Jump to content

Pete Rose: Baseball Legend

Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pete Rose: Baseball Legend

  • Rank
    rip reinstatement... rip hall of fame

Profile Information

  • Location
    Las Vegas, NV

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Blazing Sword

Member Badge

  • Members
    [Binding Blade/Blazing Sword]

Allegiance

  • I fight for...
    -
  1. Why don't I make an explanation myself? ...You mean like I did in my first post in this thread where I complained she was uninteresting and too good at everything she does? I could've copied and pasted that and added "This is why she's a mary sue" or I could've posted a video that uses more words to explain it. I chose the latter. It's cool you and I both don't like Max, but he's dead on this time. Stopped clocks are right twice a day after all. By the definition of "she's too flawless and everybody loves her"(which is the definition most are using in rey's case) she's a mary sue. If you think the term is meaningless then we're arguing about different things here.
  2. She's boring and underdeveloped because she's a mary sue. A good video on the subject. You don't have to like this guy but he illustrates pretty well why she's a mary sue and Luke isn't.
  3. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory Silent Hill 3 Guilty Gear X Banjo Kazooie Castlevania Dracula X: Rondo of Blood Mass Effect Donkey Kong Country 2 Sonic 3 and Knuckles Bubsy Doom II Mega Man X Thunder Force 4 UN Squadron
  4. Damn that game was a close call. A win is a win though. Fuck the cheifs 8-8 LET'S GO!!!!!
  5. Obi-Wan and his dumb one liners made episode 3(thanks Cinema Sins for reminding me). Also Ian McDiarmid killed it as Palpatine. After rewatching Revenge of the Sith I'd say TFA is on par with it. They're both fun deeply flawed films.
  6. It felt like Abrams was trying to impress the faithful soo much he didn't take time to really flesh out the world and characters. JJ, you've already got the fanboys orgasming, mission accomplished but now it is time to write a more compelling narrative.
  7. I ended up walking out of the film satisfied. Not amazing but good enough to bear the Star Wars name. As someone who enjoyed the prequels for what they were(except maybe Clone Wars), I'd rank this slightly infront of the prequels but far behind the original trilogy. It had some pretty major holes. A few random things: As I said I liked it, it just felt poorly paced and too fanservice heavy(although that will proabbly be toned down after this film).
  8. In response to amiabletemplar since quoting makes it too congested: I see your point about defamation being prohibited speech along with everything else. I just thought I'd point out that it's a different level of severity than say giving away a goverment secret. I misunderstood what you meant by fighting words and I agree now that I know what you mean. I suppose this is the same thing as provoking someone which should be illegal and the perpetrator shouldn't have a case to prosecute the victim if he/she retaliates(except maybe in extreme circumstances). Sorry if I was unclear but I was mainly talking about the Bill of Rights(amendments to the constitution) not The Constitution(a document outlining power structures among other things) itself. The U.S. Bill of Rights was drafted because the original 13 states wanted to limit the federal goverments power and have it in writing what the central government absolutely cannot do. That's what I mean by "thorn in the side". It's a limit to federal power outlining 10(now 27) rights the federal government cannot infringe upon under normal circumstances. It was meant to stop or at least slow down a tyrranical governemnt from coming to power. This is done by drawing a line in the sand that the goverment cannot cross. They aren't untouchable of course, but it's no easy feat to overturn an amendment. I realize there is a problem with showing both sides when there are more than 2. I don't think there's an easy fix for this either since time is limited and a certain amount of material must be covered. The best we can do is make sure a malicious or slanderous agenda isn't being pushed forward I guess. Oh and I'm not damning all universities, I'm not even damning most. However, I do see it as a worring trend that must be addressed. Better to talk about this stuff now, while these things are realtively uncommon than ignoring it until it's done some serious damage. I think I'm more or less in agreement with you on your last point.
  9. It's freindly trash talk for the most part. They don't play often so this is our one chance in 4 years to talk shit. Slightly unrelated: Please finish 8-8. We're not 6-10 bad lol
  10. True I forgot about that one, another common one is yelling "bomb" in an airport. I think fighting words fall under threats though most of the time. As for libel and slander, it is indeed against the law but isn't it different than threatening someone or yelling "fire" in a crowded place? It's a civil court issue so the one who's been slandered must press chages themself and you can't go actually go to jail for it(the police don't get involved usually). This is why I think a constitution(outlining some basic human rights(right to own property, freedom of religion...etc) of some sorts that garuntees things like this should be a neccessity for all democratic states. A constitution should very much be a thorn in the side of a democratic government and it should take a whole lot of effort to overule an ammendment. If you want to take something like the right to own private property away, it should be at least one step harder than just getting a simple majority vote. But that's a discussion for another time. And I agree they should absolutely have that right. I say it's a shame because you have many people going to some of the finest schools in the world(almost all of them private) being shown only one side of an issue. No matter how solid the idea, it's important to show the opposite of it in a fair light(with the exception of math and maybe hard science where's there's possibly only one conclusion). If nothing else it teaches you how to address the flaws in your own and the opposition's argument(something we don't do well in today's world). If many of the things I thought when I was younger went unchalleged, I would beleive in a lot of crazy shit today. In my oppinion, that should be part of a college's job. Isn't that a dangerous precident to set though? That student is arguing that we should only allow research that supports their predetermined hypothesis and that the conclusion of said research can be inherently offensive. Good research(if done as faily as possible, I'm ok with it being eliminated if it's not) mearly comes to a conclusion that reflects the results of the study. For example: a study states that "X people do Y activity more frequently than others within the group we tested". Unless it was done maliciously or claims something they can't based on the information given, this isn't inherently racist, it's just stating information. The way you interpretate the research can be racist or oppressive, like "that's because X people are inferior" OR it can be something productive like "that's because X people are systematically oppressed, here's how to fix it". If you don't allow the study to continue because someone thinks the conclusion is inherently "racist", then you're not allowing potentially valuable information about how we treat certain people differently to be availiable to anyone. Allowing anyone to determine their own conclusions is a neccessary evil.
  11. Unless it's a threat or you're giving away a closely kept secret that will put people's lives at risk(like exposing an undercover spy, leaving him to die), everything should be legal to say. Censorship of speech is one of the first steps in establishing a totalitarian government. Private colleges certainly have the right to maintain safe spaces much to my dismay. They only have to answer to the donors and the kids giving them tuition money. It's disheartening though. College is a place where all ideas can and should be challenged right?
  12. Comon somehow comeback and beat the Pack. I don't want my dumb Packers freind to give me shit like "lolol you thought the raiders were a decent team this season lolol same old crappy raiders".
  13. We desparately need a new debate format. Nobody wants to watch them and I can definitely see why. I wonder if ABC will write any "Dominent Performance by Hillary" articles and lie about the poll numbers like CNN did with the first debate. No matter how well Sanders does, it's gonna be an uphill battle against all the corporate funding Hillary gets.
  14. Rand actually wants to win so he'd never go full "all government is bad government" like his dad. At least if he's smart... Ron will stick to his principals nomatter the cost(not getting any votes), Rand realizes that he can't win an election that way so he's modifying his stance on many things.
  15. Exactly, he seems to be the only one with a realistic understanding on a lot of these issues.
×
×
  • Create New...