PyroPlazma
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PyroPlazma
-
-
Wouldn't mind seeing other characters getting some more spotlight. But binding blade is also over-saturated with characters so that's a bit tricky. Would like the FE8 style convoy with it being tied to lords, but I also understand that's kinda busted. My only issue with the FE7 model is flanking reinforcements can screw Merlinus.
-
She's certainly a better sword lord than Roy/Eliwood!
-
On 4/28/2020 at 12:57 AM, Koops said:
Empire just sounds high-and-mightier than plain old "country" anytime of the day, really.
They also needed you to know that "hey, this country is about to go to war, just so you know". Most supreme enemy countries you fight in FE are called Empires too, right? Some exception I can think of is like, Bern, or even Daein, that's it.
I was going to say something similar, but you beat me to the punch lol.
-
On 5/14/2020 at 9:30 PM, eclipse said:
Explain this, because this is technically spam.
I agree with what he said.
-
On 5/13/2020 at 9:29 AM, Shoblongoo said:
Post-Trump era for american conservatism is gonna be like post-Civil rights era for American conservatism . (i.e. massive historical revisionism, blame-shifting, and conflation of ideological labels and identifiers)
50 years from now they'll be arguing that universal healthcare and criminal justice reform were always conservative ideas.
And it was the liberals who wanted to keep everyone on private insurance + give broad legal authority for police to kill black kids and call it "lawful use of force."Well said
-
29 minutes ago, Koops said:
Even if she joined earlier, well Bors is kinda still better than her and he isn't that great either... yeah. That's obviously ignoring the fact that she's an armor knight.
#makearmorknightsgreat
-
11 minutes ago, Koops said:
Bad units are never a problem in FE unless they're the only units. That's it. Wanna use a bad unit then cool, you like imposing that challenge upon yourself. You don't like them? Well, bench them and use the better units instead, and you'll win for sure, so all the power to you! FE6 has about enough good units to warrant some bad units sprinkled here and there.
FE6 without any bad units and just great units would honestly just be boring. Every single playthrough I start I decide on a bad unit who I want to be the star. I once used Wendy, and then Dorothy. Next playthrough I'll go another extra mile and try my hand at making Sophia good. You don't need to do this, tho. People like me just appreciate these filler units and having them doesn't hurt the people who don't like them. So yeah.
TBF the issue with Wendy isn't so much Wendy as it's her join time (right before several chapters full of axes wielders). Plus the fact that FE6 like far to many other entries heavily favors mounted units.
-
On 4/15/2020 at 3:42 AM, anikom15 said:
The idea that units need to be balanced is a fallacy. Part of the fun of permadeath is losing a great unit, having to replace it with a mediocre one, and making it work.
Large amount of the playerbase doesn't play the way. It's sound on paper, but isn't reflective of reality.
-
2 minutes ago, Jotari said:
Now that Three Houses has done the whole giant enemy thing, I'm really hoping elephants make an appearance as enemy only classes. We know they exist and have been used for combat in the Fire Emblem universe.
Since FE9, even then only on promotion. Radiant Dawn was the first game to solidly put Wyvrens in the axe category. They couldn't even use axes in Sacred Stones.
Grammar mistake that was meant to say "Post FE8"
-
You forgot Moulders mustache
-
4 hours ago, ZeManaphy said:
Wasn’t that already in Awakening?
They never returned
-
4 hours ago, gamefrig said:
wyvern in my opinion use lances that's how i have always known them as when i used setheth in three houses i always used lances
Well since FE8 I believe they've more less used or been depicted using axes. Besides the whole point of that was Pegasus=Lance, Wyvern=Axe, Griffon=Sword so weapon triangle is represented in fliers.
-
Griffon Riders: Essentially just an in between of Wyvern Riders and Pegasus Riders, wield swords to complete the trinity.
-
20 minutes ago, Whisky said:
What made them good in SoV? I used Lucas and Valbar and I thought they weren’t very good. Lucas has low Movement, and gets destroyed by magic. His high Def is never necessary and he isn’t invincible to physical attacks. Sabre has really good Def too and way better Spd and offense and Move.
I honestly don't remember, it's been over 2 years since I played the game lol.
-
Not counting great knights...
Shadows of Valentia, that's about it....
Fire Emblems are design from the player perspective is antithetical to how armor knights work.
-
1. Generals should trade some attack for very high resistance. Killing should be akin to killing Dragons in Binding Blade, Besides magic (already dealt with) You'd need to use armor effective weapons. They should also get full weapon triangle plus bows.
2. Characters should either wear aesthetic clothing designed to show off their features or wear practical looking armor. I hate the halfway approach (you know who I'm talking too)
3. Sacred Stones is the best of the GBA era
-
13 minutes ago, Jotari said:
Well that's nowhere near accurate. Drafts, speedruns and 0% growths etc are a very niche part of this community (mostly it's people complaining about the plots XD). But it does belie your purpose. If you have no interest in talking about Fire Emblem, why are you here, on a Fire Emblem forum, talking about guns? If gun law is your soul area of interest here, then why not talk about it on an actual site dedicated to it?
Most of the current threads pertaining to fire emblem I find to be of little interest.
Why can't I argue in a thread made for arguing then post in other threads when something gets my interest?
Not to mention I took up a pro gun stance and have been fighting off 3v1 until recently when you showed up. Arguing 3 separate within the same thread is rather consuming to say the least.
-
9 minutes ago, eclipse said:
I see you're putting words in my mouth.
And given your recent post history (or lack thereof), I'm beginning to think that you're here solely to tout your point.
So, uh, remember what happened to the last guy that did that? Don't make the same mistake. Because you're making the same mistake. And I'd hate to get the order to ban you for that sort of behavior.
@Jotari there's something very specific I'm looking for. . .because if we really are the most powerful military in the world, we should have no issues subjugating other places, right?
I think your implication was rather simple
Why is my posting history relevant? I have vested interest in this subject because I watched and studied it personally for years (since like 2013 IIRC). Not to mention most FIre Emblem are about tier list and PME 0% stuff I couldn't care less about.
No I don't remember or know about "the last guy" are to fill me in? I don't see how I'm doing anything wrong besides disagreeing with you considering I just re-read the code of conduct again. Unless dissenting opinions against moderators is a rule now?
You still didn't reply to my previous statement.
-
5 minutes ago, Jotari said:
I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I've already said they're a bloody mess, but I feel as if you're trying to get at something else there. Are you suggesting that they're a example as to why the USA should have looser gun laws should it come to a guerilla battle between the gun owning population of the USA and the government? Because that doesn't seem to be in line with the other opinions you're expressing in this thread.
She's using the common fallacious reasoning in opposition to a armed population being that unless the people collectively together rise up and roflstomp pro government forces in a immediate open battle then the entire effort is pointless. It's a False Dilemma fallacy.
They say the same thing about Germany disarming the Jews in preparation for the holocaust. The implication being unless they literally defeated the entire Wehrmacht then all would be pointless. Never mind the fact it's harder to shove people into trucks/trains to death camps when they're armed and no they otherwise have nothing to lose.
Not to mention the Syrian civil war is alot more complicated than she likely believes. It hasn't been a complete and total roflstomp of the rebels either...
-
Quote
You're the one that's carrying your side, and if you're going to go the emotional route after you said you'd provide links and whatnot, then you have no business being in this subforum. Got it?
Are you just going to sit there and pretend you didn't just say....
QuoteIf you can't explain to me why the specific things you linked are detrimental to the freedom to bear arms, I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments. Fear-mongering for the sake of fear-mongering is unacceptable.
You yourself have provided zero links or data on your own while you condescendingly dismiss me then act as though I'm going the "emotional route" When I send some of that condescension back your way?
QuoteSo, your next question: What is the purpose of automatic weapons, besides following the Second Amendment literally?
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame of me.
So this line of argument started out with
QuoteIronically, that POTUS you so despise is the one that's not going to restrict your guns (his voter base would be unhappy).
I replied with
QuoteActions speak louder than words. POTUS has done absolutely nothing to strengthen gun rights.
TO which you responded with
QuotePlease explain how each of these somehow gets in the way of owning a gun.
This is the point where I failed to initially catch what was going on.
QuoteOh so any gun law is fine as long as I own a gun on paper? You are aware that sufficient and proper gun can effectively ban certain types of firearms in their entirety right? The NFA alongside the 1984 law effectively bans automatic weapons from 95% of the population.
So we've gone from:
1. The POTUS will protect gun
2. This was proven to be demonstrably false
3. Then you pivoted to "Well this technically doesn't outright ban/confiscate guns so....."
4. Pointed out that sufficient draconian legislation can in effect ban something, see automatic weapons in America
5. Now we've arrived at "well why should we have automatic weapons?"
You just keep pivoting/moving the goal post to something easier (in your mind) to defend.
-
Quote
The act literally does NOT define what a non-official militia is. There is only the official militia, and that the official militia is composed of men of certain ages divided into the National Guard and the Reserves.
Descriptors and Subordinate Clauses:
"That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."Simplification:
"That the militia shall consist of every citizen, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia to be known as the National Guard, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."A militia generally falls under some type of government supervision. A militia is used to defend the local community and the Second Amendment specifically mentions a free state, a democratic government. A militia with no government supervision is just a band of vigilantes. You cannot just grab a few buddies and say you formed a militia to defend your neighborhood without getting into conflict with the police. A militia needs some kind of government supervision, whether it is from a government of a town, city, county, state, or national government.
10 U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
QuoteI can agree with you that it did not mean government regulation, but that point is moot since a militia is already under government control. And since it is already under government control, it is going to be regulated in the modern sense and it should be well equipped and disciplined.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)
QuoteEven adjusting for the change in language, it does not guarantee an individual's right to own arms.
A militia cannot be unofficial, as that would just be a group of vigilantes. A militia needs to be organized by some kind of governmental body to have uniform equipment, training, discipline, etc. Even commercial security guard companies have some minimal level of governmental oversight and its employees have some uniform equipment and training.
A militia refers to a sanctioned, official organization. It makes no sense to have a group of vigilantes to protect the state. Even terrorists and gangs have an official hierarchy over the territory they control and it would make no sense for them to have another force protecting the same territory without some form of agreement or coordination, or else it would lead to cases of friendly fire.
Guaranteeing a individuals right to bear arms was literally whole point of the DV v Heller case, read it again.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
Militias are not enacting "vigilante justice" They're protecting the state from external threats of internal tyranny.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change."
-
Quote
I do not think a militia can be unofficial, as that would just be a group of vigilantes. The document splits the militia into two groups, the National Guard and the Reserve. The National Guards and the Reserves are still in existence today.
The act literally defines official and non official militias. Militias normally by definition don't directly fall under government supervision unless federalized. The intention of the 1903 was to clearly establish the difference between regular civilian militias and the National Guard. Hence forth and to this day National Guardsmen attend Basic training with active duty/reservist and wear US Army uniforms (I was the Army for 3 years and can also speak with personal experience on this one).
QuoteSince a militia is already under government control, it is already regulated in the modern sense.
Well regulated back when the constitution was written DID NOT MEAN GOVERNMENT REGULATION! It simply means in good/working order.
QuoteThat is where we disagree. While I generally will not dispute with judges and lawyers on matters of law, cause I am not a lawyer, the Second Amendment's language is simple enough that a lay person reading it will have no difficulty understanding what it means. If the Second Amendment was presented to anyone with no prior knowledge of American history, most will conclude that the right to bear arms is linked with the responsibility of the militia and defending the community.
Yeah provided that person
1. Doesn't understand the constitution was written over 200 years people talked differently (see well-regulated)
2. Doesn't understand militia=regular citizens, both literally and legally.
3. Second amendment=A well armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and use weapons shall not infringed. Second somendment in a nutshell using modern vernacular.
QuoteWhile I prefer a loose interpretation of the law when it is in favor of more liberties, there is a difference between a loose interpretation of the law and completely twisting and ignoring parts of the law. I am okay with loosely interpreting the militia to mean any organized and sanctioned security force ranging from the actual militia, to the police, to even commercial security guard companies. I am okay with loosely interpreting people to mean individuals too. What I am not okay with is blatantly ignoring parts of the law where the right to do something and the responsibility of that right are written so closely together in the same sentence that they are so clearly linked.
Nothing loose or broad about it, just read it several times to yourself. Then put yourself in the shoes of the founding fathers writing it. Specifically in regards to them having just fought a violent revolution to earn their independence. Said war was kicked off when the tyrannical government tried to disarm them (Take a wild guess why they'd do that).
-
8 hours ago, eclipse said:
If you can't explain to me why the specific things you linked are detrimental to the freedom to bear arms, I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments. Fear-mongering for the sake of fear-mongering is unacceptable.
Of course the website would take a massive dump forcing me to re-type this...
If you can't understand how certain extensive regulation on the functions of firearms can indirectly ban them, then I can't be bothered with the rest of your arguments. See I can be condescending as well.
FYI The reason why bump stocks exist is due to the NFA and 1984 act which effectively bans automatic weapons for 95% of the population without stating it outright. Barring production while requiring extensive licensing and tax stamps makes owning automatic weapons prohibitively expensive and time consuming which in turn is why many say automatic weapons are effectively banned. Bump stocks were made to subvert this fact.
So remind me again how statements are "fear-mongering" when they are back by real world politicians saying these very things and in many pushing said legislation?
QuoteLawmakers and judges.
Who are vastly unqualified due to possessing zero knowledge in the function and operation of firearms
QuoteUnnecessary. All you need is a liberal interpretation to get from:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
to
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."Militia act of 1903 defines unofficial militia as an able bodied man aged 17-45
You'll find "well regulated" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. .
Quote...was a 5-4 split decision on a case-of-first impression.
And where the majority opinion of the late Justice Scalia has since been heavily criticized by legal scholars + the minority opinion widely discussed and cited.
Which is to say that if the Supreme Court swings one vote to the left (i.e. Ginsburg lives long enough to retire + be replaced by a Democrat president, and then Clarence Thomas dies), the majority opinion in Heller is one that is likely getting overturned.
Moreover, you mischaracterize the Court's holding in that case to the extent you believe Heller completely precludes reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. As you yourself quoted from the opinion of the court:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
The majority opinion in Heller specifically held that one particular DC law which constituted a near total ban on private citizens keeping firearms in their home was an unreasonable restriction on the private right to gun ownership; not that the second amendment prohibits reasonable gun control.
The court was explicit that even by the most conservative of readings, the second amendment is not a blanket prohibition against any kind of gun laws.1. A win is a win regardless
2. Me quoting DC v Heller was more to do with the pointing out the fact that individual citizens do have a constitutional right to own firearms and that it is not some privilege bestowed upon by the state or tied exclusively to militia service.
3. Can you please link me these criticism of Judge Scalia in regards to this case
QuoteThis topic has been covered exhaustively in other threads, but just for the sake of putting it to bed let me bring you up to speed.
Mind linking me?
QuoteThe way policy researchers and statisticians distinguish causation from correlation is by running multivariable linear regression models, to check for whats called multicolinearity.
Don't know how familiar you are with policy research or statistical analysis, but basically, this is how it works.
Take a simple, single-variable model: y = m(x) + b (i.e. the simple rise-over-run model we are learned in grade-school level math)
Y is your dependent variable.
X is your independent variable
m is your slope (i.e. the magnitude of correlation)
b is your constant
...in this model, if (y) is levels of gun violence and (x) is strength of gun control laws, all that tells you is you have a correlation...
Now make the model:
y = [m1(x1)] + [m2 (x2)] + [m3(x3)] + [m4 (X4)] + [m5(x5)] + [m6 (x6)] + [m7(x7)] + [m8 (x8)] + [m9(x9)] + [m10 (x10)] + b
Where:
m1 is strength of gun control laws
m2 is % of the population that has a high school education
m3 is population density
m4 is % racial homogeneity
...and so on and so forth...
Every purportedly explanitory dependent variable--throw it all in there.
When you do that, what you can do is you can start comparing correlative values. You can see how those correlative values change or don't change depending on what variables you add or omit from the model.
And what researchers find when they do this is that no matter what variables you add to try to change the correlative values, the Big 3 that keep popping out as producing huge m-scores are:
1) Poverty Rates
2) Education Levels
3) Strength of Gun Laws
This is how we know empirically that we have causation; not just correlation.
This is also how we know that when comparing the effects of (3), you're comparing apples-and-oranges if you aren't looking at countries that are similarly sitauted in (1) and (2).
This is why when we talk about levels of gun violence in the USA compared to countries with effective gun control: our basis of comparison is the Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Oceania, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.Can you please link the proper studies that state that gun control=less gun homicide?
QuoteAnd this is why trying to argue "gun control would increase violence; more guns makes us safer!" by comparing gun violence in the United States to countries like Ethiopia and Guatemala is silly.
I have never asserted this.
-
1 minute ago, XRay said:
What is wrong with rewriting and updating the Constitution? That is basically what amendments are. The 21st Amendment is all about nullifying the 18th Amendment.
when I say update I mean updating the wording to account for modern day vernacular and advances in technology not necessarily in theory changing whats within the amendment itself. I.E. updating the first amendment to include the internet
If the Binding Blade didn't only have paired endings featuring Roy, which ones do you think would have appeared?
in Fire Emblem: Binding Blade
Posted
wut.....
Why would this be romantic?