Duff Ostrich

Every few years or so I pop by around here and inevitably come upon a gun politics thread. Passionate as I am on the subject, I can't help by toss in my thoughts. Their judgement may not be infallible, but it is the law of the land and the foundation for this country. The arguments made to chip away at this foundation are not compelling in light of what American Liberalism (to use the word properly) represents. We are a free people, and I at least would like for it to remain that way. The meaning of the second amendment is as plain as the language in which it was deliberately written. If our Bill of Rights, the original Constitutional amendments, were installed to dramatically limit the scope of government in relation to individual liberty, then it stands to reason (and is perfectly consistent with the philosophical character of our founding) that the purpose of the second of these amendments was to acknowledge and ensure that the rights of an individual man to possess weapons were not to be arbitrarily suppressed. The purpose of invoking the writings of the Founding Fathers is to dispel any misconception as to their intentions when drafting our Constitution, because it is obvious that they would have seen the disarming of the civilian population as a violation of our rights. Jefferson, on the matter of constitutional interpretation: Mind you, I did quote mine for an especially revealing line, but this is part of a larger argument that Jefferson makes. In that argument, he admits the challenge of constructing law through the limits of language, but he makes two points to keep in mind. First, that the primary objective of the Constitution was to ensure that the federal government would be divested of any authority that chiefly concerned the constituent states and the citizens therein. And second, as shown above, that the Constitution means precisely what it says, and nothing more. These laws can be changed (amended), but their meaning does not magically change over time. I am of a mind that this is good advice. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3562

It is not obvious to me that Candace Owens is speaking white nationalist code by referencing declining birth rates among native Frenchmen. More than just white nationalists have a vested interest in whether or not the place in which they live becomes a Muslim majority country. Now, I don't know where Ms. Owens gets her data, but The Guardian referenced a report over a year ago that suggested France would have somewhere between 12.7% to 18% Muslim population by 2050. Considering the stridently secular nature of French society, this would be a considerable change, to say the least. After all, there has already been a considerable change. This matters to people, and for perfectly rational reasons. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/29/muslim-population-in-europe-could-more-than-double Donald Trump has never said that he "wants immigration from white countries" or that he is pursuing policies on immigration that "treat non-whites as invaders", and these things are certainly not apparent in his actions, with or without a hypothetical three month ban on immigration from seven Muslim majority countries. Considering how much the man talks, we have more than enough material to limit ourselves to things he actually says (and does, or tries to do) and not needlessly extrapolate allegedly coded language from his 50 word vocabulary. And if we're going to label the performance at his election rallies "stochastic terrorism", then I fear that we may lose all perspective. Part of our problem is we look at people with whom we disagree and assume the worst of intentions. When this happens it is easy to consider the possibility that they are bad actors and trying to hide their true intentions from you, when the reality is that most people on either the right or the left speak frankly about what it is that they want. Now I can't really guess as to what Donald Trump truly believes, though if I had to guess I'd go with money and sex, in that order. But he says what he professes to believe in very plain English, and it is for these reasons that he has political power. There are two points that I think are worth making here. First, that Donald Trump does not exist outside the mainstream of American politics. He is a populist figure for sure, but not a white nationalist of any description. And neither, barring the smallest fraction of exceptions, are his supporters. Second, to the extent that white nationalism exists it acts independently of Donald Trump. This latest shooting, performed by an Australian in New Zealand, cites Donald Trump in mostly incoherent fashion, alongside the likes of Candace Owens and Spyro the Dragon. This was a man up to his elbows in internet culture, to the point that he shouted "Subscribe to PewDiePie" as he opened fire, and has since flashed an "okay" hand sign (a fake white nationalist gesture, meant as a joke) in front of cameras following his arrest. This tells us nothing about Felix Kjellberg, or any of the other things the shooter referenced. It does however reveal to us something of his intent, which is to "troll" an international audience in the most horrific way imaginable. I thought that The Atlantic made a good case for this, if you're interested: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/the-shooters-manifesto-was-designed-to-troll/585058/

He was also inspired by Spyro the Dragon, as per the manifesto. While he was undoubtedly lurking in the darker corners of the internet and radicalized there, his "manifesto" is absolutely soaked in memery and should not really be taken at face value. Not everything has to be about the election of Donald Trump, and indeed I tend to think that this is one of those things that very much isn't.

Here's a fun exercise. Type "Politics is the art of" into google and you get a ton of different answers. These two are my favorites: "Politics is the art of making your selfish desires seem like the national interest." - Thomas Sowell "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx Of course, the most famous answer to this question comes from a paraphrase of Otto von Bismark: "Politics is the art of the possible..." One of the ways of achieving a possible end result is to form a coalition. In this case, people with vaguely congruent objectives cooperate with one another. This isn't always a bad thing, but I suppose that depends upon your perspective and how the people within a coalition transform the objectives of a particular movement from one thing into another. The question is, for instance, in what ways do the objectives of the Women's March and Louis Farrakhan align? Clearly they have a common goal, regardless of what Teresa Shook may think. She says it's been hijacked from it's original, nobler purpose. I suppose that may be true, but I tend to think that she didn't know who her friends were in the first place. The example of Battlefield V, or indeed any bit of media caught up in the throes of the culture war, should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Sometimes it boils down to corporate pandering. Sometimes it involves communities of unhappy people looking to either elevate or tear down a particular product in pursuit of some nebulous victory. Sometimes you have developers or community managers getting into unwise arguments on twitter. Often you have all three happening in concert with one another. I find that it's best not to become too invested in these spats regardless of the circumstances. I play games that I like, and don't worry about the rest.

I'm old enough to remember the point of contention being a bit different in the pre-Awakening world, with the main argument from Kaga era purists being that the series had been "dumbed down" for international appeal as it came overseas. As always, there was a grain of truth mixed in with a some hyperbole. This tension seemed to evaporate with Radiant Dawn and Shadow Dragon, given how those titles were noticeably more challenging than either Sacred Stones or Path of Radiance. These days I'm the fossilized veteran. I liked Awakening at the time and I still like it now, but Fates crossed a stylistic line that I found very difficult to reconcile. I have never liked a game in this series less, even if there were genuinely compelling ideas in the gameplay. Meanwhile, the likes of Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Fire Emblem Warriors, and Fire Emblem Heroes represent things that do not appeal to me in any way. What brought me back into the fold was Shadows of Valentia, which I thought was an ideal remake and proof that IS still considers people like me part of their customer base.

My suggestions will look similar to Thane's. 1. Remove children. If you want a story that spans generations then do that, but don't invoke time travel to keep everyone the same age. That was barely acceptable the first time they did it. 2. A little nuance goes a long way. Tactics Ogre gave us a multitude of factions with competing but very human interests rooted in historical precedent. This isn't usually the Fire Emblem way of doing things and that's okay, but Fates sold itself on providing multiple frames of reference on the same conflict and instead gave us cardboard characters that were impossible to relate to. There was no identifiable morality, aside from the cult of Corrin. 3. Speaking of, get rid of Corrin. Imagine this: Corrin is excised from the story entirely, and instead we follow around Xander. This would put us, as the player, on the other side of the typical Camus/Eldigan/Perceval dilemma. We have to make the same sorts of decisions they do, and perhaps finally get some perspective on why a good man might fight on behalf of the quintessential oppressive, expansionist military power. It could touch on themes of patriotism and loyalty and honor. That was the Conquest I wanted to play.

AI manipulation is a bit out of my depth, but the event worked like a charm and I can certainly make do from there. Thanks!

There is probably a simple answer to this question, but I've looked around the forum (and have searched for certain keywords) without finding the relevant solution. I am at least somewhat familiar with all of the typical GBA hacking utilities, and the game in question is Blazing Sword. My intention is to create a defense objective that has enemies targeting a specific location, whether that be a throne or a different square. As with the main games, the objective will be failed (resulting in a gameover) should the enemy reach that spot. The first thing I don't know how to do is pick the location I want. If I set the enemy AI to "SeizeThrone" they will pick a location independent of where my throne tile is currently set and will go somewhere else that seems related to the map I am replacing, but nevertheless I have not been able to locate the relevant value in Nightmare. Additionally, I assume that I must create an event to trigger the gameover once the enemy reaches that spot. Anyone familiar with the syntax I would need to use in order to accomplish this? I appreciate any help you can offer, and I apologize if this is something commonly addressed on this board.

Alright then. Let's get to showing it. Exhibit A: Andrew Symeou is a British citizen who extradited to Greece and tried for a crime that he was ultimately acquitted for. He spent ten months languishing in an appalling Greek prison during which it is believed that law enforcement coerced false testimony from witnesses in their pursuit of drumming up a case. https://www.fairtrials.org/andrew-symeou/ The problem here is the European Arrest Warrant, which prevents the local governments of the accused from protecting their own countrymen. Clearly there are situations where extradition might be justified, but as this case demonstrates the EAW provides for a situation where British man can have his rights unjustly infringed upon by Greek authorities. Greece is not Britain. It different laws, customs, and more specifically Greek prisoners are treated to much poorer conditions in overcrowded prisons. Put simply, a man from the United Kingdom is significantly less free (and otherwise worse off) in Greece than in his home nation. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/greece The problem with the EAW is that it assumes that the judicial institutions in all of its members are equally fair, open and independent. This is self evidently untrue and proven in the above link. The final decision for extradition should absolutely and unquestionably never rest with a central European authority, and should only ever go to with the nation of the accused. In the interest of full disclosure I should note that I only recently learned of the Mr. Symeou as I was constructing this argument. I had no idea the EAW was a thing, and it's one of the best reasons I can think for the European Union to end. With that said I want to stress that I'm not simply looking for examples to support my preconceived opinion, because however tempting that might be it's an intellectually dishonest way to approach an issue. Honesty really is my only agenda here. The rest of this post includes evidence for things I've already known about and have asserted at various points throughout this thread. Exhibit B: Let's look at an issue more central to why the Brits voted Leave: Immigration. While the focus of the Leave campaign may have been over goofy EU trade deals and the impact that has had on post industrial and fishing communities, that's not my focus because I think there is something much bigger at work: the maintenance of the unsustainable European socialist utopias, and the flooding of the continent with migrants that have no regard for western institutions and ways of life. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a fit of calculated insanity, advertised that Germany would have an open door asylum policy. The immediate result of which can be easily summed up with this handy chart: Why would she do this? The answer is as simple as it is depressing. As with every other social democratic utopia found on continental Europe and the Japanese isles, native Germans are not having babies. http://qz.com/394456/the-numbers-behind-germanys-demographic-nightmare/ Germanic population prospects are, in a word, apocalyptic. How do you get the pampered German youth to stop partying long enough to propagate the human race? I'd argue the answer would be to end all of the socialism, but let's set that aside for now because it's clear that whatever the answer may be they either don't like it or aren't aware of it. It appears that Mrs. Merkel and other European leaders have found a back door solution to their problem. If Europeans can't be bothered having kids, then they'll import people that will. As that chart indicates, 72% of the supposed "refugees" are adult (and presumably mostly able bodied) men. Many if not most of these folks are not displaced refugees, but instead economic migrants. They want a better life and have accepted Merkel's invitation to enter Europe. As of 2010 (long before this "refugee crisis") as much as 47 million people, or over 9% of the EU population, were born somewhere other than the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union These are the people that are meant to prop up the birth rate, except it hasn't offset the decline. No, they need more. The question as to how this will change European demographics in fifty years or so is up for debate, but many rightly worry that these policies are leading to the Islamification of these countries, or at least of the major cities. In spite of the terror attacks in Brussels, Paris, Nice and elsewhere, and the spate of unconscionable mob rapes in Cologne this January, Merkel is calling to the reinstatement of Schengen. Even as social harmony decays and these immigrants collect into inner city ghettos where all their hopes go to die, she calls for the Eurozone to continue with this plan because it's the only option they have. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/world/europe/germany-migrants-merkel.html?_r=0 It is my sincere opinion that Merkel and other European leaders know that the social programs they use in order to win elections and maintain power are unsustainable in their current form. The only solution is to keep importing third world people and, in the long term, to coalesce as a super state. The project is the goal. The wishes and the welfare of the people within are secondary. Bureaucracies seek to maintain themselves. The more labyrinthine and convoluted the bureaucratic structure is, the more difficult it is for the average person to feel as though he has a say in the political process. Given a bit of instruction, a middle schooler could be expected to draw a line from precinct delegate and school council representative all the way up to Senator and President. The balance of power is easier to understand, even when you consider the intricacies of the electoral and primary processes. Can we say the same for the EU? As much as I support Brexit, I've brought up the Euro and the debt crisis in places like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy because I think the European Union is bad for everyone involved and should be allowed to die. It was also important to mention because it seemed odd to me that an organization as economically troubled as the EU should necessarily also be seen as Europe's future. To what end is this centralization a necessity? It is a testament to Britain that they never accepted the currency. With respect to the struggling pound, that was to be expected. This was always going to create hardship, and no one can definitively say yet how it will all play out, but there really are more important considerations here. Temporary economic backlash, if indeed that's all Brexit amounts to, is worth it when the alternative is the continued loss of sovereignty and a failure to address the real problems plaguing Europe, including but not limited to what I outlined above.

To what should I offer sources for? That the European Union is in a debt crisis? Should I also offer sources that Barack Obama is the 44th president? Otherwise what I've discussed here: the difference in character between the American government and the European pseudo state, is the expression of an opinion. That EU directives are unduly restrictive over the sovereignty of member states is likewise an opinion as well. Nearly everyone else has offered their opinion within this thread without providing a Works Cited page. Sorry, but I sincerely do not understand what I'm doing wrong. With respect to the warn and possible suspension: be my guest. I promise you I'll get over it. But I fail to see how calling someone an "asshole" or throwing out an army of [citation needed] all over the place (and otherwise being uncivil and attacking the character of another poster, neither of which I have done) is somehow less damaging to the discussion than anything I have posted. Assuming this post does not get me suspended I will make a reply to Tryhard with a well sourced response that hopefully better articulates my point of view and is better for the health of the thread. If for whatever reason it was inappropriate to respond to the warning in this manner, feel free to remove the post.

What do you want, a dissertation? You haven't held anyone else in this thread up to that lofty standard, and indeed precious little of what's been said here has been sourced in any way. The European Union and the Eurozone are in a deep crisis. European taxpayers have had to bail out whole nations. These are facts. Type "European Debt Crisis" into Wikipedia and see what it gives you. The differences in philosophy and function that separate America from the European Union can be gone into with much greater detail, if indeed you're that interested in the subject. What hateful vitriol? Would that be anything like unwarranted name calling? Feel free to knock down whatever strawmen you wish, but I have better things to do than pretend like this response is worth any more of my time than I've just given it. You'll have to tell your friends at 4chan that I must graciously reject their invitation.

You simply insisting I am wrong is not a compelling argument worth defending against. That the EU is a relentless bureaucracy is common knowledge. That European taxpayers have had to bail out states that are crushed under the weight of their own socialism is common knowledge. That the currency is failing is common knowledge. And it should certainly not be a surprise that there are a growing number of people all across the continent that see the writing on the wall and want out. If your intention is to instruct me on the finer points of arguing on the internet then I'm afraid this isn't going to cut it. [citation needed] over the expression of an opinion isn't remotely an argument, and I fail to see where I insulted anyone. Unless of course you're concerned that Mrs. Clinton will read this and have her feelings hurt, but I object to that suggestion on the grounds that she's an alien android and therefore does not experience human emotion.

Sorry, but ideas matter. Language, laws, and culture matters. The American constitution is critically far removed from the constitution of the European pseudo state, and all of this makes for every difference in the world (or at least every difference that matters). The European Union also sucks, unlike America. I think that matters too, but thankfully the peoples within the EU already have sovereign states supported by thousands of years of distinct histories. Once the EU fails, they'll get that sovereignty back, and I'd much rather the United Kingdom lead the way to Europe's collective destiny (as anything but a collective!) than France and Germany, all things considered. One of the critically unappealing aspects of Trump's messaging is that America is somehow no longer "great". I realize in saying so I'm borrowing a line from Hillary Clinton and for that sin I'll likely be subjected to a personal hell wherein I'm serenaded by a chorus of screeching harpies for all eternity, but she is nevertheless correct on this single point. Taken as an aggregate, the Republicans are not less corrupt than the Democrats, and in fact Republican leadership may have been even more complacent as evidenced by their tepid response to the threat Trump represented. They've already paid for their arrogance however, and there is no figure in this country more symbolic of endemic corruption and criminal incompetence than Hillary Clinton. I will never debase myself by voting Trump, but I understand why millions have and will. The Democrats may yet be forced to learn the lesson they so deserve.

The European Union may have been founded with the United States in mind, but the meaningful similarities end there. The United States is one nation built on a collection of driving ideals as codified in our founding documents. The European Union is a grouping of ostensibly sovereign states with distinct histories, cultures, priorities, languages and so on. The European Union is a Frankenstein's monster of (perhaps well intentioned) bureaucratic, anti democratic tyranny; the likes of which even the overbearing U.S. federal government can't hope to emulate. That would make the Republican Party totally electorally irrelevant, so I certainly hope that doesn't happen! As awful as the Republicans are, they're needed to keep the Democrats from becoming even more complacent and corrupt.

He's only writing for those who already agree with him, and who want to see their sense of moral and intellectual superiority continually reaffirmed. Why acknowledge the unwashed masses as equals when you can continually talk down to them? The left loves the poor when they vote as instructed, but otherwise they're a threat to the intended world order.