fluffy_puppy666's forum posts

Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts

If they were about to release a movie based on a particular game, what would be the best actors for the movie?

I think Bruce Willis would be a great Hitman. Not only because he looks a little like hitman, but also because he is a great action actor.
I also think that Keanu Reeves would perform well as Adam Jensen, not really because of the looks, but because i found that his acing would fit perfectly with Adam. Bruce willis as 47; keanu reeves as Adam

Any actors for Donte, Marcus Fenix, Niko Bellic, Team fortress characters, Vaas (the only half intersting character from far cry 3), or any other character?

Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts

 Well, i was navigating around the internwebs and found out that most of the successful game developers are liberal, Gabe Newell donated to democrats, John Carmack is a libertarian (Zeus, i love those two guys), John Riccitiello (EA games CEO) donated to democrats, LucasFilm CEO (you probably know his name) donated to democrats; i kept finding lots and lots of liberal great developers, but then i found something that i didnt like: 

Bobby Kotick (activision CEO) donated to republicans. I thought to myself "whatever, activision games sucks anyway", but then i found that Mike Fischer (square enix CEO) donated to republicans. That makes me worried, i kinda like square enix. Then i found that Todd Howard (bethesda CEO) also donated to republicans! But i LOVE bethesda games! I don't want to play the next elder scrolls online with this in my mind, it kind o annoys me that i am playing something made by someone that things that i am the scum of the society for not being conservative. 

 Do those developers donate to republicans because they are conservatives or because they are super rich and they want lower taxes? 

 Should i buy a game made by someone that hates me? I kinda want to play Elder Scrolls online. ;_;

Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts
He's right, though. Popular music is ephemeral in a way that classical music is not. Even popular music from just a couple of decades ago often seems corny and ridiculous - why? Because popular music is about style over substance, and when that style goes out of fashion, there's nothing left.MannyDelgado
Are you implying that one day Pink Floyd will be completely forgotten and will not be considered classic anymore? You thing that the only art period that last is the classical? This is interesting, because impressionism is from the late 1800 and lots of people paint impressionist frames today.
Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts

Look, I wasn't insulting Hans Zimmer. The only thing you're saying with that statement is that you dislike Johann Strauss. Comparing him with Strauss is a closer comparison. Especially since comparing him to Mozart vastly overrates Zimmer.

Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.

Ring_of_fire


>Also....enjoying something more does not mean something is better. Contrary to belief, you can (more or less) objectively look at the music and judge who is the better composer.

No, you cant. I ask you again: what criteria can you use to claim that one piece of art is better than another piece of art? Saying that one composer is better than another is like saying that "red" is a more beautiful color than "blue", it just makes no sense. If you think that a better composer is a composer that does more complex composing, then its your opinion; if you think that a better composer is the one that makes original composing, than its your opinion. One does not just look at a Van Gogh painting and say that its better or worse than Michelangelo, friend.
Their music will stand the test of time. Sure there are great composers that will hold up over time. Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven. And I may not have listened to all artists that existed after the classical period, but have listened to far more than you, and more than probably all but a handfull of others on this forum. I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school. What your musical education and background?Nuck81

>I'm a classically trained musician, I have a Bachelors and a Masters in Music, I teach high school band, Music History, Music Appreciation, Jazz Appreciation, and Humanities in my school.
>What your musical education and background?

You just showed how ignorant and how bad you are at your career just by using this fallaciousargument. If you have never heard of it, the name of the "argument" you used is AD HOMINEM, search for it and never do it again, its shameful and makes you look ridiculous. No offense.

>Shostokovich, Holst, Vaughn Williams, Percy Grianger, Phillip Sparke, but while genius composers they are not in the mold of Mozart or Beethoven.

As i just said to another friend on this thread, saying that one artist is better than another is like saying that "red" is better than "blue", there is no better color, there is no better artist. Art is not a concrete mathematical thing that you measure, art is not good or bad, art only depends on who sees it. Me, personally, i prefer Claude Debussy WAY more than Mozart. For me the classical period was really boring, the romantic and impressionest artists for me were much better. What criteria do you use to say that Mozart is better than Debussy? There is no criteria, its just being a elitist conservative pseudo musician.

Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts

[QUOTE="TrueAmerican007"]Hans Zimmer is the modern day Mozart.Ring_of_fire
No, not even close. If you want to compare him with anyone in the past, he would be more like Johann Strauss

>No, not even close. If you want to compare him with anyone in the past, he would be more like Johann Strauss

What cristeria do you use to decide what artist is better? There is no better artist, art is not something concrete that you measure with numbers, art is chaotic. Some like hans zimmer more, some like mozart more and none have better taste. Deal with it.

Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts
[QUOTE="Nuck81"] No there aren't. These guys, especially Mozart, where a rare and special kind of genius that only comes along once a generation. Hundreds of years from now, when we are all dead, people will have forgotten about The Rolling Stones, Justin Beaver, Radiohead, and the like, but they'll still be having concerts of Mozart and Beethoven.

So, following your logic, in hundreds of years, human capacity devolved. Makes perfect sense. If you say that there is no composer as the classical ones, then you must have listened to ALL artists that existed after the classical period, right?
Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts

Are we, one day, going to teach a computer the way of philosophy?
Are computers going to solve political problems, find cures for diseases and even design things? Is it even possible to create a combination of hardware and software that has consciousness even though its not an organism?

Will it be possible to augment someones intelligence by putting microscopic computers in the brain? Will artificial intelligence be capable of creating art?

Is this perfect artificial intelligence going to decide to take over the earth?

Will there be any mad scientist that will create Human_kind_2.0 to take over the earth?singularity.jpg

Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts

Deer are f*cking stupid animals and they deserve to be killed, butchered, and eaten.

So are most other animals we routinely eat. Cows aren't "beautiful", they're walking sacks of meat that eat grass and sh*t.

Carnivores are badass motherf*ckers who have all sorts of kickass hunting abilities they get from evolution.

-TheSecondSign-

I was just going to have a bagel for lunch, but you've persuaded me, I'm going to get a sausage, egg and cheese instead. Extra sausage.

airshocker
Why would i listen to users with no signature images? I dont give a damn about you. .
Avatar image for fluffy_puppy666
fluffy_puppy666

48

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 fluffy_puppy666
Member since 2012 • 48 Posts

1. It gets the point across fine, but it's still completely wrong (off by +- 150k (100%)). That said, there is no point to bringing it up, I never said animal related human mortality was absurdly high.

2. "50% of giraffe population doesnt live in absolute misery." Back to the happiness/misery index of giraffes (what ever the hell that is). You're 'assuming' they're not miserable, when you can't know.

Inconsistancy
1) im very confused now. Why did you talk about animals killing humans again? I dont even know what to say now. I think you were responding to me when i said that humans have no predators, then you showed your numbers, then i showed mine (wrong) numbers, then you fixed my number and now what? I think someone ITT told me "a ecosystem without predators is impossible", then i said that humans have no predators, then you said that humans have predators or something. 2)You're 'assuming' they're not miserable, when you can't know. Oh, yes, where is my head! I forgot to post sources about giraffes health. Sorry, i am so slow and uneficient at arguing, im making you lose a lot of time. So, yeah, i didnt find anything about giraffes health, but i searched and searched a lot and didnt find anything about giraffes starving, it appears to be that giraffes dont suffer from starvation. Well, if its true, then giraffes are one big step ahead from humans in this respect. But for the simple fact that giraffes dont need to work their entire day on a Nike factory to get 2 dollars, i think this makes the more confortable than most humans, even if they are violently killed a lot. Well, i dont know. Do you think that giraffes live a better live than humans? Well, im not SO sure about that, but for me a giraffe's life is more worthy than a human life because they dont need to hurt to live. I already talked about how many animals humans kill per year. I like the way this discussion is going nowhere. :3