Lurker > PBusted

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/3/3/AANrk6AAEsAh.jpg

WingsOfGood posted...

more footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GzW02Hwjg

That's great.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PredatorTurnedProtector

scar_the_1 posted...

Hopefully I'll get to play more today since we got home again. But gf is playing totk and there's only one switch to go around :)

I used to sneak it into the bathroom for those occasions lol.

scar_the_1 posted...

Thanks for the bump. I've been away on vacation and won't be back home for another couple days so no progress. I'm at like uh.. chapter 20? I just got Celica back I think.

np if you feel you're taking a break feel free to say it.

GranAures posted...

Well, I guess he can't defend it anymore, publicly. He sure won't take away that trying to equate being a native speaker of a language to being a bigot or raping children to claim that holding the latter accountable as an "injustice" as a bad idea though.

At the very least you get a tag from me as a pretty cool guy.

The_Apologist posted...

Where did they come from? Your upbringing?

Yes, although some people may, if they're very lucky, have a hand that enables them to rise above their cultural programming. But that's probably rare.

I mean, I'm trying to persuade people. Is that what you mean? I think I have a moral obligation to attempt to do that, even if it's all futile.

Not everything is upbringing. Kids rebel/reject their parent's teaching without outside influence all the time. Seems like you're someone that doesn't and want people to sympathize with you rather than just changing it. Again, you say all this stuff about humans not having free will yet you were perfectly fine with judging people negatively for talking down on you even though by your logic it's not their fault and can't be blamed.
You've certainly very convincing of the very opposite of the points you're supporting.

The_Apologist posted...

Why do you think that?

It's the argument people use when they want to treat criminals with compassion instead of throwing the book at those who've been dealt a shitty hand in life.

Because I have morals unlike you.
By your logic, everyone has been dealt a shitty hand in life when we're all victims of culture. Ironically, the subject this discussion was originally about, the majority in power, have been dealt the best hands in life, and that's the people you're trying to prop up and defend while brushing off the voices of the ones who were dealt a shitty hand. Always the case with you sea lions.
Although, you yourself seem perfectly fine with judging and talking down on people here who could "just be saying things beyond their control" too so it's clear you're just fronting in order to be an apologist for the people you relate with.
Though it is fitting that you're just proving the stereotype that people who complain about misandry tend to be enablers with garbage takes that are detached from reality.

The_Apologist posted...

Like in all other cases of cultural upbringing, most Nazis probably weren't at fault for being Nazis. You would've been a Nazi if you'd been born into the culture, right?

No, because I'd be one of the millions of people who defied the Nazis inside Nazi Germany. At the very least, not actively help them. Your argument is exactly the type of arguments Nazi/rape apologists use though and it's not a valid defense in court despite how you much you clearly want it to be.

The_Apologist posted...

Because in general, people are the way they are as a result of their upbringing, cultural setting, life experiences, etc. And people have no control over those things. And it's wrong to blame people for things they have no control over.

So you'd be an apologist for Nazis?

The_Apologist posted...

Tell me why that's right.

Why wouldn't it be right?

The_Apologist posted...

They perpetuate the values they were raised to perpetuate. In many cases, people aren't culpable for doing that.

Yeah, that's an agreeable implication. Why wouldn't I want to accept that?

You don't see the contradiction here? You just observed--correctly--that no one is to blame.

If you rape a child you're going to be both judged socially and legally as culpable, regardless if you were abused as a child yourself, and rightfully so.

And in that hypothesis, that's not blaming them, it's the observation that they chose those actions, same as how someone choosing to move a chair to the left or to the right is on them.
The_Apologist posted...

How so? Do you think it makes sense to blame people for things that are beyond their control?

Choosing whether to perpetuate the cycle IS something you control and you know it. Again, child rapists and Nazis aren't absolved for "they didn't know better" or "just following orders". Especially when the speakers in question both do know better and don't orders, they just actively refuse to be better because they prefer it that way.
Also, you yourself seem perfectly fine with judging and talking down on people here who could "just be saying things beyond their control" too so it's clear you're just talking bullshit in order to be an apologist for garbage people like yourself.

ragnarokius posted...

Apologist is correct. Short of straight up psychopaths or something everyone is a product of their environment and life experiences. It isn't an excuse, it's just useful to keep in mind. The US is a weird country in how large it is, and the built in division of the states. And patch work population density. The internet brings us all into one place now but minus that different towns can differ drastically based on location and population, etc.

And you can absolutely still blame people who are a product of their environment. Freudian excuse is no excuse. That's what he's wrong about.

The_Apologist posted...

In this case, I think culpability is tied into prevention. In order to prevent the problem, we need to correctly identify its cause. If we're blaming people for the problem, then we're attributing the problem to people's agency. But the actual cause is a combination of social (and presumably some biological) forces that are beyond anyone's agency. Thus, if we're blaming people, then we're misdiagnosing the problem and missing our chance to prevent it.

That all goes for social problems in general. To speak more specifically about the present topic: scapegoating men for social ills isn't just wrong in itself; it also actively obstructs the cause of gender equality by stoking division and animosity.

You're just saying a bunch of weasel words because you want to deflect away blame from a group that you associate yourself with. You're literally doing "notallmen". You're still missing that the blame isn't on all men, it's on the men in power that perpetuate the values that benefit them, basically male supremacists, same as white supremacists. You can try to deflect onto how female supremacists, black supremacists, Asian supremacists etc etc. exist and they certainly do, but the majority in power are the ones that have far more societal influence and impact society far more.
In any case, if you really want to deflect away blame from any groups so much then by your logic there is nobody to blame for the increase in men killing themselves and male depression. It's simply rising because of evolution. It's on them for killing themselves. That's not blaming a victim, that's observing that it's the choice they made. So in a sense men are still the only ones who's responsible for their own deaths.

The_Apologist posted...

That's not the root cause, because there's a further explanation for why those people push that rhetoric. We can trace the causes back through history.

Agreed. But it does change their culpability, and that's an important aspect of the issue.

That's completely irrelevant. If we're trying to prevent things, we're looking at things in the current day to be addressed right now. The abusive ancestors are dead, we're addressing the current parents who are abusive and to call that out and stop that from happening. Same with every other current criminal who was raised bad. Culpability isn't tied into prevention so why are you so worried about culpability anyway?

The_Apologist posted...

Describing something as part of the evolution of society is saying that it does/did happen, not that it must happen. The way society develops is open-ended, as far as I know.

Yes, exactly. And if we misdiagnose the root causes (for example, by thinking that people intentionally create and control culture), then we're unlikely to learn how to solve the issue.

The root cause are the people that push the rhetoric, which is the point of this topic. You're trying to deflect from that with the logic that they themselves were raised as a part of that cycle. Even if that was the case that doesn't change that they're still the ones perpetuating that cycle in the current day. Again, with your logic, there is no root cause at all, you can just deflect away from anything. Or you'll claim it's some vague abstract thing that's just lip service and doesn't help anything.

The_Apologist posted...

Potentially, yes. But even in the extreme case where nobody is at fault for anything, we could still make all the usual distinctions between which things are bad and which are good, and we could still take measures to prevent the bad things from happening.

Would this be an unacceptable scenario?

Yes. Everything that happens in human society is part of the evolutionary development of society, just as everything that happens in the world is part of the history of the world. This is entirely mundane, but you seem to be imbuing the term 'evolution' with some sort of special meaning.

I'm responding to each of your points individually--a standard practice in this medium. If you want to focus on just one point, I guess we can do that. What's the single thread you want to pursue?

It's only really a standard practice among sea lions and pedants. People in real debates don't do this, there's a reason the technique has a derogatory name. In any case, if that's your definition of evolution then it's pointless since you're basically just using it as a synonym for "fate". It's pointless to say "things happened because it happened".
And addressing the root causes of the issue are part of learning how to prevent them and potentially even get the root causes to reflect on themselves and if that can't happen, to get others to shun their values.

The_Apologist posted...

Same answer: The question comes down to how much genuine opportunity a person has to think for themselves and become something more than a product of their circumstances.

There's middle ground between enabling misbehavior and blaming people for being dealt a bad hand. Namely, we can take steps to prevent the misbehavior without necessarily holding the person morally accountable for it.

You got me on this one. I forgot to attach my perspective to reality.

The deeper problem is that at the end of the day, your position isn't conducive to developing a solution, because it so badly misunderstands the nature of the problem.

I mean, with the way you're going, you could excuse anything by saying it's just a product of their environment and nurture and nobody is morally accountable.
With your logic, men killing themselves due to failing to meet the expectations that his male peers or "superiors" set for him is also just "evolution".
Also this gish galloping structure isn't conducive to your arguments or any arguments really. It only makes you look like you're unable to structure a whole argument together without going off into disjointed tangents.

The_Apologist posted...

Rather, culture uses people in power to perpetuate itself. (I mean, it uses all people to perpetuate itself, but the people in power are--only sometimes, depending on the case--the more efficacious instruments by comparison.)

In a lot of cases, that does mitigate culpability, yes. The question comes down to how much genuine opportunity a person has to think for themselves and become something more than a product of their circumstances.

Yes. And so is the antiracist response. No one even denies this, unless they misunderstand the concept of cultural evolution or something.

Do you also think child rapists are absolved if they were abused themselves? It helps garner some understanding but it does not mitigate culpability at all. Your mindset is a terrible enabler one and your definition of evolution is similarly awful and is detached from reality. I'd take being a "victim blamer" with your shitty logic and definitions. You're definitely someone that gets mad at Herman Cain awards, ironic that you're handwaving things as evolution.

The_Apologist posted...

Because they've been culturally conditioned to do so. In general, people are the products of culture, not the other way around.

And cultures are mostly pushed by the people in power. Even if the cycle started way before any of are alive, there are still distinct people that are the most responsible for pushing it. Your logic is like trying to absolve abusive parents for being abusive even if they were raised that way themselves.

The_Apologist posted...

Yes. The evolution of society created the majority in power as well.

So white supremacism is just evolution to you?

The past 2 generations have been a major downgrade after the incredibly successful 7th gen.

The_Apologist posted...

Victim blaming is counterproductive. No one intentionally creates and controls the culture--not even men.

It literally are primarily male influencers, speakers, and their communities that spread those rhetoric, not female communities. The perps are the men in power who benefit from those traditional values. Of course some women do push those values too but most of it are stereotypes created by the men in power projecting their own beliefs.
The_Apologist posted...

No one 'created' things as they are now. Evolution happens on its own.

You think black people, LGBT, and other minorities facing discrimination is a product of evolution and not created by the majority in power?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHZhMWy4iZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-_3V6Zob9I

GreenKnight127 posted...

Men are the ones who decided alpha males were attractive to females?

Fascinating.

Uh, yes, obviously. In reality women are varied people who are attracted to a variety of men just like men. Youre probably thinking of aiming for more desired women that will increase your social class ranking (including among men) and those are both personal issues and also generally values created by men.

GreenKnight127 posted...

I wouldnt be so sure of that.

A society saturated in socially acceptable misandry leads to a LOT of depression and suicide amongst young men.

Also, it's extremely toxic to immediately counter any claim of misandry existing with "But women have it worse!"

This isn't the Oppression Olympics where it's a competition to see who is more of a victim.

Men and women both have it bad. It's important to acknowledge that.

Misandry is indeed a bad thing and generally visible in various legal policies but depression and suicide among young men are usually due to being unable to live up to the alpha male standards that men created, the idea that men are losers for being unable to get laid.

Progress ?

Who gets the nukes? Red states would spiral worse than Russia if they split.

orcus_snake posted...

Wait, how does it go out to one out of 180? that's 0.005 chance to hit which is completely different from 0.05 chance to hit.

1% is .01 chance to hit. 0.5% is .005 chance to hit. .05 is 5%.

orcus_snake posted...

It does not lie, a low percentage chance is still a chance and 15 are odds that you would love to have in a casino.

I have played enough HS games where chances of X happening and winning someone the game are front and center and I get as pissed as anybody else when the enemy makes me discard my 1/5 card that would have won the game during the next turn but that is what percentage chance means, it is never guranted until you get a 100% anything short of that just play to your odds and hope it works out.

This is coming from someone who beat Lucina's game on lunatic diofficulty so I was VERY aware that enemies can and will crit you on 1 or 2 percent and you will have to start over the entire chapter over.

The game actually does lie to the player but in the player's favor as enemies are more likely to have lower percentages and players are more likely to have higher percentages. A 5% crit/1RN happens 1 every 20 hits which with the amount of hits that goes on in every battle isn't a lot of hits at all. However, in True Hit/2RN a 5% chance is actually 0.55% chance which goes from 1 out of 20 to 1 out 180 so you can see how big a difference that makes.
Besides FE1-5, in Fates, Echoes, and Engage all numbers below 50% are 1RN/doesn't lie to you so lower percentage hits are much more likely to hit.

Bad_Mojo posted...

Not a melty at all. Just 100% facts

Ans yeah, its 100% confirmation bias. I dodge high % hits and land really low attacks a lot as well. Thus my point - the game lies to you

In a sense, the game does lie to you. There's a "true hit" percentage that's slightly different than the displayed percentage in every game after the 5th one.

https://fireemblemwiki.org/wiki/True_hit
FE7 uses 2RN.

However, with this system lower percentages are actually even lower and higher percentages are even higher so if the numbers didn't lie to you and were accurate you'd be missing even more high percentage hits and getting hit at low percentage hits even more.

So he's paying large amounts of child support right? I usually don't like how men can often get the short end of the stick there but this guy definitely deserves it.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Is the SwSh girl Victoria to counter Victor? If so then all of them.

Also, that is Leaf, the FR/LG protagonist, not Blue/Green as the very similar, but slightly different redesign from LGPE. Just like how that's Ethan, from HG/SS as opposed to Gold, from the slightly different design in GSC.

It's Gloria.

all of them except for Victor but that's because I was just looking at the list a few days ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq2P6LJdN6o

LeCh0nk posted...

smarter than the average bear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHZhMWy4iZ8

scar_the_1 posted...

Oh yeah maybe I was a bit unclear. What I like is when it has gameplay implications. Like if different narrative choices would mean that I recruit different characters. The actual story in FE games has never grabbed me, but it's more fun when the choice matters.

I get you.

And what gender did the kidnapping? Of course, if the story even happened

Pokemon's Lusamine is 40 and some of the FE3H female characters are around 30 too.

scar_the_1 posted...

Idk about fine. I don't mind it, but I've never really cared about plot or characters in FE.

I was thinking about what you said earlier about liking the Awakening style mechanics

I used to love Eastern Tent Caterpillars when I was a kid and assumed they were butterfly larvae. It was only recently I discovered they were actually moth caterpillars.

Nah I'm not a furry, but more power to you if you are.

The infrastructure

You're more fine with romance right?

Takuya_Lee posted...

And they still missed, not that actually reaching the bushes would had helped...

There wasn't even an awning in their direction, they just jumped 20 stories.

viewmaster_pi posted...

playstation got their precious call of duty deal, you know that's all this was about. the whole courtroom clownshow was pointless

Microsoft had always been planning to give them a deal. Sony originally denied the deal because they didn't want CoD on gamepass and also wanted exclusive CoD content. They have now taken the deal but without the rest of Activision games which ironically, Nintendo appears to be granted a deal for.

scar_the_1 posted...

Nah, I'm at like.. chapter 16? Ish. I just got the Eirika and Ephraim emblem. So I've got some missions left but I think I've promoted all my units now. Only issue is I can't really decide what class I want Yunaka to be. Maybe it would be better to keep her as thief?

Oh I was just referring to chapter 10 and 11 lol.

I've always been saying Playstation is much worse for smaller games.
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2020/10/another_indie_dev_suggests_sonys_denying_ps_store_sale_requests
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/playstation-buries-smaller-games-unlike-155648051.html

The only good things he posts are the bizarre gifs he sometimes adds to his topics. He should just focus on the gifs with the accurate titles for it rather than making completely unrelated and clickbait troll topics and then randomly putting the gifs in.