i would've just asked the community if they'd be willing to purchase sep7 merchandise first

i don't wanna speak for no one

But he didn't survive anarchy.....

he'd be the type of person to claim that he did

i think the only person who'd buy these is deci

no offense

well, there was that time i thought NIN was gonna be inaugurated into the r&r hall of fame, but that turned out not to be the case, even though they had the highest number of votes in the polls

i only found out months after i was convinced it was happening

yeah, looks like i'm here for the long haul

it was a good report july

Of course suffering in life isn't merely a risk; it's an inevitability. Assuming a pain-free life was guaranteed, though, I don't think you could call it an imposition. Do you?

Absolutely. Does pain-free mean no boredom, or discomfort? There's a lot of negative sensation that we feel that I wouldn't classify as pain or suffering.

You think stealing from someone is an imposition even if they never realize they've been stolen from? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "imposition", because as far as I'm familiar with the term it requires someone to be imposed upon... and that can't happen without them being affected in some way.

Something done to somebody without their consent--that's an imposition. That's everything from rape to surprise birthday parties. The latter could be described as a "white imposition" (after "white lie", or a lie with good intentions), which is the very thing I've been trying to delineate here, I guess.

And yes, even if I don't realize that I've been stolen from, it's still an imposition. You say I have to be "affected" in some way--what do you mean? Emotionally? That wouldn't seem logical. Physically? Well, money was physically taken from my wallet, and now I have less spending power. So whether I know it or not, I've been negatively affected by that.

No, no, that's not what I mean at all. I'm saying that for something to be an imposition there needs to be a subject imposed upon; negatively affected in some sense. For example, say you're on a diet, and I sneak into your house in the middle of the night and inject extra calories into your food. You eat it, gain weight, and become depressed. You have no knowledge of why you're gaining weight, but it's fair to say that my deviousness is an imposition for you, right?

Or say I drew an offensive picture on your forehead while you were asleep. People throughout the day point and laugh at you and make you feel really insecure. In this scenario, you're not even aware of any change in your appearance or surroundings; yet my actions have, again, been an imposition for you.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, now you're speaking my language.

Man I just had the best cheesteak anyone can ever have

so it wasn't that good, then

Quote from: Verbatim on July 25, 2015, 06:53:49 PM

Someone lives a perfect life, totally free of pain and suffering.

Still an imposition.
Because you didn't ask for it. Simple.

I didn't ask for a million dollars, either. But I'm hardly going to call it an imposition when you give it to me.

Because of its negative connotation--not its actual definition. You would be well within your right not only to call it an imposition, but to be upset with me, because I took such a colossal risk at your stake and without your permission. The breach of consent is what defines impositions--not the outcome. That's all I'm saying.

Well, no, I wouldn't call that an imposition. And I wouldn't call stealing money from someone who is none the wiser is an imposition either.

Who said you wouldn't be the wiser? You would be the wiser.

Obviously, what's being imposed upon you is poverty (albeit temporary). I don't think I should need to spell that out.

Are the any difference between the new Pokemon and the ones before them? A new fire type seems like it would bascilly be using the same attacks as a fire type before it just with different designed Pokemon. At this point to me the attacks would be rehashes being used on new Pokemon.

What do the new evolutions do that make the Pokemon any different besides increasing its health?

Aren't the stories basically the same shit since the first games? You start out with either a water, fire or grass type and you head out to defeat the regular gym leaders and once you do that you go off to defeat the champions or whatever they're called?

Each and every Pokémon is very unique in its own right. A new Fire-type introduced will not necessarily entail a carbon copy of the last season's Fire-type. For one thing, there's dual-types--some Pokémon are Fire-types, but others can also be Fire/Flying-types. They also have very different stat distributions, move pools, and innate abilities that not only further their differentiation, but also create their own little niche on each player's team. There are Fire-types that are more offensive-oriented, and then there may be some Fire-types that are more defensive-oriented. Some are fast, some are slow. Some are weak, some are strong. And the best part is that it's all up to you how you want each of your teammates to fight. More Pokémon = more options. It's also important to note that there are also brand new attacks released within each generation, as well, with all their own unique effects.

Mega Evolutions do much more than increase their health. Apart from drastically increasing their other stats, they may also gain a new type and, most importantly, a new ability. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Mega Evolutions--I think Pokémon has yet again found itself in another power creep situation with them, but the fact that you're only allowed one per team tends to balance it out, I find.

I talked about the story in my previous post.

i'm sure if you eat anything, it's gonna do you some inkling of good

i don't even know what the fuck preeclampsia is

no such thing

there is one, but it's just a shitty weeb version

how has vegetarianism/veganism been working out for you

or have you started yet?