product, but to the quality of their support and the fact that no other developer I know of (excluding the incredibly tiny, niche ones- Telltale is a small company and is fairly niche to be sure, but they're not a couple of guys hacking together code so they can release freeware on the internet while begging for donations) actually has people who talk to the customers directly and know what's going on with the product- the two or three employees that are on the forums regularly do know what's going on in the company, this isn't 'put some random people on the internet and tell them nothing so they can't let anything slip.' So, I asked myself a question: "How would they respond to a pirate?"
But it couldn't just be any pirate, oh no. That wouldn't do at all. They'd have to be an idiot, a complete nutjob. The spelling and grammar would have to be below YouTube comment standards, and they'd have to be dumb enough to actually ask a developer to fix their pirated game. Now, I don't really do that. I've always used good grammar, and there's no way I'd be able to pull that off. The answer? Write it out in plain English, with some common word shortenings, and plug it into Babel Fish a couple of times, then make the spelling worse. Here's the result:
It incrs ur gme suck teh i, ws adn with the net which wll move with lotsa breakin this that it will crry it did and cyess the contribution which view it divides it stoled or me it is helthe inside ur person and connects or it works in bcuz and it will make, teh trade mobility it gets teh hazard ur govt.
This is completely unreadable, which is what I was going for. I eventually decided against it, though, because I don't know what the community backlash would be. I couldn't just not take credit for it, but who knows what they would have done? It's probably not wise to do something that might get an entire community of gamers mad at you, at least not when you're actively part of that community, plus I think that would qualify as trolling. The end result is that the whole thing ends up here. I'd put it on the forums, but that strikes me as kind of stuck-up, assuming that people would be interested in this like that, so here we are.

----------------
Now playing: Guns N' Roses - My Michelle
via FoxyTunes

I'm not dead!

Hey. Just wanted to let you know I'm still here. Just been procrastinating.
Videos are going along okay, I guess. I've still got a really long one I'll probably do this weekend. I've got a group commentary for something absolutely ridiculous (and very long) I'll try and get up eventually.
I've started a band. Well, actually, right now it's just me and I guy I know who's willing to play rhythm. Don't expect to hear from this for months.
I might start writing a book. A parody self-help book. Don't expect to hear from this for months, either.

----------------
Now playing: Metallica - The God That Failed
via FoxyTunes

Oh dear god...

I feel terrible. Really. I've had an awful cough all day and now I've just got the worst headache. I've been like this since Wednesday night, except Wednesday night it was even worse. Than I was terrible on Thursday and Friday and a bit better the last couple of days and now my head hurts and I farking hate being sick.
What I'm really trying to say with this is god damn you all and your good health. I command that everyone be miserable!

----------------
Now playing: Ozzy Osbourne - Crazy Train (Album Version)
via FoxyTunes

I'm back (in black).

So, I finally put a new video up. It's uploading as I speak.
I did some Heavenly Sword footage, spur-of-the-moment kind of thing. You probably don't have to ask, but probably will anyway, so I will say that yes, I do not give a damn about this game. Yes, I'm fairly certain that, even if I played through it, I would find it to be an incredibly generic 3-D action game, and yes, I did only do this because of the word "twing twang."
I'm going off to Canada next week, and I've got a video of some guitar playing I'll probably upload before I leave.
I've also got one more video lined up, I might do it sometime before I leave, maybe sometime afterwards, but it will be the first video I do in a new style. I'm basically revamping the mental process behind the commentary on my side, and adding in title and credits screens done in the style of Yahtzee Croshaw's Zero Punctuation. But mostly just because I wanted to throw in some music and a ZP homage.

----------------
Now playing: Metallica - Enter Sandman (LP Version)
via FoxyTunes

Hey, just wanted to share something

Something Awful
Read the talkJesus bit on this. It contains some of the best examples of religious bigotry and blatant fact denial ever.
Some highlights:

"How dare you put Muslim beliefs on an equal plain with Christianity!" (paraphrased)
"I have never done much research in the field of creationism vs. evolution because
I have never though that I would need to use science to prove the Bible. However, I'm going to tell you all that any science that proves the Bible untrue is clearly false science, as the Bible is true and anything that disproves the Bible must be untrue, because otherwise the Bible would be proven untruthful which cannot be proven because the Bible is truth." (Also paraphrased)

I really want to see how these people react when faced with things like science and logic and valid reasons why their opinions cannot be considered valid without some backup.
Unfortunately, trolling is beneath me. I wouldn't sink to that level. Damn you, standards!