Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

I love how both Paco and I took some pains to say that we're not saying people should spend every waking hour digging coal, but that the replies in the thread accuse us of saying just that.

I guess I'll just get my top hat and monocle so I can lord it over you peasants in style.

[Hraedon]

I'm glad that you find satisfaction in picking nits rather than addressing the substance of the argument.

If it helps you to move beyond this asinine point, then disregard cable tv as an example and replace it with, I don't know, going to a movie with a friend or girlfriend.

here let me address both examples at once

Can somebody find for me some examples of people addicted to cable TV or to going to movies?

Could you miss the fucking point any harder? I'm not arguing that wow addiction is not a bad thing. I'm not arguing that wow addiction is something that does not exist. I'm arguing that defining wow addiction as playing far fewer hours a week than the typical person watches TV is ridiculous.

And my point was that watching TV and playing a video game are two separate, sort of incomparable things. You'd have to get into specifics of whether watching TV includes having it on in the background, being asleep in front of it, owning a TV, etc.

Maybe you don't know about it, but there is this field of study called "sociology" that actually takes into account the sort of factors you're alluding to here. They have eliminated the "on in the background" element, and it is those numbers I am obliquely referring to.

I gamble that if you tone it down to people who are just sitting in front of a TV, doing absolutely nothing else, the rates of addiction - addiction in this case meaning to a degree of self-destruction - would be negligible at best. And even then, that's assuming that every case of obesity in North America is directly related to TV watching and has nothing to do with general lack of exercize or the invention of the deep fried Twinkie.

It is good that you don't gamble for a living. Guess what? The levels of wow addiction, even by the most ridiculously hyperbolic commentators and unreasonable standards, are not some sort of epidemic unexampled in modern times.

My response to this is that WoW is still a pretty bad game. Somebody is going to make some piddly argument about how what they like defines good and how the ideas of bad taste and quality don't actually, but that's to be expected.

Your taste in music sucks.

Also how much does Comcast charge for an internet package? Does it come with a free computer, too? I should hope so, or the whole 'cable costs more' argument falls apart pretty quickly.

I had hoped that we could all agree that bootstrapping any reasonable standard of living required internet access and a computer, but if we need to assume that we also need to assume the cost of housing, and the provision of electricity. Unfortunately, I am forced to recognize the reality: WoW costs $500 a month, minimum!

I love how both Paco and I took some pains to say that we're not saying people should spend every waking hour digging coal, but that the replies in the thread accuse us of saying just that.

Let me tell you why we're responding in that way: arguing that $15 a month is an unreasonable expenditure is effectively saying just that. If a person is allowed to have any leisure money at all, what they spend it on is wholly irrelevant. Consequently, your argument only makes sense if you are moralizing about the fact that someone is spending time PISSING THEIR LIFE AND MONEY AWAY on something frivolous instead of "finding work" or "bettering their situation."

[sei]

Bleck is Guild's apprentice.  Don't bother.

[A²]

[Bleck]

Maybe you don't know about it, but there is this field of study called "sociology" that actually takes into account the sort of factors you're alluding to here. They have eliminated the "on in the background" element, and it is those numbers I am obliquely referring to.

How could I have been so shortsighted to refute some numbers that they discovered?

It is good that you don't gamble for a living. Guess what? The levels of wow addiction, even by the most ridiculously hyperbolic commentators and unreasonable standards, are not some sort of epidemic unexampled in modern times.

I wasn't saying it was. I was saying, however, that neither is TV watching.

I had hoped that we could all agree that bootstrapping any reasonable standard of living required internet access and a computer

Us forumgoers are probably too biased to make a call on this, but I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of people out there who don't have a computer and don't see any need for one. People who can't afford one notwithstanding.

[Hraedon]

How could I have been so shortsighted to refute some numbers that they discovered?

More like "how could I raise objections to said numbers that are the rhetorical equal of 'cold winters disprove global warming'," and i don't know.

I wasn't saying it was. I was saying, however, that neither is TV watching.

Great, we agree. Granted, we agree on a point I wasn't arguing, that has absolutely no larger relevance to what I was arguing, but it is a start.

Us forumgoers are probably too biased to make a call on this, but I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of people out there who don't have a computer and don't see any need for one. People who can't afford one notwithstanding.

Then we should break down costs for any given activity. Did you know that a single night of drinking costs over $200,000 dollars? We can't assume and disregard the costs of raising a child to age 21, after all.

[Pacobird]

You could just convince me that what constitutes your definition of being addicted to wow is not horseshit. That'd be a fine place to start.

My slapdash definition of addiction is a repeated, learned behavior that consistently supplants more societally-acceptable endeavors.

Not a perfect definition, but it will do for my purposes because it encompasses the catch-all psychological consequence of addiction: isolation.  This started with "wow is better than friends", after all.

[Bleck]

Then we should break down costs for any given activity. Did you know that a single night of drinking costs over $200,000 dollars? We can't assume and disregard the costs of raising a child to age 21, after all.

Okay, I think this particular argument is getting convoluted - which was my point in the first place (arguing about costs is a really slippery slope that leads down to the deep dark pit of what does this have to do with anything).

[Norondor]

Not a perfect definition, but it will do for my purposes because it encompasses the catch-all psychological consequence of addiction: isolation.  This started with "wow is better than friends", after all.

Agree, but also agree with Shinra; "i already have plans" can also count for killing internet zombies, depending on your habits and nature.

[sei]

My slapdash definition of addiction is a repeated, learned behavior that consistently supplants more societally-acceptable endeavors.

Not a perfect definition, but it will do for my purposes because it encompasses the catch-all psychological consequence of addiction: isolation.  This started with "wow is better than friends", after all.

You mean the people I go to Mormon retreatskill dragons with aren't friends?

oops my social system is online and it is socially unacceptable to bail on my guild lol

[Hraedon]

Okay, I think this particular argument is getting convoluted - which was my point in the first place (arguing about costs is a really slippery slope that leads down to the deep dark pit of what does this have to do with anything).

It had to do with the contention that wow was a wildly irresponsible use of money, even relative to other modest forms of leisure. Your objections, such as they were, didn't amount to a whole lot in terms of being an "argument." I would characterize them as hand-waving more than I would as constituting a point.

[Mongrel]

Maybe we really should have an ANGRY DEBATE thread over whether or not our "internet pen pals" are inferior to "real" friends? Because a lot of people in this thread seem to be dancing around that question.

I'll honestly say I've been on the fence on that one for years.

Something something joke about threadsplits.

[Bleck]

It had to do with the contention that wow was a wildly irresponsible use of money, even relative to other modest forms of leisure. Your objections, such as they were, didn't amount to a whole lot in terms of being an "argument." I would characterize them as hand-waving more than I would as constituting a point.

But handwaving is exactly what I was trying to do! The idea that WoW is an irresponsible use of money is asinine, as is the idea that spending it on cable TV or movies or entertainment in general is irresponsible. As such, the entire line of debate is silly!

[Büge]

I love how both Paco and I took some pains to say that we're not saying people should spend every waking hour digging coal, but that the replies in the thread accuse us of saying just that.

I guess I'll just get my top hat and monocle so I can lord it over you peasants in style.

[Rico]

But handwaving is exactly what I was trying to do! The idea that WoW is an irresponsible use of money is asinine, as is the idea that spending it on cable TV or movies or entertainment in general is irresponsible. As such, the entire line of debate is silly!

So instead of saying that, you tried to raise retarded objections to the people who were actually on that side of the argument?

You're like one of those mouthbreathers who claims "he was joking" every time he makes a dumb post and is called out by even high-school drop-outs with access to Google and a whit of common sense.

[Bleck]

So instead of saying that, you tried to raise retarded objections to the people who were actually on that side of the argument?

Yes, because the people who were on that side were being stupid by still actually arguing about it.

[Hraedon]

So instead of saying that, you tried to raise retarded objections to the people who were actually on that side of the argument?

Yes, because the people who were on that side were being stupid by still actually arguing about it.

There is a lesson to be learned from the Democratic experiences with trying to be above the fray: it doesn't work. You address the shit that people say, otherwise they assume assent while the people watching assume that you have no counter argument.

Your contrarian stance was neither helpful nor illustrative, and served only to waste my time.

[Norondor]

Bleck, the next time you want to inflict your opinions on other people, please do us all the favor of throwing yourself in a lake instead.

[Doom]

I thought it was nice of Bleck to let us know that he's forums retarded. We can give him a helmet and use words with soft edges when he posts.

[Bleck]

Your contrarian stance was neither helpful nor illustrative, and served only to waste my time.

time that could have been better spent playing wow

I thought it was nice of Bleck to let us know that he's forums retarded. We can give him a helmet and use words with soft edges when he posts.

it's my first time I don't know how circlejerking works