Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

You can talk about almost anything that you want to on this board.

Moderator: Moderators

Pokun
Posts: 1761
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Location: Hokkaido, Japan

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Pokun » Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am

Nikku4211 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:19 pm
Imagine pitch black and absolutely nothing else. If even that's hard to imagine, I don't know what to say.
I mean isn't pitch black also a kind of experience? Experiencing not being able to experience anything is a contradiction in itself, so it might not really be possible to imagine it... I think.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:19 pm
Pokun wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:30 am
Nikku4211 wrote:
Mon Dec 14, 2020 1:19 pm

If there was no way of knowing where to go, you wouldn't know where to find people to ask, or even people you can ask.
Yeah that's one way one may become a lingering spirit. Part of the burial ceremony might be to guide the dead on the right path using bells and lanterns and stuff. Then there are festivals of the dead (like Halloween or similar festivals) that may also serve a similar purpose.
How would we guide the dead to the right path if no living person knows the right path, bells or not? :thonk:
If no living person knows how to do it, it would probably be impossible for the living to help the dead with this.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:19 pm
I think religion and mythology are connected. Mythology can cause religion, and religion can lead to more mythology. I'm not a historian, though, so don't quote me on that. I'm not about to go full MLA here.

I know religions develop cultures, I'm not denying that, but that means we have entire cultures founded on dogmas. When these dogmas start to seem outdated to some extent, the fundamentals of the entire culture itself can be put to question as well.

Religions have roots that go a long time back, but people trying to keep the tradition alive in the modern-day is a double-edged sword. Especially when you have to end up picking and choosing what parts you want to follow and what parts you don't want to follow.

At the end of the day, you could end up just following basic morals that barely have anything to do with religion at all. I think it is more important to realise morals can have logical reasons, because if you only follow rules simply because a book said to, you're going to have some issues adjusting to societal changes.

I wouldn't deny things just because they have a religious origin, I would more likely dismiss them if they have no reason or logic behind them besides the religious origin.
Yeah mythology is basically, as I understands it, the part of history that can't be made sense out of for various reasons. It's still no doubt history, but there is just no way to figuring out how much or little of it that is true with any accuracy. Looking it up on Wikipedia however, it seems it's a term used for many different things.

So cultures are founded on dogmas. Very well, that sounds better than the "dogmatic sets of ideas made to control people", which just sounds like the usual extremist atheistic propaganda to me rather than your own unbiased reasoning. These dogmas of course naturally change a lot over time, and sometimes are changed faster on purpose to fit the current situation. It also involves many different people with very different values, and thus struggling for change in different directions. Religious or atheist, they just want to change it in a direction that benefits their own values the most.

Following basic morals that has no basis in religion is probably very hard to do, since about all accepted modern morals probably have religious origin some way or other.
Knowing the logic and reason behind various morals and rules may not always be possible either, as it's probably often lost in time.

Now again, religion of course serves, or has in the past often served, many other practical purposes than just preserving morals and laws. Examples includes studies, charity, bureaucracy (especially involving birth, marriage and death), physical, mental and spiritual healing or consultation, and time keeping among many other things. It's an important part of upholding the culture.

User avatar
Nikku4211
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:28 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
Contact:

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Nikku4211 » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 pm

Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Nikku4211 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:19 pm
Imagine pitch black and absolutely nothing else. If even that's hard to imagine, I don't know what to say.
I mean isn't pitch black also a kind of experience? Experiencing not being able to experience anything is a contradiction in itself, so it might not really be possible to imagine it... I think.
Think of it as the closest approximation to not experiencing anything.
Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Nikku4211 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:19 pm
Pokun wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:30 am

Yeah that's one way one may become a lingering spirit. Part of the burial ceremony might be to guide the dead on the right path using bells and lanterns and stuff. Then there are festivals of the dead (like Halloween or similar festivals) that may also serve a similar purpose.
How would we guide the dead to the right path if no living person knows the right path, bells or not? :thonk:
If no living person knows how to do it, it would probably be impossible for the living to help the dead with this.
Exactly.

Which means the burial ceremony can't actually help the dead themselves, but really help the alive people accept that they are dead.

After all, you can't help someone who no longer exists.
Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Yeah mythology is basically, as I understands it, the part of history that can't be made sense out of for various reasons. It's still no doubt history, but there is just no way to figuring out how much or little of it that is true with any accuracy. Looking it up on Wikipedia however, it seems it's a term used for many different things.

So cultures are founded on dogmas. Very well, that sounds better than the "dogmatic sets of ideas made to control people", which just sounds like the usual extremist atheistic propaganda to me rather than your own unbiased reasoning. These dogmas of course naturally change a lot over time, and sometimes are changed faster on purpose to fit the current situation. It also involves many different people with very different values, and thus struggling for change in different directions. Religious or atheist, they just want to change it in a direction that benefits their own values the most.
Yeah, people aren't that good at determining what others want and prioritising it when they have to worry about themselves.

Everyone's too different, I guess.
Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Following basic morals that has no basis in religion is probably very hard to do, since about all accepted modern morals probably have religious origin some way or other.
Knowing the logic and reason behind various morals and rules may not always be possible either, as it's probably often lost in time.
Things like 'Thou shalt not kill' have a blatantly obvious reason.
It's not like us atheists are completely immoral. A lot of accepted modern morals that aren't just culture-exclusive 'manners' do have some logic and reason, no matter who put it in which book a long time ago.
Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Now again, religion of course serves, or has in the past often served, many other practical purposes than just preserving morals and laws. Examples includes studies, charity, bureaucracy (especially involving birth, marriage and death), physical, mental and spiritual healing or consultation, and time keeping among many other things. It's an important part of upholding the culture.
Yes, religion has served many purposes, and it's good to study the history so that we can learn from its mistakes.

When it comes to preserving the religion, it's a double-edged sword. Every religion has things that are no longer accepted in modern society, and trying to practise these things just because it's a part of the religion could be problematic. I'm sure you know about the various times religions have, for example, denied certain people the rights to live.

That's not it either. If you take a religion 100% literally, then that can make you a bit delusional. See creationists like Ken Ham. They deny evidence that evolution has happened and instead replace it with 2000 year old writings made by people who were not able to study the origins of the world the same way people today can.

Of course, it is possible to believe in only the parts of a religion that aren't harmful, whether to anyone else or to yourself, and not take it literally. These people are called moderates, and they're okay, I guess. You still have to pick and choose which aspects to follow, so moderates won't keep every aspect of the culture alive, but seeing how cruel they can be, maybe that's for the best.
I have an ASD, so empathy is not natural for me. If I hurt you, I apologise.

Pokun
Posts: 1761
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Location: Hokkaido, Japan

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Pokun » Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:10 am

Nikku4211 wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 pm
Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Nikku4211 wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:19 pm
How would we guide the dead to the right path if no living person knows the right path, bells or not? :thonk:
If no living person knows how to do it, it would probably be impossible for the living to help the dead with this.
Exactly.

Which means the burial ceremony can't actually help the dead themselves, but really help the alive people accept that they are dead.
Yeah it serves as much a purpose for the living. I guess the dead might feel content to see his own burial as well though.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 pm
Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Following basic morals that has no basis in religion is probably very hard to do, since about all accepted modern morals probably have religious origin some way or other.
Knowing the logic and reason behind various morals and rules may not always be possible either, as it's probably often lost in time.
Things like 'Thou shalt not kill' have a blatantly obvious reason.
It's not like us atheists are completely immoral. A lot of accepted modern morals that aren't just culture-exclusive 'manners' do have some logic and reason, no matter who put it in which book a long time ago.
Then that's fine.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 pm
Pokun wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:16 am
Now again, religion of course serves, or has in the past often served, many other practical purposes than just preserving morals and laws. Examples includes studies, charity, bureaucracy (especially involving birth, marriage and death), physical, mental and spiritual healing or consultation, and time keeping among many other things. It's an important part of upholding the culture.
Yes, religion has served many purposes, and it's good to study the history so that we can learn from its mistakes.

When it comes to preserving the religion, it's a double-edged sword. Every religion has things that are no longer accepted in modern society, and trying to practise these things just because it's a part of the religion could be problematic. I'm sure you know about the various times religions have, for example, denied certain people the rights to live.

That's not it either. If you take a religion 100% literally, then that can make you a bit delusional. See creationists like Ken Ham. They deny evidence that evolution has happened and instead replace it with 2000 year old writings made by people who were not able to study the origins of the world the same way people today can.

Of course, it is possible to believe in only the parts of a religion that aren't harmful, whether to anyone else or to yourself, and not take it literally. These people are called moderates, and they're okay, I guess. You still have to pick and choose which aspects to follow, so moderates won't keep every aspect of the culture alive, but seeing how cruel they can be, maybe that's for the best.
And this boils down to the whole point I was trying to make earlier. There are people that have used their religion for evil and people that interpret the religion literally and that are delusional. It goes both ways. Their opponents also do the same kinds of evil and are equally delusional. Everything said about the ones preserving religion can be said about the ones not wanting to preserve religion.

I think interpreting religion literally isn't really possible and is a contradiction. Especially interpreting the religion literally and using it for evil is a contradiction. I'm talking mainly about the major religions now and not some perverted sect of devil worshipers or whatever. Since they are all about the golden rule, which is about not doing anything you don't want to be done to you, doing evil most likely breaks this rule, and thus you are breaking the religion's own most important literal rule. Therefore it's not really possible to interpret the religion literally at that point.
So any proper practitioner of religion would have to only use it for good, which is the whole purpose.

Likewise, looking down on people devoted to religion is bad. Many men and women of reason, smarter than us, have pursued spiritual development. They might see something that you don't, and no amount of logic and reason can assure that they are in the wrong.
I think it's most important to be aware that one's own beliefs are only beliefs, no matter what you believe in or lack of belief.

User avatar
Nikku4211
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:28 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
Contact:

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Nikku4211 » Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:49 am

Pokun wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:10 am
Nikku4211 wrote:
Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:29 pm
Yes, religion has served many purposes, and it's good to study the history so that we can learn from its mistakes.

When it comes to preserving the religion, it's a double-edged sword. Every religion has things that are no longer accepted in modern society, and trying to practise these things just because it's a part of the religion could be problematic. I'm sure you know about the various times religions have, for example, denied certain people the rights to live.

That's not it either. If you take a religion 100% literally, then that can make you a bit delusional. See creationists like Ken Ham. They deny evidence that evolution has happened and instead replace it with 2000 year old writings made by people who were not able to study the origins of the world the same way people today can.

Of course, it is possible to believe in only the parts of a religion that aren't harmful, whether to anyone else or to yourself, and not take it literally. These people are called moderates, and they're okay, I guess. You still have to pick and choose which aspects to follow, so moderates won't keep every aspect of the culture alive, but seeing how cruel they can be, maybe that's for the best.
And this boils down to the whole point I was trying to make earlier. There are people that have used their religion for evil and people that interpret the religion literally and that are delusional. It goes both ways. Their opponents also do the same kinds of evil and are equally delusional. Everything said about the ones preserving religion can be said about the ones not wanting to preserve religion.
Yeah, I find it funny when people of different religions fight over religion.

When I say 'how cruel they can be', I meant how cruel the actual religion's book can be itself, not necessarily the people who follow it.

Like, if you read a religious text, I'm sure there's a lot of stuff you skip over that you personally really hate. That's what moderates do, and that's much better than taking 100% of it to heart(which is impossible for a reason I'll get to later). However, you cannot deny that terrible morals and teachings are still in the book, and have always been a part of the book, and that's what I was mostly targeting.
Pokun wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:10 am
I think interpreting religion literally isn't really possible and is a contradiction. Especially interpreting the religion literally and using it for evil is a contradiction. I'm talking mainly about the major religions now and not some perverted sect of devil worshipers or whatever. Since they are all about the golden rule, which is about not doing anything you don't want to be done to you, doing evil most likely breaks this rule, and thus you are breaking the religion's own most important literal rule. Therefore it's not really possible to interpret the religion literally at that point.
So any proper practitioner of religion would have to only use it for good, which is the whole purpose.
Interpreting certain religions in any way can itself be a contradiction because some religions like Christianity often contradict themselves.

If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity changes their mind, they're probably not as perfect as they are said to be.
Pokun wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:10 am
Likewise, looking down on people devoted to religion is bad. Many men and women of reason, smarter than us, have pursued spiritual development. They might see something that you don't, and no amount of logic and reason can assure that they are in the wrong.
I think it's most important to be aware that one's own beliefs are only beliefs, no matter what you believe in or lack of belief.
Lol, of course some people refuse to change their beliefs for any number of reasons you may not have realised, and that's pretty common.

This does reinforce a pattern of closed-mindedness, where you easily get into the habit of rejecting new ideas and sticking a bit too much to old tradition no matter what.

Even people who are smart overall still are often religious because they still grew up with a family that indoctrinated them with religious ideas since childhood.

Again, it's impossible to prove some things wrong, which is where the 'agree to disagree' part makes sense. As long as you don't take things literally at all, then it'll be very hard to prove what belief is true due to our limited understanding of the world.

Of course, you can also be closed-minded against people simply due to them being religious. However, there's a difference between being prejudiced against the people, and just criticising their religion as well as the entire idea of religion. No idea, and I mean no idea, deserves privileged immunity, theist or atheist.
I have an ASD, so empathy is not natural for me. If I hurt you, I apologise.

LocalH
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:30 pm

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by LocalH » Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:44 pm

so, how bout them coins?

Pokun
Posts: 1761
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Location: Hokkaido, Japan

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Pokun » Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:20 pm

Mushroom magic!


Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:49 am
When I say 'how cruel they can be', I meant how cruel the actual religion's book can be itself, not necessarily the people who follow it.

Like, if you read a religious text, I'm sure there's a lot of stuff you skip over that you personally really hate. That's what moderates do, and that's much better than taking 100% of it to heart(which is impossible for a reason I'll get to later). However, you cannot deny that terrible morals and teachings are still in the book, and have always been a part of the book, and that's what I was mostly targeting.
Personally I love history and reading old texts like this, holy scriptures or not.
But I'm not getting into the morals of any particular details of any holy scripture. There's too much to cover and I haven't read anywhere near half of them. There's bond to be contradictions and inconsistencies, since they are often written by a large number of different people under a very long time. The typical bible for example is a collection of a number of holy scriptures handpicked by a bunch of people that I heard wasn't even christian at the time, but converted later. There are many variants of the bible, using different scriptures, some considered canon and some not but included anyway just because it's a good read or have other moral lessons. For not mentioning all the different translations. Then catholics has the Vatican that can make changes or additions to the canon, but people generally wait for a Vatican decision before they accept change.

I'm no historian or religion expert and I can't say what religions have terrible morals. I know that the major ones really just revolve around the golden rule though, and that all other stories are basically just supposed to be explanations of the golden rule, whether they succeed or not. So that should be enough to conclude that at least those religions probably doesn't have terrible morals in general, despite the complicated situation of holy scriptures.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:49 am
This does reinforce a pattern of closed-mindedness, where you easily get into the habit of rejecting new ideas and sticking a bit too much to old tradition no matter what.
Exactly, this is in the human nature, and it goes for everyone.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:49 am
Even people who are smart overall still are often religious because they still grew up with a family that indoctrinated them with religious ideas since childhood.
That means nothing. It's no different from a non-religious person growing up in and indoctrinated by a non-religious environment.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:49 am
no idea, deserves privileged immunity, theist or atheist.
Yeah I guess the moral of the story is, don't be an elitist ass, no one likes those.

User avatar
Nikku4211
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:28 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
Contact:

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Nikku4211 » Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:30 pm

Pokun wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:20 pm
Personally I love history and reading old texts like this, holy scriptures or not.
But I'm not getting into the morals of any particular details of any holy scripture. There's too much to cover and I haven't read anywhere near half of them. There's bond to be contradictions and inconsistencies, since they are often written by a large number of different people under a very long time. The typical bible for example is a collection of a number of holy scriptures handpicked by a bunch of people that I heard wasn't even christian at the time, but converted later. There are many variants of the bible, using different scriptures, some considered canon and some not but included anyway just because it's a good read or have other moral lessons. For not mentioning all the different translations. Then catholics has the Vatican that can make changes or additions to the canon, but people generally wait for a Vatican decision before they accept change.
All these contradictions and inconsistencies bring to question the legitimacy of it all. If these people were supposedly writing words from a deity, especially in a monotheistic religion, any inconsistencies coming from a 'perfect' deity that knows everything, and is shown to be able to 'predict the future', just makes you want to ask questions. Questions that seem to have so much power, that people need to strongly discourage asking them.

It's like the deity's ideas are a crime scene and the people who wrote those books are all witnesses, except they're telling different profiles of what's supposed to be the same god. It makes you ask who's right and who's not when contradictions happen, especially on major things like ideals.
Pokun wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:20 pm
I'm no historian or religion expert and I can't say what religions have terrible morals. I know that the major ones really just revolve around the golden rule though, and that all other stories are basically just supposed to be explanations of the golden rule, whether they succeed or not. So that should be enough to conclude that at least those religions probably doesn't have terrible morals in general, despite the complicated situation of holy scriptures.
Oh, like Genesis 38?

I think every religion has its fair share of atrocities. That's inevitable when societies change and humans evolve intellectually.

However, people believe deities are supposed to be timeless and all-powerful, which would clash with the not-so-timeless morals supposedly handed down from a deity in a religious text and would clash with the apparent need for a deity to adapt to its people when it has all the power to enforce its morals itself.
Pokun wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:20 pm
Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:49 am
Even people who are smart overall still are often religious because they still grew up with a family that indoctrinated them with religious ideas since childhood.
That means nothing. It's no different from a non-religious person growing up in and indoctrinated by a non-religious environment.
The thing is: religions are composed of a specific set of ideas, beliefs and dogmas that are handed down from a long line of generations.

The lack of a religion isn't. There's nothing to read, no one ancient text to command specific morals and other things, there's nothing at all. That's the thing about people who don't believe in religion.

They aren't bound by one old text, so they don't have to pick and choose between using a very old book versus using modern texts to know what to take in. Especially when we have better, more consistent observations nowadays about the world around us thanks to the human skill of tool use.

They also won't always rely on an old book to have a sense of hope, as they have other methods of gaining hope and perhaps might find better ways to cope with things such as death and other tragedies.

People who aren't religious aren't grouped together by what they believe, but by what they don't believe. It's hard to forget that not having something can change everything.
Pokun wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 5:20 pm
Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:49 am
no idea, deserves privileged immunity, theist or atheist.
Yeah I guess the moral of the story is, don't be an elitist ass, no one likes those.
it do be like that sometimes
I have an ASD, so empathy is not natural for me. If I hurt you, I apologise.

sophiadenis19
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:24 am

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by sophiadenis19 » Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:16 am

[Spam neutralized - MOD]
Last edited by sophiadenis19 on Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pokun
Posts: 1761
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Location: Hokkaido, Japan

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Pokun » Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm

Do I smell a spammer?


Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:30 pm
All these contradictions and inconsistencies bring to question the legitimacy of it all. If these people were supposedly writing words from a deity, especially in a monotheistic religion, any inconsistencies coming from a 'perfect' deity that knows everything, and is shown to be able to 'predict the future', just makes you want to ask questions. Questions that seem to have so much power, that people need to strongly discourage asking them.
Yeah that's a valid argument against literalism. Though I hope I'm making it clear that I'm defending religion in general as an important cultural heritage that I think should be valued instead of shunned. Not what this and that religion is saying on a particular matter, nor the divine status of their scriptures.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:30 pm

The thing is: religions are composed of a specific set of ideas, beliefs and dogmas that are handed down from a long line of generations.

The lack of a religion isn't. There's nothing to read, no one ancient text to command specific morals and other things, there's nothing at all. That's the thing about people who don't believe in religion.
You are missing the point. I understood what you said as that people (even smart ones) would mainly only be religious if they are indoctrinated to be that, indicating that non-religious people aren't. My point is that non-religious people are usually indoctrinated to avoid religion in the same way, so you can't really make a difference like that. There are certainly non-religious ideas and dogmas as well people are indoctrinated into.



I believe religion bashing is really mainly about politics. What people believe in isn't as important as the influence a particular group may have on society. That's why there are so many arguments with flawed logic (like "without religion, science would have developed much faster" etc). And religious people often has flawed logic in their counter-arguments. You don't need airtight arguments in this debate, you only need to convince enough people that you are on the winning side of things and you will get more influence while your opponent's influence will decrease.
I will have none of that, and I don't think it's really benefiting to mankind to lie.

User avatar
Nikku4211
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:28 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
Contact:

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Nikku4211 » Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:07 pm

Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
Do I smell a spammer?
What, did someone post something that just got deleted?
Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:30 pm
All these contradictions and inconsistencies bring to question the legitimacy of it all. If these people were supposedly writing words from a deity, especially in a monotheistic religion, any inconsistencies coming from a 'perfect' deity that knows everything, and is shown to be able to 'predict the future', just makes you want to ask questions. Questions that seem to have so much power, that people need to strongly discourage asking them.
Yeah that's a valid argument against literalism. Though I hope I'm making it clear that I'm defending religion in general as an important cultural heritage that I think should be valued instead of shunned. Not what this and that religion is saying on a particular matter, nor the divine status of their scriptures.
In what way do you mean 'valued'?

There are many ways to 'value' something and I know there are definitely questionable ways, too.
Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:30 pm

The thing is: religions are composed of a specific set of ideas, beliefs and dogmas that are handed down from a long line of generations.

The lack of a religion isn't. There's nothing to read, no one ancient text to command specific morals and other things, there's nothing at all. That's the thing about people who don't believe in religion.
You are missing the point. I understood what you said as that people (even smart ones) would mainly only be religious if they are indoctrinated to be that, indicating that non-religious people aren't. My point is that non-religious people are usually indoctrinated to avoid religion in the same way, so you can't really make a difference like that. There are certainly non-religious ideas and dogmas as well people are indoctrinated into.
Of course there are dogmas and other indoctrination unrelated to religion.

I haven't seen families that indoctrinate against religion as much as I've seen families indoctrinate for a certain religion. Sure, there are certain countries (usually communist-ish) where the lack of religion is enforced and that is no different from a country enforcing only a certain religion, though.

Then again, I am not able to properly tell for sure someone who has been indoctrinated from someone who converted or deconverted on their own.
Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
I believe religion bashing is really mainly about politics. What people believe in isn't as important as the influence a particular group may have on society. That's why there are so many arguments with flawed logic (like "without religion, science would have developed much faster" etc). And religious people often has flawed logic in their counter-arguments. You don't need airtight arguments in this debate, you only need to convince enough people that you are on the winning side of things and you will get more influence while your opponent's influence will decrease.
I will have none of that, and I don't think it's really benefiting to mankind to lie.
I think religion has been criticised because of people who keep wanting to integrate religion itself into the government for the sake of integrating religion rather than keeping religion away from the government.

Again, there's some religious ideas that do make sense, but logic should take precedence over religious origin in my opinion.

I think this is not about banning religion at all, but rather about making sure religion is not the reason for everything.

Yeah, flawed logic can hurt a side's legitimacy in the long run. Trust me, I hate logical fallacies too, regardless of which side anyone is on.
I have an ASD, so empathy is not natural for me. If I hurt you, I apologise.

tepples
Posts: 22288
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Contact:

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by tepples » Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:07 am

Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
I believe religion bashing is really mainly about politics. What people believe in isn't as important as the influence a particular group may have on society.
People have seen the violence and marginalization that theocracies have caused: Crusades, Inquisition, Taliban, ISIL, and more. Here are some harms that religious groups can cause when they take political power:
  • One group banned schools that teach girls to read and write. This harms women and girls.
  • One group placed severe restrictions on reproductive health procedures. This harms people threatened with permanent disability or death over pregnancy complications.
  • Hypothetical, but I expect one group to ban production and administration of medical products derived from donated human blood. This would harm people who rely on blood products to live.
I'll stop here for two reasons: I don't want to marginalize users with sincerely held religious beliefs, and I'd rather be discussing the pros and cons of floating pickup items and how to write and animate a spirit creature.
Nikku4211 wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:07 pm
Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
Do I smell a spammer?
What, did someone post something that just got deleted?
Just a user who has replied with very generic messages showing little understanding of, or even intent to understand, this forum's subject matter. I suspect someone is trying to build the appearance of a good faith posting history for an account before spewing off-topic advertisements. I have begun dealing with this in DMs.

I feel like double posting so I can put the on-topic thoughts in a separate post.

tepples
Posts: 22288
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Contact:

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by tepples » Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:35 am

Doylist perspective ahead

Some scenes in some games use floating coins as a design tool to lead players to an intended path where it is unclear due to camera system limits. This is even more important on small screens like that of a Game Boy. On small screens, game objects often have to be bigger to be visible, creating more potential for leaps of faith like that one in Balloon Kid. Consistent use of coins to indicate routes reassures the user later in a game that a leap of faith is safe and intended.
Animation (click to view)
Animation (click to view)
FC and GB crops side by side
FC and GB crops side by side
balloon_fight_level_6.png (4.5 KiB) Viewed 2814 times
See this scene in stage 6 of Balloon Kid for Game Boy (right) and the same scene with the cropping of Hello Kitty World for Famicom (left). This scene initially confused me when I saw it on the Game Boy, as its coins (shaped like balloons) weren't a strong enough indicator. There wasn't any previous scene of needing to drop balloons to fit in a tight space and then clear a gap without balloons. Perhaps one more balloon might have done the trick.

Donkey Kong Country for Super NES, whose coins are shaped like bananas, uses these conventions as I understand them:
  • Row or arc of 3-6 bananas: Leap of faith ending in safety if arc is followed
  • Single isolated banana near overscan: Offscreen secret
  • Bunch (10 coins): Dangerous jump
Floating coins become a bit more confusing when the coins aren't quite interchangeable, such as if each has a precondition for being able to collect it and the player is supposed to be able to stop in front of each coin to read the precondition.

Pokun
Posts: 1761
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Location: Hokkaido, Japan

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Pokun » Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:15 pm

Very well, I think I have said enough on that matter, but I should at least answer the questions to me.
I'll follow your example and double-post with my on-topic thoughts.

tepples wrote:
Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:07 am
Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
I believe religion bashing is really mainly about politics. What people believe in isn't as important as the influence a particular group may have on society.
People have seen the violence and marginalization that theocracies have caused
...
Here are some harms that religious groups can cause when they take political power
Yeah and that's exactly what I was talking about, getting political and missing the point of religion.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:07 pm
Pokun wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 5:40 pm
Nikku4211 wrote:
Sat Dec 19, 2020 7:30 pm
All these contradictions and inconsistencies bring to question the legitimacy of it all. If these people were supposedly writing words from a deity, especially in a monotheistic religion, any inconsistencies coming from a 'perfect' deity that knows everything, and is shown to be able to 'predict the future', just makes you want to ask questions. Questions that seem to have so much power, that people need to strongly discourage asking them.
Yeah that's a valid argument against literalism. Though I hope I'm making it clear that I'm defending religion in general as an important cultural heritage that I think should be valued instead of shunned. Not what this and that religion is saying on a particular matter, nor the divine status of their scriptures.
In what way do you mean 'valued'?

There are many ways to 'value' something and I know there are definitely questionable ways, too.
It should be valued exactly for what it is, cultural heritage. Don't get caught up in politics or whatever. You can take away religion and hope that extremism and corruption is going to disappear, but I really don't believe it will. It will just be replaced by something else, and you haven't achieved anything but cultural damage. One step forward, two steps back.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:07 pm
Of course there are dogmas and other indoctrination unrelated to religion.

I haven't seen families that indoctrinate against religion as much as I've seen families indoctrinate for a certain religion. Sure, there are certain countries (usually communist-ish) where the lack of religion is enforced and that is no different from a country enforcing only a certain religion, though.

Then again, I am not able to properly tell for sure someone who has been indoctrinated from someone who converted or deconverted on their own.
I guess you are in USA which, with my European prejudice, is a quite religious part of the western world, while I'm from Sweden which, on the other hand, today is often considered among the more secular parts of the western world (often proudly so by certain snarky religion bashers) without being particularly communist or fascist. In Sweden the anti-religion indoctrination is far more common than the opposite, so I think it's naïve to think that propaganda has anything to do with religion, or thinking that a person of religion only takes that path due to brainwashing while a person taking another path isn't subjected to any brainwashing.

Nikku4211 wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 9:07 pm
I think religion has been criticised because of people who keep wanting to integrate religion itself into the government for the sake of integrating religion rather than keeping religion away from the government.

Again, there's some religious ideas that do make sense, but logic should take precedence over religious origin in my opinion.

I think this is not about banning religion at all, but rather about making sure religion is not the reason for everything.

Yeah, flawed logic can hurt a side's legitimacy in the long run. Trust me, I hate logical fallacies too, regardless of which side anyone is on.
USA was always secular to begin with so integrating the church in the goverment is a new idea there. In many European countries, the church has long been a part of the goverment and in many cases separated later. Sweden separated goverment and the church very recently, and it doesn't seem to be something people really disagree on.
I still think the bashing is about politics and for preventing the religious powers become too powerful, for better or for worse. The debate is highly subjective, and any attempts to make it appear objective will probably fail logically, but may still win argument points.

Pokun
Posts: 1761
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:49 am
Location: Hokkaido, Japan

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Pokun » Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:38 pm

tepples wrote:
Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:35 am
Some scenes in some games use floating coins as a design tool to lead players to an intended path
Yeah for stating the obvious, I think coins have 3 main roles that I can think of:
1) The direct goal of the game, like in Pacman where you need to eat them all to advance in the game.
2) Rewarding bonus, like in Wonder Boy and Mario games where coins gives both points and energy but may sometimes be ignored.
3) Give messages or show the way, like in the above Balloon Kid and DKC examples.

Of course there is nothing stopping the from having one or several of the 3 goals. And even in a game where coins only seems to be bonus rewards, like in Donkey Kong or Mario games, they still gives you points which may be the goal of the game in the long run (if you are aiming for a high-score).


BTW nice Famicomization pictures of Balloon Kid!

User avatar
Nikku4211
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:28 pm
Location: Bronx, New York
Contact:

Re: Super Mario Bros.: Why all the floating money?

Post by Nikku4211 » Tue Dec 29, 2020 8:02 pm

tepples wrote:
Tue Dec 22, 2020 7:35 am
Some scenes in some games use floating coins as a design tool to lead players to an intended path
Why a coin, though? Why not a sack of money? Why not a safe? Why not gold bars?

Some games use the latter 3, like Aimusori using gold bars.

Heck, what about using a credit/debit/ATM card? Earthbound unfortunately does not show the ATM card you use, it only mentions it.
I have an ASD, so empathy is not natural for me. If I hurt you, I apologise.

Post Reply