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.