This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 415416417 418419 ... 1001
12481
« on: April 26, 2016, 02:22:41 AM »
Why? You might not have the best self esteem, but you still have a good life. You have people who care about you.
There are a number of factors as to why. First things first my perception of reality feels completely off. Each day I wake up I'm like "oh great, life again." because I don't really have anything good going for me, knowing that I'm pretty much waiting for the inevitable. If anything its a struggle, sometimes I wish I was somebody else, I'm not content with the person I am, the condition I have, and the fact that I can't joke around and grasp sarcasm with others. People who watch The Big Bang Theory always compare me to Sheldon and that gets really annoying.
On top of that I'm growing tired of being an introvert and being in front of my computer nearly all day, but I have no where to go, I don't have club meetings until Friday and I only go to school once a week now since my financial aid has been cut and I can't handle more than 12 units unless I'm ready to torture myself each semester. I'm living in limbo basically and the toughest challenge right now is how to get out of limbo. I've also been losing interest in video games overall including game development itself. I'm having a shift between playing music and wanting to make video games, music coming back to my life with the guitar is like visiting an old friend in a sense, with that said I still want to finish what I started at the club, I just don't know what to do with my life anymore.
Granted, I have people that care about me, believe me I am grateful for that. But I feel like saying it and actually caring are two different things. Maybe I think too deep but I always feel like people secretly have to hide something about me that they rather not admit to me at face value. I mean my ex said she cared and I'll never truly know if she really did or not, I know I cared about her. I've just been really jaded and find it really hard to enjoy anything anymore.
Oh and therapy isn't really working. I feel like the therapist wants me to be someone that I'm not to a degree.
I know everyone here has problems of there own, but sometimes I feel like people here in some way, have things going much better than I ever will.
Sounds like you're just in a rut, why should that make you hate your whole life? Honestly, people in general are less underhanded than commonly believed. They're blunt and rude for the most part. If someone didn't like you, they'd probably just say it. And if someone says they care about you and yet there's nothing they can gain from you, they're probably being sincere. The only question you have to ask yourself is whether you're being sincere. Are you acting as yourself, presenting to others who you really are? If so, any care or positive comments anyone gives you are legitimate. If not, they're only caring about who you're pretending to be. And yet sometimes you have to pretend. That's the big paradox.
12482
« on: April 26, 2016, 01:58:54 AM »
Why? You might not have the best self esteem, but you still have a good life. You have people who care about you.
12483
« on: April 26, 2016, 01:07:14 AM »
how early can you go before something stops being "modern"
When people talk about "turn of the millenium classics", they'll really be talking about anything from the 80s to five years from now, but what things from our time (within the past ten years) do you think will be on that list?
It's kind of confusing, but I'm saying that this chunk of time (1980-2020) will be an "era" in a way; turn of the millennium. But in this thread specifically, I'm talking about things from the past ten years, more recent things, that will be part of the classics of that era. LOTR is already considered a classic. The basic fantasy concepts were mostly all set forth by Tolkien.
12484
« on: April 26, 2016, 12:32:27 AM »
it's truly the list of shame
12485
« on: April 25, 2016, 11:42:56 PM »
you made me so excited for a second
12486
« on: April 25, 2016, 11:22:56 PM »
Things that will be remembered as classics in the centuries to come, like Shakespeare or Mozart. When people talk about "turn of the millenium classics", they'll really be talking about anything from the 80s to five years from now, but what things from our time (within the past ten years) do you think will be on that list?
I think
Breaking Bad
Dark Knight trilogy
Minecraft (not that it's worth all the hype)
Game of Thrones
12487
« on: April 25, 2016, 11:01:39 PM »
EDIT: Verbatim, you might want to hold off on that until we see how bad the sequel is going to ruin Toph. The sequel is already in the works by Shamalamdingdong.
That's the character you're worried about getting ruined? I can't wait to have my google searches ruined forever when that movie comes out
12488
« on: April 25, 2016, 10:59:54 PM »
I want to be chaotic neutral
12489
« on: April 25, 2016, 07:16:07 PM »
What options? Like let them live off tax payer money till death in a cell? The government isn't in that business. But they should be.
As opposed to murder? Of course. And you know that you can put prisoners to work. They can more than pay off the cost of a 10x10 square foot cell, food, and water.
12490
« on: April 25, 2016, 07:09:55 PM »
I completely agree that every life is valuable. Which is why prisoners convicted of murder should have theirs taken away. It really is doing the world a favor, no matter how bad that sounds.
"I agree that every life is valuable, that's why I condone ending lives."
Just because the murderer disagrees that every life is valuable doesn't mean that they aren't.
Okay give me a reason to let them live other than that their life is valuable. (lol) Their life value dropped to zero the moment they kill an innocent person.
Because the government is not in the business of killing people when there are other options.
12491
« on: April 25, 2016, 07:02:20 PM »
I completely agree that every life is valuable. Which is why prisoners convicted of murder should have theirs taken away. It really is doing the world a favor, no matter how bad that sounds.
"I agree that every life is valuable, that's why I condone ending lives." Just because the murderer disagrees that every life is valuable doesn't mean that they aren't.
12492
« on: April 25, 2016, 06:57:05 PM »
I don't have a universal maxim against killing, I have one against murder. Killing someone in self-defense or who has a desire to be killed isn't murder. Killing a prisoner or someone on their knees, who doesn't want to die, is.
How did you come to these conclusions if you think doing so by weighing the consequences of the same action in those different situations is the wrong way to do it?
Consequences don't matter, the act itself matters. In wartime combat and self-assisted suicide, there's consent involved. You sign up for the military, knowing and expecting that you might get shot. You ask a doctor to kill you, knowing you'll die.
With people on death row, there's no consent. They don't want to die, and they're not in a position where it's life or death. The executioner, the government, doesn't have their life in danger and are forced to kill the prisoner like a soldier is with the enemy.
It's great isn't it? Ridding the world of one scum at a time. Just too slowly and too picky about who to do it to. Euthanasia should be saved for other things. A bullet to the head for the prisoner is all their worth.
People like you need to stop playing video games. Every life is valuable, and the volition of the life is what gives it meaning. No one has the obligation to live, but no one has the obligation to die.
12493
« on: April 25, 2016, 06:50:28 PM »
kys
12494
« on: April 25, 2016, 06:41:19 PM »
I don't have a universal maxim against killing, I have one against murder. Killing someone in self-defense or who has a desire to be killed isn't murder. Killing a prisoner or someone on their knees, who doesn't want to die, is.
How did you come to these conclusions if you think doing so by weighing the consequences of the same action in those different situations is the wrong way to do it?
Consequences don't matter, the act itself matters. In wartime combat and self-assisted suicide, there's consent involved. You sign up for the military, knowing and expecting that you might get shot. You ask a doctor to kill you, knowing you'll die. With people on death row, there's no consent. They don't want to die, and they're not in a position where it's life or death. The executioner, the government, doesn't have their life in danger and are forced to kill the prisoner like a soldier is with the enemy.
12495
« on: April 25, 2016, 06:38:49 PM »
Even the kid on the dirt bike?
I'm sure he's broken a rule or two. The point is that using the word "innocent" lumps the kid on the dirt bike with people like Hank or Marie. It's a dishonest word. "Civilian" is much better, it simply differentiates criminals from non-criminals. Differentiates people like Jane from people like Tuco.
12496
« on: April 25, 2016, 06:03:44 PM »
Morally? Of course, you're getting an unfair advantage others don't have through bending the rules.
Practically? Not at all, if you're smart about it and don't get caught.
12497
« on: April 25, 2016, 05:50:17 PM »
Homeless people are a waste of space, they just eat, drink, and tarnish our poverty statistics. Let's kill them all!
Utilitarianists are retarded.
If they really caused sufficient harm to society to outweigh the impact of taking a life, which they don't, which is why you don't think that's a good idea. For comparison, how do you feel about the morality of killing an enemy combatant in the middle of a firefight on the front line of a war? How about assisted suicide for the suffering and terminally ill? If you think it's okay to kill someone in either of those two cases you obviously don't agree with a universal maxim against killing.
Sweeping moral ultimatums (such as: we must never ever under any circumstances convict an innocent person) sound nice but become pretty useless when almost any pair of them can be made to contradict each other. They're useful as heuristics but the underlying sentiments they embody have a utilitarian basis. (or they were just bogus to begin with, looking at you 'homosexuality is a sin!' et al)
I don't have a universal maxim against killing, I have one against murder. Killing someone in self-defense or who has a desire to be killed isn't murder. Killing a prisoner or someone on their knees, who doesn't want to die, is.
12498
« on: April 25, 2016, 03:53:47 PM »
Yes.
12499
« on: April 25, 2016, 03:48:51 PM »
move this to news mods
12500
« on: April 25, 2016, 03:47:33 PM »
Can't say I agree. It would depend. I'm not letting a bunch of murderers go to save one person. If you ask me. With the large amount of prisoners in the US, there's a way to save us all time, space, and money. It's harsh, but people would get used to it. I want prisons to line up all the people they have convicted of murder out in the prison yard. I don't care if it's a line of 100 people. Put a bullet in their heads, all of them. Problem solved. If you're a murderer you don't deserve to live. Fuck getting 10 years or some life sentence. No. A life for a life.
And how did you come to this conclusion?
It's just what I think. Having thousands of murderers living in prison is a waste of time, money, and space. It's as simple as that. Do the world a favor and get rid of them.
Homeless people are a waste of space, they just eat, drink, and tarnish our poverty statistics. Let's kill them all! Utilitarianists are retarded.
12501
« on: April 25, 2016, 07:01:22 AM »
She was the only civilian that Walt killed.
So what characters did Walt kill who were either in the military or the policy force(I'm not counting Mike since he's not a cop anymore)?
Civilian = non-criminal
Marie is a civilian, Lydia is a criminal. Almost every civilian in the show lives, almost every criminal dies.
Civilian = a person not in the armed services or the police force.
You should have used the term innocent instead.
You have your definition of civilian, I have mine. No one is innocent. It would be dumb to use that word for anyone in Breaking Bad especially. Even Marie or Gretchen isn't innocent.
12502
« on: April 24, 2016, 09:59:21 PM »
Furthest I've been is Glacier National Park
12503
« on: April 24, 2016, 08:36:57 PM »
I guess it depends on what those people were guilty of.
Not really. A criminal not being in jail is a far less immoral state than an innocent person being in jail.
So what if they're all bloodthirsty killers who are very likely to go back out and just slaughter a bunch of people?
You can recapture criminals, issue a public alert, put cities under lockdown. You can't unruin the life of someone who was wrongfully convicted. "Exoneration packages" are a joke.
This is obviously under the assumption that they succeed in doing harm while they're out If you let out 100 killers, let's give a low estimate and say ten of them go out and kill two people. Twenty dead? The repercussions for friends and family is disgusting, and I don't know if I'm comfortable arguing it's not worth screwing someone over.
I'd rather be caviler about criminals doing crimes than about the government doing them. The way people sweep wrongful incarceration under the rug sickens me. Like it's some necessary evil, so that makes it completely non tragic or tear inducing. It's just the cost of living in a democracy, that some people get their lives, names, reputations, and memory destroyed. And when it's proven they were innocent the whole time, it's not even local news. Just give them money and bitch at them if they still have the audacity to complain.
12504
« on: April 24, 2016, 06:38:45 PM »
what
To sum it up, take more risks in your writing even though society won't like it
12505
« on: April 24, 2016, 04:55:58 PM »
She was the only civilian that Walt killed.
So what characters did Walt kill who were either in the military or the policy force(I'm not counting Mike since he's not a cop anymore)?
Civilian = non-criminal Marie is a civilian, Lydia is a criminal. Almost every civilian in the show lives, almost every criminal dies.
12506
« on: April 24, 2016, 03:22:05 PM »
I think we're more on the same page than I initially thought. At first I thought you were implying Jane's entire relationship with Jesse was a long game of manipulation she was playing on him to get the money. I agree with everything you said about addiction, getting drugs was definitely a priority for her near the end. I still hold that she loved Jesse, though, at least in the scope of her life. Jesse is a good person at heart, and I don't feel like she ever really met someone like that. It was never stated that he made Grey Matter what it was. That's what Walt said in his rants, but it's obvious he hates the company and the two of them because of his feelings for Gretchen. With all the lies and justifcations he spins throughout the show, I'd be honestly surprised if he acted as anything more than a 50-50 contributor with Elliott. What? He clearly said everything they have is built off of his research and work. That's the point, Walt is a genius.
Uh, exactly. He said it. He lies all the time, that's his thing. He lies to his family, to himself, to the audience. There's no denying Walt is a genius, but let's not pretend he built up Grey Matter himself and then threw Elliot a bone by sticking his name in there. Think what we know about Walt; would he really be willing to share half of his company's name with someone else if he did all of the work? The whole "they cut ME out of a business that I ALONE made" is Walt bullshit 101. Mike isn't morally correct at all, but he was certainly a better person and more competent criminal than Walt. Duh?
He wasn't a better person lol, he literally killed people for a living. You can call the people he kills "scumbags" all you want to try and justify it but it doesn't change the fact that he'd kill anybody he needed to.
He was definitely a better person. Mike killed people who, at the end of the day, knew what they were getting into. He didn't kill people to fuel his ego, to fuel his agenda, he killed people who, because of criminal politics, had to die. He was a cleaner, sure, and that's far from a moral job. But the job itself is up there with drug manufacturer. It's the difference in their actions, not occupations, that show Walt is far more of a shitty person than Mike. Mike would never kill a civilian like Jane or poison a child like Brock. Everything he did was to keep his family out of the shitter. No. The show straight up refutes you. "I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was really....I was alive." Sure, his ego got the best of him and things also went wildly out of control, but even when his family hates him he tries to send them money, and still achieved it by having Gretchen and Elliot give it to them. And the reason he did all that was to be the provider. To be recognized, finally, as the successful and competent man he just knows he is. It's 100% about his pride. And Jane was a criminal junky. She blackmailed Walt and was going to ruin Jesse. Walt letting her die is justified, honestly. They would've both overdosed either way. At least he saved Jesse. Jane wasn't a criminal, first of all. She was a civilian. She was clean, off drugs, until Jesse entered her life. She only had to blackmail Walt because Walt wasn't giving Jesse the money that was Jesse's. Him murdering her wasn't justified. If they would've went to New Zealand and OD'd, that would've been on them. Since Walt murdered her, it's on him. It was never explained exactly why he left, but we're left to assume it was because he had feelings for Gretchen and she went for Elliot instead. Exactly, he was hurt and ashamed. He felt betrayed, and he, in Walt fashion, let his emotions overtake his reasoning. He wasn't forced out of this profitable company, his ideas weren't stolen. He left because Gretchen didn't reciprocate his feelings. That's on him. He was a legendary kingpin far greater than Gus. No, he wasn't. Gus ran a tightly wound criminal empire for decades. Gus made more money than he could spend in lifetimes and more connections than a mafia don would need. He was feared, respected, and in the end, accomplished his singular goal of getting revenge on the cartel. Gus never got national publicity for being a drug kingpin because he was a good drug kingpin, never caught by police. Gus was far greater and more successful than Walt could dream. He represented what Walt wanted - huge, unstoppable criminal empire in his name - but wasn't calm and patient enough to get. I think you're focusing too hard on the whole ego thing. That was a part but not the whole of the story.
That was the story. The story is all about stasis and transformation. When we first saw Walt, he appeared a mild mannered, logical, personally detatched man. But he's really the opposite: rash, emotional, and too connected with people for his own good.
12507
« on: April 24, 2016, 12:04:46 PM »
wtf
12508
« on: April 24, 2016, 12:00:41 PM »
Lol I watched the same scenes, everything you think about her is conjecture too.
Three points you have yet to refute: 1.) She was offered drugs by Jesse at many points before she actually gave in. If she was truly this cyclical drug addict you're painting her as, she'd leap at the opportunity to do drugs for free. Why did she wait to do drugs for all that time, and only do them when Jesse needed someone to console him? 2.) Why did Jane show blatant affection to him before she knew about any money or had anything in it for her other than Jesse reciprocating those feelings? 3.) Once Jesse and Jane had the money, and they were both strung out on heroin, Jane went to great lengths to remind him to sleep on his side. She chose to fall asleep with him instead of tampering with anything. If all she cared about was drugs and money, why didn't she pull a Walter and kill him through flipping him on his back? "Conjecture". she didn't have Jesse's well-being in mind when she encouraged him to do drugs. She discouraged him from doing drugs. She didn't even allow him to smoke in the apartment. It wasn't until he got her hooked on meth that she enabled (far from encouraged) his drug use. When she talks about running away together and getting clean she clearly doesn't mean it. They chose to get high instead and that's the night she dies.
She's addicted at that point, of course she doesn't mean it. They would fly to New Zealand and do a bunch of drugs, essentially. But she's still in love with Jesse, and wants to spend that time doing drugs with him. As a non-drug user, you can say that neither loved each other because you can't love someone if you enable them to do harmful things. But that's just not true. Jesse and Jane were both addicted near the end. They were bad influences on each other, and Jesse never would've gone to rehab if Jane lived. But that doesn't mean they didn't love each other. Jane's portrayal is one of an irresponsible, damaged girl with daddy issues, not one of a cold-hearted manipulator. She wanted drugs when Jesse got her off the wagon, but she wanted Jesse himself just as much.
12509
« on: April 24, 2016, 11:28:36 AM »
I'd argue that the show is more about family. It's the central motivation for Mike, the Salamancas, Jesse, and Gus, and the invented motivation for Walt.
Jane was far from a "good" person, she simply wouldn't have allowed an obvious shady person who introduced himself as Jesse Jackson to be her tenant if she was truly concerned with staying in the right. But there's a wide margin between that and what you're suggesting. But where my beliefs about her character are backed up, yours are just conjecture.
She wasn't even a fucking drug addict in the first place. She "turned him on heroin" because that was the drug she used before she got clean. She turned him on heroin after Jesse turned her on meth. And if you can't see why Jesse needed someone in season 2 (he had all of this guilt, but no Walt, no parents, and no emotional support), then of course you'd say that Jane did nothing for him. Did you just fast forward through all of their scenes together?
12510
« on: April 24, 2016, 11:03:55 AM »
She manipulated Jesse to get all of his money and run away to be druggies. If you really think she loved Jesse you're blind. Once the money ran out you think she would stay with Jesse? Or would she run back to daddy and "get sober again"?
I'm not saying she was a bad person, she just didn't care for Jesse like he did for her. The death was still super impact tho.
Jesse didn't have any money, Walt was holding it from him. They had to leave the next morning or she was getting the cops called on her; that was why she borderline blackmailed Walt into giving Jesse his money. Not out of "manipulation". If they managed to tear through all of it, her father would be the last place she'd turn.
I don't know why you think she didn't care about Jesse. She was clean before he came into the picture, and only started using with him out of sympathy after Combo died. If she only wanted the money, she would've done exactly what Walt did, but with Jesse. She reminded Jesse to sleep on his side, even after Walt already gave Jesse his cash. At that point, she could've let him die if she didn't care about him.
They obviously loved each other. Say what you want about Jane as a person. She may have been weak and irresponsible, but she pretty much threw away all she had (stable job, clean of drugs, support group) because of Jesse.
The only thing she threw away was what her father wanted for her. She didn't start using again because she felt bad for Jesse, she started using again because that's what she wanted.
She found out about the money and did a complete turn around.
I have no idea where you get that leap of logic from. She didn't even know about the money until the second to last episode she was alive, and wanted it to secure a future for her and Jesse.
Literally nothing indicated it was some scheme to get the money from Jesse. Almost every scene she's in, except for those where she's logically angry with Jesse, has her oozing affection for him. It wasn't a long con to get at money she didn't even know existed. And if she was so eager to use as you're trying to say, she would've done it from the start, when Jesse offered it to her on multiple occasions. It wasn't until Jesse needed someone to console him after Combo's death (and he was smoking crystal even more heavily) that Jane finally gave in and did it for him.
She knew he was a drug dealer and knew he had money. The very first conversation they have is about money. When she finds our just how much he has her attitude changes completely and all of a sudden she wants to leave with him and start a life together.
You don't console people by getting them to do heroin with you. Crystal is bad enough.
You still haven't addressed the fact that he offered her meth on numerous occasions before Combo died and she refused every time. Jane wasn't using drugs to console Jesse, Jesse was doing drugs but Jane wanted to console him. It wasn't until that moment that she gave in and started using again. This attitude change you're talking about never happened. She wanted to run off with Jesse because she had to leave town anyway. Her father was going to call the cops on her if she wasn't ready for him in the morning. Jesse was the one who got her using again, she didn't have some selfish master plot to manipulate Jesse into giving her his money. Look at the way she acted around him even before she knew he had money. You're making out a tragic, needlessly sacrificial character into a villain for no reason. She was an antagonist to Walt, but he's the actual villain here.
Pages: 1 ... 415416417 418419 ... 1001
|
Show Posts