Your parents are assholes. Calling you "It" or "Thing" is completely unacceptable. To put it frankly, they sound like unfit parents. Sorry if you take offense to that, but it's true.
They broke a promise before she had done anything wrong, that you find this is a good thing is unsettling. Yes she yelled and should not have done so, but who is to blame; the instigating parents offering betrayal, or the hurt daughter reacting as any normal person would?DracoSuave said:The removal of privileged unearned because she acted up is not only fair, but it's right.
That sort of thing will get you banned, you might want to edit it away.DemonCleaner said:lolreligion
To respond in a similar fashion. Why does there need to be privacy between parents and their children when playing video games if the child in the situation is underage? Typically, isn't supervision of children while playing games encouraged? I'm certain you will come up with an enjoyable answer that will most assuredly keep me laughing for quite some time. Thank you for the argument by the way, my night was rather boring before this.Cheeze_Pavilion said:Why not?jboking said:When it comes to playing video games, there really doesn't need to be.Cheeze_Pavilion said:So you believe there is no concept of privacy except for things that you need to do?jboking said:Not even remotely similar. You need to bathe, you don't need to play a violent video game.Cheeze_Pavilion said:That's kinda ridiculous--I wouldn't feel comfortable taking a bath in front of my parents, but that doesn't mean I should stop washing.jboking said:"If you can't feel right about playing it in front of me, which you will be doing, then you don't play it."
alright, I'll give you that, in the end, this is entirely subjective. However, the question is how her parents viewed the situation. Based on their response, I believe they viewed it the same way I did. Also, I don't care what yahtzee said. He's an entertainer, not a reviewer. His typical practice is exaggerating the bad parts of any game. Just throwing that last point out there.No, she talked about the killing, she just said you do more stealth and unraveling the plot than killing. Is it some perfectly non-partisan judgment? No. However, not much is--I really don't see how it's skewed to describe the game that way: that's how I felt about the game. The fighting is basically like something out of a swashbuckling movie, and the assassinations, well, that IS one of the big criticisms of the game, how you spend so little time actually doing them. Didn't Yahtzee even go on about that in his review?How about this then, she provided a slightly skewed version of the game to make her parents more accepting of it. She purposely avoided talking about the assassinations(which were the point of the game) and instead focused on the information retrieval and other aspects of the game. If she is anything like I was back in the day(before I had the discussion with my parents), she simply skipped over some of the parts of the game she knew her parents wouldn't like.
Congratulations, you have a belief that differs from the parents in the situation. Can you provide anything useful for dealing with people who do believe she broke their trust instead of just saying they're wrong? If you cannot, then I see no reason for you to be posting here.Yeah, but the question is whether she broke that trust. I don't think she did. And I think people who believe she did are wrong.I can see you aren't getting the point I'm trying to make here. It's that they trusted her. You can call them idiots for trusting someone they love, fine, at least understand where I'm coming from here.
Good enough answer I suppose. Though I know from first hand experience that speaking to a family member(father) who holds a different political view than me provided a great amount of insight not only for me, but for him. We didn't end it yelling or having privileges revoked. He was completely fine afterwords and actually happy with me having a different political view than him because I did the adult thing and respected his views while interjecting with my own. I think you can have those conversations with a parent so long as you provide the right amount of respect to their views.There are probably opinions on things like politics or society you shouldn't express even if you feel them strongly, and the mature thing for two people to do would be to air those opinions out. She's probably better off keeping them to herself.Care to go a little further into the ways they want you to be immature? What is your view of maturity?I'm sure they will, but, my guess is they're respond *best* to you acting immature in the ways that they want you to be immature.
I'm still contending that based off of my personal experience with the issue(as I seem to find myself drawing close parallels with the OP) she was misleading them or at the very least, avoiding talking about certain parts of the game. She also probably didn't mention that one type of those repetitive side quests involves assassinating guards in a time limit without getting caught. I doubt her parents would have approved of it knowing this.Certainly--being purposely mislead is a valid reason to break a promise; but like I said: I don't see a valid reason here--I don't see anyone purposely mislead.What about when you didn't screw up, what about when you were purposely mislead?That's a valid reason. I don't see a valid reason here, and even if there is one, when you have to break a promise because you screwed up, you don't try and convince the other person it was their fault if it wasn't--you man up, and take responsibility for your actions.
Yes fucking pleasejmorourke80 said:Do any of your friends already have Assassins Creed?
If so, tell your dad you've been left with no choice and you're going to whore yourself out to make the money to buy the game. Two days later, borrow the game and walk home beaming proudly at your new purchase.
You just have to promise me you'll get a photo of your dad's face and post it here.
Yes, they're opposites. Denotation meaning the literal definition where connotation is the implied definitions based upon context, such as "rest" being either relaxing, sleeping or death. Where does 2x =/= 2x? (harkening back to the mathematics) Anyway, this is getting off topic.Cheeze_Pavilion said:In many cases, that's not true: look up the difference between connotation and denotation.
I was involved with a Lutheran church for about 6 months that never once spoke of the Love of Christ. Instead the congregation spoke only of hellfire and of the Law. There was no personal relationship with God or Jesus, there was only walking the straight and narrow. Now, granted, this is most likely a result of the pastor and church elders, etc. and probably shouldn't be generalized with the entire denomination, but churches such as this exist. Once again, off-topic at this point. My original statement still stands that their particular idea of Christianity could have bearing on the overreaction. Leave the statement at that. If you don't like how I said it, too bad? Take the context and get over it.I am not aware of any that do so. Maybe I'm just wrong--if so, my apologies. My guess is you're confusing "disregard" with "believing the full message of Love is captured in the legalistic aspects.
Aye, true! ^_^ About as unproductive as twisting my words out of context or misunderstanding the connotation used. :shrug:You're accusing me of nitpicking and arguing semantics just to not deal with what I have to say--see how unproductive those sorts of baseless accusations are?
In my frame of thinking, someone who doesn't provide good clothing, healthy and varied nourishment, a proper education (preferably post-secondary), a loving, nurturing and caring environment, etc... to the best of their ability is a bad parent. One who does provide those things is a good parent. What's the argument here?Not necessarily--they might not want to be philanthropic, but still want to be a good parent. They might want to fulfill their duty, but don't have the kind of feelings that other good parents do.
You're confusing someone having a duty with someone being incapable of not doing something. We all "have" to pay our taxes, but that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of tax evaders.
Or maybe they didn't.That doesn't mean you've expressed yourself clearly--maybe they misunderstood you as I did, but they simply agree with the misunderstanding that they came away with.
It's funny too, because this discussions could take place at almost the exact same level even with out the healthy dose of religion it has.I don't even know what your religion *is* beyond the fact that you're a Christian like me.
k...I disagree.
Maybe being a parent myself gives me a unique perspective on the situation since I've actually experienced similar scenarios with my own children as this. Any time there is a downplaying of something such as "oh, it's not so bad, really see look!" with an emphasis on a new direction, it generally means there's some funny business going on. Actually, I can't think of one time where there wasn't something fishy going on that that hasn't happened, kind of like slight of the hand that magicians use, except slight of the... video game content? Of course, I only have my own experience to go on and she may be nothing like my boys, but that's all I have to go off of.It always made sense: I just don't think you can compare what the OP said with your scenario about Mortal Kombat--proper analogy would be if they told you there were arms being ripped off and spines being torn out, but that most of the game was punches and kicks and energy balls. The kid didn't fail to mention that there's killing by just watering it down to 'swordfights' the way you did with 'battles' in your example.
k...No, 'granting that for the sake of argument' assume, not the kind of assumption you're talking about.