Pete Rose: Baseball Legend
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pete Rose: Baseball Legend
-
-
She's not a mary sue, she's just boring and underdeveloped. The term is pretty reductive anyway.
She's boring and underdeveloped because she's a mary sue.
But Luke wasn't really any different, one day he's a peasant farmer and then the next he's using the force to guide a missile down the Death Star without the aid of his targeting system. I don't get how people can call one a mary sue then not the other. As for boring and uninteresting, that's debatable, I found her okay, not as good as Finn in my opinion, but not boring enough that it distracted me at all.
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.
-
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
-
Damn that game was a close call. A win is a win though.
Fuck the cheifs 8-8 LET'S GO!!!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
1. Should've taken more time to develop Rei or least made her character more inherently interesting. Is there anything this character can't do? She's great with machines, she's a great pilot, she's resourceful, her will is unwavering(except maybe when she sees the lightsaber for the first time), she masters the force in a matter of minutes(maybe hours in movie time), and she's somehow a pretty good swordsman.
She beats the main badguy in a 1 on 1 sword fight despite never using a lightsaber before. I thought you needed guidence before you could harness the power of the force. Ren even says "you need training" lol evidently not because she bests him easily after that.
Because of this I found her character to be more boring than it should have been.
2. Under explaining was a huge problem in this as someone mentioned before. While the prequels explained to much, this explained too little.
Case and point: when the Republic gets destroyed and we know next to nothing about who they were and why it was such a big deal they're gone. There was a throwaway line like "without the Republic, we're defenseless". OK cool, maybe show us instead so we understand the gravity of what just happened.
Another example is the First Order. Despite presumably being smaller than the Empire, how the devil can they make a new Death Star that's 10 TIMES as big as the old one? And why does the republic/resistence just stand by while they build it? Haven't they learned anything?
Something minor, but where are the A-wings, Y-wings, B-wings, Tie-interceptors, and Tie-Bombers? It's like Abrams was like "X-wings and Tie-fighters, that's it. They're the most iconic so that's it".
They could've added 10 minutes of extra exposition and most of this could have been fixed.
Thankfully, this is mostly nothing a sequel can't fix.
3. Killing off Han this early was a huge missed opportunity. If they wanted his death to mean more than it did, they should have let him and Rei have a more fleshed out relationship than just a few scenes tinkering with the Millenium Falcon. It was mentioned that he was "a father figure she never had" but we really didn't get to see much of that.
His death would have meant a whole lot more in the second or third film.
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).
-
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.
-
Which Packer friends do you have? Every Packer fan I knew (myself included) saw this as a trap game, and the Raiders are a good team, they DID beat the Broncos last week after all.
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
-
Actually, there are still plenty of things that can and should be illegal to say. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is the classic legal example of unprotected speech in the United States. Although it has been restricted almost to the point of disappearing, "fighting words" are also still considered a restricted form of speech (for reasons similar to the "incitement to violence" standard). There's also libel and slander. "Free" speech is a very broad category nowadays, but even today there are still plenty of forms of speech which are not permitted--and shouldn't be.
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).
Also, never forget that MANY countries do not actually have a true analogue of the First Amendment to the US Constitution in their own constitutions. Nothing of the kind exists in the United Kingdom, for instance, and following the Murdoch case, an actual body (using a Crown Charter, which hasn't been done in centuries AFAICT, so it's TECHNICALLY not a government agency) has been created to regulate journalistic speech. In Germany, while their constitution claims to allow unrestricted freedom of speech ("there shall be no censorship"), only to IMMEDIATELY follow it up with "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws..." So they've said there won't be any censorship, except where the law censors things...
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.
Correct. Private spaces have always benefitted from this right--and they should. It's precisely the same legal justification for why you can tell a bunch of protesters to get off your land, even if they aren't breaking any laws and you don't have a fence or some other way of preventing people from entering. Private spaces are places that non-owners are invited into, and they may be dis-invited at the owner's leisure. (Though if there is an economic situation involved, that is an exchange of goods or services or money, there may be a valid platform for a discrimination case.)
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.
That is an ideal which many believe institutions of learning should aspire to, yes. Not all believe it, though. A student writing for the Harvard Crimson, for example, specifically thinks that academic institutions are morally wrong for putting "academic freedom"--the doctrine that professors and students have the right to hold whatever opinions they wish, even if they are unpopular, "backward," offensive, or hateful--ahead of what the student termed "academic justice"--a doctrine which says, and I quote, "When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." Or, phrasing it slightly differently: if someone is doing research which could demonstrate factual support for some form of oppression, it should be eliminated before it can be published or even conducted; it alleges that we not only can, but should stifle any inquiries which support, or even could support, unacceptable views.
College claims to be a place where people can acquire an education. We would like such places to be highly effective at doing so. What, precisely, "acquire an education" and "highly effective" mean, in this context, tends to be a question influenced as much by politics as it is by data.
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
Exactly, he seems to be the only one with a realistic understanding on a lot of these issues.
-
I'd honestly vote Paul if he wasn't so likely to drop out.
This is my mindset.
If by some crazy magic he gets the nomination, he gets my vote.
-
Hillary and Trump are at the bottom of my list of who I want as president. If that's what's available in the general election, I'm voting third party, in protest.
I thought about that but non of them have even a remote shot at winning.
I long for the day when a third party will have a legitimate shot at the presidency(like with the republican party in 1860s for example).
On a side note: Anyone watching this "intellectually stimulating" debate going on right now? lol
-
It's more "There are no good canidates period. I don't want to vote for her but the alternatives suck. Show me a republican canidate that I can justify voting for and I'll do it in a heartbeat." than anything.
-
Falco:
Shine
Dair
Laser
Bair
Uptilt
Do the Westballz and just laser, wavedash turn-around uptilt, and combo the mess out of them if your uptilt hits. It has never not worked against a player worse than me.
It's the ultimate noob slayer.
-
I'm looking for any reason not to vote Hillary. This will probably the first time I've ever voted in a primary.
Someone on the Republican side, I'm begging you, please give me a reason to vote for you.
Best case scenario is Sanders winning and vetoing stuff for 4 years because congress won't work with him on anything. Tis a depressing time we're in.
-
God I hate those cringe worthy team specific commercials.
"Budlight, the official beer of the Nation... Raider Nation!"
I'm tempted to mute my TV everytime.
-
Steelers should almost be favorited going into that game.
As long as you bring pressure to Broc, he has big problems.
-
Please score again so that silly missed 2 pt conversion doesnt hurt...
Edit: I have a bad feeling about this.
Edit 2: YES! They finally beat the stupid Broncos. You're welcome Patriots.
-
Wow 9ers suck even harder than I thought. Skip Bayless is gonna brag about how he knew Johnny Football was gonna be a star and all he needed was "someone to give him a chance!". lol definitely not watching First Take tommorrow.
On a side note, beating the Broncos is the only thing I want for Christmas.
-
"How to Throw Away an Election"
By the Rebulican party
Star Wars: The Force Awakens POST viewing thoughts
in Entertainment
Posted
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.