SuperIb
-
Posts
287 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SuperIb
-
-
2 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:
I was referring to single mothers. Single fathers exist (I know a few personally) but there are certainly less of them.
There are several studies that show children with fathers are less likely to commit crimes and more likely to hold steady jobs. I don't know about what happens when the genders are reversed, but I doubt that it's any good.
Oh, thank you~! After reading the article, it doesn't actually seem to be specifically about the impacts of a father than I originally thought, especially towards the end. I think you might have exaggerated the idea of not raising a boy with a father figure a little bit by saying it'll "scare the heck out of you if you think raising a boy without a father figure will probably turn out better in the end" lmao. Either way, interesting article! Thanks for sharing!
Sorry if I worded things weirdly, I just finished working on an essay assignment and my thoughts are kind of jumbled about rn, haha.
-
Sure, I'll trust Eevee to look after my kiddos. Why the hell not?
-
Okay here's a fun-fact about all those moral philosophies - they all have flaws. They attempt to sanction a set of rules that should be universally followed through and looked at in any given situation. However, they all fail to successfully apply to every situation that comes up. That being said, I personally take things case-by-case because I know not every situation is the same or even that similar situations don't always have the same context.
On 1/24/2018 at 2:50 PM, DisobeyedCargo said:My rule is, would you want someone doing (insert what you are contemplating on here) to you.
This is basically my rule-of-thumb as well. I think that one of the most important aspects to finding what you believe to be "right" or "wrong" is to have a sense of empathy and understanding. If you don't try to understand, then what gives you the right to determine something as right or wrong in the first place?
-
2 hours ago, Jotari said:
I can already feel the gun lobbiests pouncing on this case as proof that more guns are needed to solve the problem.
Yeah I've already been seeing more "arm teachers" and "get more armed veterans/cops" cropping up already. Really not surprised due to how the shooter was in fact taken down but an officer, but at the same time it's like, we just had another school shooting... we should focus on addressing the hearts of the problem instead of advocating for more guns and expecting more shootings.
-
On 3/18/2018 at 11:40 PM, SullyMcGully said:
Read some statistics and they'll scare the heck out of you if you think raising a boy without a father figure will probably turn out better in the end.
...Any specific sources in mind? Just curious. Does this also apply the other way around? (i.e. raising girl w/o mother figure) - Also, based off the quoted bit, I'm assuming you're referring to single mothers?
-
"Waluigi's guidance"
THAT is what I'd like to see. But since I know it won't happen I'd stick w/ Palutena's guidance.
-
8 hours ago, ImsoniaticGamer said:
It does say original game at the bottom of the video if you look close enough. I'm wanting an entirely new game, with maybe a smaller and not-bloated roster.
Ooooooh nice! I did not see that, thank you~
-
I'm excited. I assume it's going to be a port of the WiiU version, but with new additions. Of course, if it's an entirely new version, then that would be most welcomed as well. As far as mechanics and changes, I hope that it plays like the WiiU version, as that's my personal favorite Smash out of all of them. Character-wise, I mean, we're getting Inklings for sure. I hope all of the SSB4 roster remains intact at least. I'd like to see Pichu return, with maybe Wolf and Ice Climbers. But as for new characters, I think Pyra would be cool to see. It's completely unlikely, but I'd actually like to see some characters from Bravely Default make an appearance. Otherwise I don't really know. I guess I'll just keep it to be a surprise!
-
6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:
"In a marked departure from the previous administration, conservatives at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are putting an emphasis on abstinence to reduce teen pregnancy rates."
Yes because all teens obviously take this kind of approach very seriously and never do the frick-frack anyways.
Seriously though, I believe it would be much more beneficial to teach teens how to have safe, protective sex. For one, that would also help reduce teen pregnancies (and seemingly more effectively). Two, that skill is universal and is applicable past high-school. And three, they may not learn how to engage in safe sexual practices if not taught the skills in school. Plus it's like, if you remove the comprehensive sex ed programs, all you're doing is taking valuable information away from the students. You aren't teaching them anything more, just less. If anything, we should only be adding on to the sex ed programs currently in place. Perhaps starting with what to do when somebody inevitably wants children, instead of just saying "don't impregnate/get pregnant". I think it would be a good idea to add lessons on this topic.
Anywho, rant over. And yes, "FFS" indeed.
-
I heard if you take out your dreamcast controller and input the following command, all female units within a 10-yard radius will instantly turn to you to be their boyfriend. The code is this:
START, A, B, B, X, Y, UP, UP, LEFT, RIGHT, START
My uncle, like, works at Nintendo, so you can trust me with this. (ecks-dee!1!!_)
-
They never should've called it a cross-over with Shin Megami Tensei, but rather Persona (which yes I know is a sub-series of SMT, but still). It basically is a Persona game but instead of Personas, you get FE characters.
Personally, I never really cared for the "series representation" as I just enjoyed the game for what it was. A good old JRPG game. I think it does deserve better, but not as a "fire emblem" or "SMT" title, but rather as its own thing - which, speaking of, it probably would've done better if created and advertised to be a more original concept. All it did was drag itself down with the whole cross-over business. Regardless of all that, the game truly is wonderful. It obviously won't be everyone's cup of tea or aesthetic, but it certainly is a good game, albeit a little cheesy (which I find fun/funny). If it got a switch port and if anything new was to be added to it, I may honestly buy it again.
-
12 minutes ago, Køkø said:
Go into detail please.
The title literally says, "I Need Help Understanding Something". I also said,
Now this isn't the first time you've misunderstood me regarding this but last time it was because you said you didn't read. If this applies here as well please do.
I know the title "literally says" that. I know you asked "is there something I'm just not seeing". I responded to both of those. What else do you want me to say?
As far as going into details, maybe later. I just saw this topic pop-up and made a quick response since I didn't think I'd need to go into great depth. Anywho, I'm gonna do school things now. Ttyl.
-
Basically what Azz said. I mean for me, I think that SoV has the best story and characters compared to the other games. To me, the other games have far more flaws. But ultimately, it's a matter of preference.
I think what you're missing is just the fact that you didn't enjoy the game as much compared to other people and the other 3DS games, and are confused as to why people praise it despite you not thinking it was "all that". Again, it really just comes down to opinion, and some people just seem to enjoy SoV over the other 3DS games.
1 minute ago, Køkø said:Be a good sport and actually tell me why you think the way you do instead getting hostile like most people every time I criticize this game, yeah?
He wasn't really hostile and it did come off as you making an objective statement. Making a response like this actually sounds hostile. And no, the topic title did not make it instantly sound subjective. Remember, people interpret things differently. Your intent doesn't equate to what is understood.
-
24 minutes ago, IfIHadToPickADude said:
It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about it by any means, but that's what I think about it.
I'm surprised people are even concerned about pornography in the first place right now lmao
I mean, it just seems like the least of our issues. Maybe that's just me though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
23 hours ago, hanhnn said:
You quoted an USA film, of course they don't understand situation in other gun free country. They took their own experience to make that movie.
USA without guns is not USA anymore, it will not be as great as of now without those block buster Hollywood movies.
You need guns to make great movies.
Great movie is the best way to PR the country.
I'm gonna make the same response as everyone else and just ask "what"?
20 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:but with an exception of people who have mental disorders
This is a general, open question, but what do people apply the term "mental disorder" to when regarding guns and regulations? Like, there are so many things that could fall under that, not to mention that going around using that term might attribute to the stigma it already has.
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:...oh Florida voted down a proposal to so much as open debate on a law restricting access to Assault Rifles, introduced 6 days after the shooting.
That annoyed me so much. I mean, it was a simple proposal just to debate, it wasn't meant to instantaneously create gun regulation laws or anything, so I find it very perplexing that they voted it down. (It probably doesn't help their image doing that, not to mention the whole SUPER IMPORTANT "pornography risk" you mentioned)
Also, any thoughts on the Texas school district who's superintendent threatened to suspend any student for three days who chooses to participate in organized walkouts or protests? The dude said that the district “will not allow a student demonstration during school hours for any type of protest or awareness!!” I mean yikes. I love telling people not to protest or to spread awareness... I understand their concern but I'm pretty sure everybody has a right to do such things especially students when it comes to, you know, school shootings and the abundance of them we have here in the US. I just wanted to bring this up cuz I thought it was odd and no one mentioned it yet. (I think)
-
2 hours ago, Raven said:
Can you imagine it: Required weapon training to become a fucking teacher? If someone wanted to take up arms as part of a living, they'd join the goddamn police force or whatever? They are there to teach, not bare the responsibility and expectation to kill people should the situation arise. Sure there will be a fraction of teachers who will be like "i'll kill anyone who tries it in my school" - but that will definitely not be the case for the majority of teachers.
Seriously, people who think this is a genuine solution are fucking insane. Literally, mentally fucked in the head. You have my sympathy, USA.
If that ever does actually happen, I'm either switching majors or planning on moving to another country lmao. I cannot stress enough (like most) how stupid the idea to arm teachers is. I've already had my say on this subject, but whenever I see anybody propose this, I get extremely bothered. I am sure there are some teachers who are totally like what you said, willing to kill, but nope, not me, or most teachers for that matter... (also I would not trust some teachers with a weapon in the first place...)
-
14 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:
If they can't, then I think they should screen for STDs before going forward. As for not wanting kids, there are lots of ways to prevent it, including more permanent ways. Birth control works nearly all the time, but when it doesn't, it could be dangerous.
My opinion is that I as a Christian think that I should be abstinent because being sexually active before marriage is an affront to my faith, and that anyone who believes as I do should follow that same logic.
Oh, sorry, this wasn't a general question, but towards the person I quoted before. :p
-
Hmm, as for my two cents, I personally don't think abstinence is important. pretty much for the same reasons that Slumber mentioned. Like, if abstinence is appealing to you, then go for it. If not? Eh, whatever. Just do whatever makes you comfortable, yeah? Although I'd if you'd be practicing abstinence, it may be wise to mention that to whomever your partner may be so that they won't get any wrong ideas, ahaha.
As far as marriage goes, again, what Slumber said. But I suppose that also depends on who you are. For me, while I don't really care for any of the religious aspects of it, and certainly don't need it to cement my feelings towards my partner, it kinda feels like a "promise" of being together to me, as cheesy as that may sound.
4 hours ago, John Denver Fan said:Because I am a Christian, I think the premarital sex is wrong, because the parents may not be ready to have a child before marriage, so if you want to have children, then people should wait when they are married and ready to have a child to avoid being a bad parent, in fact what I said has been told in my family for many generations, going back to the 1770s.
This is just out of curiosity, but what about two people who are physically incapable of conception? Or a couple that don't want kids? Again, this is just me being curious, I'm not making rebuttals or anything.
-
(Actually if the voice acting would be like that of Fire Emblem Warriors then I'd change my stance on this, no offense to people who enjoyed that game but like, yikes to some of it. But if it's like SoV then we all gucci.)
-
20 minutes ago, Gebby said:
Personally, I think we should arm teachers. Annual background checks, monthly appointments with therapists to ensure mental well-being, the gun must be concealed. Stuff like that, to keep it out of mind, but there in case of emergency.
Who would even pay for that? Most budgets for public schools aren't even that great in the first place, and that could lead to salary or staff cuts if the school is expected to pay. And if the idea is that the teachers and staff would have to pay for that, then yeah, no thanks. Not to mention the fact that the very idea of teachers being armed means that there's now another way for students to get access to a weapon. Sure, it'd be secured, but if the teacher can access it, that means the student can as well, even if they'd have to over-power the teacher to reach it.
No offense but, there's no way I'd ever be okay with that idea. I'd honestly rather move to another country than have to work/attend a school where the staff are armed. Also, I'd like to point out that it's not even a solution to the overarching problem. A solution would be finding a way to prevent further shootings from occurring, not to prepare for and to expect more.
I'm sorry if I sound like an ass towards you, I truly apologize for that, but this kind of idea is extremely unsettling for me.
-
You know what's really fun to think about? How I plan on getting a teaching license to teach English in high schools in the coming few years, and then keeping track of all the school shooting we've had in the US just this year~!
I honestly don't understand how nothing has really been done or changed to stop this. I keep looking at the gun-related homicide rates of other developed countries and compare them to the US and just, wow. It's almost feels as if... you know, other countries have done something right with their gun control... but who knows, maybe I'm just imagining things. Obviously there are other ways to commit crimes, but those other ways are either less effective, easier to get caught or both.
Seriously though, I am mildly scared about actually getting into teaching when more and more shootings have been cropping up at schools lately. It's just... not great to feel like you won't even be safe at an education facility, which applies to both teachers and students.
Also I resent the very idea that some people propose arming teachers and staff with guns. That's even more terrifying and sad to think that the "solution" to school shootings is to expect more by preparing adults to fire back. Honestly disgusting. I would never work at a school that armed teachers. No way in hell. There's no way I could ever feel safe or teach without the fear that something bad could happen.
-
14 minutes ago, Jotari said:
Even stuff like the outlawing of homosexuality probably came from a pretty rationale place when it was first put down.
Being rationale isn't that same as moral though, which is why I brought it up.
14 minutes ago, Jotari said:And curiously enough the Bible doesn't mention anything about lesbian sex. Although that could be just attributed towards women not being worth mentioning at all)
Yes you are indeed correct about this, but I believe when the Bible uses the word "man", it often implies "mankind", as in all humans, as that seems to be the case in earlier societies/writings. I could be wrong, of course, though it's just a hunch. Also I should mention that, in my previous post, I was specifically talking about homosexual men, not women, which I should've made clear. I apologize for that. For the Japan example, I'm not quite sure how lesbians were treated, I'd have to do research on that.
14 minutes ago, Jotari said:I say the whole reason marriage is a thing in practically all cultures was born from an attempt to stop the spread of STIs too.
lol you got me there. I wouldn't be surprised if it's different from culture to culture, religion to religion though. I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if the reason in some cultures is that so you could acquire a woman as "property." That doesn't seem too far-fetched tbh.
All in all, as far as marriage goes, it certainly has changed substantially since it first appeared, whenever that may have been.
-
Religions were created in the first place to install moral codes and laws, more-or-less starting around the Mesopotamia area (at least, to the best of our knowledge). For the most part, religions have been used for good and have been rather ethical, however, not always.
I'll give an example.
I'd argue that for Christianity and the bible, you could say the condemnation of homosexuals is innately bad, but the cause of it is directly from the religion as homosexuality is labeled as a sin. Obviously people are split on this notion in the first place (that homosexuality is "bad" or not - I'm taking the stance that it's not), but as far as I can tell, most, if not all of the distaste for HS (I'm gonna use HS for homosexuality to abbreviate) people has been attributed to religion. Take feudal Japan for example. Before western migration and the introduction of Christianity in Japan, HS (more specifically for those in samurai classes) wasn't all that uncommon nor was it frowned upon. But after Christianity started being preached there, HS began to become immoral or unacceptable. And whenever people are to argue why being HS is bad, the majority of the time they point to religion or their religious texts and say "Well the Bible says 'this'" or "God said 'that'".
EDIT: I failed to mention that for my example, I was specifically talking about homosexual men in Japan. I don't really know if it's any different for females or if they were treated the same.
Basically, as a tl;dr, religion has served good purposes for setting morals and rules in society, and while the majority of cases involving religion being seen as bad stems from bad people, who proclaim they are apart of the religion, I'd argue that some of the bad is directly tied to the religion itself.
And then there's other fun stuff like talking about religious leaders who have influence over their community but I'm not going to go into that right now. As for my personal stance on religion, I'm neutral. It's done good, it's done bad, it's been used for good, it's been used for bad... I myself am not religious but I think one of the main problems with religion in general is that, for some people, it blinds them and all of their stances and politics (mostly social) become solely reliant on said religion, resulting in them being less open minded. Obviously this doesn't apply to all, but it certainly does for some, I can certainly attest to that...
-
On 2/13/2018 at 12:33 AM, Køkø said:
Come on dude, I just cleared that up with someone else.
Then you may want to edit the first comment to change the wording, because I don't think anybody would instantly understand what you were trying to convey. Now, I actually looked at the previous page and at what the other person and you were talking about, but didn't really when I posted my previous comment. Sorry~
On 2/13/2018 at 12:33 AM, Køkø said:That money and effort should be spent in more essential fields, if they can do it all then great. But with the recent track record, I doubt it. I'd rather have a good game with no or minimal voice acting than a bad one with Oscar worthy performances.
I'd argue that they shouldn't have a problem doing full voice-acting and making a good story/overall game if they have the money to do so. I don't think they really need to reallocate their assets only for the base game, because if they need to do that, they clearly messed up in their initial budgeting anyways. So basically, as long as they have the means to do it, I feel like they should.
Besides, it really would feel like a step backwards if they didn't. The voice acting really did make Echoes a better game. Without it, I wouldn't have had nearly as much fun with it as I did. Don't discount what voice acting can do for a game, it really can make things a lot better.
Men of Serenes Forest!
in Far from the Forest...
Posted
Hmm... Boxers for comfortableness and Briefs, well, certain types at least, for attractiveness.
I don't have any fun pairs of either tho... it's really sad. :-(