Defeatist Elitist
-
Posts
2,428 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Defeatist Elitist
-
-
Exactly. I heard this analogy on the radio:
"It's like if everyone in a class got C-, except one student got an A. Obama's plan would esentially take that one kid's 'A' and make it a C- like everyone else."
It would pretty much make us a communistic country. Which is something that we've been fighting against since pretty much WW2.
That's a horrible analogy for Socialism. There are so many flaws in it I can't point them all out. Do you understand the concept?
The whole point behind Socialism is that anyone, a farmer, a doctor, anyone, should have enough to live. They're important to society. In the society we have now, CEOs of companies, who do NOTHING make more money than the people that are essential for society. Do you know that a lot of farmers LOSE money? Teachers wages continuosly fall. Labor wages are getting increasingly small. We need these people to survive, yet these occupations are becoming more and more unsavory, and useless looking. We need everyone.
Now, Capitalism isn't exactly godly. In pure Capitalism (there is no society that is pure Capitalism, even the US has a little Socialism mixed in), everything would VERY soon end up in a monopoly. Do you want a company responsible for everything, from your defense to your roads? Pure Capitalism is a scary thought. On the other hand, so is Pure Socialism, because in that, the Government controls everything. That's just as bad. But no-one in their right mind wants either really.
A mix is what you want. The pie analogy is also a little off. First, anything on Fox news is good for nothing but lulz (just kidding, please, don't sick the extreme Christian Right on me!). :P See, it misses the point. Why should some guy who really does nothing, or just inherited, or traded on the stock market, make SO MUCH more money than someone who is integral for our SURVIVAL. It's not that we can't make more pies, it's that the pies immediately go to the rich.
-
I mean it largely doesn't matter which type you want to use. There's rarely a time when two hits from any given magic type doesn't kill an enemy, regardless of what type of magic I'm using. For pretty much the entire series, really.
Well, the main reason I think Anima > Light is that Anima is lighter and deals more damage, which are two of the most important things for tomes. Anima also > Dark, because Dark is heavier and less accurate, and some of the tomes are really quirky and bad (in FE8 at least, FE7 Luna is brokenly awesome).
-
I have a decidedly twisted sense of humor. Dark comedy sets me up in stitches. My humor isn't just dry, it's arid. If someone can actually say with a straight face something incredibly derogatory/offensive without breaking character, it sends me up the wall with laughter. Granted, I have to know the person is joking. I'm usually able to tell but a LOT of people don't get it and that's one reason a lot of people dislike me. I'm sarcastic the vast majority of the time.
I tend to look at situations as what the end result can bring, in all aspects of life, but especially humor. Someone can say something super offensive just to catch people off guard. Your options are to have fun, roll with it, and enjoy a good "I can't believe he just said that!" type laugh, or to get upset and feel bad for the next half hour if not longer. The former is much more appealing to me. Life shouldn't be taken so seriously that you can't enjoy it.
THISTHISTHISTHIS! I have a policy of never taking anything offensive seriously. :P As a result, I haven't been really mad for, well, years and years.
-
How is it a weaker class? I don't understand that argument at all. Both magic types will kill enemies in a turn. Don't really see a point in making it so all of my spellcasters (of which, I use most because of the abundance of promotion items you find) have Anima magic.
I think the point is more that Moulder in particular is excellent with Anima magic, as he loses far less AS then most characters, especially Lute. Artur or Natasha can go Bishop, but Moulder's sexy Con allows him to wield Excalibur and other Anima tomes far better than anyone else.
-
I wake up as Lucius and-
You know what? I don't think this can end well at all! What the fuck am I supposed to do, eh? :P
-
Sain
in Fire Emblem
They're both INCREDIBLE characters, but Kent just has a small edge overall. In practice, I usually use both of them, and Lowen, and then if one gets RNG screwed I can ditch them.
-
Sain
in Fire Emblem
I was stupid and used Kent in my first playthrough. Right now, I ditched Kent in favour of having Sain level up fast. And my God, is he awesome! He's level 8 or 9 now, at chapter 9 of Lyn's story. Gonna boss abuse the hell outta Lundgren. :PHonestly, I'd say that Kent has a slight edge on Sain...
-
I've never used Moulder. I only use good-looking characters
What is it with this forum's taste? :P THE MOUSTACHE!
-
Happy Thanksgiving. THANKS FOR ALL THOSE SMALLPOX BLANKETS! <_<
-
Well, I just got back from the dinner with my family. :D
-
Yeah, I was going to say, with the Paladins, Ike, Mist, and a couple other Mountedish characters, you would have one totally kick ass team there.
-
So, since this game has 6 Paladin thingies, and they're OMGWTFBARBEQUE amazing in most cases, especially with their weapons, using every single one of them is awesome. Geoffrey is the only one who is remotely lagging. Now, most of you guys probably know this, but I'm going to post this anyway to make things easier for everyone. This is a way to, if you want, get every possible Paladin weapon combination. It's actually pretty easy.
First, Geoffrey and Titania start out Paladins, so they're already taken, and Lances/Bows and Lances/Axes is too. That means that Oscar has to go Lances/Swords. Lances are now dealt with.
Now, the others can do several things. One of Makalov or Kieran will take the others weapon type, the other will take bows. Then Astrid will take the remaining. For simplicity, we'll say Kieran takes Swords. Then Makalov takes bows, and Astrid takes Axes. So here's a list:
Lances/Bows: Geoffrey
Lances/Axes: Titania
Lances/Swords: Oscar
Axes/Swords: Kieran/Makalov
Axes/Bows: Kieran/Astrid
Swords/Bows: Makalov/Astrid
And their you have it. Of course, no matter what, using all the Paladins would give you a super versatile team, but this is pretty cool anyway.
-
Sain
in Fire Emblem
Your Sain is pretty awesome. Skill isn't very important anyway... :D
Sain in general, I think he's pretty great. Him and Kent are both amazing. Paladin's are truly epic. I often use many.
-
Puppeteer - Summons Monsters to fight for him. Kind of like, based on the tome or weapon he wields, when he attacks it shows the attack animation of a different creature. Mainly intended for FE8. For example, he could attack with the Revenant weapon, which would be a fairly weak weapon, with the Revenant animation. Or a Mauthedoog weapon that was fast, accurate, but low on damage, etc.
-
If I'm actually playing, I usually train the character I get earlier, until I get the later character, and then compare them. The worse one is usually not used.
-
Also, McCain looks really cute hobbling around up there with his little stoop. ^_^ And his voice is cute too.
-
The (usual) point of Fire Emblem Debating is to find which characters most easily and efficiently can clear the most difficult mode possible (overall). However, debates could be held on other things as well. That is a possibility. It's just that they are usually about what I said earlier.
-
GODDAMNIT. I thought I posted somewhere that we normally mean the character with the highest probability of being best... I mean, pretending that characters can't be screwed is a bit silly, hey?
-
I believe the genre you guys are looking for is Point and Click Adventure. They where insanely popular on PC at one point, and mostly consisted of you methodically and patiently picking up everything you ever saw and rubbing it experimentally against everything else.
But I like Time Hollow. It's fun.
-
I see Wist's point, and it's a good one, however their are a couple things I should point out. One, and the most important, StarCraft is a Multi player game. If any of you did watch the video (I hope you did, it was amazing :P), much of the value of the Valkyrie's came from the opponent NOT KNOWING HOW TO COUNTER Valkyries. They had no idea what to do when faced with that. In a multiplayer game, things aren't static.
In Fire Emblem, everything's pretty predictable and static.
But to sandman. I understand that your point is simply to win the game, not to get Max Ranks. Max Ranks however, is assumed in order to REFINE the character pool further. I will continue discussing later, but I don't have much time right now...
Oh, and sandman, if you get Visual Boy Advance, you can record AVIs of your game. So you can record yourself playing through any of the GBA games.
-
How do YOU know what America needs for health care? How do YOU know what Americans need? You live in Canada, you don't know how Americans live, as you don't LIVE in America. You can't go by what people say, you go by experience. Honestly, I fail to even see you able to make a valid argument about what AMERICA NEEDS.
I refuse to even accept your ideas on what America needs until you become an American citizen. Whether I agree with your views or not, you're not an American, so therefore you can't tell Americans what they need. Try reforming your OWN country, not ours.
Oh come on, living in America doesn't have too much do do with what I was saying. First of all, I didn't claim to understand America's needs for Health Care, I just explained an example I saw.
But honestly, we'll see what happens when the elections roll 'round. I believe in equality, semi-socialism, etc, all that "Liberal Bullshit". This is the main reason I support Obama, because I'd much rather have an intellectual in command of the massive adjacent nation then a maverick.
Oh, and lawl at saying that Obama should take lies like a man. Because everyone knows that lieing is a good trait for your leader.
-
Uhm.
You fail to understand that because I'm able to do what I do, I can throw out all your rules.
The ultimate goal is to beat the game. You guys have your way of "what is best" and I have my way of what I consider is best. If you guys want to have an argument with me about gaming philosophies, that's fine, but my whole point is that there's multiple ways of approaching the game, having fun with it, and beating it with little difficulties. Assuming there's a "best way" is plain silly because even then, everything still has to fall into place.
Besides, when I use "personal experience", it's never stats that matter in those discussions. Personal experience from my standpoint is figuring out how to use the different unit types to their best advantage for the best result. And I know I've mentioned Boss Abuse before, but the matter of fact is I rarely do it. I simply abuse every enemy, you could say. I have a personal bias towards units with great defenses and they usually tend to be slow, so now two guys are getting experience from a single enemy rather than just one.
I don't think you understand. Take one situation.
You have two characters. Character A can deal with the situation in 5 turns. Character B takes 10 turns. Character A is better. This is an incredible oversimplification, but I think it shows my point. The Debating Standards are there because there is a "best way". Take the Olympics. The best runner is the one who runs the distance in the least amount of time, right? Just because you can run 100m doesn't give you a Gold Metal.
-
I'm a female and I DO NOT approve of the above statement.
Well, that obviously says something about YOUR taste to, doesn't it. :P
-
I meant to add that... Not character making, but yes, very good indeed.
Things shouldn't be assumed at all... You should only go with what is definite and consider all possibilities or your argument looks biased. Not everyone is using Seth or Titania or Marcus or any other high tier characters, so you shouldn't just assume they are, no matter how good the character generally is. The same happens with difficulties; FE7 has 4 modes to be played, but debaters only ever consider HHM just because it's the hardest. All of the modes should be put into equal consideration.
HHM (and ranked runs) is the only mode considered for a variety of reasons. Let me dig them up: (quote from Titania topic):
"Without a goal or idea, things become confused and pointless. For example, with no regard to BEXP, people could say any character is the best because they can just sit that character there surrounded by un equipped characters, picking off every enemy on the field one by one. That is to say, the debate standards are there to provide a goal to reach towards, a reasonable one, and one that the game itself seems to be flaunting.
Think of it this way. Logically, character's true value is tested best in Hard Mode (tell me if you disagree). This is because if something is harder it requires the character to be even better, in other words, raising the difficulty refines the remaining units until only the best remain. Now, Maximum BEXP is the only real goal we have in FE9 HM, and would make the game more difficult. Thus, if a character is actually good they should be one of the most useful units in said situation. This is what debating is based on, or something like it. It is difficult to explain. As Vincent said, it's more something that you learn from debating."
For example, I want too find out the best Soccer Player in the English Leagues. Now, I'm logically only going to go based on people's performance in the Premiership and highest level competitions, since being able to score 2 points a game in a piss easy environment doesn't make you better than someone who can score 1 in a much harder environment. This is the idea behind this.
You use bows, you may be able too use them more effectively. But it is actually easier (as we have proven) overall to use better weapon types. Maybe your strategy is based on that. But as I said before, No Strategy > Strategy, and therefore bow users are inherently weaker in most of the titles. That is not too say they don't have strong points, it's just stating that they are generally eclipsed by other things. In general, other weapons will be better.They haven't been and that's what we've all been trying to say.Example: SS told me bows were the worst weapon type in the entire game series. I find this laughable because I always field at least one archer unit and they are always a vital part to my success. If bows were so bad and axes were so wondeful, how come I find hundreds of situations where my warriors end up using their Steel Bow over using their S-ranked Axe because it's more strategically viable? I got the typical PEMN response and my entire point was thrown out the window because I'm not accepting the 'established school of thought' the FE Debate Squad laid down.
If our good points (like switching up supports for equally viable if not better end-game solutions) are null and void, what's the point of trying to debate with these people?
If you prove your supports better, then yes, they will be accepted. But much of the confusion seems to be based around this:
When we're debating, we tend to fight other people's good points. For example, the debate where I am supporting Wil. Many of you have made many valid points, although I have not admitted them. This is just because I wouldn't be defending my character well if I did. Rebbecca IS a better character. But if I'm defending Wil, I'm going to fight that with every fibre of my being. I'm going to bend things, and present them in a way that will make Wil look better. If I'm obviously proven wrong, I will admit it, but I will usually maintain my stance in an actual debate.
Debate Mark III
in General
Posted
Because a single parent who spends all their time working is definitely not working as hard as a CEO. Definitely.
Come the hell on man. There are tons of people in the world who are rich because they are RICH. Not because of hard work. Hell, most really rich people are rich for that kind of reason. There aren't too many that are rich because they really worked hard, etc. The fact that you can say that the poor need to work harder is kind of worrying. Sure, some people will live off the system, but a lot of people are doing it anyway. At least this way the hard working people will get their reward.