Looking down on "no-life" players? Jelousy?

#0 - Nov. 27, 2006, 4:35 p.m.

Im just wondering why some people look down on people who play alot, who are they to tell others how to live anyway?
Are the jelous they cant play as much? Are they jelous they have to go to work instead of living of parents/other incomes?

I mean, why else would you care what other people do with their time? Sitting at a comp at work or get money from ebaying alittle while playing all day, difference, I mean really?

I bet its jelousy.

I think its the ones that look down on the players who play alot that are the "no-lifes".

Take care!

Aeus

#4 - Nov. 27, 2006, 4:47 p.m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envy

Aeus

#10 - Nov. 27, 2006, 4:54 p.m.

Q u o t e:

It's a disputed topic.

That's irony for ya :)

Aeus

#89 - Nov. 28, 2006, 8:51 p.m.

Q u o t e:
"How do you kill that, which has no life?"

You give it a soul.
Then you reap it ;)

Aeus

#99 - Nov. 28, 2006, 12:28 p.m.

Q u o t e:
For me, it's pretty simple (I'm a casual player). Let me break down my formula for you :

IF
your time spent in the VIRTUAL world (ie game)
IS BIGGER THAN
the time you spent in the NONVIRTUAL world (ie Real life)
THEN
You are a no-lifer and don't deserve jealousy, but pity

The definition of virtual : "an implicit or abstract representation of something;" ... hey.. it's not real !

A.

Ps. If above definition applies to you, you are probably a hotshot in a virtual world which is worth..... ZERO !

So, when you wake up every morning, you are convinced this is the real world? Maybe this is all just imaginary, how will you ever really know?

Aeus

#114 - Nov. 28, 2006, 2:14 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Because if I wasn't my life would be meaningless and full of stress.

That's not necesaarily true; just one way of looking at it.
I'm just saying that perhaps, every night you go to bed, in fact, you are actually waking up, in your real life, and all this is just the dream. And in there, you might think exactly the same thing you do here..

Aeus

#116 - Nov. 28, 2006, 2:18 p.m.

Q u o t e:

No more Matrix marathons for you!
Less crack more Modding! Mkay?

Because the Wakowski's were the first to touch on this subject matter ;)

Aeus

#145 - Nov. 28, 2006, 4:13 p.m.

Q u o t e:

I would disagree with you there, i think Descarte was the first to touch on this with "I think, therefore I am" Proving that we can not prove anything except that we exist.

But who am I to question the mighty goblin.

Tell me, who "invented" irony then?

Aeus

#146 - Nov. 28, 2006, 4:14 p.m.

Q u o t e:
who cares?

Define "who"..

Aeus

#148 - Nov. 28, 2006, 4:16 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Well, if you want to get to the basic philosophical fundamentals of our existence the it's entirely logical and reasonable to state that our existence is nothing but perception and memories of past perceptions. When we die we have no idea of if we will take these perceptions with us or whether 'we' will even exist. Sure we 'feel' things in the physical world, we can feel pain, we can feel emotions, we can interact, but, at the lowest level these are just still just perceptions. For all we know we could be a 'brain' sitting in a vat on some far off planet experiencing this life as a series of neural stimuli...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

So, this naturally leads to a state whereby we can question the value of anything and everything in our lives and ultimately judge that no one 'thing' is more worthwhile that any other 'thing'. Thus, no-one has any right to judge anyone else's lifestyle as ultimately there is no measure of what is truly of more value or whether anything has any value in the first place.

Personally, I don't condone this philosophy, yet, nor do I outright dismiss it. I just accept it as one of many possible truths.

EDIT: Ahem, I'm sure there was point I was trying to convey by posting the above, but, as with most philosophical discussions these kind of things sometimes get lost in the process.

That just reminds me of Socrates using logic to prove any point. He seemed able to prove both one point and its complete opposite with logic. Well, what he called logic anyway, can't say I agree with all his arguments.
Point is, even logic can't always be 100% proven, no matter who argues a point they will always be subjective, because such is our nature..

Aeus

#150 - Nov. 28, 2006, 4:18 p.m.

Q u o t e:

That would be the poster, as he can only express his own opinions

Just because he can, technically, only express his own opinion on the matter doesn't mean he would be the only one who is capable of caring about the discussion, nor the point.
So I ask again, define "who."

Aeus

#156 - Nov. 28, 2006, 4:26 p.m.

Q u o t e:

The English, of course.

:p

I was making a point. But I don't need to tell you that, Coil ;)

Aeus

#157 - Nov. 28, 2006, 4:28 p.m.

Q u o t e:

Well I'm not really great on these "deep" questions but I presume it would be everyone who is aware of it would express a level of care. As even thinknig about it would provoke a little bit of "care", wouldn't it?

So, young thinker, you want to discuss the concept of "caring" as well? :)

Let's finish the "who", then we'll move on to the "care" ;)

Aeus

#166 - Nov. 29, 2006, 1:20 p.m.

Q u o t e:

*touches Aeus with her [Gnomish Ban-Device-o-Matic Prototype] again*

****, this thing NEVER procs. Shame on you though, Aeus. You doubleposted TWICE!

Gnomish engineering, oh palease..