Oculus Teases New Exclusive Game from ‘Marvel VR’ Developers, Details Expected Tuesday

My reply was first about your silly claim about the PC platform. Second was in response to your hypocrisy. Ignoring all that now you seem to think I care what choice you make as a consumer. I should have never replied. My bad. Pretend I never did.

You could try reading. Just a thought

Would you say you’re anti-reading comprehension? Ya, here’s a quote: “start with understanding, before seeking to be understoid”

No, but thank you for asking. Go back to the start and read down

You’re ridiculous…

“” All of the above…. Unlike other people here I don’t have time to explain or point you in the direction of “why” Figure it out yourself… Stop begging for quotes..

I mean, I said that I don’t like it, so at least at some level I’m saying that I think that whatever the individual pros and cons, I think that on balance it’s not a good thing. But it’s also not something that I think can be avoided, nor do I think that it’s so objectionable that I’m worked up over it.

I know that we’re all used to seeing comments that are spoiling for a fight, but I think that if you read my comments you’ll see that I’m not telling him to do anything. I acknowledged that he was entitled to feel differently about it, but explained why it was an issue that I understood why it happened and also didn’t bother me a ton.

I don’t see the words “he” or “problematic” in that quote, nor anything in my posts criticizing NewYawker for how he felt about the issue.

You don’t see any point to comments which express a difference of opinion and an explanation for why I came to that conclusion while respecting that other people might feel differently? Really?

He explained why something bothered him. I explained why it didn’t bother me. Neither of us has to be right in this instance, nor every interaction online need to be about criticizing what someone else has said. I can see why it would bother him, but I don’t feel the same way and it’s fine.

Because it’s possible to have a conversation with someone who holds a different opinion from you in order to learn about other people’s perspective. He voiced his view, and I voiced mine. Neither needs to be proven correct for the exchange to be valuable, even if the only result is a pleasant conversation.

It’s perplexing to me that you seem to believe that it is only worth engaging in a discussion if the point is to criticize other people; that a comment which doesn’t try to criticize someone for holding a certain perspective is somehow pointless.

The internet certainly has put people on edge. It seems like every comments section, regardless of the subject, is now the battleground of two or more camps and every subject is a life or death fight to the finish. Consoles vs PC. Republicans vs Democrats. Patriots vs every other fan of sport. And there are definitely times when someone is right and other people are wrong, and the distinction is one worth arguing over.

And I certainly do that plenty here and elsewhere. But I also try to reign my argumentative instincts in, especially in an instance like this where it’s really just a question of whether something bothers you or not. I totally get how an issue like exclusives could really annoy someone, it just doesn’t happen to annoy me for a variety of reasons. But while it can be interesting to talk about, and it’s certainly not impossible that someone could change their mind, it’s also one of those times where it can be ok if we just end up in a spot where we explain our thought process and respect that other people might come to different conclusions.

The internet is a nasty enough place without me needing to add to it unnecessarily, so I try to keep it positive where I can.

Sure. There are plenty of areas where I think that there’s either a definite correct answer or position and people who hold contrary positions are simply wrong, or areas in which there are important moral or philosophical principles in play, and while the answers aren’t as simple as right or wrong, there are still important values at stake that affect people and their lives. So, for example, I’ll argue with climate change deniers or anti-vaxers because they’re simply, factually, incorrect, and I’ll argue about politics, because certain values are worth fighting for. This just doesn’t happen to be one of those areas.

I’m sorry, I’ve probably missed something over the course of our discussion. Apologies. Do I ever do what out of interest, and what do you mean? I can’t think of an instance where I’ve gotten involved in a conversation where I wasn’t at least somewhat interested in the topic.

And the reasons for what? Do you mean the reasons why I dislike exclusive deals but am not particularly bothered by them?

If by “interest in the argument itself” you mean the substance of the issue (e.g., climate change), then yes, in almost every case I’m interested in the argument itself. If you mean just debating for the sake of debating, then no, hardly ever. That would be something that I would think was pointless. There are times when someone is simply presenting incorrect factual information, and that should be corrected, primarily because it may mislead someone that reads it, but also in hopes that the person who stated the incorrect information didn’t do it intentionally and will present the correct information in the future. Other times, someone is making a moral argument with which I disagree. And in some of those cases they’re making the further argument that public policy should be made in line with their moral argument. In those instances it is important to present a counter argument, not because there’s a factual error that needs to be corrected, but because deciding what kind of values society holds and how that should influence public policy is important in a democratic society. Also, the outcome of those sorts of policy discussions tend to have consequences for real people’s lives, sometimes really bad consequences. In other cases, a discussion isn’t about arguing a side, it’s just about presenting one’s thoughts on an issue and then comparing them to other people’s thoughts. There’s no objectively right answer for who the greatest rock band of all time is, but it’s interesting to talk about with other people because other people are interesting and have interesting ideas.

As for the second paragraph, I believe that I did discuss this a bit previously, but I can add to it. I don’t have nearly enough time in my life to enjoy all of the things that I would like to if my time was infinite. I’ll never see all of the movies or read all of the books or comics that I want to read, so if some of the ones that I’d like to get to are behind some kind of barrier to entry, well, that’s kind of annoying, but I don’t lack for things to do. I’d love to play the PS4 Spider-Man game, but I don’t have a PS4 and I’m not going to buy one. But while that’s kind of a bummer, between my PC, Xbox One, and Switch I have literally hundreds of games that I already own that I haven’t had time to get to, and probably never will. I understand why having exclusive games on a system makes business sense for a company, whether it’s Sony or Oculus, but ultimately it’s not really something that impacts my buying decisions (for consoles it’s which system my friends decide to buy, and with VR it’s about the HMD hardware/design). I don’t begrudge them their business plans and attempts to woo people to their platform instead of some other platform; it’s competition, I get it. I also have other things in this life that I feel are more worth my emotional energy to get worked up over (climate change, politics generally), so a game not being available to me because it’s on a platform that I don’t own really doesn’t rate much. But, of course, people feel differently, which is ok.

I would define “debating for the sake of debating” as viewing a debate or discussion as a sport, where the value is generated purely in the sparring between two opponents. I like having pleasant conversations with pleasant people, and I do think that there’s value in refining and reflecting on your positions through discussion with people who have different positions or ideas, and I can say that I do enjoy a good, productive, debate. But I think that there’s a limit, where you’re not really engaging in furtherance of anything meaningful or in a meaningful way and are just being argumentative or contrarian as a pose, or just to antagonize someone else. And that’s the point where it crosses into just being trolling.

Well, I’m not a big fan of sports, but that’s also not what I said.

I suspect not, but I don’t really know. Not being generally much of a sports fan it’s not something that I’ve thought about. There’s a physical value to sport, and probably an emotional one, but I don’t know about an intellectual one. I’d need to hear some arguments for and against.

Still there?

Well that’s why I waited four days before checking. May I ask why you don’t have anything to add?

I’m not actually sure about the direction we’re going in, I just thought it was interesting and would like to continue. Do you believe emotional intelligence counts as part of a potential intellectual pursuit in sports?

What does your inclination consist of?

Judging by your vague recollection, what definition would you say emotional intelligence has to you?

Could I hear some guesses on what else it might branch into?

Unfortunate. I wonder why. Seeya then.