Lurker > KyerWiz

Be very confused.

I'm sure they would be devastated.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Same reference as the quote. Eminem's character in 8 miles is B-Rabbit.

I believe he's more interested in the visibility and being able to promote his ideas to a wide audience than expecting he'd win.

Legends and mythology constantly get adapted for a modern audience.

I sincerely doubt the important message Tolkien had in mind with writing the books was that elves were white. Changing that in a 2022 adaptation does not ruin Tolkien's vision.

For those who wish to experience his world building purely as Tolkien wrote it, the books are going nowhere.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I love a negative review that actually explains what they dislike. That way I can get a feel whether "the most negative part" is something I would have issue with.

"1/10 worst show ever" on the other hand are meaningless.

Dreepapult posted...

Honor thy father and mother.

Which is why this is difficult. If it was just a friend giving me a hard time I'd probably lay it out more straight. I'm pretty good at being blunt and I have had it out with a friend before and things got rather ugly.

I think the commandment is more about as you get older. It's simpler when you're younger it's more like mind your parents. When you're an adult it's dealing with them on a more even ground but giving them honor and respect in difficult situations. Pretty easy with Dad, if anything over the years it's gotten more easy to get along with him. Things have been strained with mom since I started down this different path. Started it about 2.5 years ago.

To respect others, you must first respect yourself.

It is not disrespectful to disagree with someone or to have different beliefs. Even, if you disagree with specifics, there should be some common ground, some similar values beneath it all if they're someone worthy of your love.

PlantBased posted...

Humans do not exist in anything close to a natural ecosystem though and the circle of life doesn't include forceful breeding of animals that would not exist in the numbers or environments humans foster. Under our prevailing system, animals only have the value that humans give to them based on what we get out of them, which is a pretty clear conflict of interest.

And what I said is that they don't have the complexity for our moral agency or environmental control. That does not mean they do not have the capacity to enjoy their experience, no matter how different from our own, because they objectively do.

Without getting too philosophical, I don't know what animals' purpose is, or humans' for that matter, but that is pretty irrelevant to my perspective that we all should be allowed to live freely and enjoy our lives to the furthest extent possible. That includes not being created with a predetermined fate of having your life committed to another.

As for the pet trade, think broader. There might be individual pet owners who are good but the pet trade itself is as brutal as any other animal exploitation operation. Just like there are diseased livestock who are culled or die in transit, would-be pets are often subjected to the same fate. I don't have the info on hand but I recall an analysis of one supplier of pets that followed standard practices and still had something like a 60% death rate for animals who were never even bought.

Escaped or abandoned animals have also exploded into destructive invasive species populations. You have to really overvalue human enjoyment and ignore a lot of the reality of the process to say it's only positives and neutrals.

I admit I never really looked up the pet supply chain. As such, it might be simplistic of me but can't we impose higher standards? I can understand the general population lack of interest in the conditions of "animals who are going to be killed anyway" but I would assume the vast majority of pet owners do care about their potential companions.

Same thing for abandoned or poorly treated pets. I believe we can do better on those issues without completely banning pets.

DeadBankerDream posted...

Derrppp animals eat each other are you okay with daaat?!

I believe it is important to understand the thought process of someone you wish to argue with. It is a significantly different approach whether someone believe the act itself is wrong of if it's only when humans do it.

PlantBased posted...

Vegans don't judge wild animals for their behavior for the same reasons you wouldn't judge a wild animal for reproducing in ways humans would consider rape, committing infanticide, or any of their other behavior we commonly disapprove of.

Humans have moral agency and control over our environment and its inhabitants. Animals don't. We know the impact of our choices on a fairly complex level and can react based on that. Choosing to perpetuate unnecessary harm is very different than unavoidable harm.

There are some animal rights advocates who propose that humans should seek to eliminate all animal suffering, even when it's caused by other animals, but that is beyond the aims of veganism, which is largely about harm reduction. I don't have any problems with that in theory but in terms of practicality, humanity is nowhere near capable of that and likely won't be considering our clock is ticking.

It would and I'm not suggesting we starve pets. However, it would be far less problematic not to breed and confine a sentient animal whose sustenance requires more breeding and confinement of far more sentient animals whose lives will be cut short for the sole purpose of sustaining another animal, who in turn only exists for unnecessary use by humans.

I am trying to get a gauge for what you feel is morally acceptable regarding meat consumption.

A poor American with very little free time for whom it is far more convenient to disregard veganism?
Poor countries with limited food resources with a portion of it being meat?
Indigenous tribe relying in good part on hunting to survive?

Basically, so long as we're talking about a person able to understand "the complexities" behind eating meat, is there a situation where it is morally acceptable for them to eat meat? If so, isn't veganism a luxury? An hypothetical ideal that we cannot yet collectively achieve?

As for the pet thing, I'm not sure I agree with the "only exists for unnecessary use by humans". Why does an individual animal exists, what is its purpose? If we're talking ecosystems, it's to eventually be consumed by others. Good old circle of life. As you've said, they don't have the complexities of emotions and thoughts to strive for anything more.

While I never cared for snakes or the likes myself, I know some do. I won't bother going into the benefits of pets but it's safe to say it has a positive influence on at least one person's life. So long as they're treated with care, I'd say it's also a positive for the pet. So we're left with the bred rodents, basically keeping their original purpose with the exception that they would never have existed otherwise. 2 positives and a neutral sounds fine to me.

I'd think it would be a pretty awkward birthday celebrating that 25 knowing what's coming.

What happened to turn the other cheek? /s

Yeah, if I were in his place, I think I'd want to move on too.

Learning to play a fighting game with a similarly skilled and motivated group of friends can be quite fun.

Learning a few moves that can cheese mid-level AI then getting destroyed online without having any idea what's going on is less so.

It's certainly possible to stick to it and eventually become good, but it is a significant barrier of entry.

PlantBased posted...

It depends on the context. Wild animals eating other wild animals? Okay, they don't have the same moral agency as humans and we can't expect them to abide by our standards. There is some interesting behavior by cetaceans, higher primates, and cephalopods that make for some dicey conversation though...

Once humans are involved and it's something like breeding rodents to feed to pet snakes or pet cats preying on wild animals, I can't condone that and support preventative measures.

Those standards are yours and those who agree with you. They're perfectly fine to have and act on for yourself, but to act as if they're inherently morally superior is silly.

Why is it wrong the moment humans get involved? It's the same thing in the end: killing and consuming a living being. We're just more efficient. We don't need to spend the whole day hunting/stalking prey and still go hungry every now and then.

That pet snake needs to eat. It would be far more problematic to just let it loose to find it's own meal.

Is it because you feel like the prey needs to have a chance? Those rodents would never have existed if we didn't need to feed a pet. I'd say they're still coming ahead.

PlantBased posted...

I honestly wouldn't expect anything different. I'm speaking directly to hockeybub about this because they are an otherwise smart, empathetic person and their views on animals are a drastic departure from that. Same can't be said for you or most of the others.

Except that we live in an age of information, none of this is a secret, and most people who are anti-vegan hold that position because they've been shown the grim reality. They're not innocent or ignorant bystanders who just don't know any better. They know their animal products come from their position of power over animals and they're complicit. Stop coddling them.

What is your position on animals eating other animals?

Considering we've had people complaining that killing Nazi was too political in Wolfenstein, I say make whatever game you want to make and ignore the fools.

All the complaining is about basically one scene, mostly from people who have stated they have only seen that one scene.

Making it real easy to know who to ignore.

g0ldie posted...

I clicked on IGN's review, which rated the episode really well (8/10), but the comments section is full of people complaining about its "agenda", shilling, etc.

The good thing about those people is that they are so eager to reveal themselves that they're easy to ignore.

Swatting is absolutely horrible. I hope any asshole doing it gets caught.

MTG is trash but it has no relevance to this situation, merely a fun thing to say.

When you needed a fighter, you got an appeaser.

The majority of trucking jobs are likely still safe for decades but the idea that they will never be automated is utterly ridiculous.

Cars have existed for less than 150 years. What will transportation look like in another 150 years? In 1000, 10000 years? If, at that point, humanity still needs some guy to escort goods being moved along a pre-arranged path, I'll be very disappointed.

Derwood posted...

Yes, it's CLEARLY the Democrats' fault for not stopping this, NOT the Republicans' fault for doing this.

Jesus fucking Christ

Republicans are monsters. There is no debating this, it's a well-known fact.

But what was the democrats plan? After the craziness of the Trump years, elect a very moderate candidate, that kept saying how he wanted to reach out to the other side of the aisle?

Republicans are waging a war. Democrats are just taking shots without ever counter-attacking. You won't heal that schism with compromises only one side is willing to make.

My hair is leaving me. :(

lightwarrior78 posted...

I've found little triggers the left quite like the accusation that what they believe is due to them just following trends to be popular or seem like good people, or these days, own the cons. The fact it's more friendly here doesn't negate the fact. It just makes it easier to be a sheep and not realize it.

When questioned, people act like that stage mother forcing their kid into sports or music lessons saying "oh the kid loves it" while the kid is miserable.

While "say stuff to to seem like good people" is definitely a thing, it really tends to be more when they need to sell you stuff or, at least, it's themselves they're selling, not a meaningless anonymous handle on an obscure website.

Do you really care what KyerWiz thinks of lightwarrior78? Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

As for your other point, being a sheep is following a trend without being able to articulate why. "Don't be an ass to people for things they do that only affect themselves" is hardly a very difficult concept to understand.

I believe transphobia to be a much more "sheepish" behavior. Why does someone hate transgenders? No one is asking them to be one, just let them be rather than tirelessly going after them. Surely, to have such strong emotions, to put so much efforts, they must have considered their position deeply? Usually, it boils down to meaningless hysteria being peddled by uninformed loudmouths.

Maher said some things I've agreed with and he said things I've disagreed with. These last few years, especially, he tends to come off as out of touch.

People are more comfortable exploring themselves in supportive communities than ones that would demonize them for anything different.

Who would have thought.

Beauty is subjective. Interjecting out of nowhere to call someone ugly, whatever they may look like, is being an asshole.

Those are not difficult concepts to grasp.

There are different levels of scum. The deeper you go, the less people are afraid to openly spew their disgusting hatred. 4Chan is not the bottom, but it sure is deep and it's well known.

How many final matches has it been now?

Those comics are fascinating. Like a horrible, horrible car crash.

darkphoenix181 posted...

This goes beyond just ourselves. If it is someone we like, we tend to also apply this fundamental error.

example:

1.We like Will Smith. He clearly acted like a fucking idiotic jackass.
BUT! It is not his fault. The poor man is going through soooo much. We need to understand him and feel sorry for his situation.

We have attributed the excuse to factors outside of his control like we do for ourselves when we do stupid shit.

2.We don't like Chris Rock. How dare he. He should have known better. How can he be so insensitive?
Interesting isn't it that we have NO IDEA what is going on in Chris' life, yet everything that he has done is now instantly because of his own decisions. Why did he make the joke? What environmental factors lead to this? Does he have bad things going on in his life? Did he actually rehearse the joke or in a moment of low sleep it just popped into this head? etc

But if you don't like him, you don't care. You attribute it to his character flaws

I'm seeing many varied stances, even on this board and one of the most common one (which I agree with) is that we can understand why Smith got upset but being upset does not condone violence.

As for Rock, he was a comedian animating the Oscars. Making fun of various celebs is to be expected. Did the joke go too far? There is no such thing as an universal standard for that. All we can say is, clearly, Smith felt it did.

WingsOfGood posted...

And that is a trash take. You don't have to laugh at jokes you don't like. Many actors have not before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR6UeVptzRg

Will was literally laughing out loud. He found it funny. THAT was the problem. His wife didn't like that HE laughed. He had to do something then to get HIMSELF out of trouble.

Thank you for blessing us with your infinite wisdom. I sure am glad someone knows exactly what was going on in Smith's head, took pity on us poor fools and enlightened us.

You got a different take from me. It happens.

I'm doing my first playthrough of the Dragon Age games. Currently just got to Skyhold in Inquisition.

I'm playing on PC and I had a ton of technical issues with Origins. Tons of crash and some saves in Denerim I simply couldn't load. Crashes got especially bad toward the end and, as a result, I chose to skip most DLC.

I never really liked the combat but I admittedly didn't want to bother manually controlling my entire party and I never could manage a tactics set-up that really worked for me. I played a dual wielding rogue and some early fights I was struggling (the revenant in Redcliffe Castle's courtyard comes to mind) but once I got Wynne, things got much easier.

I found the Fade segment a bit too long but part of it is I got stuck for a bit trying to find one of the shapeshifting. I had no problems with Orzammar/Deep Roads as I was playing a casteless dwarf and I enjoyed the story there.

The story feels a bit generic, but nothing terrible. It's a good excuse to visit different locations/factions that are themselves well-defined. Companions are great.

WingsOfGood posted...

Stop acting like he got upset and in the heat of rage did this.

He did not.

He laughed at the joke. Then he saw his wife did not like the joke. Then he realized she gonna give him hell later about the fact that HE LAUGHED at it. So he did something to try to remove that heat from him.
And made things even worse.

My read of the situation that I won't pretend is anymore valid than anyone else is that Smith did the fake laughter thing because he knows that's what you do in those situations. Likely still pissed him off, but it's when he looked at his wife and saw that it upset her that he really got angry.

You live in a very toxic environment TC, I'm sorry for you.

I hope you will leave this environment and find a more healthy place or, at the very, not propagate that toxicity yourself.

Wrex

Sad_Face posted...

The question is, could you make this assessment and come to a conclusion as the thief is getting away? Mind you you just were robbed at gunpoint and he's now getting away and you have the ability to reclaim to your stuff.

I was robbed at gunpoint, I was terrified for my life. He's getting away, he's not killing me.

Wait, he took my wallet! What did I have? A few hundreds, my various cards. Fuck, that's going to be a headache to sort out... Wait, I got my gun, I could run after him.

And risk getting shot when he sees me coming after him? Screw that!

Well, what was my bank's number...

Sad_Face posted...

I never said it was acceptable. But I understand why he did it. And I am arguing a few of you guys would fall into his trap.

But can you understand why the robber might have robbed him? Maybe he needed money to pay for his mother's medical treatments? We really shouldn't judge him so harshly and shame on that guy for trying to kill what might be a dutiful son.

Sarcasm, if it isn't clear enough. Creating scenarios to possibly justify the emotions involved in actions are that are objectively terrible is utterly pointless. You can do it with any crimes and it won't change the fact that they're crimes.

Sad_Face posted...

I wouldn't either for a couple hundred bucks. But to recover a computer that has authentication info to assets has life changing value, hell yeah I'd chase after the guy. I want to believe I wouldn't shoot blindly into random vehicles in any situation. Wanting to recover your property is not sociopathic behavior unless you're saying human nature, self preservation, is intrinsically sociopathic.

I don't understand how you guys are clashing with me so hard on this. It's like you're only looking at the current outcome and replying to me from that position. If the robbery victim had chased the initial assailant 5 blocks down the road before shooting him to put him in a neutralized but not dead state and recovering his stuff, would you still be unsympathetic? Those actions are still reckless. Suppose he shot him dead? What then?

He had been robbed at gunpoint according to the article. The robbery victim clearly didn't think the gun was fake/had no bullets or else he wouldn't have complied when he had his own weapon. So how was that chase going to resolve?

1) The way it did. He shot recklessly. That one, I believe you agree is bad.

2) The robber gets away. That's pretty much the same outcome as letting him go except you don't risk a volatile situation that could turn ugly.

3) He manages to catch-up to the robber enough that he can shoot him without endangering anyone else. Well, problem is the guy has a gun, as established. At any point he can turn around and you got 2 people shooting recklessly and endangering everyone.

The odds that situation was going to turn out better than if he let him go were abysmal while the odds it was going to turn worse were very high.

Sad_Face posted...

Wanting to recover one's property from being robbed at gunpoint is psychopathic? @DeadBankerDream explain this logic. Seriously. Have you guys ever been robbed before? Had a gun pointed at your head? I chased a guy down across a school for stealing my GBA back in the day but I was powerless to get it back till I got the school authorities involved since I was the smallest guy in the school compared to this heavyset thief. The only thing on my mind was trying to get my stuff back. And there was a time where there was a drug bust in my area and I tried to run only to have cops pointing a shotgun in my face. I was panicking out of my mind.

I'm drawing from these experiences and having valuables that I would risk life and limb for (that I rarely would let outside the house), I can't imagine 10/10 males not making the same mistake he made. At the very least 1/5 would fall into the trap he did.

So hearing these responses, like

All I can think is What the **** is wrong with me? What the **** is wrong with you!? Would you not run and defend your property? Or would you sit there and twiddle your thumbs and hope the authorities can solve the case for you?

He didn't find the gun on the ground, he had while he was being robbed. He didn't pull it out because he feared for his safety. That was the smart thing to do.

Once the robber left, he was safe. He then put himself back in this situation to either straight up murder the guy by shooting him in the back unaware (best case scenario!) or initiate a shoot-out, risking his life, the life of the robber and the life of everyone around. This goes beyond being emotional after a tense situation.

The worst you risked after getting your GBA stolen was getting beat-up. Unless you're a psychopath (which clearly, some in this topic suspect you are), you weren't going to murder the guy if all went well for you. No bystander was at risk. Those are completely different situations requiring completely different responses.

Sad_Face posted...

The firearm was supposed to defend him against the initial assailant, I'd argue.

In any case, I call BULL S*** on all these replies to me. Ignoring the female posters, I can bet $1K at least half of you guys would have chased after the dude and maybe a quarter or so would have taken a shot at him if you figured you could hit him.

Yet, it did not. All it objectively did is turn the situation from bad to tragic.

If I had a weapon and did not pull it during the confrontation then I see no reason why I would after when I am no longer in danger. "Oh thank God I'm safe... Well, time to get in a shoot-out!".

Sad_Face posted...

Dude, you were just held up at gunpoint and robbed and are watching the robber scurry off, equipped with Mr. Blinky yet powerless to prevent the situation. Are you guys insinuating that you'll be perfectly disciplined, and will be dialing 911 to report a robbery? Or will you be racing to introduce the robber to Mr. effing Blinky and bring his ass to justice?

There are consequences to actions and if it's jail time for ending the poor girl's life, he'll have to accept it. But to say "Oh, I have no sympathy for the idiot" or whatever (yeah, I'm putting words in poster's mouths), I think that has to be the most tone deaf comment you can make about the situation. Emotions run high when it's a life or death situation and you're asking for the world for a guy who feels he has the power to correct the outcome after just being robbed at gunpoint.

A gun is not a toy. Emotions running high are not an excuse to recklessly use a lethal weapon in public.

If your point is that you can't be expected to act rationally in this situation, well, that's a damn good argument to ban firearms, isn't it?

I'm not a gun nut, but I'm pretty sure a basic rule of gun handling is don't shoot if you're not absolutely certain what you're shooting at.

Shooting in the streets is already a major risk with stray bullets but shooting at a vehicle you guess might contain the robber? That's a major no-no even if he had been right and it did not contain innocent people.