Rewjeo

Having worn various non-pant articles of clothing designed for below-the-waist use, I can tell you that pants (or, rather, good pants) are more comfortable for most things. Especially the cold. As someone who goes to a school with a uniform, I can tell you that girls complain all the time about how cold it is wearing skirts. (Then I point out that they're allowed to wear pants, and then they say "wahhh but they're ugly" and then I'm like "well then you made the choice to be cold and also plaid skirts are not the height of fashion I've heard") Oh, and also sometimes skirt-like things lead to flashing... even though some guys seem not to have a problem with everyone being able to see everything... even the guys you thought were better than that... (Wow, I never realized how much skirts are responsible for my lack of faith in humanity.) Really, though, warmth thing. Why do you think the Greeks and Romans and Ancient Egyptians didn't have pants but the guys in northern France and Germany and Britain did?

But then how does imprisonment compensate anyone for anything? "Community service" would probably be the term you're looking for. Oh, I don't think that there is no point to punishment in this case. Even ignoring specifically this boy, fear of retribution can honestly be an effective use of a law. Punishment here can serve at least to discourage others from doing this kind of thing in the future. The use of "affluenza" as a successful defense is especially bad on that front. But it is possible (not probable or even likely, just within the realm of physical possibility) that the individual himself might be affected enough by the situation that putting him in jail would do nothing good to change him, and perhaps even prevent him from contributing to society, isn't it? An awful lot of crimes are clearly intended, and I certainly doubt that he unintentionally stole alcohol, drank it, and then drove. I mean, the legal system already accounts for intent often - for instance the various degrees of murder and manslaughter. There was nothing to be gained by keeping Saddam Hussein alive and there would have been some loss had he been kept alive, i.e. resources and outrage. I have no issue with his execution, but that has less to do with what he did before and more to do with what would have come after.

@bold: You're saying (or, well, I'm inferring) that he cannot make up for what he's done, but then asking for him to be made to compensate for what he's done? I don't understand the difference here. @italics: I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that possibly there is no point to punishment in this case. This is all hypothetical, of course, and regardless of what punishment I feel he deserves, I think everyone can agree that "affluenza" is a terrible reason for what sentence he got. Going back to the consequences thing: If two identical people make the conscious decision to drink and then drive, but luck has it that one hits a wall and one hits a person, what value does society stand to benefit from either being punished more severely by the law than the other? I personally don't see how society stands to benefit anything.

Yes, it is as bullshit as lessening it because he is too rich. But if he's already in a place where imprisoning him for a decade won't do any good for the world, why bother? You're saying that people should be locked up unless there is a reason not to, it seems, while we are (or at least I am) saying that we shouldn't bother locking people up unless there is a reason to. After all, why cause more pain if it doesn't lead to less pain down the road? And yes, it is possible that he really should have been punished more severely. None of us here know all the details as far as I can tell. But maybe an accident is just an accident. Just a general question, too: How many people here would say that the punishment for drunk driving should be the same regardless of the consequences, on the grounds that everyone is acting with the same disregard for human life?

No, Hitler is called evil because he was responsible for (actually far more than) 6 million deaths. He committed those actions in the first place because he was evil. You're advocating suffering for the sake of suffering.

I don't really see how fatigue was a problem in FE5. Enemies in FE5 were really not the difficult part, so it never screwed up my strategies that I recall, and I thought things like that and capture worked well from a story-gameplay perspective. Recent FEs have gone for difficulty in a very different way, though, and fatigue would be a terrible mechanic within those games.

I said that "being a pampered brat" is not an excuse for the crime. But what's the purpose of the justice system? Is it not possible that putting someone in jail for years is not always the answer? I don't know more about this story than that a drunk rich kid killed people in a car crash, and within that context almost anything is possible. Maybe he is a menace to society and should be locked away forever. Maybe putting him in jail won't accomplish anything. Regardless, "affluenza" is a terrible excuse for manslaughter and should never have worked for obvious reasons.

"Affluenza" sounds like a pretty good explanation for why this happened, but it's in no way an excuse. That much should be obvious to everyone. But I do feel like not punishing him more severely may still be entirely fair. He might feel guilty enough about it that any other punishment won't accomplish anything. That's not the explanation that was given, though, so I have no idea if that's at all accurate.

It's really only GBA axe guys who are consistently bad, at least if you look at remakes over the originals. As far as knights vs. archers go, I don't know that it's very clear cut.

I don't see how people don't see this. MiccyxSothe SothexIke IkexSoren/Ranulf so MiccyxSoren I mean, they're both branded and are basically the ultimate Daein royal pair.

What if we had a sort of 3D chessboard with varying layers, especially for indoor stuff? I'm not entirely sure what the best method would be for the camera there, but we're at the point now where I don't think hardware limitations would be a problem for that.

Original text: "Unfortunately, the Tickets system was nuked in the forum upgrade. You'll need to use the PM system to address any forum questions or suggestions at this time." ...35 translations later, Bing gives us: "Still have a computer or an option. Now ask for comment."

The first I remember was Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. That probably isn't my first (that came out this millenium, right? I definitely saw movies pre-kindergarten age) but it's the first one I remember.

Fire Emblem is a known series in the west, Nobunaga's Ambition at the time was not. Seeing as Marth and Roy were in Melee, it seems easy enough for them to figure out that there was more to it than FE7+, but NA still flew under their radar. That's the hypothesis.

How international is NA? It might have to do with the fact that Guinness is not Japanese.

Would you stay it's worth getting right now? I'm considering getting a four-pack and using the extra three as Christmas gifts, but if it's not good yet, well, they got $2 million in preorders so I don't think it will hurt to wait.

It's been snowing for at least the last twelve hours without a break. Far from the best. (Snow in your ears is unpleasant.)

Is it a question of the character explicitly not getting married, or the games just not bothering to tell you that they did since the game focuses on the plot at hand?

Did you miss the Daily Mail article about the guy who proved that humans are the result of a chimp and a pig having sex?

I've gotten INTJ and INTP before. I recall finding INTP more accurate. Which is good because that means I'm like Einstein and not Ayn Rand. Fountainhead actually triggered my fight or flight response it was so bad. Pretty close. The description somewhere else gave me for an INTP was dead on, though.

1: Sacred Stones. This is the FE game I always come back to the series through. 2: Thracia 776. Not bad on the story front, amazing on the gameplay side. 3: Radiant Dawn. This is really close to Thracia. It's story is pretty good, just badly executed, and again I love the gameplay here. I didn't see TRS at first. I don't think it would crack my top three, but it probably sits at number 4. Solid game, but it's too easy and doesn't have the nostalgia FE8 does.

What everyone else is saying: preference is fine. I mean, is it sexist to be heterosexual?

There's still a ~7% chance of twelve Stone Edges hitting consecutively. Low, but it means that if you had ten people get twelve Stone Edges thrown at them in a row, odds are at least one of them would get hit by all of them.

Sirknight is still sort of nonsensical for a pokemon as feminine as Gardevoir. Anyone know where the name Gardevoir comes from? Edit: Garchomp's not bad. Ferrothorn (had never even heard of that one before) is pretty ugly, though.

I think he's getting at the fact that FE6 is basically an FE1 remake. I mean, up until FE6 you don't even really have archetypes. Then you have all of those showing up. For instance, up until Roy, the rapier is a Marth thing.