On The Contrary - Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

Throughout my life, I have been a gaming connoisseur of every genre and platform. I've loved countless games and franchises, and hated countless more. A fact that I find rather amusing is that, more often than not, my preferences and favorites in the gaming industry are very different than most other people. I thought Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure was a rather great game, I've never liked the Final Fantasy series, I am the biggest fan of Mirror's Edge, and I think Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a piece of garbage. Those are just a few of the things that set me apart from the general consensus

But one recent series has raised my ire for far too long, a current-gen game long heralded as the best on its console and even one of the best video games ever. I would be remiss to allow my viewpoint, no matter how objectionable it may be to others, to go unspoken. There are many people who attest to the quality of this game, and yet I find myself with an opinion contrary to the overwhelming majority, as I usually do. To put it simply...

I fucking hate Uncharted 2. I hate it so fucking much. The first Uncharted game is just run-of-the-fucking-mill, yet the sequel is the same shit but it gets accolades up the ass! Fuck this game!!!

Ok ok, I promised myself I would dispense with my usual vulgarity, and attempt to discuss this somewhat
sensitive topic in an intellectual manner.

Honestly....How Can Anyone TRULY Believe in a Soul?

There are 2 obvious things that basically discredit the idea of a soul (and, by extension, an afterlife), and I do not see how thinking people can say they honestly believe in a soul.

1) Eyes. If souls can look down on us from heaven. that means they can see. So why do we have eyes? Isn't that rather redundant? And why is it that blind people are blind? They should still be able to see, even if their eyes do not function, since our souls can see. The existence of eyes and damage to the eyes resulting in blindness or at least some degree of vision impairment is said by most people to be because the eyes are quite simply the only mechanism through which we humans can take in visual stimuli which our brains can then process. Pit that against the idea that there is a soul and things like vision and consciousness (see the next point) are received by the brain rather than generated by it and apply Occam's Razor. I think it is pretty clear which of the two ideas is wishful thinking/nonsense.

2) The brain. Our souls are supposed to be us. Who we are. Our personality, our identity.......yet, changes in brain function alter our personality. It can change "who we are." Brain damage can make someone forever unrecognisable to even their families. How could this be? Some people, in response to this query, will posit the "transistor radio" hypothesis of consciousness, which, for those who do not know, is the idea that the brain acts as a receiver of consciousness rather than the catalyst for it. So according to this conception of consciousness, brain damage would alter behaviour not because the structures and electrochemical activity of the brain is responsible for said behaviour but rather due to the fact that the brain acts as a receiver for consciousness signals, and if a radio is damages the signal reception will be altered.

The problem with this idea, other than the fact that it is clearly just a way to rationalize away the evidence that runs contrary to the idea of a soul is that it doesn't explain things like dissociative identity disorder.

Fuck Winter

Vegetables Killed James Gandolfini

On June 19th, 2013 Tony Soprano James Gandolfini died suddenly while on Vacation in Rome, Italy. The 51 year old actor and notoriously heavy breather had dined on a (presumably) gigantic meal earlier in the evening before retiring to his room for the night eternity. The autopsy confirmed the suspicions of basically everyone either involved in the story or aware of it; the actor/heavy breather had died of a heart attack. This conclusion has not been challenged by anyone and it has therefore never been investigated further. One could assume that this is due to the fact that there were no pieces of evidence at the scene to suggest an alternative cause of death. There were no signs of forced entry or reported disturbances (like arguing or fighting) emanating from his room that night, although four people on various floors both above and below him did call the concierge to report the sounds of laboured breathing coming from a room somewhere in the hotel (they knew which room it was but they also knew who was in there and knew better than to name names. Nobody rats on T. Nobody). The toxicology report came back negative. There was no blood, no wounds (defensive or otherwise). Open and shut case, right?

Eh, maybe.....or maybe not.

See, I have come across some rather disturbing evidence that his death, while it was in fact a heart attack, was actually the result of an absolute unwillingness, on his part, to eat vegetables, and this cause was actually known to the coroner and others involved in caring for Mr. Gandolfini but the truth of the matter has been suppressed by pasta and meatballs industry. Lobbyists from the industry descended upon Rome immediately upon the news of his death going public; the goal of this was of course to put pressure on those involved in the investigation to ensure that no mention of pasta, meatballs or vegetables (the presence of the former and regarding the latter, a lack thereof) was made in either any official reports or any press conferences or interviews.

I cannot reveal how I cam across this disturbing information but suffice it to say the fact that vegetables tasted less like pasta and meatballs and more like, well, vegetables, was the cause of death and this fact was forcibly kept from the public due to the presence of and pressure by the pasta and meatballs lobby.

Those bastards.