Jump to content

Zanarkin

Member
  • Content Count

    5733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Zanarkin

  • Rank
    Laugher
  • Birthday 08/08/1994

Profile Information

  • Pronouns
    He/Him
  • Interests
    Fire Emblem games / animes / video games
  • Location
    Not within the range of human knowledge

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Radiant Dawn

Member Badge

  • Members
    Ilyana

Allegiance

  • I fight for...
    Tellius

Recent Profile Visitors

63593 profile views
  1. I don't have a study or something to back this up, but i think, some people rarely look into the origins and veracity of rumours, ideas, supposed things that happened, opinions and stuff stated as fact that are spread on the internet. From experience talking to some people irl and online, some people act as if they see it on twitter, then for all intents and purposes it originated in twitter. Disregarding the fact that it might have spread on twitter but the source is from somewhere else.
  2. In stuff like monster hunter. Making a monster that knocked you around multiple times get stun locked and fail to even hit you once is fantastic. Warrior games I'd probably have enjoyed when i was younger. Now though, they just feel like mindless button mashing and that isn't any fun for me.
  3. I'm not quite sure what your point is or how it relates to the point I made in that post. Are you saying we should assume all petty crimes are indicative of more nefarious intentions or deeds? Cause that is a fucked up mentality, the kind that leads to cops shooting and killing people of colour for the mere fact of answering the question "do you have a gun". Selling drugs didn't lead him to kill the cop. Neither did driving with heavily tinted windows or owning an assault rifle. Doing or owning these things does not make a person a vicious killer. Should you handle a person with a weapon carefully and on alert? Absolutely. Should you shoot them, potentially kill them, on the spot the minute you see the weapon because you assumed they were going to cause you harm? No. Self-defence only works in the case were you are actively going to be harmed. Similarly, a violent police response should be reserved for the cases where a criminal has already initiated their own violent response to the police. And no running away, resisting being restrained or struggling to breath is not a violent response that justifies the use of a gun, choking, or killing. Neither is being high or drunk.
  4. In all fairness, a burglar could be armed in any country. Even if it is illegal. Weapons are an effective threat and likely to force people into doing what you want. Still i think it is something that comes as a risk to the job. You are a cop that stops illegal activity, you might get shot. Having a weapon doesn't really always help as you can see from that video Armchair posted earlier. Should the situation escalate to shots fired, there should be a armed police standing by ready to react. I'm just saying the first assumption shouldn't be that petty criminal will turn into a bloodbath. Given that most humans aren't vicious killers, I don't know why we'd expect speeding people or thieves to be so. It isn't easy to escape law enforcement, and killing a cop is bound to get you far more trouble than simply giving in or attempting to flee without causing harm to a human.
  5. What crime exactly are we talking about here? Cause when people talk about defunding the police, at least in the most common way I've heard it before, is that you take the money you took from police departments and make new departments and enforcement that are meant to deal with petty crime (minor theft, trespassing, traffic violations, etc.) as well as mental health crises. When it comes to murders, rampages, and other seriously dangerous activities being committed, the police you know will still be there to take care of it. The idea here is that you don't need a bloated police department armed to their teeth and full of idiots to be handing out speeding tickets, dealing with trespassing, and other minor crimes. Will there be cases were petty crimes turn into serious crimes? Yes. Just like it does now. Even now, with the ridiculous budgets police departments get, most crimes they stop are being stopped while they are in progress. Armed police should be reactionary. They should never be the first response.
  6. Definitely pets that act cute. I much rather a cat that wants to be in my lap all day than a cat that swipes when i try to pet or a cat that just keeps knocking shit around the house. Unfortunately, pets are just like humans, each one has a different personality and you can never fully tell what you are signing yourself up for.
  7. This led me to google the 2-E cutscene Executions... Which led me to watch a compilation of all the rendered cutscenes of FE RD. Thank you for the nostalgia trip 🙂
  8. ??? What? What protocol? What is the worst that could happen if you do away with protocol? There is no protocol to dating humans really... How you choose to date and who you want to spend time with is entirely up to you. Other people's opinions shouldn't matter. Only because you judge yourself this way, the opinions of a stranger shouldn't really matter to you when it comes to your love life. And if you don't want to meet someone for whatever reason, that is entirely within your right. Rejecting someone that you are not interested in shouldn't be seen as a sign of weakness. And in the case where you rejected someone you were interested in, all I would see is someone who is making a bigger deal out of things than he needs to.
  9. I'm curious what you mean by this... Who is pressuring you? and why would you look bad if you don't?
  10. you could post guesses on each poster's political affiliations and then make an anonymous poll asking how right you were I still feel like that could be wrong. Like doing the 'wrong thing' might end up being a good thing. A case that comes to mind is one example of a problem Kantian ethics has. Lying is wrong in Kantian ethics, yet it might lead to a good thing if you are lying to protect somebody whose life might be in danger. For example if you are hiding someone from a murderer, you shouldn't admit to hiding them when the murderer asks you about them. In this case you are saving an innocent life, yet you are lying which if you follow Kantian ethics, that would be wrong. Ethics is messy. From Wikipedia, this might make the example a little more clear:
  11. I don't think i necessarily agree... Your assumptions as to why something is the right thing could be wrong, but when you do it happens to result in a good thing. I don't have any example I can bring up in the moment, but I feel very suspicious of this statement. There are cases where you can arrive at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. It happens a lot in games like Mafia and Among Us Also, I really hope Anonymous Speed clarifies what this pseudo scientific test is at some point. Though something tells me he won't.
×
×
  • Create New...