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 - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 113114115 116117 ... 243
3421
« on: October 07, 2015, 10:20:06 AM »
I think all domestic violence is bad therefore I'm trivializing female domestic violence? Yes. Because you fail to recognize that breaking someone's jaw is worse than having their cheek stung for a few seconds.
Are you trying to imply that women don't have the capacity to "break someone's jaw?" Or inflict serious bodily mutilation on a man? May as well just say women are immaculate little princesses incapable of murder at this point, which I find in and of itself, sexist and patronizing towards women.
3422
« on: October 07, 2015, 10:14:51 AM »
Why does proportionality matter?
Abuse is abuse, regardless of the gender and how much potential damage they can inflict on the other.
But go ahead and continue to trivialize violence because someone happens to have a cock and balls between their legs.
By comparing male domestic violence to female domestic violence, you are trivializing the latter.
I think all domestic violence is bad therefore I'm trivializing female domestic violence? Would you like a side of fallacy to go along with your irrationality?
3423
« on: October 07, 2015, 10:11:06 AM »
Male domestic abuse? lmao hilarious It is pretty hilarious, though.
What's "male domestic abuse"? A woman slaps a man? OH, the horror.
You're gonna compare that to a man breaking a woman's jaw?
and please go ahead and cherrypick a few cases where a woman went batshit and took a knife to a guy's balls or something
because that happens SO fucking often
Why does proportionality matter? Abuse is abuse, regardless of the gender and how much potential damage they can inflict on the other. But go ahead and continue to trivialize violence because someone happens to have a cock and balls between their legs.
3424
« on: October 07, 2015, 08:58:47 AM »
If anyone's seen Walking With Beasts you'll know Dinosaurs aren't required to make the game's wildlife cool.
3425
« on: October 07, 2015, 08:55:36 AM »
Liberals be like... Male domestic abuse? lmao hilarious Black on black crime? Never heard of it. Statistics that debunk the gender pay gap? Lalala I can't hear you. Increase in taxes? Lol, as long as it "helps" the poor I don't care who I'm stealing from. CHRISTIANITY BAAAD, ISLAM GOOOD Not using the correct trans pronouns? Literally worse than Satan. Spoiler I can play the reddit tier identity politics game too.
3426
« on: October 06, 2015, 03:38:58 PM »
I'm not sure what this has to offer that the other Far Cry's don't with the possible exception of less content.
I mean sure, it's a different theme, but grounding it during the prehistoric era could potentially pigeonhole the gameplay.
No guns?
No wingsuits?
No vehicles?
There's only so much you can do with spears and bows. Idk, I hope they can somehow compensate for this, I just hope they don't rely too much on thematics.
3427
« on: October 06, 2015, 04:26:52 AM »
I know this brah. The European peasants were not the brightest bunch. That doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the crusades were to return control of previously Christian lands to Christendom. Again, secondary objective. The overall long term goal of Pope Urban was to unify Eastern and Western Christianity under his leadership. Liberating access to the Holy Land was ideal for him, but not necessary. This was the actual goal of the crusade. The immediate goal perhaps. Certainly not the long range objective. Primary, actually. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_OSJIyW7q2MC&pg=PA103&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=falseIn 1054 the Church in the East and The West had separated. There was a theological issue involved. Did the Holy Spirit proceed from both The Father and The Son, or only from The Father?
The Crusades began in 1096 when Alexis I, emperor of the Eastern Empire in Constantinople requested help from Pope Urban II to come to his aid in the struggle against the Turks. The Pope hoped that if the crusaders aided the Eastern Church by defeating the Turks, the Church would be reunited under his leadership. Oh so I guess it was secondary after all. There is only one Holy Catholic Church, brah, and it isn't the one led by a pope. I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. The Catholic Church was lead by Pope Urban during 1096 who wanted a unification of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches under his rule. Fending off Islamic armies to placate Alexis into unification was his end goal. Liberation would've been a nice afterthought to him, but it wasn't especially relevant to his cause. Not entirely sure what revisionist history you've been looking into tbh. I have no doubt that the Pope intended these lands to be dominated by Catholicism- he did send a Catholic army. But to write it all off as some kind of catholic power grab is silly. Because it was a Catholic power grab. lol. Think you've got it mixed up. Peasants were in it because the poor and stupid are extremely susceptible to violent religious movements. Same reason teenagers go Jihadi. Oh right, so that's why they conveniently targeted wealthy Jews during their attempted religious 'liberation?' It was about liberating the Mediterranean from Islam, first and foremost. Later on was when things got really shady. I'm not sure how many times I have to go over this. Islam was a concern to Emperor Alexis, not to Urban.
3428
« on: October 06, 2015, 03:21:14 AM »
>systematically raped and slaughtered multiple Jewish communities as soon as they got to Germany that conveniently happened to be wealthy
>"muh faith"
What does killing Jews in Germany have to do with the Crusades? I don't get what you're referencing.
Of course, Jews have not traditionally fared well in Europe.
Rhineland Massacres. It was literally the first thing the Christian peasants did when the Pope called for a crusade.
Yep, that sounds pretty much exactly like something Medieval Europeans would do to religious minorities.
This shit seems like it had a weird way of happening every time something notable happened. Like Europeans just get all massacre-y when they're excited.
Should note this was mostly just Yuropeasants being retarded, not the Church (for fucking once). Rome condemned it, for what little that's worth.
This doesn't really have much to do with the crusade itself though, these dumbasses weren't even attacking the enemy.
Jews were considered just as much as enemies as the Muslims were, though. Anti Semitic values were rampant despite what the Catholic Church would have told you at the time. It's a notable example of how the Crusades were never intended to be this glorious moral obligation of Christian values seeking to hound out the Islamic conquest of Europe. That was a secondary objective. The primary goal was the unification of the Catholic Church for the Pope. Serfs and peasants were in it for the money and women. Bishops were in it for the acquisition of power. It had very little, if anything, to do with liberating Europe from Islam, at least initially.
3429
« on: October 06, 2015, 02:52:43 AM »
>systematically raped and slaughtered multiple Jewish communities as soon as they got to Germany that conveniently happened to be wealthy
>"muh faith"
What does killing Jews in Germany have to do with the Crusades? I don't get what you're referencing.
Of course, Jews have not traditionally fared well in Europe.
Rhineland Massacres. It was literally the first thing the Christian peasants did when the Pope called for a crusade.
3430
« on: October 06, 2015, 02:48:27 AM »
>systematically raped and slaughtered multiple Jewish communities as soon as they got to Germany that conveniently happened to be wealthy
>"muh faith"
3431
« on: October 05, 2015, 08:19:09 PM »
It's been like that for the past year in Scotland.
3432
« on: October 05, 2015, 05:36:22 PM »
Your argument essentially boils down to muh skills and weapon degradation, which the latter was introduced in F3. You've got nothing else to substantiate your claims with besides a 10 minute E3 demo.
Your /v/ tier opinions that clearly aren't your own can go right into the fucking trash, honestly.
3433
« on: October 05, 2015, 03:04:55 PM »
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e74hVs96-8ivIItNeC952QcyMG4gYwr6ZqijaJWud3E/editAnother interesting article I've been reading: TL:DR: -Posits that gun ownership increases as crime increases. Not the other way around. -People using guns for self defense are less likely to lose property or be injured. -Criminals are less likely to victimize someone if they are aware that potential victim owns a gun. -Crime rates on the macro level have been shown to substantially drop after publicized instances of victims arming themselves. -43% of UK burglaries took place while the residents were present. Less than 9% of US burglaries take place when residents are present. Not sure if anyone wants to address this to aid the discourse.
3434
« on: October 05, 2015, 02:36:55 PM »
I've come to realize the pro-gun argument is emotional in nature as opposed to logical and let's face it arguments rooted in emotion are shit.
I also used to think Flee was really biased cause "muh europoors don't know about muh freedumz" but he takes a very unbiased approach to the whole thing. I mean pretty much every point in his argument is backed entirely by stats and facts.
tbf, arguments in favour of gun control can be just as rooted in appeal to emotions. Media sensationalism surrounding gun related tragedies are extremely notorious for this. I honestly don't know where I stand in regards to gun control. Both sides of the argument (when applied rationally) are equally compelling. There is no magic answer to this that doesn't come with a kernel of nuance.
3435
« on: October 05, 2015, 02:26:20 PM »
Just to play devil's advocate so it doesn't turn into one big circlejerk in favour of gun control:
3436
« on: October 05, 2015, 02:05:10 PM »
Prepare for Door's sperg out.
3437
« on: October 05, 2015, 01:04:15 PM »
Smoking should be banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition
Spoiler please continue mr shekelberg
"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."
Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.
I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.
Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.
Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.
It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.
We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.
That's the point. Ban it when nobody gives a shit anymore.
Like public beheadings.
There will always be someone who gives a shit about doing whatever they want.
Point is, state intervention isn't going to solve that. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate smoking. If someone wants to participate in such an activity that doesn't infringe on anyone else, it's nobody's business (and certainly not the state's) to dictate what they want to do with their own body.
Now, I'm all for stronger gun control laws, but I feel that banning drugs is an ineffective way to spend time legislating, and isn't going to make that much of a difference either way. Yes, people will probably just do it anyway, as history has shown.
But I don't think 'people will violate the law anyway' is necessarily a valid objection. Murder still happens, too, but we don't legalize that.
I've never been a proponent of the "criminals will always be criminals" meme. As Flee pointed out, it's a null term. No more than a facile whine, and it needs to stop being parroted in debates like these. But likewise, I don't see what's so contemptible about participating in an activity that doesn't infringe or affect anyone else's life. If someone wants to shoot up heroine or fire a couple rounds in the woods that's nobody business but theirs, and theirs alone.
3438
« on: October 05, 2015, 12:15:57 PM »
Smoking should be banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition
Spoiler please continue mr shekelberg
"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."
Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.
I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.
Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.
Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.
It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition.
We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.
That's the point. Ban it when nobody gives a shit anymore.
Like public beheadings.
There will always be someone who gives a shit about doing whatever they want. Point is, state intervention isn't going to solve that. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population hate smoking. If someone wants to participate in such an activity that doesn't infringe on anyone else, it's nobody's business (and certainly not the state's) to dictate what they want to do with their own body.
3439
« on: October 05, 2015, 12:10:02 PM »
Smoking should be banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Socio-economic_effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_Prohibition
Spoiler please continue mr shekelberg
"Let me pretend I know how you plan on having these things done so I can look smart with wikipeda."
Please elaborate on how you would implement a successful smoking ban when virtually all other kinds of state sponsored prohibition has demonstrably failed, both legislatively and economically.
I'm sure your magical insight will enlighten us all.
Did I say I had a plan? No, I didn't. I said it should be banned.
Not in a swift, quick, "It's gone," but smoking should be gradually phased out.
It's already being phased out. More and more people are voluntarily opting out of smoking, largely due to emphasis on education and health. Regulation also helped, but there's obviously a stark difference between regulation and prohibition. We don't need anymore state interference, thanks.
3441
« on: October 05, 2015, 11:42:51 AM »
3442
« on: October 05, 2015, 11:31:51 AM »
Sound is just a human sensory input. The stimulus from a tree falling would be entirely different depending on the subject experiencing it.
We can quantifiably gauge sound though, so the effects of a tree falling within the environment are categorically objective. The only subjectivity involved is how we process the effects, i.e. a tree falling for a human would be remarkably different to a tree falling for an insect.
3443
« on: October 05, 2015, 10:21:56 AM »
Repair as it was, was nothing more than an annoyance
I suppose from a post apocalyptic perspective it would make sense for weapons to deteriorate after gratuitous amounts of usage. But likewise, I'm not going to lose any sleep if Bethesda haven't integrated it. Nothing a mod won't fix if you're really that distraught about it.
3444
« on: October 05, 2015, 10:06:53 AM »
3445
« on: October 05, 2015, 09:54:32 AM »
Also, degradation was introduced in F3. There was no durability in Door's regurgitated opinions Fallout 1 and 2.
3446
« on: October 05, 2015, 09:45:28 AM »
tbh I am kind of concerned about lack of weapon degradation. But I'm not sure where Door is getting that from because Bethesda has yet to make an official announcement on which we probably won't get. Perhaps it's an exclusive feature to a possible hardcore mode. Reserving judgement until release.
Skills is just a fanboy meme at this point. There are plenty of successful perk orientated rpgs that enhance the game, as was aforementioned; The Witcher 3. Using Skyrim as a testament to the 'failure of perks' is hardly fair, since the perks were pretty much useless in the game.
On a more positive sidenote it's pretty verifiable that power armor degradation is going to be a key feature, at least.
3447
« on: October 05, 2015, 09:26:21 AM »
I think a better question would be pre war UNSC vs the entirety of the ME universe.
But I guess if you have to significantly depower a universe in order to prevent it from murderstomping another one then said universe has already won.
3448
« on: October 04, 2015, 04:00:09 PM »
and you started fallout on F3 so stop acting like you were this uber dedicated Fallout fan from the beginning you elitist fuck
nigga I started on NV
but the fact that I recognize the older fallouts as being objectively superior despite this isn't a mark against me, it's a mark against Bethesda
I wish people would stop looking at F1 and 2 through rose tinted glasses.
Please elaborate how isometric gameplay that resembles assigning a formula to a spreadsheet is in anyway hardcore rpg characteristics.
An rpg is supposed to immerse you in a world that differs to ours. If you want Fallout to return to its roots then open up Microsoft Excel.
notice how I said nothing about the gameplay style?
Isometry vs fps is hardly the issue here.
What exactly is the issue then? Your masturbatory /v/ meme being replaced with a perk system that we have yet to see in action? As I said, there is nothing wrong with an rpg that relies solely on perks if it's done right. Skyrim is not an apt example because the perk system was not done right.
3449
« on: October 04, 2015, 03:29:20 PM »
and you started fallout on F3 so stop acting like you were this uber dedicated Fallout fan from the beginning you elitist fuck
nigga I started on NV
but the fact that I recognize the older fallouts as being objectively superior despite this isn't a mark against me, it's a mark against Bethesda
I wish people would stop looking at F1 and 2 through rose tinted glasses. Please elaborate how isometric gameplay that resembles assigning a formula to a spreadsheet is in anyway hardcore rpg characteristics. An rpg is supposed to immerse you in a world that differs to ours. If you want Fallout to return to its roots then open up Microsoft Excel.
3450
« on: October 04, 2015, 02:27:30 PM »
 daily reminder that jenny was the antagonist of the film
Pages: 1 ... 113114115 116117 ... 243
|
Show Posts
