Final_metroid

Members
  • Content Count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Final_metroid


  1. Hey all,

    This is my first time posting in this thread and I have a question for you guys. I'm constantly busy and I tend to exercise around the evening. I'm trying to put on weight, as I'm a scrawny (but improving) 110+ lbs at 5'1". My question is, my hunger always seems to coincide with when I have time to exercise, and most times I'll just excercise through the hunger and wolf something down afterward. At times though (like now) I'll get so damn hungry, even after spacing my meals apart at lunch to try and distribute energy, but I have an incredibly fast metabolism and end up burning it all up by 7pm anyway. So I get pissed off that I can't have a strong workout because I'm running on partly empty.

    So do you guys think working through the hunger is what I should continue doing? Would you say that eating a hearty dinner and working out after I've digested would be the best option? An additional point is that I excercise for about an hour maybe 3 times a week on average. If I'm going to make any appreciable gains, how much more would be recommended?


  2. Just chiming in in response to Final Metroid's point regarding the dismissal of anectdotal evidence:

    Aside from scientific and academic reasons why you don't just accept anecdotal evidence in the first place, I'ma be hella pissed if anyone here did, as I've gathered plenty of "anecdotal evidence" for arguments in a similar previous thread, and was totally lambasted for it. I don't think you get either side of the argument(if there are even sides) gets to pick and choose what they'll consider valid on a whim.

    Haven't all scientific endeavors began at anecdotal evidence? Yes, personal stories by themselves are extremely flimsy especially when using them to argue against mathematical and logic-based evidence. But the point of introducing anecdote to me is to at least show there is exception to a scientific rule or accepted generalization to open up more inquiry to it. Nascent scientific discoveries are nothing more than anecdote until they get researched and discussed by more people.

    To avoid another quote storm, I agree with djp that I have derived the point that science cannot be objective from science itself. But again, I'm not insisting that the idea of science is bad. I'm just saying that the institution definitely has it's own agenda and that we ought to be mindful of that. You can say that all these things about gender roles and the like have scientific basis and that we shouldn't discount years of research in favor of some new wave social phenomenon, but the very fact that the institution and their findings can be heavily influenced by these changes in the political climate shows that we shouldn't discount every argument counter to the established as nutty.

    With specific reference to the existence of gender roles, I wholeheartedly agree with their existence. But having said that, why should this affect us in any way? Science has also supported the fact that human intellect and social patterns are incredibly plastic, so why burden ourselves with the labels? There's tribes in Africa where the men nurse their children. Females are usually larger than the male in many animal lineages. And humans seem to be one of the few species where the females must be garish and put on colorful displays to attract mates.

    In line with what was said with regards to Hobbes, men are selfish. And so are women. So understandably, they'd get pissed off if they were told what they could and could not do.


  3. At any rate, at this point in time, if you scope the statement enough and add enough qualifiers, you CAN come up with a meaningful definition for "white male privilege" that I could agree with. As a concept, it can have merit, at least in exploring pervasive bias. But it is also vulnerable to a form of abuse & bad faith assumptions that are just a shade off from the very racism it seeks to expose!! The ones employing the concept in arguments also appear to be the ones abusing it in this fashion, from my own personal observations....

    ...On a MUCH simpler level, allow for the following layman reasoning: Do testosterone levels influence behavior? Yes. Do men naturally have higher testosterone levels? Yes. Is this likely to manifest itself in ways that would cause common, observable differences in behavior? ...

    So what would your suggestion be? There really is no way to have any kind of argument without it being co-opted to make strawmen or be used to make ad-hominem arguments. For example, right now I construe that you taking up the banner of science shields you from criticism because you monopolize it's objectivity to further your own arguments, which may actually not be very objective at all. Social darwinism attempted to do the same thing, and we know how that turned out.

    Now before you go ahead yelling that "OF COURSE OBJECTIVITY IS THE GOAL OF REACHING A GOOD CONCLUSION." I'm not talking about the very concept of objectivity, but for what seems to pass as objectivity. The scientific method prides itself on reproducibility of results, but there are always exceptions to every rule and theory which gets created. How does testosterone affect behavior? Does it explain why there's female kickboxers and male interior designers? No doubt there is some kind of an effect and that I may be nitpicking with these exceptions, but why keep a generalizing theory when it is clearly wrong in some ways? Additions to the theory to explain everything fully can only be elucidated with further study.

    This is why I actually take some offense at your dismissal of white privilege and your attitudes towards anecdotal evidence as fallacy. There's a reason why a wealth of information hasn't been built up around certain subjects (See: old boys club) so the only way to introduce it into the discussion may be by anecdote. Is this ideal at all? Not in the slightest. But until these areas start getting more recognition we really are at an impasse of teasing apart the emotional with the factual. Why do we necessarily have to narrow definitions or reduce the scope of inequality to include this? Would you like me to dig up some statistics on the glass ceiling for women or the under-enrollment of poorer minority students (who are just as qualified as their wealthy, white counterparts) at Ivy League schools? It is definitely pervasive and a phenomenon worth discussing in itself.

    Okay, firstly, no. While science is the first to acknowledge fallibility, "codification" into "hard science" without "questioning" is, simply and plainly, NOT science at all. Perhaps you're referring to science the institution as opposed to science the methodology, but even so, there clearly WAS questioning or we wouldn't know now that we were wrong!!

    That is true, but how do you suggest separating the two? To me that's akin to the argument that since communism is perfect in theory, we must whole-heartedly embrace the models of communism that have come before us to emulate the model better. Science is ever-evolving, and there are techniques and theories which quickly become obsolete in the pursuit of objectivity. The institution always fails to get that gold standard of objectivity simply due to human nature.

    Peer-review and criticism are indeed highly valuable - they are the exact mechanism by which you might PROVE a statement like "it's descriptions and findings would be radically different depending on the composition of it's scientists"- which you seem to take as a given, without any evidence, peer review, or even due consideration!! I'm sensing a huge double standard, personally...

    The "Sperm and the Egg" article is one. And you see this kind of thing happening all the time with scientists butting heads over whose theory is right. I don't have any citations on hand at the moment, but scientists are still arguing over why gravity exists or how certain features evolved. By common sense, wouldn't you say that their preexisting views, education, and the like influences how they research and what they believe?

    I really don't know why you feel like I'm anti-science. I for one just say that there are more experiences and arguments aside from what has been published in scientific journals. It's impossible to divorce the institution from the principle in this case, so bias and the like will always be present in the sciences one way or the other. I'm not arguing that all scientists should bend-over backwards for any sociologist or activist making sweeping claims and trying to place their own agenda over the interests of real objectivity, I'm just saying that science as an institution can be looked at in a variety of different ways.

    Going back to the topic, I want to just say that Sarkeesian may be poorly researched and inflammatory. But that's all it is. Why do people even feel so threatened by her anyway? Criticism is criticism, and you can take it or leave it. In all, it is the consumers, whether they be stridently socially-conscious feminists or basement-dwelling chauvinists who ultimately dictate what gets made and what succeeds.

    Do you need me to regurgitate this entire thread for you? Do you honestly not recall? I can certainly do so, but it would require a modicum of effort, and I'm not sure you'd bother parsing it, so I think it might be a waste of my time. Does anyone ELSE not understand how we got here, and want to request a recap along with Bleck? I can certainly spell out how we got from point A to point B, for anyone who missed it, who forgets, or who can't follow things. If I get another taker, I'll go for it...

    Please don't


  4. While I do agree strongly with djpretzel that no trope should be discredited from media simply because it is offensive, and to honestly question whether "gender stereotypes" have a biological basis and thus be explored and approached in such a way. (Arguably, to find the best ways of subverting them if needed), I still have some questions

    Not when you're talking about the entirety of recorded history, which we were for awhile. Also, must the discontent of one group trump the discontent of another for it to be valid, and/or actionable? Who quantifies this stuff? I think some straight white males make this argument because they feel like the topic is actually being approached this way - "MY grievance is bigger than YOUR grievance!!" Reminds me of "MY god is better than YOUR god!!" - and sounds about as mature. So of course it will elicit that reaction. Also, you forgot some demographics... A "straight white male" can still be:

    • poor
    • mentally disabled
    • physically disabled
    • atheist
    • etc.

    ... any of which could marginalize him quite a bit. Just sayin'

    While I do not contest that "white straight males" do not experience oppression in the form of classism/ableism/etc. A white straight male still cannot be said to fully conceptualize the effect of racism/sexism/homophobia on their lives IN ADDITION to any problems that may already experience as a consequence of being human. A straight white male has many privileges that can cater to the problems that he experiences. A white child born to drug-using parents? Tragic. Call child protective services. A black child born to drug-using parents? The status-quo, throw him into juvie and the world keeps turning. I realize I am making a generalization and these may not apply to many parts of how society operates, they are still larger "social tropes" that illustrate the inequality (and at least, radical difference) in the problems that each "group" experiences.

    I am not arguing for a pissing contest of who suffered more, but I am saying that the worst thing that anyone can do is to deny that suffering and injustice has occurred. The pissing contest, is at it's heart a clamor to get one's problems solved first and given the most attention. If anything, all human love martyrdom. This is a very human problem and honestly, I don't see anyone being "mature" enough to put down their plate to assist others. (Although by no means am I saying that struggles against oppression are futile, just that everyone loses)

    Wow... have you done the research? Science's response to that question is much more than a dismissive shrug. There is plentiful evidence that gender roles are rooted in biology AND deeply affected by culture. The consensus response is that "nature vs. nurture" is moot, and the answer is that gender roles are attributable to both environmental AND genetic characteristics. Again, homo sapiens is not a snowflake - we are affected by the same evolutionary process & constraints that other species are. At least we were, up to a certain point in our history.

    What is this evidence? Science itself is not infallible and can lead to social ideas being codified into hard science without question. For example, for many decades scientists thought that the egg did nothing as sperm penetrated into the nucleus. However, recent evidence suggests that the egg actually does assist in bringing sperm in using filamentous protein fibers. The relevance of this becomes clear when you see how this process is described differently by scientists. Some will say the sperm is "harpooned" by these fibers and dragged in (Trope: femme fatale, consuming mother), while others maintain that the fibers play a more passive role and the primary energy is provided by the "complex and powerful" machinery contained within the sperm. (Tropes: DiD and powerful rescuing male). Even in describing the language, the social tropes show.

    tl;dr

    Science is still an old boys club, and it's descriptions and findings would be radically different depending on the composition of it's scientists. Also, all scientists are humans, and thus still falliable.

    (Not saying science is a bunk, just that this is why peer-review and criticism is paramount)

    Further reading:

    http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~daubin/cours/Textes/Martin_EggSperm.pdf


  5. Hey, thanks for the replies. Given that I'm probably going to be on the move a lot, maybe a laptop would be a better move. I don't necessarily think it's too much of a burden to lug around something big, but if it can be helped (isn't too expensive) I would like something lighter. My price range is around $1000, possibly a bit over

    There's a nagging voice at the back of my head that says I should at least be prepared to build a PC when I get into a more stable situation. What pathways do you know of?


  6. So my HP Envy 14 (originally bought in that new-fangled "get a free xbox" sale) is getting a bit old (IE, getting pissed I couldn't run FEZ from the steam sale) and I'm starting to think about at least starting to look for something new. I'm not too sure what exactly I want...but I anticipate that since I'm starting to play games less and less that I won't need anything designed to run triple-A games to maximum efficiency.

    On a semi-unrelated note, I notice that people keep espousing the virtues of building your own desktop. I'm still wondering up to what point that would be cost-effective? Or whether that's still viable given that most industry resources have shifted towards tablets and the like.

    Finally, something strange: I was able to run Fez after I updated the driver for my graphics card. It ran pretty smoothly save for the fact I could hear my fan crying out in agony. Yet, when I came to open it after a restart it would just CTD...

    Sorry for rambling, and thanks for any help


  7. thats what i was thinking, my monitor that i had did possess an analogue input. But in this case maybe i should hold off on it in order to get a cheaper monitor. The only downside would be that id like to play games when i go the to dorm having a monitor that can double as a tv saves space and perhaps money if i consider buying a small tv...


  8. Hey all,

    I think my Dell 2007fpb monitor has gone kaput. I was playing psychonauts last night when my monitor suddenly went black and the power light shut off. After letting it cool for a bit, the monitor did not turn back on when i plugged it into a different outlet. Im guessing its a hardware problem beyond my own capabilities (I dont know whether i should try to open it up, although itd be no loss because i have no warranty...)

    What are your guys suggestions for a new monitor? I preferably still want something widescreen but am unwilling to spend much on it. Also, prior to this incident, I liked to connect my ps2 to the monitor to play off of that, could it have burned out this fast because it wasnt optimized for that? If so?, am I just better off getting a TV as a monitor instead?


  9. I don't understand why she made another song. I thought the response to the first song was pretty brutal.

    There were more than one million downloads of the song on iTunes, i don't know what percentage of the profit goes to her but I'm guessing its pretty sizeable. Plus all those stupid talk shows like good morning america. Theres no such thing as bad publicity.


  10. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the aesthetic design and the premise very much (I loved Persona 4), most of the criticism I've heard of is from Japanese publications about the game's difficulty and gameplay mechanic. I do want to pick it up sometime in the far future (I never buy games full price) if I play the demo and find it to be to my liking.


  11. Catherine_Cover_Art.png

    So this game is coming out next week and the premise is interesting to say the least. For me, the jury is still out about getting this title because some reviews (not the mainstream ones surprise) weren't too hot.

    Anyone anticipating or hear anything else about this title?


  12. The new generation of 2D fighters are worth your time, but either you play those games or you don't.

    For general recommendations: Assassin's Creed (whole series but especially II) and Shadow Complex are great.

    On XBLA: If you like retro gaming at all, consider Bionic Commando Rearmed (1), Prince of Persia XBLA, Mega Man 9 (better than 10 which is also good), and Castle Crashers (in the spirit of retro gaming). If you have a couple friends that you can convince to drop $10 with you, Age of Booty is one of the most fun games on the system and criminally underplayed. For $5, Marble Blast Ultra is probably the best purchase out there, featuring a fun multiplayer mode also.

    My friend keeps insisting that Age of Booty is good, but he's letting me use his XBL account so I can see for myself when I get back home to actually open my xbox. In terms of getting a whole library of games, I may just stick with gamestop or actually subscribe to gamefly or something. With gamestop I can at least refund up a storm if I dislike anything...


  13. To avoid burning myself out when it comes to games, I think I may just only start with Viva Pinata and Bioshock.

    I never even got to finishing Twilight Princess or RE4 on the Wii...so I shouldnt get too ahead of myself.

    But I've gotten a lot of good suggestions from this thread, but the XBLA hasn't gotten any love at all!


  14. GTA 4, that's it. After about 3 nonstop hours of driving on sidewalks, you'll understand. :nicework:

    BTW, you can go to half.com and buy most of the games recommended here LIKE NEW for an average of $10-$30 a game. You could easily get 3-4 games under $100. That's how I do it, and it rules. They look as new as taking the shrink wrap fresh off.

    This.

    I have to admit that Postal 2 was one of my guilty pleasures, and Id have to consider GTA as the same formula except done right. I'll definitely check out the website, most of the games Im planning to get that Ive looked up online are more expensive if shipping costs are considered, so I thought Id just scrounge for them at gamestop

    Edit: Any opinions on Arkham Asylum? Ive been finding myself watching justice league and batman TAS more and more nowadays


  15. I should really stop taking zero punctuation seriously or otherwise Id have to discount almosteverything here... (Yahtzee actually managed to scare me away from Bayonetta somewhat)

    but im noticing a lot of these games are FPS games. I know games like ME and Gears have gimmicks that differentiate them from tge rest


  16. what's that you say

    you like

    ,
    games

    also eternal sonata is definitely solid, although i think it's on ps3 now also

    Believe it or not, Viva Pinata was on the top grossing list that I looked at. Eternal Sonata definitely looks interesting, I definitely want to try an RPG outside the realm of squeenix androgynes.

    As for ^^ and ^^^, I almost forget about the XBLA, and how it can probably offer me more fun at a lesser cost. Being the self-proclaimed gaming hipster I am, Im reluctant to approach Halo reach but I defnitely want to see what the fuss is about.


  17. Hey all,

    I recently let myself get shanghaied by the "Laptop + free xbox 360" deal microsoft was giving out. I am unsure of what to get, considering I've been listening to too much zero punctuation and I don't trust the choices when scrolling down the "best seller" list.

    I was thinking Bioshock to be a definite, with perhaps Bayonetta and FFXIII being kind of iffy. I remembered the new installment of Katamari that was on the xbox...although I don't know if thats any good either...

    When it comes to selecting games though, I just always seem to compare everything to my belated PS2 experience. I immediately inundated myself in obscure or underrated titles like Shadow Hearts or SoTC/Ico. The xbox just seems to have a different character and feel though.

    Any suggestions?