Jump to content

Miss Stonesinger OOS

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Miss Stonesinger OOS

  1. Can I post a question? #26: Is rehabilitation of criminals more important than punishing them? My points regarding question 25 tie in with this, as I've always been of the opinion that the vast majority of people are fundamentally responsible for their actions, no matter what their upbringing or life experience has been like.

    Rehab, when it's feasible, is always superior. Sometimes it isn't possible, like for much of the criminally insane, and repeat offenders, and they really should just be locked in a penal facility. (preferably in a very structured environment where they are productive, but very tightly regulated in the actions and movements)


    Most criminals however are criminals of necessity, not of convenience. Most of the criminals wouldn't be criminals if they had decent jobs, with decent bosses, but that is extremely rare for anyone that isn't already fairly well-off. (the top 10% of earners tend to have the decent jobs and bosses locked up already) Most of the problem stems not from the opportunity and tools to commit crimes, but the lack of reasons not to turn to crime.

    I'm not 100% sold on the benefits of rehab, at least not for everyone equally. I know of individuals, both famous or not, who never make decisions or did things to cause harm or distress to others despite their own terrible life experiences. I do agree with your idea that if our social systems worked the way they should and everybody had decent job and lifestyle prospects it would reduce certain crimes and remove the need/desire to commit certain crimes, but I still think that punishment for doing wrong (which I realize is a morally hazardous greyzone) should either slightly take precedence over or at least be in balance with rehabilitation. I sometimes think we lean too strongly on rehabilitation in our current concept of justice and often interpret criminals as somehow being more a victim than their actual victims. A lot of people take this idea too far and seem to wish for some sort of return to harsh Victorian internment, so I think my beliefs wouldn't be easy to put into practice.

  2. I've posted on here before but not much, my RL name is Amanda Spijkers and I'm from Nottingham, UK. I like listening to old and new school goth music, funeral doom and sad ethereal pop (typically bat pooper that I am) and I like reading and playing video games. I like reading creepypastas, so get in touch if you enjoy that sort of thing.

  3. I'm an atheist, but in saying that please don't associate me with the "New Rationalist" bollocks that has come to mean atheism these days.


    I'm purposefully agnostic but do lean slightly towards atheism, albeit of a deeply uncertain sentiment and mostly due to life experience and a secular upbringing. I find dogmatism and certainty in fundamentalists utterly baffling and tend to hold the notion of faith (both for or against any belief system) as deeply suspect. I find aspects in all religions and philosophies that enthrall and appall me in equal measure, that's the paradox of being a committed agnostic. One is drawing from everybody else's teachings only to further convince oneself of one's deep-set unknowingness. I suppose I'm a proponent of ignosticism (with an "I" rather than an "A") in that like it's more well-known theological counterpart, ignosticism is a more deliberate and conscious stance for the impossibility of affirming or denying God's existence. It posits that to argue either way is a fundamentally flawed endeavor and ultimately an unattainable goal.


    It's the closest argument I've personally read to effectively "answer" the question of divinity, even though ironically it's crux lies in the premise that it defends no other stance - religious or otherwise; nor even it's own premise. The core point raised by ignosticism leaves me feeling stumped for a better response and it's something I've come to enjoy pondering.


    I'm not comfortable being in the position of philosophical uncertainty that you've described, but I like the implied idea of tolerance in your views. I don't suppose you're a reader of Charles Fort?

    This video sums up most of what I think of religion. There are also other issues as well, but the main thing is there.





    That's a rule about religion: ask too many questions and you will be asked to leave.

    This is a reductive argument. The idea that religious people are somehow ignorant of worldly affairs and more prone to bigotry is a toxic misunderstanding of faith read through a materialist viewpoint. It depends in part of the particular religion and on the character of each particular worshipper. Not everyone who attends a church checks in their brain at the door, and as such not all religious leaders and worshippers will demand absolute obedience of thought.


    I have yet to meet a good priest that said not to question the Catholic faith... Actually, every single one I know has said the exact opposite. Ture, some faiths don't like people looking too deep, and some people in certain faiths are still human and don't like when people question their teachings, but that doesn't mean they're all that way.

    I liked this point enough to highlight it. Catholic clergymen have a reputation for being very sceptical of supernatural and extranormal matters, and reading any books and essays on paranormal subjects will often reveal a lot of Catholic contributors who are well versed on it. I think their faith is stronger for it and their investigations of weird phenomena more grounded and healthily cautious, but in a more open-minded way rather than the narrow Dawkins new atheist way.

  4. INTP-A ("Logician")




    57% THINKING / 43% FEELING




    I can live with that result. I've been described by some as an "Alice" personality (as in "Alice in Wonderland"), in that I'm pretty good at dealing with absurd and seemingly helpless situations with a degree of reason and detachment, and I rarely get fazed by anything or get upset with anyone.

  5. #25: I try to be patient with some of my more racist or sexist friends, but even they are quite limited in their prejudice and my patience has its limits. I'm not exactly on the far end of the left/right spectrum, and many of my leftist friends probably feel the same way regarding some of my principles and attitudes. Without wanting to I've sometimes lost friends for some of my opinions. I think friendship can transcend moral and political opinions anyway.


    Can I post a question? #26: Is rehabilitation of criminals more important than punishing them? My points regarding question 25 tie in with this, as I've always been of the opinion that the vast majority of people are fundamentally responsible for their actions, no matter what their upbringing or life experience has been like.

  6. chart?ec=-1.0&soc=-0.26


    It's about where I'd expect it to be. I personally think of myself as somebody who is pro-individual liberty but also pro-responsibility, and my attitudes towards criminals can make me unpopular with some of my leftist friends. In terms of the market and economy I tend to be a grudging realist instead of a zealous critic of capitalism. I'm not exactly pro-capitalism, but can any of us here really argue that our lives would be sustainable if we weren't subject to it. I honestly don't see how I could realistically be "freer" in any other kind of society in which huge numbers of people coexist. I find racism, sexism and homophobia terrible, but I'm skeptical of attempts to hush-up prejudice and bigotry under a veneer of political correctness.

  7. Ross has already covered most of the things that annoy me about games, but I suppose I can list which things he is spot on about and come up with a few of my own.


    --Naming your recent remake of an already famous game the EXACT same title. We had a perfectly nice Tomb Raider released in 1996 and then clever marketing man said "lets just use that name for our new game!" in 2013.

    --Attacking mechanics in the style of Diablo games that just involve clicking on enemies repeatedly, being unable to avoid their attacks and attacking and running away without variation. I'm just a bit prejudiced towards hack and slash games.

    --Weight carrying limitations in anything that isn't supposed to be a serious or realistic survival experience. It's a game! It's fantasy! I want to carry all the shit I find!

    --Jumping mechanics that requite precise placement and activation via an action button, as opposed to just being able to jump. I guess it removes some of the risk that used to exist in platformers and adventure games, but it feels so limiting.

    --Dog enemies in survival horror games. I get it, they are a staple and it does mix things up a bit from humanoid enemies, but then don't limit yourself to those pets. Chuck in some zombie cats, parrots and iguanas in for some variety!

    --Online games. I know a lot of people will disagree with me here, but in my experience most people on them are horrible self important babies.

    --Killing games that require a server to play especially if they have decent single player modes. Enough said. I sent letters to EA like everyone/Ross asked.

  8. Tomb Raider (all of them)

    All of the Tomb Raider games are amazing to play for me. Tons of exploration, puzzle solving and action.

    I'll always love the old Tomb Raider games specifically the first one and up to Tomb Raider Chronicles even if the controls are rather ropey by game standards now. The PS1 was my first introduction to gaming and Tomb Raider was my first experience playing a game for myself, and not simply watching my older sisters play them with their friends on the old Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis. I loved the mysterious historical locations, the realistic enemies (at least they were at the time, it blew my mind back then) and the fact the main character was a girl (unheard of back in the 90s!) combined together into a rather satisfying brew in my brain. The legless Atlantean boss you fight in the first game was probably the scariest thing I'd ever seen up until that point, I had nightmares about it for weeks. Ever since that experience I have an unhelpful habit of measuring all games successes by taking how much I shit my knickers into my rating.

  9. A few games I've played, both good and bad, that I offer as recommendation for future episodes of Game Dungeon. You can find them all on Steam.


    DreadOut: horrifying and impressive indie survival horror game filled with properly scary Asian ghosts

    Kentucky Route Zero: mysterious cel shaded point & click game about a secret highway beneath Kentucky

    Tabletop Simulator: a board game simulator game with loads of preset play boards and an editor to make your own

    Forward to the Sky: cutesy anime style 3D puzzle platformer set in a floating tower

    Dead Secret: extremely scary first person murder mystery

    The Cat Lady: violent and stylish graphic adventure game about a disturbed woman sent back from the dead

    The Deer God: an atmospheric pixel graphics platformer about nature and reincarnation

  10. I've actually played this game and unsurprisingly I gave up the 3rd level at the point the first of those 103-hit mob boss monsters appeared. I thought it was a bug with the game and I gave up after reloading the game a few times in a useless attempt at fixing the problem. The difficulty spike would be forgivable if the fighting was much more fun, but basic hack and slash mechanics and "kiting" is not my idea of fun. I'm glad Ross articulated my frustration with the game as so far I've only met incredulity and patronisation from most other gamers, especially hack and slash fans.

  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.