The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[PATV] Wednesday, April 10, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 5: “For Whom the Bell Tolls”

2»

Posts

  • crayzzcrayzz Registered User regular
    @Schilcote

    It is. Here's why.
    The idea is that every person has a purpose, and that purpose benefits humanity as a whole. It comes down to economics...

    You've literally reduced a persons value to their economic contributions, despite some people being entirely incapable of contributing any "net value" (debilitating diseases and conditions exist, surprise) and despite some groups of humans existing without any sort of economic system at all.
    ...that person added something to the world just by doing his job every day (that's why you get paid), and now that he's dead, he's not adding that tiny amount anymore.

    You don't get paid for adding to the world; you get paid for providing a service. Sometimes it's to everyone, sometimes it's for a specific person. Sometimes the service you are providing is detrimental for all who end up seeking it (looking at you, faith healers). "Adding something to the world" and "market economics" are two separate things with some overlap.
    ...it's a good rule of thumb, and one of the most basic principles (along with the fact that killing people emotionally harms the people who knew them) of both most systems of morality and many religions, Christianity included.

    Seeing as this position you've described depends, in part, on modern economics: no, it is not the basis of a 2000 year old religion. Then there's the fact that many religions are mostly just a messed up assortment of myths, with little overlying moral code at all. Most polytheistic religions have gods with all kinds of conflicting morals.

    So, based an some vague moral, you've ended up in what looks to be an ass backwards position. That's what makes the moral "empty"; it gets you nowhere.

  • likalarukulikalaruku Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    Never got past the first episode of Walking Dead. Didn't care if any of the characters lived or died. When I finished it, I was just disappointed that there wasn't a 4th season of Sam & Max in the works.

    likalaruku on
  • PugironPugiron Registered User regular
    Stacking pretension between two slices of reading too much into it and serving it up with a side of hot air.

    UncannyGarlicrembrandtqeinsteinfumpANTIcarrotcattlehunterIron Lung
  • SewblonSewblon Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    @Schilcote Thanks for implying that the unemployed, retires, full-time homemakers and everyone else who does not get paid for doing a job, is of no real value to humanity. It is not that you can never use economics to make a point about the value of human life or something else profound. It is just that you are doing it wrong.

    Sewblon on
  • ErnestasErnestas Registered User regular
    Why you cannot reduce person's value to its economic worth while this video keeps talking about an incomprehensible worth of its own? I at least do not fool myself and admit that I care little about a person who I know nothing about. Thus, I have no feeling about people dieing in some god forgotten place. At least I'm honest that I care little about them, not like our civilization which hypocritically pretends to care about them, but do little to actually help them or even to remember them then it's not beneficial to them.

  • cattlehuntercattlehunter Registered User regular
    @crayzz

    You think there exist humans without economic systems, just because some don't use money? Many other primates use economic systems, heck, essentially every successful social animal that exists have them. They just don't use something as abstract as money, because they don't have money... though, when you give them money during experiments (train them to realize that a token can give them whatever it is that they want, be it food, water, special extra-tasty food, etc), and they'll start trading the tokens to each other for services. (Such as sex! Prostitution may pre-date humanity altogether! How's that for oldest profession?)

    'Course, you don't have to use tokens to see them raction violently to perceived injustices perpetrated upon them in the wild. Alpha gave you less of that delicious branch of leaves than you feel entitled to because of your status with in the group? Better throw a tantrum!

    It's impossible for humans without economic systems to exist, unless they are extremely mentally degenerate to the point of being worse than other, simple animals.

  • crayzzcrayzz Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    @cattlehunter
    You think there exist humans without economic systems, just because some don't use money?

    Seeing as I never even used the word 'money'... no, I don't.
    It's impossible for humans without economic systems to exist, unless they are extremely mentally degenerate to the point of being worse than other, simple animals.

    Technically, a wheelbarrow is a vehicle. Its still a mistake to bring up wheelbarrows when talking about the socioeconomic impacts of vehicles (read: cars). Cars provide a service many vehicles simply do not, and that service has specific impacts worth discussing. Sometimes people use the name of a set when discussing specific subsets, particularly when other subsets do not apply. Schilcote was discussing economic impacts on the world (not merely impact within a select group), which requires large scale economies and abstracts like money and corporations to be feasible; something many individual groups of humans live without.

    @Ernestas
    I at least do not fool myself and admit that I care little about a person who I know nothing about.

    You realize caring is an emotional response, right? And that we're discussing value irrespective of individual emotions?
    At least I'm [A] honest that I care little about them, not like our (B) civilization which hypocritically pretends [C] to care about them, but do little to actually help them or even to remember them then it's not beneficial to them.

    A) Are you seriously implying that we're being dishonest? Stay classy.
    B) Why are you acting as though a select few people are responsible for all of civilization's actions?
    C) In any case, civilization is just a state of human development; it's not capable of actions like pretense and hypocrisy.

    crayzz on
  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
  • ErnestasErnestas Registered User regular
    @crayzz, You should at least try to understand other without degrading into trolling.


    Yes, I do imply that people do not care about others. By others I mean the ones we have never met or are just abstraction to us. Sure, we might "pretend" that we care, but it's more for social interactions or self-delusion. I have never witnessed a person who would take their precious time and resources in order to help more unfortunate ones. Keep in mind, that I'm speaking about majority of people from my observations.


    I do not understand how you have come to B conclusion. That I meant, that "we" like to take moral high-ground. We like to stand for all that's right and just only then it suits us. Even then, we are hesitant to support less fortunate if it would cost us something.


    Do not waste your time explaining these words for yourself. You understand full well about that I'm speaking and your nitpicking and intimidation adds nothing to diccusion.

  • crayzzcrayzz Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    @Ernestas
    You should at least try to understand other without degrading into trolling.

    How and where was I trolling?
    Yes, I do imply that people do not care about others.

    Again, caring is an emotional response. We were discussing inherent value, regardless of an individuals emotions.
    I have never witnessed a person who would take their precious time and resources in order to help more unfortunate ones.

    Other than, the people who brought in total strangers after the boston bombings, or all these charities that it takes seconds to google for, or regular blood donors who never get to see the people they're helping.
    Keep in mind, that I'm speaking about majority of people from my observations.

    Yet you busted into the thread to chastise us specifically with moronic implications that we're dishonest; that we don't care.
    You understand full well about that I'm speaking and your nitpicking and intimidation adds nothing to diccusion.

    I understand you just fine. I just think you're wrong. I find it funny that you seem unable to consider that someone actually disagrees with you; no, I'm just trolling aren't I? And intimidation? What in blazes are you talking about?

    crayzz on
  • Iron LungIron Lung Registered User regular
    3:17
    No, actually. High School kids suck. But, go on. I get the rest, and it's a shame the idea's (of one death diminishing us all) not practiced on social level.

  • ErnestasErnestas Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    @crayzz


    "How and where was I trolling?"


    By your nitpicking. You ridiculed me and didn't added anything to out weight my personal observation. Intimidation might be a wrong word here, used in vaguest sense by me, but it's irrelevant now. Also, you are in no position to claim that someone had busted into this thread while you yourself are guilty just as much. It's you that took it personally even if I obviously have meant something else. (How could I know any of you and that you do?)

    Again, caring is an emotional response. We were discussing inherent value, regardless of an individuals emotions.


    Yes, I agree with that. Sadly, this emotional response is often limited to ones who are close to individual. Others might never experience goodness of others because there are far more to a person than just caring. You obviously are aware that self-interest is dominant in individual. I imply that same self-interest is dominant to the level where charity and goodness might be just a tools for personal satisfaction or social status. Even if it's done unconsciously, it still implies that ultimately there is no nobility in this action.


    Yes, I'm aware that an usual response to atrocities and suffering is compassion. Sadly, it's the only response that is going to be. Suffering will almost instantly be forgotten, no action will be taken. That is a usual outcome of every wrong doing and injustice that I have witnessed.
    Same goes and with all world's problems. We live in a damn golden age. We could solve all problems decisively and make world a better place to live and yet we don't do that. Today's politics are a very good example of that. Everyone promises us something, but none dears to ask something in return. Just look at that politics offers for your vote. We can see this trend thought a history. Wars are fought, but no one wants to pay for them (USA or Balkans). Treacherous and selfish actions of WW2 allies and a grave insult that was Versailles. USA's long history of racism that continued long after its civil wars. Or how about eagerness of men to inflict atrocities on others? War is often famous for it.


    Look at nations charity tables by GNI. It's just pathetic amount of recourses diverted in helping others. Same situation exists and in individual level. As soon as being altruistic begins to actually cost you something, avoidance and self-lying begins.


    Once again, I do not say that everyone are like that, but that a vast majority of people who I ever known or seen are or seems to be like that.

    Ernestas on
  • crayzzcrayzz Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    @Ernastas
    By your nitpicking. You ridiculed me and didn't added anything to out weight my personal observation.

    Other than to point out that you were extrapolating a general trend to specific people in order to call us dishonest, you mean.
    Sadly, this emotional response is often limited to ones who are close to individual.

    Why is this sad for you? You specifically said that you don't care about others here: "I at least do not fool myself and admit that I care little about a person who I know nothing about. Thus, I have no feeling about people dieing in some god forgotten place."
    Also, you are in no position to claim that someone had busted into this thread while you yourself are guilty just as much.

    You missed the bit about calling us dishonest. You know, the actual point I was making?
    I imply that same self-interest is dominant to the level where charity and goodness might be just a tools for personal satisfaction or social status.

    Funny thing: I actually don't like donating blood. I donate platelets. The process takes about 2 hours, bring trapped in a chair with blood pouring out of me (and back into me) makes me nervous, and the anticoagulant makes me feel noxious. I get very little personal satisfaction from it, and I get no social status from it. I do it anyways. People rarely do things without some sort of return; that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
    We could solve all problems decisively and make world a better place to live and yet we don't do that.

    How exactly do you propose we do that? Short of straight up military imperialism, there's no way to march into foreign countries and fix their economic/political/social/whatever problems.

    crayzz on
  • IronSaviorIronSavior Registered User regular
    I thought for sure, this would be a Dark Souls-related episode.

  • ErnestasErnestas Registered User regular
    edited April 2013
    @crayzz

    Ah, it might be that my aggressive comment might have hide my meaning and your style of commenting just made me to misunderstand you.

    I do not imply that you do that, but I do imply that people in general act like that and it's not just specific people. Ultimately just few do something for others despite their best intentions. As I said, it's my life's experience.


    Well, okay. Replace word- sad with another word- generally.
    Again, by dishonest I didn't meant exactly you, but general public. If you want to feel offended and make it personal then go ahead. It will toughen you up in a future.


    It's impossible to solve worlds problems now. That I'm saying that they would be easily solvable if all of us would sacrifice significantly to that cause meaning resources would grow exponentially several times at least.But it's just my another minor point of highliting that ultimately it's we who have a power to change it, but globally we do a little to end their suffering.

    Ernestas on
  • ptcbeanptcbean Registered User regular
    I don't play this game, and probably never will, but this episode still gave me a shiver of appriciation for what they're trying to do.

  • MagmarFireMagmarFire Registered User regular
    One of the major themes of the game, I thought, was how the decisions you make differ when you have only a gun trigger's sliver of time to make it. That was the main reason why I made that same choice you did, James/Dan. It harkens back to you guys' episode on conflict; I could've tried saving him, but with the time I had left, I was afraid I'd be dooming another life. It was an incomplete information problem, one made worse by death's hourglass rapidly running out of sand.

    Another theme regarding the choices you make is how despite the limited options you may have at any given time, it still really sucks when you make them. It's a matter of principle, really. An undesirable decision with an uncertain outcome seems better to us when we ourselves don't have to carry it out.

    But lo and behold, the game forces you to make those decisions many, many times, and it hurts. It hurts less the more you do it, of course, but still.

  • Namebreaker54Namebreaker54 Registered User new member
    Hands down one of my favorite episodes.

    Stay awesome.

    four4321
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.