None, not even acquaintances at this point in my life. I had plenty people previously who considered me a dear friend and whom I barely considered acquaintances. Most of them would confide in me the most intimate details of their personal life yet I wouldn't let them in on trivialities. As such, it was only natural to decide to end the farce. I'm running lean now. It can get tough at times but the pros outweigh the cons that's for certain. Its not that I'm antisocial or anything its just that I'm not very lucky in that department.
So uhm..... You've met a lot of awful people?
Not awful people. He said he wouldn't let them in on "trivialities". I do this all the time as well. Nothing wrong with being introverted as long as you're happy and not lying to yourself, telling yourself "I'm happy." when you truly are not.
As for where I stand on friendships :
@bforrester420 said:
I live by the Ron Swanson philosophy on friends: "1 to 3 is sufficient."
@thegerg: When you look back you can see where you went wrong. The idiom is also used on people who are correcting your mistakes after you've done the job, especially if they didn't do anything but add their opinion. (kind of like how you are trying to point out where I went wrong (It's always easier to try and point other people flaws and question them when you offer nothing)). So yeah, it does fit.
I love listening to people talk about war who have no understanding of the modern military aside from what they play in Call of Duty.
Great tactic! Be so condescending that the enemy walks off the battlefield ashamed that they don't know as much as you. Nothing dies but pride and ego.
It's not condescension, it's disdain. Do not talk about war if you don't know anything about the military. It's as simple as that.
I'm glad that by your standards that I can talk. Sometimes to find a solution to something you have to bring in thoughts from the outside. Soldiers love to use the saying "Hindsight is 20/20", meaning that those watching from the outside tend to see things that those doing it can't. And just to clarify, your original post was condescending but as you further elaborated, you wrote it out of disdain for people that have no real experience in military affairs. Now if you served on several combat tours then that means you can talk on this post (by your rules) , so please share with us as how to humanely deal with an enemy on the battlefield, since your ideas and opinions are the only ones worth hearing.
I love listening to people talk about war who have no understanding of the modern military aside from what they play in Call of Duty.
Great tactic! Be so condescending that the enemy walks off the battlefield ashamed that they don't know as much as you. Nothing dies but pride and ego.
The only way to humanely beat an enemy on the battlefield is to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. Kill them fast and trust that they will not show you the same courtesy.
@DaX_Factor: i will have to disagree with you here. The examples of scorekeeping that you've mentioned don't count for me. Why? Because they are not included in the rules of the game. I think we will all agree that rules are what keeps a game together. If something is not included in the rules, it is not a part of the game. So if someone for his own purpose turns an icebreaker game into a pvp, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the game is not competetive at its core.
And the examples player vs embarrassment are not correct either. These are the emotions of a particular player evoked by the game, or possible results. These are not elements you interact with, therefore you cannot play against it.
I had already debunked my opinion with the same reasoning you had, but I wasn't going to just give you the win lol. Great counter-point!
As for consequences this is not something that would be a good criteria for deciding what is a game and what is not. Consequences (be it losing life, a limb, money or simply just losing the game) are just negative effects of risk the players are taking. And while risk itself is not essential in games, there are thousents of games where risk is the main factor. Maybe in the evening I'll find a great mini-comics that perfectly fits into this argument :)
When it comes to competition it is also optional, just like risk. There are plenty of games where you don't compete - minigames that were mentioned for example. Cleaning windows on eye-toy anyone? Or what about games played at the beginning of some meetings or holidays, that help everyone get to know the group. Everyone provides answers to questions about themselves on sheets of paper and the rest of the group has to guess who provided given answers as well as judge if the answer was true or false. Is it a game? Yes. Is there a competition, are there winners or losers? No
The only way that I can see competition as optional is only if the player opts out of the game. In the case of your icebreaker game, just because no winner or loser will be declared doesn't mean there is not one. If you guess right (you win), you guess wrong (you lose). Though it is presented as a non-competitive game, a person playing the game may possibly be keeping score. The premise of a game like that is similar to non-competitive sports. Point are not kept, no one wins or loses and everyone gets a trophy. The only people who really keep to the no-point-tracking rules are the coaches and refs because they have to. Every parent is keeping track. Every child is trying to beat the other kid. I'm trying not to make this feel like I'm stretching this "competition" opinion of mines. Ice breaker games have plenty of competition. Player vs player, player vs embarrassment, player vs social rejection. Winning and losing can happen within only one person.
Log in to comment