Xbox to blame for lack of alien visits

by Vladimir Cole { Feb 20th 2006 at 8:55AM }

Are you familiar with the Fermi Paradox? The paradox is that the universe appears to be a hospitable place for extra-terrestial life to have emerged, and yet... it hasn't. (So far as the government lets us know, anyway.) If there's not a big coverup, Geoffrey Miller suggests that we might be able to blame the Xbox for alien's failure to visit planet Earth.

It's not as nutty as it sounds. He's saying that "evolved technical intelligence has some deep tendency to be self-limiting." He writes, "After Hiroshima, some suggested that any aliens bright enough to make colonizing space-ships would be bright enough to make thermonuclear bombs, and would use them on each other sooner or later. Perhaps extra-terrestrial intelligence always blows itself up."

How does Hiroshima have any bearing on the Xbox, besides the fact that it's not selling there? Miller continues: "I think the aliens don't blow themselves up; they just get addicted to computer games."

This is a fantastic essay that touches on everything we hold dear: games, fast food, pornography. Are these things killing us? Are games actually holding the entire human race back?

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

RS @ Feb 20th 2006 9:14AM

Slow news day ...

Captain Obvious @ Feb 20th 2006 9:14AM

Pointless dribble. Slow News Day.

WedgeTalon @ Feb 20th 2006 9:20AM

"Are games actually holding the entire human race back?"

According to our friendly neighborhood comedian Jacko, yes.

Honestly though, very amusing theory. But then again (disclaimer, I have not yet RTFA) why should video games hold back society any more than music has? Or any more than movies and TV has? Or any more than books?

Jack is fond of calling video games a masturbatory activity, meaning (if you somehow haven't noticed his explanation) that it is mainly self-indulgant and non-productive, in the strictest sense of the term. Of course, music, movies, books, and so many other things which fall under the category of "entertainment" also qualify under Jack's definition of masturbatory.

This is true. That's why it's entertainment. CAN entertainment have good effects? Hell yes. But does that mean that they are holding us back? Obviously not.

Psygnosis2097 @ Feb 20th 2006 9:32AM

Not much to read between the lines...

Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Feb 20th 2006 9:33AM

If you don't find this article interesting you're a boring person.

The entire series of "Dangerous Ideas" is worth a read, let alone this one with a surprisingly relevant video game element.

Cerixus @ Feb 20th 2006 9:34AM

I think "Slow news day" must be French for "oh noes an interesting article with words, i want fake pics of consoles so i can be the first to poitn out the photoshop flaws!111!"

Cerixus @ Feb 20th 2006 9:37AM

p.s. #2... http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/dribble.html

Psygnosis2097 @ Feb 20th 2006 9:37AM

Thanks for pointing that out Mr. 1. - 2.

Psygnosis2097 @ Feb 20th 2006 9:51AM

4. "If you don't find this article interesting you're a boring person."

Quite shocking!

I rather thought blogs were invented to entertain boring people.

Psygnosis2097 @ Feb 20th 2006 9:58AM

I've just read between the lines for the 51th time and guess what:

The author's primary intention was to suggest a port of the infamous SETI@home project to Xbox Live Arcade.

Tucker @ Feb 20th 2006 10:07AM

sounds to me like inadvertant fundamental christianity. Miller wants us to deny new forms of media since they are prone to moving us futher away from the more important, concrete reality of "athletics, homework, [and]dating", as he puts it. sorry mr. miller, but at the risk of sounding coarse, "self-control" and "the meritocratic path" sound like terms that your part of the country are all too well known for. Millers grouping of the following modern "fake fitness" itemas (MP3, DVD, TiVo, XM radio, Verizon cellphones, Spice cable, EverQuest online, instant messaging, Ecstasy, BC Bud) speaks volumes as to the nature of his argument....the only thing all of these itmes have in common besdies the fact that they are all modern forms of entertainment is the fact that G. Miller is reminded of how strict his mother was whenever he sees someone using one of them. entertainment isnt the most dangerous thing our race faces as we head into the future (and it could be argued that in instances it can be educational or even therapeutic) , rather i would argue that the most dangerous thing we face is persons for whom the ability to accept new technologies for fear that they may in some way violate the status quo (im thinking of a jock a varsity letter jacket, with a blonde on his shoulder and a pencil behind his ear studying for his SATs based on what Miller thinks is worthy...lmfao. did this guy really make this blog?? im really shocked).
the thing about the universe is that it its really big, and it would be very unintelligent to think that there wouldnt be a multitude of ways that intelligent societies would develop, inclunding those in which persons might use virtual realities to enhance their relationships with each other or learn such simple lessons as "change can be good" or "technology has other uses than to jerk off with" (despite miller's obvious failure to do so on his on terms). i knew thangs have been much different since the conservative religous think-tanks took over when bush took the white house, im just surpirsed and dissapointed to see it rearing its ugly head in what was one of my favorite blogs....

pancakeshouse @ Feb 20th 2006 10:15AM

Stop with the video game and pornography compairisons already.

Sharpfish @ Feb 20th 2006 10:19AM

hmm.. I went into reading that with my usual cynacism towards psuedo-anti-gaming rants. I actually found myself understanding and apreciating his ideas. He has put it in a way that surely must have some underlying truth to it. The evidence is all around us, even the most hardcore entertainment lovers (I am one) have to admit, there is still a lot to be said for not loosing focus of what made us fundamentally human. And maybe a danger, though many, many years down the road. I think at this stage we need not concern ourselves, only do what we feel is right to balance our own lives (god knows I have spent far too much time with technology - but then I enjoy it).

For once I say we cut this guy some slack, and even if it is thinly veiled religious propoganda, I can see aspects of truth within it that can not be denied.

And come from a escapsist dreamer like me that is saying something! ;)

coalhalo @ Feb 20th 2006 10:49AM

Ned Ludd is alive and postings his view on the internet. After reading this guy's posting I was surprised to see that he was attached to the University of New Mexico. His ultra-conservative rant seems more at home coming from the likes of Bob Jones University or from a Earth Firster. This is the first time I've heard a luddite blame technology for a lack of E.T. interaction. My interpretation of this guy's "The Great Temptation" argument is self-flaggelation of the human race. We are all doomed he say's, not that we will annihilate ourselves in a nuclear holocaust, but we will slide into a slacker like stupor because we are being distracted by shiny gadgets..."The few young people with the self-control to pursue the meritocratic path often get distracted at the last minute � the MIT graduates apply to do computer game design for Electronics Arts, rather than rocket science for NASA." I would like to see some hard statistics to back up that statement. This guy reeks of fascism thinly disguised as psuedo-science. At the end of his post he sounds a call to arms to chosen people to fight against the heathens...."My dangerous idea-within-an-idea is that this, too, is already happening. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, and anti-consumerism activists, already understand exactly what the Great Temptation is, and how to avoid it. They insulate themselves from our Creative-Class dream-worlds and our EverQuest economics. They wait patiently for our fitness-faking narcissism to go extinct. Those practical-minded breeders will inherit the earth, as like-minded aliens may have inherited a few other planets. When they finally achieve Contact, it will not be a meeting of novel-readers and game-players. It will be a meeting of dead-serious super-parents who congratulate each other on surviving not just the Bomb, but the Xbox. They will toast each other not in a soft-porn Holodeck, but in a sacred nursery." This guy and people like him are very dangerous.

Captain Obvious @ Feb 20th 2006 11:01AM

Hahaha... I just noticed I got a negative star rating (I think) for commenting here earlier. Who knew you go backwards?

jadenguy @ Feb 20th 2006 11:01AM

i think video games and pornography are pretty similar. i mean, i'm not wearing pants durring either.

Spartacus @ Feb 20th 2006 11:33AM

I'm sensing some hostility toward "conservative religious" people; however, if this article truly came from a conservative religious viewpoint, aliens wouldn't even be mentioned. In a conservative religious worldview, humankind is unique in the universe and Earth is the only planet that supports life.

"the thing about the universe is that it its really big, and it would be very unintelligent to think that there wouldn�t be a multitude of ways that intelligent societies would develop" -Tucker

Actually if you've studied cosmic and biological evolution in college (my degree is in this area) you would know that it wouldn't be unintelligent to think that life is rare in the universe. Mathematicians have crunched the numbers of probability time and time again, and they are surprised life happened ONCE, let alone multitudes of times on many different planets. Add to that the fact that so far Earth is the only planet known to man that has the required prerequisites for life (liquid water, stable oxygenated atmosphere) and the odds become even lower (though man hasn't gotten even close to mapping the entire cosmos). The fact of the matter is, we don't have a single iota of data that would lead us to the conclusion, or even the hypothesis that there is life (let alone civilized life that is FAR SUPERIOR and MUCH MORE ADVANCED) on any other planet besides this one. The only reason the notion is entertained at all is because of the evolutionary theorists who deny the sheer incomprehensible odds that would have to be overcome for life to form. Scientists still haven't figured out how life was able to come into existence HERE, so why should we assume it happened on a multitude of other planets as well? As far as science is concerned, life is an anomaly, so it would actually be unintelligent to think that there WOULD be a multitude of ways that intelligent societies could develop. The whole "if it happened once it can happen again" argument is ridiculous when you apply the science and math to it. If you had a one in a trillion chance of winning the lottery and you won, you would be foolish to go right back out and buy another ticket with that logic. The probability of life is far lower than one in a trillion; it's a number in scientific notation that is incomprehensible to the human mind.

There is a much more plausible theory the author forgot to mention in his article: That we haven't been contacted by alien life forms because there aren't any. The idea that extraterrestrials are out there is not scientific or even all that logical. Science is based on observation and logic is based on the physical sciences and on hard math, neither of which support this theory. The theory is sensational, which is why we pour money into projects like SETI and why the media spits it out whenever they can, but it is hardly logical when the intricacies of life are studied.

Overall, though the article is interesting and though I can identify with some of the author's annoyances, it is pretty outlandish. I can also see why Tucker might attack religious viewpoints (he only mentions Christian however), this article has a far more secular worldview in it than religious. Perhaps Tucker should do a little research and find out what a religion actually teaches before pointing uneducated fingers.

epobirs @ Feb 20th 2006 11:40AM

Interesting hypothesis but not especially new. It's been done in SF many times that in the distant future humanity went out exploring but found it was very hard (no FTL) and very unrewarding. The odds of ever reaching a world that sustain human life were so low that it was far simpler just build new living spaces from the materials relatively close at hand back home. In the novels 'Beowulf's Children' and 'Destiny's Road,' each of which is set on a different colony planet in the same universe, part of the setting of both books is that Earth stopped talking to the rest of the galaxy a few decades after each of the colonies were established. The reason isn't given in the books as it is just a device for establishing that the characters are completely on their own but I've discussed it with the authors. Their premise was that everybody on Earth who cared about the universe beyond had already been part of one of the colony missions and those remaining were so uninterested as to no longer keep up the long distance conversation.

Not that new living space is much needed by a prosperous people. Wealth is the single most effective form of population control. Much of the world's wealthiest nations are experiencing negative population growth with the US drawing most of its expansion through immigration from poor nations. Indications are that once the majority of the world's population enjoys a certain minimum of amenities like reliable food and clean water supplies the concept of overpopulation will become a quaint anachronism. As an example, Japan is a nation of great wealth that largely discourage immigration. In recent years its government and biggest corporations have run incentive campaigns to inspire the creation of more children. In addition, much of the focus of the Japanese robotics and automation industries is towards the care of elderly in anticpation of an era when the number of elderly citizens will overwhelm the healthcare system.

The real problem with such hypoothesizing is that far too much is unknown. We have far too small a sample of life systems in the universe to draw any real conclusions. The Fermi Paradox starts off with a lengthy list of conditions, known of which can yet be verified, that need to be true before any of following conjecture takes on meaning. We have no examples of life, from single celled microbes to things that make conversation with us, eslewhere in the universe. We have no idea how probable it is for life to occur in environments much different from our own. We still have no idea how common planets like our own are in the universe. We can now detect some bodies orbiting other stars but only ones massively larger than Terra. We may eventually note a large population of Earth-like planets or we may find them exceedingly rare. The Moon is another factor. Some evolutionary biologists believes its gravitational influence played a vital role in stirring things up, leading to the increase in complex living organisms here.

If other talkative species do exist out there, there isn't any assurance they'll make noise loud enough for us to hear. After getting very noisy in the RF range during the 20th entury our planet has gotten a lot quieter and far less information is sent in the clear as simple analog signals. Translating a highly compressed digital signal in an unknown language is a daunting task, especially when the signal in increasingly weak as our systems use lower power and more relays on the ground and in orbit. Long ago a wireless conversation between two people at opposite ends of the continent using a band that would reach beyond the ionosphere rather than bouncing back down from it would require a lot of power. A coherent signal might be detected from a great distance. Today we use cellphones and the wireless portion at each end is quite weak and brief by comparison. The era when we were broadcasting 'I Love Lucy' to the whole galaxy is long since passed.

On top of this, Star Trek remains a fantasy. Traveling betweens stars within a human passenger's lifetime is so monumentally difficult it cannot be conceived without relying upon technologies that currently provable feasiblity. Much as my Science Fiction Geek's heart wishes otherwise, those are the hard facts. The likes of Columbus had it easy compared to anyone who fancies walking on a world lit by another star than our Sun. There could be numerous other species like ourselves out there but the sheer distances involved make the mere detection and acknowledgement of each other so difficult as to lack enough supporters to meet the economic challenge.

There is no shortage of people who cannot be enticed by simulation. My brother can admire the achievement in a state of the art motocross game but until such time as it is entirely indistinguishable from the real thing he won't settle for anything less as long as he is physically able. If reaching other worlds was reasonably within reach he would be one of those making the trip. But it isn't going to happen in his lifetime and possibly not the lifetime of our species.

krylon @ Feb 20th 2006 12:06PM

Notably also the idea that any intelligent civilization nukes itself to bits before doing anything of note in the galaxy isn't new either. See Olaf Stapleton's "The Star Maker," or Arthur C. Clark's "Childhoods End."

Tucker @ Feb 20th 2006 12:18PM

spartacus-i agree that miller's view isnt in line with what may be thought of as a typical fundamentalist religous ideology, especially in terms of his reference of the existance alien species (whether or not this is for mere arguments sake on his behalf is another story). perhaps i could have chosen my words better, but my point was to emphasize that his argument had more to do with a singular, non-inclusive world view found in certain, if not most or all forms of fundamentalist religion or any other social group for that matter (and the equation of anything that threatens said group/ becomes classified as mundane/perverse). and for the record, comparative religion is my area of study. im not here to debate the validity of life on other planets but rather to comment on what i percieved to be the underlying position in his article, namely that technology/mediation is a worthless, immoral venture that is dooming society and the future fate of the human race.

James @ Feb 20th 2006 1:34PM

This article does nothing but suggest that humans have no self control. To entertain the ideas put forth by the author requires a few leaps of faith. The idea that a large segment of the human race is going to ignore their biological obligations in order to satisfy their desire for eye candy is preposterous. Games and porn can be part of a healthy lifestyle whether or not Miller wants to make this admission. Moderation is something that springs to mind when discussing these leisure activities. There have always been individuals who took any activity too far. It may be going a bit far to pose the idea that society's downfall is going to be too much entertainment.

Spartacus @ Feb 20th 2006 1:41PM

Tucker:

Well if your study is comparative religion, you may know what religious philosophy his argument best fits under, but I can tell you it isn't Christian- which is the religion you named. I have been a Christian since I was 7, have been brought up in the church and have a minor in religion, so I'm quite aware of biblical principles and teaching. This article was a personal rant, not a theological summary of any single religious doctrine. Though I can't say with certainty what the author's background is, I can say with confidence that it is not strictly biblical. The author also mentions Muslim teaching, so if you are ware of any passages in the Koran that would corroborate his personal opinion, feel free to share. If anything, the author seems to be confused as to WHAT to believe as his article is a hodge-podge of morality, idealism, philosophy and pseudo-science. Perhaps his only intention was to stir up enough controversy to get a few moments of fame.

epobirs @ Feb 20th 2006 1:50PM

It is a bit shortsighted to declare it a failure of human ambition that MIT may produce more game programmers than engineers. It wouldn't surprise me if that claim were proven true. There are far more career opportunities for game programmers today than there are for rocket scientists. Yet when the freshly minted MIT grad on his way to a job interview at EA was born interactive media was too new for anyone to have entered school with it as their goal. They were all guys who started out with other goals and instead created a new industry. In much the same way it was only a few decades earlier that Math and Engineering majors became the first real Computer Science careerist because there was no one else to do the job in a business that grew explosively after the Second World War. Rocket Scientist became a genuine career about the same time as did Computer Scientist but there were far more opportunities for the computer guys well before entertainment became a major application of their work. With the advent of microprocessors career choices for CS major multiplied still more and now the chance to be your boss was far more accessable.

Even without the negative effects NASA has had on private enterprise in launch systems there was never going to be a vast number of slots for rocket designers. Just as for every designer of microprocessors there is a legion of guys writing code, for every guy who designs a rocket there is a legion of people doing the stuff that gives the rocket purpose. Even if that purpose is purely entertainment. It takes a small core of engineers to design the launch systems that put a DirectTV satellite in LEO. It takes many, many more people to produce the content that makes the existence of the satellite a profitable venture. But those frivolous applications also make it possible to advance the field and lower the costs of non-frivolous applications that otherwise would be too expensive for customers other than defense agencies. The prestige of pure science launches is far easier to justify when the price tag isn't so dear.

On another note, it is hardly a view limited to conservative religious types who are wary of a world where entertainment is too easily available. The 'amusing ourselves to death' hypothesis has many supporters on the secular left as well. Both sides offer a contingent of elitists who sneer at any mass market entertainment and fear a world that view their favored artistic pursuits as the pinnacle of civilization. Many intensely atheistic societies such as the communist regimes in Asia could be fiercely judgemental as to the suitable application of a person's time and abilities. Lead or a virtuaous life or we'll kill you has been practiced by every sort of regime that purports to have the one true way to live, not just those with a religious base.

Nor is religion a barrier to the concept of alien beings. Many religions are structured to view its adherents as favored by the god(s) and all other human as falling under the category of Other. If the outsiders are a visibly distinct ethnic group then it is that much easier to deem them an entirely different species. The 20th Century has produced plenty of UFO religions with Scientology being the most successful and Heaven's Gate the least from an evolutionary standpoint. Religions tend to reflect the secular understanding of the universe the era of their inception. Mormon, for instance, has a early 19th century approach to the idea of life on other planets. Some of it really reds like an antique science fiction work. Glen Larson drew on the Mormon texts as a framework for the original 'Battlestar Galactica' including the name for the planet where God makes his home.

epobirs @ Feb 20th 2006 2:01PM

#19, one nitpick. In 'Childhood's End' the end of humanity wasn't self-destruction but rather having an entire generation of children evolve into something so far beyond homo sapiens that it could no longer regard its parent species as something it could look upon as an intelligent species. It wasn't self-destruction but that mere mammals such as ourselves could never be a star spanning civilization.

This is a repeating theme for Clarke. The aliens behind the Monoliths in 2001 and its sequel are so far remind from us in intellectual capacity that they are only interested in what we might become millions of years from now. The changes they induce in David Bowman only bring him as far as we would regard a bright dog.

epobirs @ Feb 20th 2006 2:31PM

Of course, while I don't buy into the 'amusing ourselves to death' belief, I have had some ideas of where it could lead. A civilization that dies out for lack of interest may leave behind no clues to it having ever existed. Some see nanotechnology as the ultimate cornucopia of prosperity. Not only would it provide get material wealth as low cost but also make possible to clean up every mess and eliminate all waste products. The artifacts would be those deemed as having value. All alese would broken down to its component atoms and reused or safely returned to the soil. As time goes on and the overentertained society has fewer citizens more and more of its artifacts are deem unneeded and erased. After the last citizen expires, entertained to the last, every last vestige is the civilization is cleaned up. Eventually the nanobots disassemble each until the only ones left are those designed to biodegrade. Thus the planet becomes indistinguishable from a world that never produced a sentient species and the sole evidence is some anomalies in the fossil record if anyone looks closely enough.

Captain Obvious @ Feb 20th 2006 2:51PM

Despite raising the ire of some for expressing my view (and receiving a negative star in the process-- this is a blog after all), I stand by my assertation. The Xbox has no relevance to intergalatic relations. This article here (not the original), if anything, sensationalizes and singles out the Xbox, as fault for lack of any apparent visitation by anyone not of Earth. That's pure rubbish.

I'm tired of the Xbox being blamed for everything. Like [past] articles about it not being made out of chocolate. It's just plain silly. But continue to penalize me for my views. If we all posted in support of everything, what a dull place this would be.

vc @ Feb 20th 2006 3:04PM

Captain Obvious:

You got a neg star for this post:

"Pointless dribble. Slow News Day."

We tend to give anyone that posts "Slow News Day" a neg star because we have said over and over and over that we are NOT a mere news site.

Plus, you coupled your flame with a malapropism. We like to reward well-worded posts, even well-worded flames.

Tucker @ Feb 20th 2006 4:09PM

sparticus....i shouldnt have singeled out fundamental christianity in particular (...or the southeast either!...) but i do still feel his argument has much in common with many radical/fundamentalist groups in society today. i fully believe that there are multiple "christianites" as opposed to a single "christianity"; differences in religous experience can vary even from congregation to congregation in the same family of churches. this is precisely why i found miller's article so offensive in the first place since it is based on the assumption that there are moralistic truths, amoung other things of course.

Tucker @ Feb 20th 2006 4:10PM

er...i mean southwest :-/

lpret @ Feb 20th 2006 4:24PM

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll throw my 2 cents in. Reading that essay was intriguing as I caught myself reveling in his support and nodding along as he began his claim.

I am a rather mild-mannered and well-spoken university student, but when I jump on Xbox live or on WoW, I turn into a fearless soldier, uncaring race car driver, a cop-killing gangsta, or a fantastically oafish dwarf. You see, the part inside of me that dream of being something amazing and daring is quashed by my virtual entertainment. I am, therefore, free to continue my rather dull life having sufficiently quelled the emotional fury within me.

All this to say, I think people are more willing to become the most boring of individuals in return for that entertainment. Not that the Xbox will stop us from some amazing adventure in the outer areas of space -- but that that excitement is not necessary.

A last point, space exploration -- or any technology for that matter, has been in the midst of a race: the Space Race during the cold war, thermonuclear devices during WWII/Cold War. In the corporate world, Intel and AMD duke it out to provide better processors. It's the struggle and competition that brings out the best in all of us -- and if we have no one to compete against for space domination, why would we even bother? That's my singular case for a lack of a space program.

Nik Edmiidz @ Feb 20th 2006 4:30PM

I thought you were going to say that the lack of alien visits was because they took a look at how we treat aliens in our games like Halo or Metroid Prime.

But if the aliens really did their research they'd see that we often see ourselves as the protectors of the universe and are friendly to "good" aliens. :-)

Captain Obvious @ Feb 20th 2006 5:07PM

Yeah, I figured it was the post I made earlier in this topic, as I didn't have any stars prior to then. I'm not changing my position on what I said, because I believe in my opinion. At first I found it funny (negative stars... my parents would be proud) but then later I guess it bothered me enough that I felt I should explain my position in more detail. This is a blog, and I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. To penalize that is questionable, but then again, you guys make the rules.

When I talked to you guys earlier in the year about a completely different topic, one of you mentioned something that I'll never forget. And I'm paraphrasing here... We criticise in an effort to hopefully make people think. And perhaps improvement can come out of it.

I'm always going to have a personal position on the topic at hand in the future, even if it's about Joystiq itself. So if that means that I continue to lose stars over my opinions, then so be it.

Spartacus @ Feb 20th 2006 6:24PM

Tucker:

I know what you're saying, but I think you just said it wrong. In any doctrine there is a spectrum from conservative to liberal and the further from the middle you stray, the less accurate depictions of the doctrine as a whole you perceive. While I can't argue with you that there are multiple Christian based doctrines out there I grow edgy about it because people often interpret this as evidence that Christianity as a whole is groundless, that the Bible is non-authoritative and there are no moral absolutes. In anthropology they take this deceiving mentality even further and make the claim that there are NO absolutes, but of course philosophically one cannot make this claim without contradicting themselves as claiming there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute statement. So therefore there has to be at least ONE absolute in the universe; that there are no absolutes, but now you've already opened the floodgates to which there is no mechanism for testing the validity of each "absolute" in question. In short, there may very well be MANY absolutes in the universe and there is no way philosophically or scientifically to prove or even test otherwise.

The problem I see in your argument isn't that you are wholly incorrect, but that you imply to point the finger of blame at "faults" in the religion rather than what is much more plausible; faults in the person. Even if the author of this article was a self proclaiming (insert religion of your choice here), it would prove nothing about the religion itself, only a biased and possibly skewed interpretation from one outspoken individual. If the majority of the other adherents of the named religion agreed with the individual, then you may have an accurate representation of the doctrine in question, but I would be willing to bet that this guy is in the minority of WHATEVER religion he claims. So my point in debating with you is simply to remind you (and others reading this) that one man is not representative of any doctrine. Neither are small radical groups. Neither are denominations, sects, or any other branch-off of a doctrine. We all too often cast judgment based on stereotypes which are commonly pulled from the fringe groups of the target demographic in question. So in fairness to Christianity, or any other religion to which the author may lay claim, I would urge readers to look beyond his hypothesis and to take a look at the source material; the Bible for Christianity and the Koran in the case of Islam. Serial killers could claim to be pacifists, but they wouldn�t be representative of the pacifist doctrine. Likewise, some 60% of Americans claim to be Christians. If this statistic was accurate and the people who claimed Christianity actually practiced the teachings of Christianity (the Bible), America probably wouldn't be in its current sate of moral decline.

Basically, I'm just defending the various religions out there from getting stereotyped by radical fruit-loops who barely gasp the basic tenets of the theology they claim to be ambassadors of. I don�t mean to attack you in particular and if you weren�t implying what I accused you of, I apologize. I was more writing a rebuttal to a general attitude or view of religion rather than your points in particular.

Aaron @ Feb 21st 2006 9:19AM

i think it is stupid that they are blaming the xbox,its just another excuse for them

Captain Obvious @ Feb 22nd 2006 9:50AM

I'm not crazy about blaming ANY system unless you can somehow rationalize the logic. It is what it is. Pointless dribble.

As I'm lost a star over this and am now in the negative, branded like the Scarlet Letter, I shall be changing my moniker from Captain Obvious to Slow News Day in silent protest. If or when I ever achieve a star to remove my negative situation and achieve "0" stars (how sad is that?), then I shall retire my new identity and return to the old.

Cap

Splash @ Feb 25th 2006 2:41PM

Wow. Someone makes a comment about an article, in essence, what blogging is all about, and they are penalized?

You guys blog the news. The difference between news and a blog is that one is fact and the other is opinion. Without the news you have nothing to blog about. Just because some says slow news day, that merits downgrading that person because you disagree with their views? How one sided is that? It's not like users can remove your stars.

At yet, when someone who works for Joystiq makes a personal attack on others by calling them 'boring' for stating their opinion, that goes unpunished? You would think a personal attack would be far worse.

What's going on with Joystiq? I thought the whole point was to state your personal opinion on articles. Why are you penalizing users for making personal opinions about an article? There was no personal attack involved. Please explain.

And for the record, I'm not crazy about the article either.

If you're going to remove stars for people posting comments on articles, then why do you allow comments at all? Is it now policy that we have to agree with you?