Some Gamer Guy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

218,789 notes

This doesn’t mean people can’t choose to follow their own beliefs, assuming it doesn’t infringe on the rights of those who don’t. But if a belief infringes on the rights of an individual that chooses to follow that belief, it would be morally wrong to stop them, though some interesting discussions could be had.
In that respect, people do not inherently have many rights, as those rights are outlined by whatever it is that they choose to believe. My belief is that people generally have one right, which is to do and believe what they wish, and the rest of their rights will be outlined by their actions and beliefs. This right comes with a corollary, which is that they can do these things without infringing on the right of others to do and believe what they wish. The core right should be restrictive in that respect for obvious reasons.
Having a singular right leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what “infringing on others’ rights” could mean. Obviously killing someone or forcing them into slavery are both unacceptable, but what about other derived beliefs? As an example, let’s say someone is burning a holy book. If you don’t believe in that religion, that’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do. There are consequences to those actions though, which could include preventing a believer’s ability to practice their religion, and while it’s not the biggest offence, that makes you a really big asshole.
I guess where I’m going with this is that people should be just as willing to accept and understand beliefs as much as they are willing to change them. A religion shouldn’t stop someone outside of that religion from getting legally married, but it’s perfectly acceptable for them to stop someone that chooses to follow that ruleset. The aspect of choice means that the idea is not infringing on that person’s rights, the person is infringing upon themselves.
Which is an ok thing to do.

This doesn’t mean people can’t choose to follow their own beliefs, assuming it doesn’t infringe on the rights of those who don’t. But if a belief infringes on the rights of an individual that chooses to follow that belief, it would be morally wrong to stop them, though some interesting discussions could be had.

In that respect, people do not inherently have many rights, as those rights are outlined by whatever it is that they choose to believe. My belief is that people generally have one right, which is to do and believe what they wish, and the rest of their rights will be outlined by their actions and beliefs. This right comes with a corollary, which is that they can do these things without infringing on the right of others to do and believe what they wish. The core right should be restrictive in that respect for obvious reasons.

Having a singular right leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what “infringing on others’ rights” could mean. Obviously killing someone or forcing them into slavery are both unacceptable, but what about other derived beliefs? As an example, let’s say someone is burning a holy book. If you don’t believe in that religion, that’s a perfectly acceptable thing to do. There are consequences to those actions though, which could include preventing a believer’s ability to practice their religion, and while it’s not the biggest offence, that makes you a really big asshole.

I guess where I’m going with this is that people should be just as willing to accept and understand beliefs as much as they are willing to change them. A religion shouldn’t stop someone outside of that religion from getting legally married, but it’s perfectly acceptable for them to stop someone that chooses to follow that ruleset. The aspect of choice means that the idea is not infringing on that person’s rights, the person is infringing upon themselves.

Which is an ok thing to do.

(Source: brains-in-vats, via someactorkid)

Filed under Not really trying to argue or anything Just spewing my thoughts

0 notes

Ok but we pay for literally 100 times that and I’m the only person using the internet in my house right now.
At least my ping is good!

Ok but we pay for literally 100 times that and I’m the only person using the internet in my house right now.

At least my ping is good!

Filed under fuck comcast

170,963 notes

So I got an idea

mildlyalice:

wereyoufullyawareofthisgaming:

duckscrymoo:

Let’s take this 

image

and put it in 

image

yes??? Nintendo, are you taking notes?

Real life. The concept you’re thinking of is going outside.

yeah ok buddy I’m just gonna step outside and go talk to my neighbour the talking cat. the fuck kind of real life are you living?

This is a neat idea, but there are a few things to consider. The most important thing, of course, is that the Oculus is really lackluster in games that aren’t first person. Therefore we must ask ourselves, “Would Animal Crossing be a good game from a first person point of view?” to which I would say, “Not in its current state”. The management of items would need to be revamped from its current state at the very least. You don’t want to dig around in your inventory in Skyrim, you want to adventure and do things. Animal Crossing in its current state is largely helped via the use of the second screen on the 3DS. With Oculus, there is no second screen, so some new system would have to be developed.

Something else that needs to be noted is the nature of play in Animal Crossing. Once you get your routine down, there isn’t enough daily content to fill more than maybe an hour. It’s hard to say whether or not people in general would go through the effort of getting out and setting up their Oculus for under an hour - sometimes even under a half hour - of play. This is an important point, because if it’s too much effort for most people, then the idea is a gimmick at best and there is little reason to develop for it. And the game does have to be developed with Oculus in mind, as the changes needed to be made to turn it into a good idea are relatively major.

Now, I’m not saying this wouldn’t happen for those reasons, but it is important to consider that the game would be drastically changed, and at that point you might as well make a new franchise with a similar type of gameplay.

Though this wouldn’t happen anyway because it’s a first party game and Oculus is third party hardware.

Not to shit on your dreams or anything.

(via someactorkid)

Filed under How game development works Are you taking notes?

35,495 notes

someactorkid:

starsdontfadeaway:

sometimes-things-get-constipated:

dumbgayboy:

sluttyoliveoil:

georgiaandfez:

georgiaandfez:

check ur privilege

image

as if this is a surprise since youre a cis white male

I got a 25???

i got -120 are you fucking serious. 

-70…… could be worse I guess….

I got a 40?
Okay?

150 baby gotta catch em all

160

So yeah…

*EDIT* So I just took it again and did all the same options except checked woman instead of man and I got an 85. It feels like there’s a hint of bias here

(Source: transgeorgia, via someactorkid)

Filed under oops sorry for being a man

8,206 notes

someactorkid:

starsdontfadeaway:

twerking-happymasksalesman:

secondstormsong:

secondstormsong:

so tumblr loz fandoms,

could we please just fucking discuss this little handheld item of the most amazing awesomeness that justly deserves a place in the best things of all time ever? like seriously thou

I just

reblogging again because everybody needs to know

(get it here)

I have one!!

Dahwjwndkdmfmfmgsnckvkdkfk

who the fuck has $400 to spend on a goddamn ocarina

I mean it’s fucking cool yeah but come on

I want this one, but yeah it’s a little expensive. My cheaper 5-hole replica will have to suffice.

(via someactorkid)

Filed under it's the one Nintendo Power advertised so long ago I don't even know if songbird makes it anymore but it was only like 40 bucks