Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Douglas Adams

2008-03-25T23:03:46Z

Reasonless:

'''Douglas Adams''' was the author of the bestselling book ''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'', based on his scripts for the radio series of the same title.

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' was followed by ''The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'', ''Life, The Universe, and Everything'', ''So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish'', and ''Mostly Harmless''. He also wrote two books about a figure named Dirk Gently; ''Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency'' and ''Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul''.

In 1990, Adams traveled around the world with zoologist Mark Carwardine to write ''Last Chance to See'', a book about endangered species and the people who work to help them. At the time of his death Adams was working on his eighth novel ''The Salmon of Doubt,'' which in its incomplete published form centers again on Dirk Gently, although Adams had spoken about the possibility of changing it to another Hitchhiker novel. The book also contains several short stories and essays, including discussion of the author's [[atheist|atheism]].

Adams also wrote a well known anecdote concerning the "Babel Fish" a device that translated any language

<blockquote>
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument isn't worth a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid from making a fortune with his book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

</blockquote>

''The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'' started as a radio show on BBC in 1978 and has later been converted into novels, a TV-show, movies, a record album and a computer game.

Douglas Adams was born in Cambridge, UK, in March 1952 and died of heart attack in May 2001. He was an environmental activist, an avid technologist, and described himself as "a radical [[atheist]]." [[Richard Dawkins]], a close friend and fellow atheist, dedicated his book "[[The God Delusion]]" to his memory.

During his life, he won three Golden Pans and several other awards. <ref>http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/bio.html</ref>

On Adams' death, Dawkins had the following to say about his friend:

<blockquote>
"Science has lost a friend, literature has lost a luminary, the mountain gorilla and the black rhino have lost a gallant defender (he once climbed Kilimanjaro in a rhino suit to raise money to fight the cretinous trade in rhino horn), Apple Computer has lost its most eloquent apologist. And I have lost an irreplaceable intellectual companion and one of the kindest and funniest men I ever met."<ref>http://edge.org/documents/adams_index.html</ref>
</blockquote>
==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Adams, Douglas}}
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

Talk:Causes of atheism

2008-03-25T22:51:18Z

Reasonless:

It is morally superior to attempt to do the right thing from the begining rather than live with the assumption that your sins will be forgiven. {{unsigned|Anyprophet}}

Hmm... this article is better than it used to be, it's more readable and seems more relevant. Ok Conservative. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== In Need of Editing ==
Moral depravity: Moral depravity has been demonstrated in the atheist community through history and through various studies. In addition, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Therefore, moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

This line strikes me as having multiple flaws. First of all, if you follow the link to the Atheism page, nowhere does it cite a 'demonstration' or 'study' that demonstrates moral depravity in the atheist community throughout history. As such, the only real 'support' here are Biblical quotes. These quotes should be cited here instead of linked externally. The last line is also laughable: Therefore, (what is there that's been shown? 3 Biblical quotes?) moral depravity is certainly (such a strong word) one of the prime causes of atheism. This entire sentence is inferred by the article writer with no external referencing and, frankly, doesn't make much sense.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 18:51, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Liberal bias

2008-03-25T16:24:43Z

Reasonless:

[[Image:Stossel.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[John Stossel]]]]
'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools.{{fact}} It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.

In the absence of clear rules to prevent the bias, it will often occur due to:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention
*an attempt to be "consistent" by treating men and women alike
*where images are used, an obsession with race

==The Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is everywhere on American university campuses. Leftist professors dominate the universities.{{fact}} "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2008-03-25T15:59:23Z

Reasonless:

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say "worse." Games used to be about the games, not the graphics and special effects. When you concentrate on such things, the games lack quality, and this has shown.
Gone are the days of games like "Police Quest," "Adventure" (Crowther/Woods), "Zork," "ZZT," and "Rogue" (Toy/Lane). Those games, though having little or no graphics, had great stories and great programming, and were often very replayable.
Another great thing about older games is the "ma-and-pa" feel of a game being designed by one or a few people, often who become visible and well-known due to their games. The same thing can even be said about certain smaller companies such as Nullsoft (original developers of Winamp) and Netscape, which had the same "ma-and-pa" feel prior to being bought by AOL/Time Warner. Today's games are bureaucratic messes designed over long periods of time by major corporations. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

As time goes on, games have gotten less and less difficult and more focused on fancy explosions and whatnot. To prove my point about difficulty, I strongly suggest you go play Super Ghouls and Goblins. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Better==
Yes! Games are getting better. Games have recently become whole new worlds capable of an insane level of intricate awesomeness. Let's give some examples; I own a PC and 360 and frequently play both (except when the 360's out for repairs, like now. Don't snicker, Wii owners.) Now, as for the new possibilities available to game developers, I've got 4 really good examples. First off is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Oblivion has a fully realized, 16 square mile world with an intricate system of quests, a functioning legal system (albeit a bit rudimentary and arbitrary), and a whole host of options. Really want that shiny new elven sword but can't afford it? 5 fingers discount, if you happen to have the skill and be willing to risk the punishments of being caught. But then there are two other genre defining games, that move gaming from entertainment to grand story-telling. Next is Bioshock. In Bioshock, you crash-land in the middle of an underwater city named Rapture, where "Where the artist will not fear the censor, and the scientist will not be constrained by petty morality." And if that made you shudder, good - because Rapture has pretty much literally gone to hell. The rest of the game is spent discovering who you are, what happened to Rapture, and who a whole cast of characters were before Rapture's descent into chaos. And all of this is done while repeatedly forcing you into moral dilemmas and making you question the nature of being human. Third on my must-play list is Portal. Yes, the cake is a lie. An deceptively simple-looking puzzle game with a great soundtrack, and the best plot with 3 characters. Fourth on my list is a game I've just recently been playing, that takes huge advantage of new graphics and sound technologies. Audiosurf is available on Steam for $10 - I have no idea if it's sold elsewhere. Anyways, it lets you choose a song and creates a rhythm game from that song - all the parts of the level are generated from the song's beats. It's addictive, fun, cheap and easy to learn. Whoah. Wrote a lot without meaning to. Sorry. Time to start wrapping up: Newer graphics and sound technologies are unlocking whole new possibilities. Games can tell complex, epic stories, or allow you to do whatever you want. They can adjust themselves completely to your tastes, or they can let you play against a friend whenever, wherever. And all of this is good. But shineyz are hardly a replacement for good old ingenuity.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 11:59, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. At least for me. Personally, I think that the first games where made to have fun, and to just be "somewhere else". The games these days certainly aren't lacking in that. =D And I also agree with Hacker on his/her point as well - what is easily won doesn't give the same satisfaction as what takes work (or something to that effect). [[User:TaintedInnocence|TaintedInnocence]] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

'''Better''' Games are definetly getting better as technology increases. I will give an example, and a response to an the first comment on this page. Look at the Wii, games are requiring more skill and at the same time are easier to pick up. In response to the first comment on this page, games are requiring more and more hand-eye coordination. Just because its harder doesn't mean its worse. In the past, games were easy three button affiars. Now, playing a game trains your brain and hands to work together, and you forced to think more and learn more in order to beat a game. In Halo, the best players are the smartest, not always the fastest. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==No duh!==
It is not important if video games are getting better or worse. Just don't play them, allright? Unless there is some benefit to it. But look at your life this way: time is your greatest comodoty. Time is MORE valuable than money... time is your LIFE. The devil is slowly killing countless young people by getting them to waste their time (lives) on silly video games. Get out there and do something more productive with your life... do something for GOD.
(fyi - the only way I see video games being beneficial, is if it is a recreational activity that you can use to build relationships with other people. And even then, use sparingly.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:However, there are non-recreational purposes for videogames. The Rainbow-Six series of videogames were used by both Military and Police in order to practice tactical actions when MILES gear and Shoot-Houses are not available. Games can also be used to enhance one's fine motor skills, and certain games require the player to think through a situation, something I think that many people should learn how to do. My friends and I use games in order communicate when face-to-face contact is impossible. You can get a lot of things out of games, that you can't get otherwise. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2008-03-25T15:58:39Z

Reasonless:

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say "worse." Games used to be about the games, not the graphics and special effects. When you concentrate on such things, the games lack quality, and this has shown.
Gone are the days of games like "Police Quest," "Adventure" (Crowther/Woods), "Zork," "ZZT," and "Rogue" (Toy/Lane). Those games, though having little or no graphics, had great stories and great programming, and were often very replayable.
Another great thing about older games is the "ma-and-pa" feel of a game being designed by one or a few people, often who become visible and well-known due to their games. The same thing can even be said about certain smaller companies such as Nullsoft (original developers of Winamp) and Netscape, which had the same "ma-and-pa" feel prior to being bought by AOL/Time Warner. Today's games are bureaucratic messes designed over long periods of time by major corporations. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

As time goes on, games have gotten less and less difficult and more focused on fancy explosions and whatnot. To prove my point about difficulty, I strongly suggest you go play Super Ghouls and Goblins. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Better==
Yes! Games are getting better. Games have recently become whole new worlds capable of an insane level of intricate awesomeness. Let's give some examples; I own a PC and 360 and frequently play both (except when the 360's out for repairs, like now. Don't snicker, Wii owners.) Now, as for the new possibilities available to game developers, I've got 4 really good examples. First off is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Oblivion has a fully realized, 16 square mile world with an intricate system of quests, a functioning legal system (albeit a bit rudimentary and arbitrary), and a whole host of options. Really want that shiny new elven sword but can't afford it? 5 fingers discount, if you happen to have the skill and be willing to risk the punishments of being caught. But then there are two other genre defining games, that move gaming from entertainment to grand story-telling. Next is Bioshock. In Bioshock, you crash-land in the middle of an underwater city named Rapture, where "Where the artist will not fear the censor, and the scientist will not be constrained by petty morality." And if that made you shudder, good - because Rapture has pretty much literally gone to hell. The rest of the game is spent discovering who you are, what happened to Rapture, and who a whole cast of characters were before Rapture's descent into chaos. And all of this is done while repeatedly forcing you into moral dilemmas and making you question the nature of being human. Third on my must-play list is Portal. Yes, the cake is a lie. An deceptively simple-looking puzzle game with a great soundtrack, and the best plot with 3 characters. Fourth on my list is a game I've just recently been playing, that takes huge advantage of new graphics and sound technologies. Audiosurf is available on Steam for $10 - I have no idea if it's sold elsewhere. Anyways, it lets you choose a song and creates a rhythm game from that song - all the parts of the level are generated from the song's beats. It's addictive, fun, cheap and easy to learn. Whoah. Wrote a lot without meaning to. Sorry. Time to start wrapping up: Newer graphics and sound technologies are unlocking whole new possibilities. Games can tell complex, epic stories, or allow you to do whatever you want. They can adjust themselves completely to your tastes, or they can let you play against a friend whenever, wherever. And all of this is good. But shineyz are hardly a replacement for good old ingenuity.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 11:58, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. At least for me. Personally, I think that the first games where made to have fun, and to just be "somewhere else". The games these days certainly aren't lacking in that. =D And I also agree with Hacker on his/her point as well - what is easily won doesn't give the same satisfaction as what takes work (or something to that effect). [[User:TaintedInnocence|TaintedInnocence]] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

'''Better''' Games are definetly getting better as technology increases. I will give an example, and a response to an the first comment on this page. Look at the Wii, games are requiring more skill and at the same time are easier to pick up. In response to the first comment on this page, games are requiring more and more hand-eye coordination. Just because its harder doesn't mean its worse. In the past, games were easy three button affiars. Now, playing a game trains your brain and hands to work together, and you forced to think more and learn more in order to beat a game. In Halo, the best players are the smartest, not always the fastest. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==No duh!==
It is not important if video games are getting better or worse. Just don't play them, allright? Unless there is some benefit to it. But look at your life this way: time is your greatest comodoty. Time is MORE valuable than money... time is your LIFE. The devil is slowly killing countless young people by getting them to waste their time (lives) on silly video games. Get out there and do something more productive with your life... do something for GOD.
(fyi - the only way I see video games being beneficial, is if it is a recreational activity that you can use to build relationships with other people. And even then, use sparingly.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:However, there are non-recreational purposes for videogames. The Rainbow-Six series of videogames were used by both Military and Police in order to practice tactical actions when MILES gear and Shoot-Houses are not available. Games can also be used to enhance one's fine motor skills, and certain games require the player to think through a situation, something I think that many people should learn how to do. My friends and I use games in order communicate when face-to-face contact is impossible. You can get a lot of things out of games, that you can't get otherwise. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-03-24T04:50:23Z

Reasonless:

{{debate}}

With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god? However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so. Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God. Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority. Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject. So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth). If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent. They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts. They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible). So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination. I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are). It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc. These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer? The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us. Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural? The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for "a god", or as you put it, a "first cause", but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (<-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists. The point is that these blokes were also "exceptionally intelligent", and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science. So what changed? Did the scientists after them become more intelligent? Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one? The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view. The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith. Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it.
::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions.
::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied.
::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.
::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work.
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::: "''Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available.''" and "''Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information.''": True, they did gain more knowledge, but you've already claimed that this is not about their ''expertise'' in the subject, but their ''intelligence''. This argument about having more knowledge is a reversion to the "scientists as an authority" argument that I rejected and which you said was not your point.
::::: "''Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes.''": No, "deep time" was not based on the evidence, but on the ''assumption'' of uniformitarianism.
::::: Newton actually spent ''most'' of his time on theology. But yes, I think you are correct in saying that he did spend time with alchemy as well.
::::: "''I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much.''": Which misses the point that you said that your argument was about their ''intelligence'', not their knowledge of the subject.
::::: "''Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible?''": Yes. Faith is trust ''based on evidence''. If they have supporting evidence, then the trust may be warranted.
::::: "''...how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view?''": Some of the main proponents of evolution were ardent atheists, and not necessarily scientists, and in any case scientists are fallible human beings who have their own beliefs, and are not always following the scientific method. To be more specific, this issue, unlike most other disputes in science, goes to the core of what people believe about who they are and whether or not they are answerable to their Creator. Obviously they are not answerable if there is no creator, and this is what many people, including scientists, ''want''. The pseudo-scientific theory of evolution appears to give them justification for rejecting God, and this is a large part of the reason why evolution came to be accepted.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:Most of that post is simply assertion. When Darwin proposed it, much of it's opposition came from scientists, so I'm not sure that they ''were'' convinced that quickly. Of course it has never been observed—but as it hasn't been, then it's taken on ''faith''. The "extrapolation" may have sounded reasonable in Darwin's time, but genetics actually shows that the extrapolation is invalid. All the ''observed'' mechanisms for variation do ''not'' introduce new genetic information, but tend to destroy it. Yet scientists "extrapolate" from this destruction of information to ''generation'' of information! That's not extrapolation—that's ''blind'' faith (i.e. faith ''contrary'' to the evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::I have to disagree here - genetic variation rarely introduces or destroys genetic information - it, more accurately, mangles it. Usually you get two results - missense and nonsense. Missense is something that reads incorrectly - usually something small, like a substitution of one base pair for another. It can have no effect, or be harmful or beneficial. Then there's nonsense. Nonsense is when the resulting genetic code is totally, completely unreadable. This usually occurs when you get a frameshift mutation - since genes are read in codons of 3s, adding one or two base pairs or deleting one or two will 'shift' every single base pair down the chain. This results in more dire genetic disorders. Now, how this relates to evolution: missense is actually a good thing: it can introduce new alleles (variations of a gene - usually just dominant/recessive) into a population, add new genetic strings, duplicate a chromosome, etc. So long as it doesn't result in that organism being infertile or dying, it will cause a change that can be compounded in its successors. Lots of evolutionary trends can be explained by gross mutations that, by a quirk of luck, did not end up killing the organism. The best example I can think of is the duplication of the hox gene (a homeobox gene; it determines how body segments develop) in invertebrates. As you go from invertebrate to vertebrate, you find more and more copies of the hox gene; invertebrates have one, simple vertebrates have two, vertebrates with seperate, complex jaws have three. These large mutations, when they don't kill the mutant, can be passed on and slowly, gradually edited via trial and error until you have an astonishingly interesting result. The best example of genetic information being "introduced" and resulting in a beneficial (to the organism) evolution are antibacterial resistant disease strains; bacteria reproduce at an incredibly fast rate, and as such a bacterial population has quite a few different mutations and alleles in its gene pool at any given time. As such, when you expose the population to waves of antibiotics, the tiny fraction of bacteria that survive by a combination of luck and good genetics pass these genetic changes onto their offspring. Not only this, but bacteria can also pass the genetic changes on to other, non-related bacteria by conjugation and plasmid exchange. Anyways...Yeah. Kinda run out of steam, but there's a shortish explanation of the mechanisms I believe power evolution.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:50, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I don't see where the "assertion" is. I'm probably wrong about "quickly", I concede, but the fact is that evolution has been accepted, and for the reasons I state. Plus of course the evidence in the form of fossils. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
::: Your first four sentences are nothing but assertion. And how are fossils evidence in support of evolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:14, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal. There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's (is it rhinoceri or rhinocerus's?). They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species. Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating show these fossils to be linear such as pro-sauropods into sauropods, or diverging in the case of birds and raptors. There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation' or 'flood extinctions', and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.
::::Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:37, 10 March 2008
::::: "''Fossils are supporting evidence for evolution in that they show a rich history of different species of animal.''": In order to "support evolution", the evidence (fossils in this case) has to favour one view ''over another''. Creation also predicts a "rich history of different species of animal[s]", so fossil are ''not'' support for evolution (over creation) in that respect.
::::: "''There are also many types of 'linking' fossils that show the evolution of various species, for example walruses, horses and rhinocerus's...''": [[Transitional form|Not according to]] people like Stephen Jay Gould, Colin Patterson, and David Raup.
::::: "''They show how these animals evolved from other rather different, earlier species.''": They show no such thing. Being able to arrange objects in a sequence that supports your theory doesn't mean that they "show" that that's what actually happened. That's a case of reading the interpretation into the evidence.
::::: "''Various forms of carbon dating and other such types of dating ...''": Carbon dating is unable to date back far enough to show any such thing for the examples you gave. And all such [[radiometric dating|dating methods]] are unreliable (with some exceptions with carbon dating) and often ''presume'' the biblical history to be wrong ''a priori'', so cannot then be used to support the evolutionary view ''over'' the creationary view.
::::: "''There are too many types of fossils to be explained by 'failed creation'...''": Huh? What's that?
::::: "''...or 'flood extinctions...''": How are there "too many"?
::::: "''...and in any case, dating shows them to be much much older than 6000 years.''": See above about the unreliability of the dating methods.
::::: "''Fossils do not prove evolution but the provide corroberating evidence''": They also provide corroborating evidence for creation and the Flood.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

User:Reasonless

2008-03-24T04:30:33Z

Reasonless: New page: Oh...Hi. This is my user page. Not really sure what to put here, so... Kon'nichiwa!

Oh...Hi.
This is my user page.
Not really sure what to put here, so...
Kon'nichiwa!

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2008-03-24T04:18:21Z

Reasonless: /* No duh! */

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say "worse." Games used to be about the games, not the graphics and special effects. When you concentrate on such things, the games lack quality, and this has shown.
Gone are the days of games like "Police Quest," "Adventure" (Crowther/Woods), "Zork," "ZZT," and "Rogue" (Toy/Lane). Those games, though having little or no graphics, had great stories and great programming, and were often very replayable.
Another great thing about older games is the "ma-and-pa" feel of a game being designed by one or a few people, often who become visible and well-known due to their games. The same thing can even be said about certain smaller companies such as Nullsoft (original developers of Winamp) and Netscape, which had the same "ma-and-pa" feel prior to being bought by AOL/Time Warner. Today's games are bureaucratic messes designed over long periods of time by major corporations. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

As time goes on, games have gotten less and less difficult and more focused on fancy explosions and whatnot. To prove my point about difficulty, I strongly suggest you go play Super Ghouls and Goblins. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Better==
Hell yes! Games are getting better. Games have recently become whole new worlds capable of an insane level of intricate awesomeness. Let's give some examples; I own a PC and 360 and frequently play both (except when the 360's out for repairs, like now. Don't snicker, Wii owners.) Now, as for the new possibilities available to game developers, I've got 4 really good examples.
First off is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Oblivion has a fully realized, 16 square mile world with an intricate system of quests, a functioning legal system (albeit a bit rudimentary and arbitrary), and a whole host of options. Really want that shiny new elven sword but can't afford it? 5 fingers discount, if you happen to have the skill and be willing to risk the punishments of being caught. But then there are two other genre defining games, that move gaming from entertainment to grand story-telling.
Next is Bioshock. In Bioshock, you crash-land in the middle of an underwater city named Rapture, where "Where the artist will not fear the censor, and the scientist will not be constrained by petty morality." And if that made you shudder, good - because Rapture has pretty much literally gone to hell. The rest of the game is spent discovering who you are, what happened to Rapture, and who a whole cast of characters were before Rapture's descent into chaos. And all of this is done while repeatedly forcing you into moral dilemmas and making you question the nature of being human.
Third on my must-play list is Portal. Yes, the cake is a lie. An deceptively simple-looking puzzle game with a great soundtrack, and the best plot with 3 characters.
Fourth on my list is a game I've just recently been playing, that takes huge advantage of new graphics and sound technologies. Audiosurf is available on Steam for $10 - I have no idea if it's sold elsewhere. Anyways, it lets you choose a song and creates a rhythm game from that song - all the parts of the level are generated from the song's beats. It's addictive, fun, cheap and easy to learn.
Whoah. Wrote a lot without meaning to. Sorry. Time to start wrapping up: Newer graphics and sound technologies are unlocking whole new possibilities. Games can tell complex, epic stories, or allow you to do whatever you want. They can adjust themselves completely to your tastes, or they can let you play against a friend whenever, wherever. And all of this is good. But shineyz are hardly a replacement for good old ingenuity.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:13, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. At least for me. Personally, I think that the first games where made to have fun, and to just be "somewhere else". The games these days certainly aren't lacking in that. =D And I also agree with Hacker on his/her point as well - what is easily won doesn't give the same satisfaction as what takes work (or something to that effect). [[User:TaintedInnocence|TaintedInnocence]] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

'''Better''' Games are definetly getting better as technology increases. I will give an example, and a response to an the first comment on this page. Look at the Wii, games are requiring more skill and at the same time are easier to pick up. In response to the first comment on this page, games are requiring more and more hand-eye coordination. Just because its harder doesn't mean its worse. In the past, games were easy three button affiars. Now, playing a game trains your brain and hands to work together, and you forced to think more and learn more in order to beat a game. In Halo, the best players are the smartest, not always the fastest. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==No duh!==
It is not important if video games are getting better or worse. Just don't play them, alright? Unless there is some benefit to it. But look at your life this way: time is your greatest commodity. Time is MORE valuable than money... time is your LIFE. The devil is slowly killing countless young people by getting them to waste their time (lives) on silly video games. Get out there and do something more productive with your life... do something for GOD.
(fyi - the only way I see video games being beneficial, is if it is a recreational activity that you can use to build relationships with other people. And even then, use sparingly.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:However, there are non-recreational purposes for videogames. The Rainbow-Six series of videogames were used by both Military and Police in order to practice tactical actions when MILES gear and Shoot-Houses are not available. Games can also be used to enhance one's fine motor skills, and certain games require the player to think through a situation, something I think that many people should learn how to do. My friends and I use games in order communicate when face-to-face contact is impossible. You can get a lot of things out of games, that you can't get otherwise. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]]
:Whoah. First, let me run this through the good old spell checker. Okay, now, let's talk about this. By your reasoning, you should spend every possible second in complete devotion to God. Have you recently revoked all worldly ties and joined the priesthood? Decided to join a monastary lately? Did you never have a hobby growing up that you gladly dumped time into because you could? Your view is slightly foreign to me, but even if I could empathize more, I still don't get why video games are worse than (pick your poison): books, TV, the arts, music, walking. And then there's the whole 'the devil's doing it' thing. That always makes me squirm - the good Lord is so subtle in his machinations and so powerless that the Devil is directly interfering with today's youth to make them worse, morally weaker people? Mhm. Okay. I'll keep that in mind, thanks.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

[[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2008-03-24T04:13:25Z

Reasonless: /* Better */

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say "worse." Games used to be about the games, not the graphics and special effects. When you concentrate on such things, the games lack quality, and this has shown.
Gone are the days of games like "Police Quest," "Adventure" (Crowther/Woods), "Zork," "ZZT," and "Rogue" (Toy/Lane). Those games, though having little or no graphics, had great stories and great programming, and were often very replayable.
Another great thing about older games is the "ma-and-pa" feel of a game being designed by one or a few people, often who become visible and well-known due to their games. The same thing can even be said about certain smaller companies such as Nullsoft (original developers of Winamp) and Netscape, which had the same "ma-and-pa" feel prior to being bought by AOL/Time Warner. Today's games are bureaucratic messes designed over long periods of time by major corporations. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

As time goes on, games have gotten less and less difficult and more focused on fancy explosions and whatnot. To prove my point about difficulty, I strongly suggest you go play Super Ghouls and Goblins. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Better==
Hell yes! Games are getting better. Games have recently become whole new worlds capable of an insane level of intricate awesomeness. Let's give some examples; I own a PC and 360 and frequently play both (except when the 360's out for repairs, like now. Don't snicker, Wii owners.) Now, as for the new possibilities available to game developers, I've got 4 really good examples.
First off is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Oblivion has a fully realized, 16 square mile world with an intricate system of quests, a functioning legal system (albeit a bit rudimentary and arbitrary), and a whole host of options. Really want that shiny new elven sword but can't afford it? 5 fingers discount, if you happen to have the skill and be willing to risk the punishments of being caught. But then there are two other genre defining games, that move gaming from entertainment to grand story-telling.
Next is Bioshock. In Bioshock, you crash-land in the middle of an underwater city named Rapture, where "Where the artist will not fear the censor, and the scientist will not be constrained by petty morality." And if that made you shudder, good - because Rapture has pretty much literally gone to hell. The rest of the game is spent discovering who you are, what happened to Rapture, and who a whole cast of characters were before Rapture's descent into chaos. And all of this is done while repeatedly forcing you into moral dilemmas and making you question the nature of being human.
Third on my must-play list is Portal. Yes, the cake is a lie. An deceptively simple-looking puzzle game with a great soundtrack, and the best plot with 3 characters.
Fourth on my list is a game I've just recently been playing, that takes huge advantage of new graphics and sound technologies. Audiosurf is available on Steam for $10 - I have no idea if it's sold elsewhere. Anyways, it lets you choose a song and creates a rhythm game from that song - all the parts of the level are generated from the song's beats. It's addictive, fun, cheap and easy to learn.
Whoah. Wrote a lot without meaning to. Sorry. Time to start wrapping up: Newer graphics and sound technologies are unlocking whole new possibilities. Games can tell complex, epic stories, or allow you to do whatever you want. They can adjust themselves completely to your tastes, or they can let you play against a friend whenever, wherever. And all of this is good. But shineyz are hardly a replacement for good old ingenuity.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 00:13, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Games are definitely getting better. At least for me. Personally, I think that the first games where made to have fun, and to just be "somewhere else". The games these days certainly aren't lacking in that. =D And I also agree with Hacker on his/her point as well - what is easily won doesn't give the same satisfaction as what takes work (or something to that effect). [[User:TaintedInnocence|TaintedInnocence]] 23:06, 3 March 2008 (EST)

'''Better''' Games are definetly getting better as technology increases. I will give an example, and a response to an the first comment on this page. Look at the Wii, games are requiring more skill and at the same time are easier to pick up. In response to the first comment on this page, games are requiring more and more hand-eye coordination. Just because its harder doesn't mean its worse. In the past, games were easy three button affiars. Now, playing a game trains your brain and hands to work together, and you forced to think more and learn more in order to beat a game. In Halo, the best players are the smartest, not always the fastest. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:30, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==No duh!==
It is not important if video games are getting better or worse. Just don't play them, allright? Unless there is some benefit to it. But look at your life this way: time is your greatest comodoty. Time is MORE valuable than money... time is your LIFE. The devil is slowly killing countless young people by getting them to waste their time (lives) on silly video games. Get out there and do something more productive with your life... do something for GOD.
(fyi - the only way I see video games being beneficial, is if it is a recreational activity that you can use to build relationships with other people. And even then, use sparingly.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:However, there are non-recreational purposes for videogames. The Rainbow-Six series of videogames were used by both Military and Police in order to practice tactical actions when MILES gear and Shoot-Houses are not available. Games can also be used to enhance one's fine motor skills, and certain games require the player to think through a situation, something I think that many people should learn how to do. My friends and I use games in order communicate when face-to-face contact is impossible. You can get a lot of things out of games, that you can't get otherwise. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?

2008-03-24T03:58:05Z

Reasonless:

Is it not the story of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf (Fox)? Edwards fears Fox because they hufffed and puffed. Then Obama fears Fox when he huffed and puffed. Hillary fears Fox so she ran with the other pigs. America faces serious challenges in the future. Can we afford leaders that are afraid to confront issues? What about confronting our enemies?

To me, it is a hell of a clue on how they would lead, lead America to disaster. Remember General Pace calling homosexuality immorral? I know for sure Hillary and Barack were like deer in headlights, afraid, very afraid to answer. Why trust Americas leadership to people that only want to tow the line for liberals only, not the rest of America?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 08:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not solely a Democratic problem. McCain refused to attend CPAC. About the only time we hear from Cheney is on El Rushbo. One might even call running from Fox the television equivelent of protecting an article to preserve one's edits, which often happens on a certain conservative wiki that I know. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I've read your response over and over, sorry it doesn't make sense. McCain refused to attend CPAC because? The only problem, which you call solely not a Democrat problem, is that candidates of the left have refused attendence purely on childish reasons and the influence of MoveOn that says Don't! Those childish reasons are what make it so pathetic. What they are saying to America is we don't trust America to know our real views, lets keep it hush hush until the elections over. So in order to appear like they made a legitamite desicion, they call Fox nammes and try to marginalize their reputation. Edwards says he prefers a debate hosted by CNN. Wonder why? Maybe because it was established by a far leftwing supporter? Maybe because not only do they tilt more than left, their partisanship is overwhelming for the leftwing bias. Is it fair for America to not know the truth? All these candidates want is softball questions that don't put them in a position to alienate voters. That perfect example being General Pace's comments. Cho Cho, the train bears down as a response is requested of our fearless Democrats. Only days later do they clarify their unwavering support for gays, not immoral, huh?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Part of being President is being a military leader. And part of being a military leader is knowing how to choose terrain that's favorable to you, and bad for your opponents. And with Fox's fairly consistent anti-Liberal bias, I can't blame them for wanting to appear somewhere else. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

BobD, what's the D for Democrats? You can't blame them? hmmm. Maybe all Republicans should boycott anything having to do with NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. Just admitt you hate Fox because they tilt to the right. Bias is what the leftwing media offers. That is not tilting left, that is one viewpoint only- leftwing bias. When you claim Fox bias, your assertions are foolish because they offer a liberal perspective (which I hate), unlike the left media companies that offer no rightwing perspective. The left of America is so much wanting a communist system whereby one party rules unchallenged. Keep dreaming, your democrat leaders are a sorry bunch. Your democrat leaders can't keep offering America no views on the issues and keep winning elections.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry Jpatt, you seem to be forgetting that the ''reason'' the debate was cancelled is because Roger Ailes, the CEO of FOX, said:
<blockquote>
"It's true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?"
</blockquote>
:So apparently, comparing a highly educated, well respected presidential candidate with a terrorist leader is acceptable in the eyes of Mr. Ailes. This is called racism, and racism is bad. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::To be fair, that joke made me laugh. And if you don't think we'll be hearing a '''LOT''' of "Obama Bin Laden" comments, both joking and not, between now and November of 2008, you are far more optimistic than I am. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 23:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sure we will be hearing them. Is it funny the first time? Yes. Is it at all appropriate to do? No. It's racist, bigoted, and generally an indicator of the speaker's tact. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::Look on the bright side--it'll get all the bigots and idiots out in the bright light of day, where we can see them. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Hojima, racist? liberals are so easily offended or should I say selectively offended. I didn't see the race involved in that cute remark. It was meerly a word play. And play is what our democrats are good at, such ego maniac multi,multi-millionaire actors. Go ahead, vote for your mamma Obama. How about that word play. RACIST. In fact, democrat leaders are soo much child like. Not your old democrat party thats for sure. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

For those individuals that suggest Democrats just trying to find a fair forum. I give you the fearless Republicans.

Lo and behold next week all the Republican candidates will be on MSNBC — the same channel that, as Mitt Romney pointed out, will include a moderator who used to work in the Carter administration and for Tip O'Neill. That could be unfriendly territory. These Republicans don't seem to care. As Romney pointed out, "We're happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us." Why? "Because we have courage," Romney said. "I have courage of my convictions."--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Jp on April 15 you listed a slew of media outlets that you contend to be liberally bias; does it not seem odd to you that the majority of trusted news outlets these days would be liberally bias when America seems to be fairly evenly split between liberals and conservatives, or to suit the terms of this debate Republicans and Democrats. By contending that the vast majority of today’s political media is liberally bias you assert that the vast majority of America’s population is left wing, which as we can see in our judicial, legislative and executive branches of government is not the case.--HKK

:HKK: that the majority of media outlets that ''you'' trust are [[liberal]]ly biased, need not seem so odd at all if the population is split evenly between liberals and [[conservative]]s--or even if conservatives are in the majority. The ranks of [[journalism|journalists]] ''are not'' drawn at random from the ranks of the general population. Nine out of every ten professional journalists today, donate regularly or have donated to liberal causes, and to the [[Democratic Party]].<ref>Dedman, Bill. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485 Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)]." ''MSNBC'' 5:07 p.m. ET June 25, 2007. Retrieved July 3, 2007. Take note also of this correction: ''Correction: One of the names was included in error in the list of newspeople who contributed to political campaigns ("The list: Journalists who wrote political checks") on June 21. Joe Cline, a graphic artist at The San Diego Union-Tribune, is in the advertising department, not in news. His name has been removed. Because Cline had given to Republicans, the adjusted tally is 143 journalists: 125 giving to Democrats and liberal causes, 16 to Republicans, and two to both parties.''</ref> The trouble is twofold:

:#Conservatives do not apply to go to journalism school as frequently as liberals do. The reason: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who don't even know enough to teach, scribble.
:#Even when conservatives ''do'' apply to journalism schools, they either don't get in or get hounded out of school, not being able to handle the overwhelming and unremitting hostility of the "learning environment" directed toward conservatives generally.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Terry your attempt at wit in relation to your assertion that liberals can do no more than ‘scribble’ has been dually noted, along with your utter failure at it as you managed to leave out half of the important information from ''your'' quoted source. It is true, well at least according to your article from MSNBC.com, (though I am surprised you found it to be a trusted source as it is a part of NBC, a news medium you appeared to believe to be liberally biased) that nine out of ten news professionals ''donating'' today do indeed donate to Democratic causes. It is not, however, true that ''all'' journalists donate to political causes; in fact, according to the article ''you'' cited these donors are a “tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485). While it is true that there are more left wing journalism majors than there are right wing the difference is not as great as you would like people to believe; in fact as of 2002 48% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning to the left and 52% of journalists categorized themselves as leaning either to the right or sitting in the middle (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304). And if Jp’s contention were true then we could reasonably assume that at least the majority of the conservative population (Fox’s core demographic) tuned in to Fox, or at the very least prefers Fox over the media sources that the two of you believe to be liberally biased, however, this is not the case either. According to a study conducted by the ad agency Carat USA “37 percent of viewers calling themselves ‘very conservative’ watch CNN in the course of a week, while only 32 percent tune to Fox .” (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). CNN’s cumulative ratings are also significantly higher than Fox’s, most notably during April 2003, “at the height of fighting in Iraq”. It was at this time that CNN ‘cumed’ 105 million viewers as opposed to Fox’s 86 million (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005). It does not make sense that Fox would suddenly become a more trusted resource for news during election time than they would be on any other given day. Perhaps you see Fox as the only trusted source out there, but the majority of America respectfully disagrees. --[[User:HKK|HKK]]
:HKK, your argument assumes that one who does not donate is, by virtue of declining to donate, politically neutral. Or if such a person is not neutral, then you are assuming that the non-donating group splits its votes either down the middle, or in proportion to their readership.

:I don't donate either--but I have already demonstrated how [[conservative]] I am. That I don't donate is because I can't afford to. And besides--people ''donate'' the most important thing that candidates really need when they ''vote'' for that candidate. Now are you prepared to assert that the journalists who do not donate, do not vote, either? Well, maybe not--but are you prepared to show that the journalists who do not donate, ''split their votes straight down the middle'' or even that they vote in proportion to the general population?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:40, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

HKK, I'm not all that familiar with the American political scene, and I don't want to speculate too much on ''why'' the journalists might lean more one way than the other, but I think that it's fairly well established that they ''do''. I recall hearing quite a few years ago of a survey that showed that 80% of the American population was opposed to abortion, but 80% of journalists were in favour of it.

Also, the survey that you quoted regarding what journalists believe of themselves (48% liberal/52% conservative or in the middle), I wouldn't give much weight to, as a lot of people consider themselves to be "just right" and everybody else with different views to be "biased". To put it another way, you are asking people to judge where they are in relation to a "centre" that is based on where everyone else is, and most would not be able to accurately make that judgement.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:00, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:Not at all, my point was noting your skewed fact and pointing out the irony of the fact that apparently you are not even capable of scribbling. I also do not appreciate your trying to justify your spin on news sources by contending that a vote is somehow a donation. Furthermore the fact that there are more conservative readers than there are conservative writers (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304) only serves to prove my point; if the number of conservatives in the population out weighs the number of liberals [which they did as of 2002 anyway, 41% to 17% (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)] and Fox is still unable to maintain a higher cumulative rating than CNN then clearly CNN appeals to more than just the liberal set, (a fact which was stated in greater detail above), thus proving my point that CNN is a more trusted news source than Fox. In saying that America was not more right than left I was not contending that the journalists were evenly split, but rather that population was, (though admittedly after doing a bit more research on the topic I found that these numbers were even more extreme than I needed to prove my point). Why would so many conservatives tune into CNN if they found it to be liberally biased? And why would Democratic presidential candidates appear on a Fox when it clearly has fewer viewers than CNN, and the ones that it does have are resolutely against voting for Democrats anyway? --[[User:HKK|HKK]]
::You couldn't have been noting ''my'' skewed facts—I hadn't written anything prior to your previous reply! I was just jumping in to make the point that regardless of "liberal" or "conservative" leanings of whoever, I understood that it was fairly well established that the leanings of journalists was not representative of the leanings of the population as a whole, whereas you seemed to be questioning that point in an earlier post. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

No, and I apologize for the mix up. I had written that on a word document in response to Terry H but I was unable to post it at the point that I finnished it so I put it up the next morning after you had replied. My apologies.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]
:That's okay. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:58, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

What kind of media outlet will Fox make if it blatantly reports things wrong for political gain? To be fair here, I loathe TV news. All of it. Except maybe Colbert. Most of my news comes from Google News, a few blogs (Game politics, BoingBoing, TJIC, etc.), and NPR. But Fox is the one TV media outlet I hate the most. I turn it on and they have boldfaced lies sprinkled in with their blatant sensationalism. For an example of outright deception, Fox has a decently consistent track record of labeling disgraced representatives as Democrats (See: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/261100980_b1c9333fe0.jpg). For blatant sensationalism, I recommend you dig around for the clips about Mass Effect on Fox. Being a gamer, it makes me simultaneously giggle and feel sickened by the headline "SeXbox Expose," especially about a game with as tame a "sex" scene as Mass Effect. Oh, and their expert was hilarious too - a self-help author with no respectable research in any related field. Oh! And their panel sucked, too. Not a one of them had seen anything from the game but the 20-second clip aired on Fox. So yes, I happen to think that maybe, just maybe, keeping a couple inches away from Fox might be a good idea for any politician not already given the Fox seal of approval.--[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 23:58, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?

2008-03-24T03:43:43Z

Reasonless:

Out of interest, as a Catholic, socialist, scientist European, would many on hear say I was not Christian?

==Yes==
Of course. Conservative is not a religion. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Individual freedoms...Except when they contradict an obscure biblical passage? Or individual freedoms, except when they make soccer moms mildly queasy? Or individual freedoms except that person isn't an American, so why should they have freedoms? I strongly disagree that conservatism is based on individual freedoms. --[[User:Reasonless|Reasonless]] 23:43, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

:I know from personal experience that my transition leftward began a while after I became an atheist.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I strongly oppose that the most important value of conservatives is individual freedom. Actually, individual freedom is the most important principle of liberalism. In addition, you have to differentiate between value and structure conservatism. Most conservatives are value conservatives and as such regard the traditional values of family, religion, honor and truth or at least some of them higher than individual freedom. Structure conservatives prefer everything remains as it is, simply said, whereas value conservatives favor changes that give more importance to the values above. -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

One can't argue from the specific to the general. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
: unless the specific contradicts the general -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

:What? First, my statement was to agree with you. Second, if something happens in one specific case then it must be generally possible.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 15:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:A non-religous conservative is often called a capitalist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::So sayeth you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Who cares you are going to burn in hell for denying Jesus[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:How do you know that God won't send those who believe in him to Hell? Perhaps he wants people to think for themselves and he created the Church in order to test, not man's faith, but man's reason. After all, if God is omnibenevolant, wouldn't He dislike faith because He wants us to use our minds?[[User:Cthx]]

It really is subject to one's definition of conservative. As for the above comment, can you really say that all of the great non-christians in world history, many of whom were far more "christian" than some christians, should "burn in hell?"

well i do know there are some but, not that many given the whole...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:Know your Renaissance eschatology: Dante sez: virtuous Pagans get a castle that's technically inside Hell, but all they have to suffer is knowing that they were wrong.[[User:Cthx]]
::For someone like Socrates, I imagine that would be hell enough. ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Additionally, conservative/liberal are pretty broad terms which I think are greatly overused in the U.S. political landscape. In New Zealand for instance, the leader of our centre-right party is a self-identified agnostic/atheist, and one of our most left-wing parties is led by a staunch Catholic. If anything, I'd say political ideology tends to influence religious character, rather than the other way around. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:24, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2008-03-24T03:35:49Z

Reasonless: /* '''Not for long ...''' */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''The problem is that "Democracy" means two things'''==

...and we often get the two confused. The "Democracy" that tugs at people's heartstrings -- the one worth fighting for, the one that is associated with liberty and rights -- is the ''philosophy'' of Democracy. This is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." There is also a government ''type'' which is called Democracy (hereafter called Democratic Government), which is a government where people vote for things. This type of government is not all that worth getting excited about ''unless'' it is built on a foundation of the philosophy of Democracy. We can't give someone a government that is built on that philosophy, because by nature democracy must be "of the people". So, if America gives any other country a government, no matter how much it looks like a Democratic Government, it will never truly be a democracy. And a dictatorship, if put in place by the people, consisting of the people, and working for the people, will be more of a true democracy than anything we can give them. Granted, Saddam's leadership was certainly not "for the people", but our leadership there is not "of the people", so they are equally not democracy. So the answer is "yes, we can give them a Democratic Government, but no, we can't give them Democracy." --[[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]]

I disagree. In small communities the "Democracy" that tugs at people is possible because the group is small and everyone's say can be heard. As communities grow large, this has generally become impossible. The founders of the US of A (as I understand it), based America's government on the Greek forum, where everyone was heard by the attending community. Whether fortunate or unfortunate, when a group grows large is becomes efficient for sections of the large group to elect or appoint a spokesperson to represent the section in the public forum. In the US of A, this sectionizing is done mainly by geography. Each state (a stand alone member of the US of A) is represented by 2 Senators. And in the other House of Congress, representation is done by population, again with a geographical distribution (mostly). Can these, or some part of these, ideas work anywhere? Well, yes BUT the underlying assumptions need to be agreed to by those who engage in the forum. The idea that everyone should have an equal say is not present in Iraq. In fact, it is strongly objected to by persons who wield weapons to make themselves heard and to quell other voices. The second assumption that worked in the US of A was elected representation. This assumption is also against Iraq traditions. There, the interests of a group have traditionally been a matter of blood or other means of selection rather than by vote. A brief answer to "Is democracy possible in Iraq" could be stated, "yes, but it will need many indidivudals to tolerate new ideas traditionally unsupported." [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

Read the entry on [[Turkey]].

==='''Yes ...'''===

It depends how you do you interpret democracy. If democracy means walking around naked, not being interested in where your daughter, sister or mom is sleeping tonight, being able to deny the presence of God, drinking alcohol all night and then staggering like an ill-minded animal on the streets, not respecting your parents by putting them in retirement houses when they become old, kicking your children out of your houses when they become 18, not knowing your neighbors after living thirty years door to door with them, having disposable marriages, watching two men kissing each other on the street ''and'' yet claim to be socialized and free then the answer is ''no''.

But if democracy means having free right of speech in the ways that God permits (by not doing all of above and some others), being able to question the ruling authority, women's right of voting, equality of women and men in terms of religious moral ethical social conjugal and political rights, respecting each others' lives and possessions, and many many more righteous aspects which have already been explained in the Holy Quran, then the answer is ''yes''.

And if you want to know more about democracy please do read the history of first fifty years of Islam where the complete democracy was introduced to the mankind for the first time.

It is not a matter of me being right or you being wrong, it is a matter between you and your God so contemplate before you leave.

-I think that there are already democracies in The Middle East, but I think some people question that because they see a democracy more as upholding American values, but the Arabs don't seem to want that

==='''We're not even democratic.'''===

Quite honestly, our system of government is only very loosely democratic (in that we "vote", but that's it -- more of a Republic), and the structure of our government was based largely on a series of events. As well, there are forms of democracy in the Mid-East, such as Iran which does in fact hold elections (yes, they do). However, the largest problem dealing with countries such as Iraq is that the people are more or less split into a few prominent groups, with a minority of them actually causing the problems. But bleh, I don't want to go into specifics of Middle Eastern politics right now, so yes and no. Yes, a form can exist (under the correct circumstance -- which is why Iraq is a cesspool of a civil war right now -- because of a lack of acknowledgment to the reality of the situation), but not actual democracy.
: Rather than represent our own interests, we elect a person who, we hope, will represent our interests for us. Such people are (generally) experienced in the area. Iran would be a democracy except that it has a sort of monarchy of religious overseers who (apparently) can override any portion of the democractic process. For example the religious overseers decared a number of candiates who were going to be voted on by the populace as "unqualified". [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''No ...'''===

Democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose.
Democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. The man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog.
The forefathers knew about a democracy. That is why they created a republic.

'''Comment:''' I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a ''democratic'' republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you ... to an extent. After a while, democracy alone begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]
:'''Reply''' The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people ''are'' the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elected legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy (no tyrants, self government ...) without some of the problems (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. That said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''
:There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning—the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which ''wasn't'' capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master-minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.

::—Mark Twain, ''A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Er, I rather suspect it would be better for everyone if, rather than "installing" democracy, one attempted to ''instill'' it. Just a thought.

:Some nations are born democracies, some achieve democracy, and some have democracy thrust upon them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the sake of argument here, let's presume that "republic with democratic elections" is the meaning of democracy in the question. Anything else is a bit nitpicky, that's obviously what's intended in context. This being said, however, something else makes the question rather hard to answer. Turkey has a large Muslim population, and is a republic. Iran is as well, but is most certainly not. Egypt? Syria? Just what country are we talking about here? Those aren't any more similar than the US and the Netherlands, despite the fact that both are predominantly Christian.

So, this being said, it is more than "possible" for a democracy to exist in a Muslim country, it is a fact of life in Turkey. (And perhaps more, but certainly that one offhand.) If we are speaking of ''Iraq'', on the other hand (and whoever wrote the question most certainly thinking of it) ...

Unfortunately, to that one, no. Iraq has been botched terribly, and at this point is likely unsalvageable. There's going to be a long civil war there. I hope very much that I am wrong, but I don't see it ending any other way. I really don't know if it could've ever been salvaged, but at this point I don't think it's possible. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 00:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==='''You can install a muffler or battery but not a Democracy'''===
'''Comment'''
:Democracy is one of those words that is mostly misused and misunderstood .
Lets look at the definition:
“Demos: mean common people
“kratos”: means rule
so democracy means “ruled by people”
There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,
As a matter of fact though most Islamic countries are fascist they are better examples of pure democracies than the U.S..

Now let me try to explain that. If the vast majority of a population desire their government to impose sharia law and they believe that infidels should be killed or converted there is nothing undemocratic about that, though the infidel might disagree.

The U.S. is not a democracy.
It is a hybrid “constitutional representative federal republic”
This is far from a pure democracy. The U.S. is governed by a constitution of laws not of people.
Early in the history of the U.S. it’s founders agreed on a set of rules that would limit not only the power and discretion of the government ( it’s self and it’s law) but also it’s people and it’s subsequent elected leaders. Why did they do this? Well they knew that absolute power is corrupting and oppressive in any one entities hands. So, they basically spread it out .
Constitutional ( we are ruled by law )
Federation (we are made up of smaller sovereign countries or “states” )
Republic ( we are ruled by consent )
Representative ( we vote for our leaders )

: Good gosh. We govern ourselves because we create the laws we live under and we remove the laws we don't like. The Constitituion is a framework (and again, we could and have modified it) the laws fit within. We are not the effect of what has gone before, but use it as a guideline toward changes that will be to our benefit. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 03:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I love the heading. Most, if not all, of the world's democracies were not "installed" by outsiders (although many, many hated regimes were), but were worked towards and fought for by the populations of the countries involved. PS, I tried installing Democracy 2.1, but it crashed my hard drive and printer. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[Human]]. Democracy can be inspired, but not installed. Ironically, it sometimes emerges in what could from a narrow [[nationalist]] standpoint be considered the defeat of an existing democracy (see [[India]]). [[User:Amyz]] 14:28, May 18, 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Yes, Indonesia is the the world's third largest democracy, and the world's largest Muslim country. There you go.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:We're talking extremist, e.g. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have a strong foothold and will not abandon it without Jihad. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 18:19, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So, should the original question read "Is it possible to install a democracy in a country that's run by radical mideastern fundamentalist Muslims?". Perhaps the question should have been more precise. And what do you mean by "not abandon it without Jihad"? Indonesians aren't exactly fickle, and I don't think they'd abandon their power anytime soon without some sort of struggle (literal definition of jihad). Oh, and Lebanon and Yemen are middle-eastern Muslim republican democracies.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I guess I should be more precise in my answer too. Installing democracy strikes me as fundamentally naive. The very nature of democracy is supposed to be power derived from the people. Coming in and artificially imposing a democracy strikes me as nearly impossible, especially in such a foreign environment. Yes, democracy is possible in a predominantly Islamic country, no, "installing" it probably is an incredibly naive idea. Bush, bleh.--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==='''No ...'''===

Its not possible to "install" democracy. It is something that must evolve of the people. The question that needs to be asked is is it even right for us to try to install our system on anyone else? Why are we so assured that the way we do things is the only way that they can be done that will work. We came to our democratic system through our own will and process. No other country or people are going to replicate that process so why should they replicate the result? [[User:Little Suspicious|Little Suspicious]]

==='''No ...'''===

You Said That "We came to our democratic system through our own will and process." However that is not true, Thomas Jefferson once said "I would not want any man to judge me, unless he believed that someday god would judge him" The founding of this nation was based on christain principles. Our "democracy" was a system spoken of in the book of jeremiah: "The lord is our lawgiver, the lord is our judge and the lord is our king" The reason why democracy is not working in Iraq is because they are trying to create a government under muslim principles, contrary to the very foundation upon wich america was formed, the word of god. Freedom only works if you have responsibility. the only way that "democracy" will work, in any country is if the people in that country turn their hearts to god, the creator.

==='''Not for long ...'''===
Oh, a representative government can be set up easily enough. The problem is that in a democracy, people will vote for who they want to rule them. And in a highly devout Muslim country, what the people want to rule them is a group of very religious Muslims who are completely and openly dedicated to upholding the principles of the Koran. That is, oppressive theocrats who want woman to be covered and banned from education, think infidels should be killed on sight and have the long-term objective of taking over the world with an Islamic Superstate. Oh, its a democracy all right - its a government that carries out the will of the people. And if they people (Or at least the men, as women would either be forbidden from voting or prevented by intimidation and violence) ''want'' to live under the type of government that considers the Koran to be the unalterable defining document of law... well, thats exactly what they will vote in. - BornAgainBrit

Erk...Okay, first, learn to spellcheck. It's not that hard. Actually, while I'm here, why don't I do just that.
Now, spelling errors aside, you're doing some interesting things here. What's wrong with upholding the principles of the Koran? I could just as easily say all hardcore Christians should be banned from public office because they uphold the principles of the Bible. But aside from that, you're rather interestingly blending 'devout Muslim' with 'rabid extremist.' Sorry, but they're not quite the same. Why should a country dedicated to the Koran (and not, for instance, modern Islam) have any problem with women being educated or walking around unveiled? The Prophet himself married a woman 15 years his senior who ran a well-to-do trading company. My point here is that you're taking the extremists from a religious group and extrapolating back to the religion - it's both ignorant, incorrect and impolite. - Reasonless

Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?

2008-03-24T03:34:41Z

Reasonless: /* '''Not for long ...''' */