would you like me to explain to you how competitive fps works? because it involves a LOT more variables than just who shoots first.

doubt it

feel free to try to explain though

fighting games are like FPS games in that regard, too, but fighters are actually one of my favorite genres because of a few key differences

you can actually train in fighting games and develop strategies that way, unlike FPS

this idea that people can be "better" or "worse" than someone at an FPS is asinine to me
you shot me before you did--that's it
there's no nuance there

if i shot you first, would that really make me a better player? because that's all it really takes to win--whoever shoots who first.
fighting games, i would argue, are a lot more sophisticated

if you lose, it wasn't just because someone hit a button before you did, unlike in an FPS
it was most likely due to a much larger number of factors, including dropping combos, your own poor execution, failing to use a better move at a better time, having a bad character matchup etc. etc.

the most nuance i get from FPS games in that regard is, "the gun you used sucked"
and how often are the guns fairly placed on the map anyway?

anyway, whatever, i just know people are gonna get all angry now
because i'm pointing out the most untouchable genre's flaws

calculated and thorough

but that's really general, and assuming all games are reduced to just problem solving mechanisms

i like to take my time developing strategies

flee is like a 6-7/10 member

according to you, we're all already killing babies by not having them, so

not necessarily, it's just a slight redundancy
i would chalk it up to a force of habit

What the fuck is "unnecessary abuse"? Is there "necessary abuse" in your mind or did you just word this wrong?

i think "unnecessary abuse" functions as a term, simply because "necessary abuse" is an oxymoron

because no abuse is necessary--that's why it's called abuse

However, I think that unnecessary abuse or maltreatment of animals shouldn't be there. Animals should be respected as living beings, but that shouldn't be treated as a right for an animal.

then what should it be treated as

seems like a semantic distinction

LKAB!

let's kill all babies?
lesbians kiss at bedtime?
laughter kicks ass, bitch?

What would you do if you woke up the opposite sex?

Apologize and tell her to go back to sleep.

Abortion - radically for
Affirmative Action - strongly against
Animal Rights - strongly for
Barack Obama - entirely indifferent
Border Fence - weakly against
Capitalism - radically against
Civil Unions - what about them?
Death Penality - radically for
Drug Legalisation - radically for
Electoral College - strongly against
Environmental Protection - strongly for
Estate or Inheritance Tax - strongly against
European Union - largely ignorant
Euthanasia - strongly for
Federal Reserve - ignorant
Flat Tax - largely ignorant
Free Trade - indifferent
Gay Marriage - strongly for
Global Warming is caused by humans - strongly agree
Globalisation - indifferent
Gold Standard - moderately against
Gun Rights - indifferent
Homeschooling - entirely indifferent
Internet Censorship - strongly against
2003 Iraq War - strongly against
Labour Unions - moderately for
Legalised Prostitution - weakly for
Medicare and Medicaid - strongly for
Medical Marijuana - strongly for
Military Intervention - strongly against
Minimum Wage - what about it?
National Health Care - strongly for
National Sales Tax - ignorant
Occupy Movement - moderately for
Progressive Tax - ignorant
Racial Profiling - strongly against
Redistribution of Wealth - ignorant
Smoking Ban - strongly against
Socialism - strongly for
Stimulus Spending - ignorant
Term Limits - strongly for
Torture - strongly against
United Nations - indifferent
War in Afghanistan - strongly against
War on Terror - strongly against
Welfare - moderately for

I don't have a "waifu".

You do realize the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Meaning they didn't intend for literally all citizens to just walk around with guns. It just somehow got twisted into that. At least that's how some interpret it. The part where it says " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is what causes the confusion.

The founding fathers just worded it weird.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22the_right_of_the_People.22

Uhhh...

inside joke