Lurker > Dragonblade01

The Zelda formula was incredibly stale. The series needed a game like Breath of the Wild.

It's a great open-world game and a better Zelda game.

I think that even for the very few times I agree with him, I'm not convinced he arrived at the answer rationally.

Not for being Christian. But they also shouldn't be forced to make a cake with a cross, for example.

There is nothing wrong with this kind of game.

Correct, that is indeed gameplay.

Definitely picking it up when it comes out.

H'aanit's my girl.

Discussion of hate and political factions aside:

I'm sure Jordan Peterson is right about some things sometimes. But the problem is that he can be very wrong about others; and even more critically, his reasoning when arriving at conclusions is also questionable.

Everything that isn't meat or jalapenos.

It's a very good game overall, yes.

Also are we really still using the whole "there's no gameplay" nonsense when there very clearly is gameplay?

What's the downside?

That kid is really lucky he didn't try that on a less stable adult.

That is exactly the face that I was expecting.

An important thing to remember is that everything is physical/chemical, including any sort of mental trouble.

As has been mentioned, the monotheistic religions spread primarily through ruthless imperialism, especially early on. The one's we have today are simply the most appealing ones that also had a fantastic K/O stat.

I'm pretty sure that if everyone did this, bike thieves would just become more wary of it...

maybe don't kick people

Rika_Furude posted...

its not really unnecessary when they are stealing the bike

It is absolutely unnecessary to rig a contraption to injure someone if they try to steal your bike.

shnangyboos posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Because something like that isn't a measure done for security. It's a measure done for the sole purpose of injuring someone unnecessarily.

Think of it more as a harsh lesson.

It's less of a harsh lesson and more just causing someone unnecessary harm.

Because something like that isn't a measure done for security. It's a measure done for the sole purpose of injuring someone unnecessarily.

Is it fair? I don't think pranks are a matter of fair vs unfair.

It's a dick move though.

I'm not sure if you're capable of having this discussion when you struggle with the definition of assault itself.

Furthermore, your stubborn insistence that killing your attacker is always justified is fortunately not one that most people share.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Now I need you to stop being obtuse and recognize that not all conflicts require that same level of self-defense.

That's up to you as an individual, but any attack on you as "Innocent Person A" from "Assaulting AssHat B" should have defensive options all the way up to death of Assaulter.

If the Assaulter was smart, they wouldn't be starting crap in the first place and wanting to Assault people.

But since they are dumb, any sort of liability should squarely fall ONLY on them, including death.

Wrong. Not all assaults are the same, and so not all levels of self-defense are always justified. It is correct that the assaulter is absolutely in the wrong and is morally responsible for their actions. However, the moment that the person being assaulted responds beyond what is reasonable, they have also committed wrongdoing. And the reason for that is because it is important for a society to have moral standards that mitigate aggression among its members, not escalate it. And if you're curious about what is "reasonable," that's something that we as society decide based on the circumstances. For example, if someone shoves you to the ground, and you pull out a gun and shoot them in self-defense, most people would think the person assaulted was defending themselves beyond what was reasonable for the situation.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

If a person kills someone else because they punched them in the face, that person is going to jail for manslaughter at least unless he can prove that his life was truly in danger. And that's how it should be, because it cannot be acceptable for all parties to continually escalate a conflict.

So lets say you get jumped from behind or front and some punk starts punching you, you find a way to end the Assaulter permanently. (Method doesn't matter, Knife, FireArm, Magic Missile, etc).

In the heat of the moment, you don't know this random assaulter and they start punching you in the head, what is your first instinct?

Most people is to survive / fight back.

You as the victim have every right to survive, and they as the assaulter have every right to die for assaulting you.

If you don't know the situation and someone jumps you from behind and lands continuous shots to your head, then you're in a better position to use lethal force to defend yourself. Because, as you said, you don't truly know how much danger you're in, and your life may very well be in real danger.

Now I need you to stop being obtuse and recognize that not all conflicts require that same level of self-defense.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Obviously nobody should be assaulted, and people must be allowed to defend themselves.

But people also shouldn't escalate. If someone gets punched in the face, it's not on the assaulter if the other person decides to kill them.

Yes, it is on the assaulter. If the Assaulter didn't assault the innocent victim, the victim wouldn't be forced to defend themselves.

Ergo, any retaliation, retribution, defense, action, etc is strictly on them since they instigated the entire conflict.

They wouldn't be in that situation if they didn't assault somebody, period.

If a person kills someone else because they punched them in the face, that person is going to jail for manslaughter at least unless he can prove that his life was truly in danger. And that's how it should be, because it cannot be acceptable for all parties to continually escalate a conflict.

Well, socialism doesn't help the situation in Venezuela, but it's inaccurate to say that it's the primary cause. Venezuela has a lot of problems to bring up before the topic of socialism vs. capitalism.

That being said, while capitalism/free markets do create their own problems, one of the key benefits of it as an economic system is that it allows for greater adaptability. If people can freely enter markets, then it's much more likely that you don't put your industries into one basket. And that can be very helpful in times when a particular industry isn't panning out. Socialism, meanwhile, is by more rigid by nature. And while rigid systems can work very well when everything's going smoothly, problems can also cause the system to struggle more easily.

But again, Venezuela has a lot of problems, and those problems cannot simply be boiled down to "they're a socialist country."

26_Sandman_39 posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

Guy's a piece of shit but he just proved how white liberals really think when they see someone like him pull something like this.

The fuck? If I was in a building and that shit came on, regardless of who the person is, I'm out of there. Also this has nothing to do with politics.

And if I turned around and saw the dude was just chilling there laughing/filming I would put 2 and 2 together and stay. I probably would know the guy more since I was classmates with him, but I guess knowing someone goes out the window when you're a liberal and see someone brown.

Oh yeah, because that's totally the time when most people are going to carefully analyze the situation and do a probability check on how likely it is that there's really a bomb.

At least make an attempt to be less obviously a caricature.

You don't have to go to the gym to exercise.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I believe that people should be able to defend themselves while trying not to escalate the situation.

People shouldn't have to be assaulted in the first place.

Any consequences due to (Self Defense / Defensive Retaliation / Survival Instincts) is on the assaulter.

Don't be stupid, don't assault people, you won't get into any problems.

Obviously nobody should be assaulted, and people must be allowed to defend themselves.

But people also shouldn't escalate. If someone gets punched in the face, it's not on the assaulter if the other person decides to kill them.

I believe that people should be able to defend themselves while trying not to escalate the situation.

And yet the fact that the girl manipulated the guy by lying to him is apparently not important in the slightest.

You guys get so fucking weird when it comes to sex.

The demo is so good

I mean, it's not really a big deal if you say it in private for whatever reason.

Just be careful when you aren't in private.

It's undeniable that it's a great game.

I live in Japan, and this video sums it up perfectly:

Why do you think we won't eventually understand the human brain in a more complete way?

Why do you think that we need complete understanding of the human brain to create an AI that we would consider sentient?

Rika_Furude posted...

Jiggy101011 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Jiggy101011 posted...

Such a silly topic, the androids arent forced to get on the back of the bus. Your whole pandering argument goes out the window less than 30 minutes later, if you kept playing you would know this.

i never played it at all? your entire post is shit

Wait so you just watched a youtube clip and based your topic off of that?

Describe where in my topic title or opening post I made an incorrect statement.

I don't think people are saying you made an incorrect statement.

I think they're taking more of an issue with your hostile reaction to it.

Rika_Furude posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

but we don't know if we're incapable of creating an AI that's complex to the point we would describe it as sentient.

Being complex doesn't make it sentient. "i think, therefore I am". Computers don't think.

Dragonblade01 posted...

it seems very much within the realm of possibility given what we've already achieved when it comes to generation-based algorithmic processing.

Like I said, what is in the realm of possibility definitely is amazing and will make humans redundant in like 99.99% of all endeavors. But that doesn't make it sentient or alive.

The problem is that's all on the assumption that we humans are more than organic machines whose actions are determined by an admittedly complex algorithm. And despite what many of us want to believe, that claim isn't anywhere near as solid as we like to think it is.

Rika_Furude posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

no such thing. that would be a gargantuan undertaking of many thousands of software engineers and scientists worldwide, and hundreds of thousands/millions of lines of code in complex algorithms composing many millions of smaller commands. there is no single "think for yourself" command.

Yes, it will likely be very complicated. But that doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen.

just like humans cannot exceed the speed of light, humans cannot create AI. simple as that.

Those two scenarios aren't comparable.

they are. the speed of light is a natural physical limit, and computers also are limited by what they are programmed to do (as in they can't exceed that limit and do something that they have not been "instructed").

And those two limitations are not equal. Humans also cannot do anything beyond our limitations, but we don't know if we're incapable of creating an AI that's complex to the point we would describe it as sentient. In fact, if anything, it seems very much within the realm of possibility given what we've already achieved when it comes to generation-based algorithmic processing.