Jump to content

John Caveson

Members
  • Content count

    2451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

John Caveson last won the day on December 1

John Caveson had the most liked content!

About John Caveson

  • Rank
    Ya boi JC...
  • Birthday 06/20/96

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    ....in da houuuse!

Contact Methods

  • Steam
    76561198082149883

Recent Profile Visitors

7090 profile views
  1. TIAM: Entertainment Stuff

    As a fan of the show myself, I have to admit, the show has kind of devolved into: 1.) Rick's group fights for survival from zom-er excuse me, "walkers" and the occasional madman. 2.) Rick's group seemingly find a safe haven for a while and gains new notable characters. Then either: 3a.) Someone does something stupid and walkers takeover. 4a.) Safe haven is compromised, and they lose a few main characters. Revert to step 1. or 3b.) A larger group assimilates them, and that group turns out to be psychos. 4b.) Rick's group rebels against larger group and eventually wins, but the damage is too great, walkers takeover, the safe haven is compromised, and some main characters die. Revert to step 1. You'll notice that the earlier seasons took the "3a" route, while later seasons have been taking the "3b" route. However, this seems natural, considering in the earlier seasons, they had less fire/manpower and less fighting experience against walkers. It's kind of like a lot of survival horror games where you can kill the monster. At first, the monster(s) is(are) scary because it(they) can kill you easily, but once you amass enough firepower, it(they) become a joke. The show is essentially at that later half. The walkers aren't even that much of a threat on their own anymore, just a major headache to deal with when they're fighting another enemy. Maybe the writers are trying to be deep with a message about humanity's tenacity or something. Or they're just trying to show that rebuilding civilization is a really long and arduous process, and the odds that you and your particular group will be "the one warlord to rule them all" post-collapse is really small, and takes a lot of tough, moral-questioning decisions just to survive. I think the civilization rebuilding is what is keeping me interested in it. Like, what would a post-zombie apocalypse society look like? What would its government and hierarchy look like etc.? The process of new countries being formed out of a power vacuum like that always interested me I guess.
  2. TIAM: General Gaming edition

    7/10 #Nvr4get
  3. Net Neutrality guff

    Oh hey, I've got some notifications for this thread. *walks into thread* Hey guys, whatchya talkin' abou-ohh... Yikes, well call me "Lucy", because it looks like I have some explaining to do. Well, here goes nothing: Right off the bat, I offer a most sincere apology to Scags. I never intended to insult or talk down to you. I was only working with what you told me, as such, I could only deduce from any conclusions from what I thought was a more detailed backstory to your situation, and tried to help you from there. As stated before, I know I come off as an ass due to my brutal honesty with people, and i've come to accept it. I figured since we were being blunt with each other, then well, that's what I was. In fact, that you actually responded to that particular question (of all the things you could have cherry-picked out of that post, might I add) with the sincerity that you did instead of something like "Rawr! Fuck off you privileged piece of shit!", pleasantly surprised me to the point that I respected you a lot more from that alone. And from that response, I noticed an interesting dynamic and pointed it out before continuing. That being the seemingly polar opposites that we are. From here, I gleaned that we could both learn by picking each other's minds and hopefully find some common ground, if not, at the very least a sense of mutual respect. Which is where my offer to continue in private came in, as to not derail the thread further. Though obviously that seems to have failed. And so, I do not ask for your forgiveness, nor expect it. And I don't blame you for your reactions and forgive you for those and bear no ill will. But, my offer still stands, and if you ever decide to change your mind, you know where to find me. And with that out of the way, time to clear up a few more things. That a good question. I'd say it's a little bit of both. In a better economic situation, you generally grow up surrounded by more successful* people and can learn useful wisdom from them, which in turn, can have a placebo effect. At the same time, that is not to say those in worse conditions can't be wise, as they can still be an example of what not to do, in where the student can strive to become better than the mentor. *Note: Success in this context means financial, but there are many interpretations as to what is "success" to different people. For example, success to me is to just contentment with your life's meaning, regardless of financial situation. Even a penniless monk striving for self-actualization and enlightment can be more wise that a billionaire with a messed up family. Bottom line, determine what you define as "successful" and try surround yourself with people who fit that definition. In my defense, I wasn't trying to gloat "hurr durr, my parents love me more than yours", I was just stating an observation that in many divorces (particularly no fault divorces), the parents do despise each other more than doing what's best for the child (otherwise they wouldn't have split in the first place), and even sometimes use them as a bargaining chip in court to get better terms, which disgusts me. My own cousins had to go through this before I did. One of them now lives with the mother halfway across the country, while the other lives with the father near here. Yet another broken family because two people couldn't keep it together long enough for at least their now traumatized kids to grow up and move out. Look, I don't like what I post sometimes, hell I sometimes feel regret as soon as I hit "Post", but sometimes, you just gotta say what you feel needs to be said. As the harshest of truths can be better than the sweetest of lies. And if being "that guy" makes me such a bad person, then you might as well just call me "Satan Jr.", because I'm not changing that anytime soon. I wouldn't say entirely ignant, just some, admittedly, biased sources. I know I'm still young and learning, which is why, in a weird way, I enjoy these debates as challenging learning experiences, if anything, to get away from the hugbox. And it's not like I stop thinking about it after posting, oh no. In fact, I tend to dwell on every response and rebuttal for a good 8 hours while working and then some. It's both mentally and emotionally draining (which is a small part of the reason why I drop debates after a while, but I'll get into that), but it's worth it. I only tend to drop debates when: A.) It derails too much. B.) I realize no one is budging and continuing would be going in a circle. C.) I just tire of arguing. D.) Any combination of the above. Hehe, alright, you had me laughing on that one. Well, I hope I've made my peace on this and cleared things up. If not then, eh, I tried. Can't wait 'till the next political shitstorm to hit this forum and start the maddening cycle over.
  4. Net Neutrality guff

    I'd like to again preface this response with a thank you for your honesty and openness to your rebuttal, Scags. It really has enlightened me as to why you hold the beliefs that you do, similar to how my upbringing has affected mine, and I sincerely respect you for that. Will it affect my political leanings? Ehh, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't, but the learning aspect of debates like these is the more important result in where everyone wins in the end. With that out of the way, let's get to it. This may be where the main divide between our perspectives is. Here, we have a seemingly opposite duality of backgrounds. You have me, whose parents made almost all of the right choices in life, and you, whose parents made almost all of the wrong choices in life, thus our respective upbringings. Hell, when my parents divorced when I was around 11-12, they chose the least shittiest path, as they loved their kids more than they despised each other, so they had 50% custody of the kids and were within walking distance of each other (Though I think I'm starting to suspect that if it weren't for my stepfather stepping in when he did, I would be halfway across the country by now, but that's another story). My family votes red even though we're in a solid blue state on the west coast, while your family votes blue in a solid red state on the east. A strange coincidence we have, that unfortunately means we may never agree politically, simply because our self-interests differ too much. I again respect you for your acceptance of your condition. That being said, I think you may be a rare exception to the rule, someone who is truly screwed over by RNG and, as much as I'd like to sugar-coat it, might never be able to "make it big" due to having arthritis at your young age. In which case, disability welfare is a good thing for those who are truly screwed over. However, I still don't think the monetary problems are a legit excuse for staying poor. Which leads me to this: I wouldn't project so much if your story was the rule, not the exception. According to the Brookings Institute, the 3-step plan to staying out of poverty is: 1.) Graduate high school. According to Georgia's standards, you pass the first test. 2.) Don't have kids before you're married. This'll be a lot easier for you, then us straight guys, so you have that one in the bag. 3.) Hold a full-time job. Now this is where you'll run into problems, because of your arthritis, and even if you do get a job, that condition will seriously hamper your performance, and I wouldn't be surprised if you got replaced. So in this case, you'll be part of the 2% that are still screwed over even though they pass all three tests. Again, I don't say this from spite or ignorance of your situation, but of understanding. You are the exception to the rule, but most people who are poor are poor because of bad life choices. The Free MarketTM has been proven to be very merit-based in results as the least shittiest option that works for the most people. So yes, corporations can be shitty, but is it not as or even more morally objectionable to force others to pay for your equal internet access? Because that's what taxes are, and since the FCC is a federally funded organization, that's what you're doing. Through my taxes, you're forcing me to pay for your ability to access the entire internet, because if I do refuse to pay my taxes, I go to jail for tax evasion. If you refuse to pay more for access to certain sites, you just lose the ability to access those sites, nothing more, nothing less. And this is why I would prefer a state-level Net Neutrality system, as while, yes, you're still forcing others through taxes to fund equal internet, it's at least restricted to that state. Since this debate seems to be going off long enough, I'll just conclude by saying that while philosophically I disagree with Net Neutrality, I do realize the merits of keeping it, and would prefer a compromise that can work later down the road. As this FCC vote will only retract on the changes the Obama administration did a couple of years ago, I'll support it, at least then, we will have a fresh start to find a better "Final Solution" to the "ISP Question". As for you Scags, feel free to PM me if you want to further pick each other's brains, lest we derail this thread into another pseudo-therapy session. P.S. Goddamn you Kraszu for ninjaing me.
  5. Net Neutrality guff

    Funny story, I was actually going to say years. But whatever it takes to get out of that state. Take comfort in that you're still young and have time to save. I'd like to pretense in saying I appreciate your honesty, in fact, it's a breath of fresh air. I know I come off as an asshole because of my bluntness sometimes, so I understand. They do. They are. Well, when you have decades of relative peace, people tend to become complacent. If that is true, and while we are being blunt with each other, then what did your parents do to give you a better future? What choices did they make that has caused your family to poverty? These are critical questions can be hard to swallow, but they must be addressed. Your welcome. Fuck "Socialism". Glad we could get that out of our systems. Well, tbh it kind of came off that way. So excuse me for judging. Heh, no objection here. The FCC would have to actively ban states from doing the same for that argument to hold up in court. Could be wrong on that though. And I think this current vote would do that, so for this particular case, you may have a point there. Personal preference I suppose. To be fair, I don't think any of us know what the final pricing numbers will be if it comes to that, so I think neither of us can assume too much. Again, it rubbed me that way. That's both hilarious, and intriguing. I wonder why different states have different standards for many things, but I wouldn't want to force upon them nationally. This seems like a vague, apocalyptic statement. I really don't know what to make of it. Fair point, bu in the case of retail, Wal-Mart has many competitors/potential competitors waiting to chomp away at their market, so they're forced to keep prices low in an industry that already has a low profit margin. So in this case, the Free MarketTM has accomplished its goal, and your family can enjoy their products at an affordable price. I'm only working with what you give me here. Dude, I know exactly where you're coming from. Maybe not to the point where I'd commit suicide, but the point is, I'm kind of in the same boat. I wouldn't be surprised if more people who post frequently here are like that. Shouldn't discourage either you or me though. Now you have a kindred spirit to confide in. I'd recommend using your introversion to your advantage. Take some time to self-reflect and ask yourself where your life is headed and what you can do to change it. I know it sounds preachy, but it's better than wallowing in self-pity and taking it out on other people for own problems.
  6. Net Neutrality guff

    Compared to emigration to a different country when things go to shit, "hassle" is the correct term. I never said it would be easy. I do realize moving to a new state requires months of planning, saving, and sacrifice. But with great risks come with great reward. Did I ever tell you my dad grew up poor? That didn't stop his family from moving here from Minnesota when he was a toddler. It didn't stop him from working hard, going through trade school as an architect and work his way up the corporate ladder to make ~$90,000 a year to able to afford his wife and children a better future. And while he does despise the people who run this state today, he doesn't have to leave because he can still afford to live here while maintaining a stable career, plus the reasons I've stated above as the downsides to leaving. I however don't want to be part of the 1 in 5 people who can't afford to live here. However, that won't mean I won't move back when I can afford it and rejoin my family. So I don't believe the lack of money is a proper excuse for not moving. Unless of course the state you're moving to has a significant higher cost of living than your origin state. (Again, I reiterate, California) Basically. This falls into the "human right" argument for internet, which it isn't, no matter how much either of us want it to be. Thus further supporting why I would rather have it be handled at least at the state level. As you are just relying a federal agency not to flip-flop on policy depending whoever is in office, which the FCC does. Despite your arguments to "federalize" every law. And a centralized government agency is a better option? That's a bit of exaggeration, but what I see what your saying. However, you fail to realize that while some services that use more bandwidth will cost more, stuff uses less will cost less. Thus, the minimum barrier to internet access will be lower, thus poorer people can benefit by picking and choosing what they want to use. It's unequal, yes, but fair. Other states having different laws don't really affect you though, so why do you care? Unless you plan on moving to a different state or least visiting for an extended period, then I don't really get anything from this other than you're too lazy to learn other state's legal situations before making that decision. You're right, freedom isn't free, it requires personal responsibility and determination. Which many on the left seem to want to forgo for more "free" stuff. Unfortunately yes. But then again, local governments could still implement NN or even, a better alternative, unless the state outright bans that possibility, which wouldn't make sense. But, you can say "no" to a corporation, you can't really do that to government, otherwise, men with guns come and take you away to jail. A corporation can't outright force you to buy their product. Your quality of life may go down in some ways, but in other ways, there are positives to unplugging from the matrix, you know, go out and experience the real world, meet with people, enjoy the simpler things in life. II also suggest supporting that startup with your own money, and encourage others to do the same to help them grow and be able to compete with the giants at least at your local level. Hell, you could even get yourself hired at that company suggest ideas to the boss to expand into areas that without internet. Just a small suggestion. This 100%. This vote will only rollback the changes to NN that Obama administration did. Nothing more. Also this.
  7. Are we doing the Secret Santas again this year?
  8. Net Neutrality guff

    I think I tried explaining this in another thread, but I'll reiterate for clarity: http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ The whole point of "states rights", a.k.a. the 10th Amendment, and really, the Bill of Rights as a whole, is to limit and decentralize federal power. The 10th Amendment helps accomplish this by making sure that States by default have natural autonomy over there territory, unless otherwise outright prohibited by the Constitution or its additional amendments. This hearkens back to one of the main reasons for the American Revolution, that is legislation without representation by a central power an ocean away. This provides numerous benefits: 1.) It ensures politicians are physically closer to their constituents.... 2.) ...Which allows for more efficient governing and experimentation of laws at the state levels before being proposed to the federal level, with the added side effect of... 3.) ...That if an experimental law goes wrong or becomes tyrannical at the state level, the damage will be contained within that state's borders, and while it would suck if you were in that state, at least the rest of the country doesn't have to share in your suffering (would you really want the possibility of Texas's laws to run your life? I know I don't want California's laws nationalized). Which leads me to..... 4.) ....The fact that you can move to a different state if you really can't stand how that state is run, which a lot easier and less time-consuming than moving to a different country altogether. This freedom of choice of where you want to live without being subject to the same laws is one of the greatest attributes the country has going for it. As for having fewer states, on the contrary, I say the more the merrier. For example, there have been multiple proposals to split California into multiple state, and I'm all behind it, since that would benefit: 1.) Me personally, since I won't have to move since I might be able to stay in a state that actually knows what it is doing. 2.) The balance of the electoral college, since that means no more free 55 electoral votes for whichever party happens to run the state (in this case, Democrats) 3.) The American people as a whole, since it means even more choice in where to live. I won't deny that there is a certain cost to these freedoms, namely the responsibility needed to study other state's laws before moving, and staying up to date with your own state, and weighing your options. For example, I am seriously considering moving out of California one day, however I realize that there are disadvantages to leaving: 1.) Most of my family lives here. 2.) The diverse climate and living environments make it feel like a mini country in itself. 3.) Cali makes up most most of the west coast, thus, has most of the tourist attractions are within easy traveling distance. 4.) If I do decide to move to a red state like say Texas, the minimum wage is lower, which means I would be making less, however, everything would be cheaper, so I guess that one balances itself out. These are all very serious considerations to take into account. Thankfully it'll be a couple years before I'll have to cross that bridge. But, the point is, I would rather deal with this hassle then not having the choice at all aside from renouncing my own citizenship from the country that I love, all because of some stiffs a thousand miles away from me got their panties in a bunch. In which case if it bothers you so much, then I'm sorry, then you would just have to move to a different state. And yes I know, it is a hassle, but compared to renouncing your citizenship, I'd recommend the former option. And besides, if Net Neutrality is thrown out, then it's thrown out federally, as it affects everyone. If you want your state to keep NN, then I;m not against that. Which is why I oppose the notion that states can't make their own NN laws, which thinking on it now, seems unconstitutional.
  9. Net Neutrality guff

    Oh yes, I forgot to mention that. In which case a good compromise would be to repeal Net Neutrality at the federal level, allow states to implement their own NN laws and outlaw those territorial agreements. I think could both agree to that. That again.
  10. Net Neutrality guff

    Agreed on the anarchy statement. It is fundamentally Utopian, however, they do raise a fair point that time and time again, the state, more often than not, tramples on liberty whenever it gets involved with the free market, whether here or around the world. On the other hand, law and order is needed for protection for consumers, such as anti-trust, no false advertising, scams, etc., in which case, government is a necessary evil. Call it my biases getting in the way of rational thought, but when I see something that is universally supported by everyone, seemingly immediately, for the federal government getting involved, or in this case staying involved, in an economic industry that is a crucial part of the modern economy, I think you can forgive me for being a wee bit suspicious and try to find the merits of the other side. The concept? No. Title II? Cautiously yes, if only to uphold free speech. If net neutrality was handled at the state/local levels and not the federal level, then I'd have even less of a problem with it.
  11. Net Neutrality guff

    It is indeed a sad notion that advocating for less government control over people's lives is considered "edgy", but I digress. Ditto goes for this: It's like installing an iron lung to a pneumonia patient. I mean sure, it keeps them alive and gets rid of the pneumonia, but now that patient is dependent upon that iron lung to survive, and pulling it out now would kill him. Makes me wonder how we got to this point. I actually wouldn't mind this as a compromise. After thinking about it more, as much I hate to admit, I suppose I can tolerate Net Neutrality. If anything, it's just the continuation of the status quo, so I suppose it can't get much worse. One question I still have lingering though, is the Internet considered a public property, on par with that of a town square or national park? The answer to that would actually be a big boon to either side of the argument.
  12. Net Neutrality guff

    Think of it this way, who do you trust more, the gigantic, profit-hungry monopoly, or the even more gigantic, inefficient, power-hungry monopoly to run the internet? Pick your poison.
  13. Net Neutrality guff

    I'm actually conflicted on this. On one hand, the monopolized ISPs wan't to do away with Net Neutrality, on the other, the monopolized tech/social media companies want to keep it, and that's sending me red flags all around. I mean, do we really want the government to keep the power to regulate this stuff? I mean, if it goes anything like cable or other utilities, I say get rid of it.
  14. The Official Random Image Thread!! SPUF style

    Damn M'ers are turnin' the friggin frogs gay, man.
  15. TIAM: General Gaming edition

    The “The World Is Grim Enough Let's Just All Get Along” Award — Currently Garry's Mod The “Choices Matter” Award — Currently Universe Sandbox ² The “Haunts My Dreams” Award — Currently Outlast The “Mom’s Spaghetti” Award — Currently Team Fortress 2 The “No Apologies” Award — Currently World of Guns: Gun Disassembly The “Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War” Award — Currently The Dishwasher: Vampire Smile The “Suspension of Disbelief” Award — Currently BioShock Infinite The “Soul Of Vitruvius” Award — Currently Tomb Raider The “Defies Description” Award — Currently The Stanley Parable The “Labor of Love” Award — Currently Galaxy in Turmoil The “Whoooaaaaaaa, Dude! 2.0” Award — Currently Spec Ops: The Line The “Even Better Than I Expected” Award — Currently DOOM The “Wait A Minute, The Clock Says What Time!?” Award — Currently Warframe By matter of principle, I chose what I had in my library. The only exception to this is Galaxy in Turmoil, for the simple fact that I've been follwing it since it's Unofficial STBF3 days, and even though a demo isn't even out yet, I can tell the devs are putting their best into this. That, and all of the other games that would beat it in this category are already in another category so.....
×