FionordeQuester

Is there ever a time where cruelty IS an overall advantage? I mean, the thing that really tends to get people far is cooperation; and cooperating with a trustworthy person is generally a lot more appealing than cooperating with a cruel person. If I'm going to be trusting anyone, I'd rather it be someone who ISN'T going to off me the moment it's convenient...and if I'm going to be trying to convince folks to help me, that's gonna be much easier if they trust me than if they don't. Even from a pure survival standpoint, I don't see a lot of long-term good to being evil. And that's not even getting into the emotional side of things, like the parts of your humanity that you'd have to numb in order to live with yourself. Joy and sorrow both come from the same place; so if you cut off the part that makes you feel sorrow for your actions, you're also cutting off the part that brings you joy.

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different. Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real. No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing. What are the implications of that? What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament? Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here! The world's gonna be awesome!")? Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"? Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking. It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good. What would your guys's responses be?

Remember what he was saying to SuicidalGhost!Jack though, when he was hiding in those logs... -------------------------------------- Ghost!Jack: Time to end it, don't you think?! Jack: Never. They are just machines. I will find a way; I always have...It always seems bad at first, but then I find a way. They're just nuts and bolts...just nuts and bolts... -------------------------------------- So he's already on the edge of losing it; and this is one of the only arguments he has for why he hasn't taken his own life yet. So to have that whole disturbing conversation, only to then find yourself cutting down a beautiful young teenage girl...well, that's gonna be disturbing to him on two multiple levels, not just one. 1) There's the immediate sorrow of having killed another person; especially one who also happens to be a beautiful teenage girl (whom honorable men are already going to have an inherent bias for). 2) There's ALSO the ominous implication that "no, I'm not going to be fighting weak, lifeless, unintelligent machines anymore; I'm now going to be fighting against fellow human beings too. Ones who are extremely fast, extremely skilled, extremely intelligent, and EXTREMELY ruthless". And he STILL hasn't found his sword yet; a point very clearly demonstrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evw5YFhsyx0&t=114s Where the Daughters of Aku systematically demolish every single weapon he tries to use against them. Not a one of them go for even a minute before getting smashed to smithereens. So yeah, there's some level of sorrow here; but there's also some level of "holy cow; how the heck am I going to survive against THESE kinds of enemies?!". At least, that's what I got out of it.

Wasn't that something like 50 years ago though? If I'm interpreting this episode right, Jack hasn't actually fought any flesh and blood humans for about 50 years.

The two chief uses are fixing errors and adding additional information; like so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6jaImDnTWU Otherwise, the only way to do those two things are to either add them in the description (where it isn't nearly as interactive, and could be overlooked), or take down and reupload the entire video just to fix a few minor errors.

Good point; not everyone's comfortable signing petitions. If you want to though, you could contact the CEO via Twitter; her name is Susan Wojcicki.

Hey guys! It seems that YouTube is wanting to remove annotations by May 2 for whatever weird reason. This is an option that will negatively affect many YouTube content creators, because annotations are the only things I know of that you can put anywhere in the video that you want; YouTube WANTS to replace them with End Screens and Cards, but neither of those have all the functionalities that annotations do. So if you would... https://www.change.org/p/susan-wojcicki-ceo-of-youtube-don-t-stop-youtube-annotations-on-2nd-may-2017-we-use-them?recruiter=696414950&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink Please sign the above petition; its toward the senior manager of YouTube herself, as well as one other person. Thank you for your time!

I'm not sure I understand the question. I agree with God existing, but I don't think that's relevant to what I'm trying to say; that it seems as though he's being called out for doing pretty much the exact same thing that other posters have done. I don't believe my agreeing with his stance on God is relevant to the validity of my point. EDIT: I mean, should he maybe have provided more objective reasoning to why he believed what he believed? Sure; but I could say the same for other folks. That's what I'm pointing out.

What I'm wondering though is this; why is it upsetting that he be so blunt and direct, when others are being equally blunt and direct about their views? I mean, I'm not saying he shouldn't try to be as gracious as possible, but, I still feel like there's a disparity here. I don't see Esau of Isaac, Soul, Bandido, blah the Prussian, the Blind Idiot God, and etc. hemming and hawing about what they believe, for example. EDIT: Was it the WAY JJ48 said it? Like, he said the following... Simply because some refuse to acknowledge God's intended purpose doesn't make it any less true, any more than someone earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective. Was the italicized statement what made it different? That he's saying others are wrong (as opposed to just implying it)? Because otherwise, statements like "There is no objective purpose" (as opposed to statements like "I don't think there is an objective purpose") have the same implications, due to their lack of qualifiers.

And yet, not all of them do. For example... So the question remains, why was JJ48 singled out while Soul wasn't?

I would say that's pretty obvious; the current leader of North Korea himself. Regardless of whether or not Kim Jong-Nam wanted to, his relation to the previous leader still allowed for the possibility of him challenging his half-brother. So why not tie up a loose end if you can? That's the sort of cold, heartless logic that dictators use. That's why medieval leaders would kill their enemy's entire families when conquering kingdoms; not just the kings themselves.

But see, are biological and psychological satisfaction ends in and of themselves? If you were to live in the lap of luxury and have everything you could possibly want, without fear of it being taken away...would you live happily ever after? Or would you just feel more empty after the initial dopamine rush wore off? Would your mind acclimate to how good your life is, and get bored with THAT too? One of the ideas I get from my Christian faith is that human beings aren't searching for physical things necessarily; they're looking for something that makes them feel complete. Most people have an innate sense of incomplete; like they're missing out on something real important. It just so happens that most of them try to "fill the void" with food, accomplishments, fame, hard work, beautiful women (and men), money...and etc., etc. Unfortunately, most of those things can't bring any real fulfillment. Most of them are material things that are meant to facilitate a rush of dopamine; the "pleasure" neurochemical in our minds. But the sad thing about that is, the more saturated our brains get with dopamine, the more dopamine it needs just to feel "normal". This is one of the huge reasons why drugs, alcohol, and other narcotics are such a big problem; the psychological addiction is far worse than the physical addiction could ever hope to be; and it's all due to that increasingly unfulfilling dopamine rush. A successful marriage and a good family are perhaps the things that comes closest to "filling that void"; in addition to the obvious benefits, those also facilitate the release of "oxytocin"; the "bonding" neurochemical. This is part of the reason why "evil doesn't pay" really is far more true than most people give it credit for...it's rather hard to form bonds with people when you're actively driving them away with your evil acts. But that said...even relationships will go through stress and strain for one reason or another; and that's assuming the people you love don't pre-emptively die or change for the worse. So if you truly want a purpose that will outlast even the ravages of time...one needs to submit to a higher power than themselves. It doesn't necessarily have to be God (who I believe is the best "higher power" to have); but it does need to be something a person considers more important than themselves. Perhaps a moral code, like what Batman has. Or perhaps one can devote themselves to protecting the planet. Perhaps a "fight against racism and discrimination"? Something that gives someone a reason to go on living.

Indeed.. On the one hand, you can decide that the meaning to life all about "passing on our genes" (which I imagine would be a pretty depressing outlook once you got married/got into your 50's and beyond), living an enjoyable life, deciding on what we can do, being God-chosen protectors of love and life (like what I basically suggested), or just decide there's not meaning. Rather nice to have the variety, eh?

If it helps, I think I can give a perspective that most haven't heard before. I'm Christian, but I still have a response that I haven't seen anyone else give. For me, the key to human meaning lies in Genesis 1... -------------------------------- Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us...So God created human beings[d] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground." Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” -------------------------------- In other words, our job is to create and protect life itself. Protect the animals, keep the seas clean, and uh..."fill the Earth", as he put it. A lot of people miss that that's HOW we glorify God; not by attending Church, not by listening to another human being for 40 minutes, not by singing songs...but by actively trying to be LIKE him. I like Rex and Sully's answers, but I feel like most people miss the implications of what "glorify God" really means. We're his image bearers and children; kindness and compassion were supposed to be our default modes of being, not something we do when we feel like it. ... If that sounds like a lofty goal, well...it's as my Mom said. "God doesn't make junk" !

Thank you so much RainBuckets! I just updated the OP with your new info!

I believe I fixed up all the problems that I could find in that one a few weeks ago; but I can never be totally sure till someone else confirms it. Has there been anyone else trying it recently? If so, let me know!

Yeah, that probably would be more efficient. But, as a creator myself...I find myself sometimes wanting to do the "less efficient" thing just because I find it interesting for some reason. Or sometimes, I'll find myself writing up a stupid joke for my Let's Play that I KNOW I'm probably going to have to change before I actually post it (I'm a firm believer of "less is more")...but sometimes it's just fun to do it anyway. With Gaiden Guy specifically, he probably REALLY wants to get started on the patch, even though he knows that it'd technically make more sense to wait till the official localization. He gets some pleasure out of speculating about what kind of things he'd do, or what kind of technical issues he might run into, and stuff like that.

In other news, I've changed my mind about "YamaGarden". "Mt.Cemetary" is just fine; assuming that one can make a custom "t." character to fit it inside the 10 letter limitation (I'd imagine it'd be possible, considering all the Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana characters that the original game would've had to include). That said, there's another one, "Swamp Graveyard" that also definitely cannot fit in the spaces allotted. How about calling that one "BogTumulus"? That's another kind of burial ground.

What exactly IS a healthy body fat % for a man? I was always curious as to whether or not the guys you see in Hollywood are really a good representation of what a physically fit male should look like (rather than just taking steroids).

Alright; I'd be down for that. Just so long as you explain why it's drawn the way it's drawn (like, how a female's muscle anatomy differs from a man, if at all).

Same reason some doctors take a lot of pride in their physical fitness? He might know a lot more about the human body then most; therefore, he'd try that much harder to exercise so that he doesn't become unable to walk in his old age. Eh, that's...more of a fault of the character designers than anything. Tis' the same reason why Florina wears thigh high boots and a miniskirt that barely covers her groin; in-spite of that completely going against her personality.

Ergh...THAT I cannot tell you. I myself am working on an FE7 hack where all mounted unts get 25 Con. I'm not sure how long it's going to take for me to fix all the unintended consequences of THAT particular decision (I've only play tested most of Lyn Mode), but, yeah. That's one of the things I'm doing with it.

Hey, maybe those are just really, REALLY big books xD? And I have to imagine that weight-lifting would have existed back then; wrestling isn't exactly something you need a lot of high tec stuff for, and big muscly men would be very helpful for lifting and carrying large loads. Plus...dem' ladies man. Big chests and big biceps almost never hurt a man as far as THAT goes !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4hluBaz6Q

Personally, I always interpreted it as... ------------------------------------------ Strength = Striking Power Constitution = Bench Press ------------------------------------------ So Bruce Lee, for example, wouldn't have high bench press rating; but he WOULD have ASTRONIMICALLY high striking power. The reason for that is because... ------------------------------------------ Striking Power = Mass * Acceleration ------------------------------------------ This, btw, is the reason behind the reasoning of "size doesn't matter [that much]". The mass of a 7 foot person's arm is only slightly higher than the mass of a 6 foot person's arm, even assuming everything else is equal. The only significant advantage a taller person would have is reach; this is because most opponenents start at a fair distance away from each other before the fight itself starts. And, if the fight ends up on the ground, it's much easier for a big person to pin a smaller person than it is for a small person to pin the big person. But, as Royce Gracie, Bruce Lee, and Mike Tyson demonstrated, even THOSE things can be neutralized. Meanwhile, acceleration can only be amplified by knowing how to throw a punch or kick; and that's a question that comes down to knowledge and skill. So if you ever wonder how Ike can possibly beat up the Black Knight (who is comparatively much bigger and heavier than him)...that's why.