PC gaming is superior to console gaming (CM)

For those of you who do not know, this is an objective fact. Yes indeed, gaming on a computer is much better than on a console. Let's review the evidence. First is the graphics. Even the most humble of computers can easily match the graphics output of consoles. Not to mention higher-end computers, which are in an entirely different category. It's not just the quality of the graphics though, it's the options. For example, most console games do not have anti-aliasing. Computers have the option for anti-aliasing plus anisotropic filtering options plus bloom effects plus a myriad of other advanced graphics options. It's simply no contest. Let's talk about the games now. Cheaper on the PC and that is that. Console games will hover around sixty bucks for months until they drop - Steam offers relatively new games for thirty dollars or less, not to mention older games, or ones that are independently developed - those go for as little as five. More about games, you cannot forget mods. On the computer you can do whatever you want with your games - the files are your's and you can download mods for them or create them yourself. Consoles? They have those on lock and key. Modding is more likely to equal jail time than a better experience. There are those who would say that the PC is actually inferior when it comes to games, citing some obscure game that is exclusive to one console. The fact is irrelevant, no single game could make up for the libraries of high quality content the PC provides. Let's talk a little about community. On the consoles, you are probably going to end up interacting with a bunch of screaming twelve year olds. On the PC, you can directly connect with your friends with ease. How can the two be compared? I don't believe they can.            

Transcendentalism = not sustainable (CC(?)

As we have delved deeper into the transcendentalist philosophy, my opinions, unlike some of my peers, have not turned towards dislike, but simply the overall observation of how unsustainable it is. By that I mean that it is a philosophy that if implemented would not help any institution survive. Obviously, as going against almost all institutions is a part of the philosophy. I cannot agree with this. The saying "Man is a social animal" exists for a reason - because it is true. It's a natural action for people to form groups, communities etc. and society and culture is a further extension of that. This is firmly objective. When we look at the other great apes, we do not see them roaming by themselves, rather in fairly large groups with families and leaders and other basic aspects of communities. You cannot say that groups are some evil human invention. What my point is is that isolation as outlined by the transcendentalists is not only illogical but it goes against what has made us, as a species, so successful. This is what makes it unsustainable. Without groups, the world as we know it cannot exist. This is not to say that the movement is entirely without merit. Yes, groups of all sorts have enabled us to dominate the world, but they do have problems, a fact both I and the transcendentalists agree on. Another one being the value of individualism - which I prize above many other things. Though I agree with both of these points, I do not agree with transcendentalism's proposed methods of fixing them. Leaving the group is not the way to fix problems with the group, and individualism is not such an overarching thing that one cannot become part of a group, or should go and live in isolation. Rather than this, I propose that we fix groups from within, and encourage individualism by demonstrating it. Transcendentalism, like so many things, must be used with moderation if it has any hope of succeeding.