Skynstein
-
Posts
1,195 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Skynstein
-
-
2. Animals, thus, have no rights. In order to have a right, one must respect the rights of others, which animals clearly don't. Animals are a part of nature, where their survival is clearly dependent on their strength. They should be treated as such. The exception is domesticated animals, who we expect to respect the rights of other people and animals in that if they screw up we either send them to obedience school or put them down.
Not really, to have rights a human just needs to legally exist. That's how every law system in every democracy works. If I go on a killing spree and go to jail because of it, no matter how despicable my crime was, I still have rights despite not respecting others' right to live.
The reason domesticated animals don't have rights is because they're considered property. Things don't have rights.
I'm not particularly specialized in this but, with the duty to respect animals' integrity, must come a right, which someone is entitled to. The concept of individual animals having rights is not viable because animals are for all intents and purposes treated as things, not bearing their own identity beyond the nicknames owners call them, and not being able to pledge before a judge in defense of their supposed "rights". The subject of the right related to the duty not to hurt animals is society itself.
-
I'm in the middle of an Assassin's Creed III playthrough and that game was really sucking me in because of all the side quests, and after that I went to sleep early. Most of my playtime was during the day, and you don't do Halloween in the day, lol.
-
Very nice costume Ana, you look cute in it. :)
I didn't fulfill my promise of playing horror games, wasn't in the mood.
-
Sustenance and games.
-
I don't think you can really compare gaming to art, because the gamer has a far more active role.
The "realm of the game" is a dubious concept. I adopt a very restrictive use of the expression because its meaning is really only what the creator has intended. Therefore I rule out glitches and unorthodox strategies reliant on exploits because these are mostly found through continuous experimentation and may elude the clutches of the developers upon testing. Nintendo did not intend for you to beat Super Mario 64 with 0 stars. It's there, but even though it's contained within the confines of the game, it cannot be considered the "realm of the game" because it's simply not the intended way.
But this is exactly what's wonderful about gaming. Because it's an interactive medium, you can expand the experience beyond its "realm". And I don't speak only of computer gaming either. Rules in sports and board gaming can be exploited to the player's benefit and new rules are created to either support or prohibit such actions, making the game evolve.
Cheating can be either internal or external. If a game provides its own cheats (most of which were originally developer's tools), why not use them to further the experience? Even though they're internal, they do not belong to the "realm of the game", as you are not originally intended to use them to beat it, but their use can support the creation of new strategies and game modes. External cheats, on the other hand, are generally frowned upon because you're really tampering with the game, but I believe that they could still be useful for testing and finding out new strategies which can then be used within the confines of the "realm".
Cheating will only lead to a loss if you care deeply and in a borderline paranoid way about the legitimacy of the game. Otherwise, cheaters would simply not care. It's only a loss to them when they feel it.
-
Cheating is wrong only in competitive environment but even when playing against others there are cheats that make the games more fun... Rareware games like Goldeneye 007 and Diddy Kong Racing usually had those. In DKR there was a cheat that made every balloon give a maxed out item, which was particularly useful in multiplayer because in the "battle" levels the items could only be upgraded to second stage (never third), and this cheat allowed you to bypass this restriction, which introduced a whole new level of strategy. Shields would last forever and the missiles you got were the 10x pack instead of the homing ones. The AI could destroy you with the 10x missile pack in seconds!
-
GTAIV is better than SA.
-
I'm thinking about finally getting into some horror games...
Now, it's not something native to where I live, but lots of people celebrate it anyway and, since many of the people I get in touch with online will celebrate it as they're from the US, I don't see why not.
-
I think my choice of word was really bad. "Subterfuge" does not mean what I wanted to say, probably. The word I was after is "technique". Trying to sound eloquent can backfire horribly.
The thing I wanted to say is that, love is not logical. That's what nice guys don't get. The reward theory can only exist if you believe love is the ultimate goal of a progressive road where you take each step forward to achieve it.
If love was logical, if I was always nice to a girl and never made any mistakes, the resulting outcome of my actions would be that the girl falls in love with me. The problem is that the logical outcome of being nice to others is NOT love. It is gratitude. (unless the person is an idiot to you) Real life is not The Sims!
Showing niceness to a person helps, but actual love is dependent on things completely out of control of both parties. Each person is different, so one girl can think you're awesome and another may ignore you completely. The catch is finding your match.
For me, love has always been a troublesome subject because I don't cope well with randomness and things outside my control. This is in any situation imaginable. I struggle badly with randomness.
Now, love isn't really truly random because the probability of me and Scarlett Johansson (for example) falling in love with each other is zero, but you get the idea. It's a problematic subject because we have almost no control over it.
-
Member "NekoKnight" gave me a sensible answer.
You don't really have to act like a dick. I would wholeheartedly agree with this feeling. But it's pretty difficult to keep social interaction with a person who rejected you, even when they might have been a good friend! This is something that time will show to you. Afer the rejection, it's better to keep your distance, perhaps?
I don't like the use of subterfuge to get a girl. Everytime I've tried so, I've failed. Best to be yourself and hope for the best. Many guys are falling for the trap of the "subterfuges". Pickup artists, they're called. Love is not exact science. Perhaps that's why it's so hard to me.
What I don't like is that the man becomes somewhat of a villain in this case. That's a bit unfortunate. A story has two sides, at least. That's what gets me.
It's hard to say whether the friendzone is a real concept because it relies on pure theory, that if your approach were different, you'd win the girl, and that's impossible to prove. I dunno, love is so random that something that works on one girl doesn't work on another. This is a much bigger discussion than we think!
The reason for my favorite character? Well she's the embodiment of my frustration! And in every ending she has, she learns that the Chrom she loved was a fiction and that her real love is the one she chose to be with. Some of them are harder to get along with than others, but she always manages it.
-
Ok, being too nice does not get you anywhere in the modern competitive world. I'm not speaking of relationships... I speak of everything.
That being said...
1) God forbid that a man uses "subterfuge" to court a woman... Like every other man in history. Just because it doesn't work on you, doesn't mean it's wrong.
2) God forbid that a man does not keep the relationship on the same level when rejected by a woman. He must smile and think it was great and keep being friends despite his body telling him otherwise and despite the pain he feels. Man up, you silly!
What I'm saying is that some women have completely unrealistic expectations when it comes to courting and acceptance, and now they're mixing this mess into a garbled form of feminism that tells men it's wrong to court women. No, I'm not going to talk to you the same way if you reject me. I will understand, but don't expect me to act the same. It may not have been your intention, but you've caused pain. That pain takes time to heal, and may never even heal. If you, as a woman, expect the guy to treat you the same way after you reject him, you're not understanding how he feels at all. As much as he will have to understand your rejection, so must you with regards to his distancing. That's what equality is.
And yes, this is only a major issue because it's men who are expected to make the move and the millenials love to bash everything associated with men and masculinity, as the friendzone as a concept can be very much applied to men rejecting women as well, and it hurts the same.
-
Trump failing to produce a valid rabies vaccination certificate is telling. Does Trump have rabies? Many people are saying he does.
This is very concerning!
In all seriousness this isn't at all unusual: McCain was compelled to let reporters comb through literally thousands of pages of medical records.
Wasn't that because McCain over 70 years old when in the race for President?
Anyway, I find the current race hilarious.
Trump loses voters over saying that Latino people are unwelcome or some random crap like that. Hillary loses votes over saying some stuff I don't remember that pissed off patriotic people and people with military background. This is not only true of the USA but the amount of babystepping you have to do in a presidential campaign has always been puzzling to me. Either side will exploit minimal mistakes to the fullest, AND PEOPLE FALL FOR IT!!! :D People decide their votes on it. It's amusing.
Not that Trump saying Latino people are unwanted is a "mistake", mind you. That's an absurd thing to say when there's plenty of Latino citizens in the USA. Yet its effect is less than Clinton tripping over some technicality that makes her lose votes. It's really weird IMO.
-
I imitate my favorite film and gaming quotes out loud.
-
Well, astrology is actually irrelevant to the thread... Rezzy brought it up only as an example.
Twins are born within minutes of each other and these minutes can mean some difference in astrological terms. Nevertheless, the differences between twins don't have any grounds in astrology, of course.
I think there could be a behavioral explanation but not necessarily related to the climate, especially because people react differently to it.
-
Diet = 70% of weight loss, maybe more.
Treadmill helps with your fitness, though.
-
My opinion is that it's Britain being Britain.
Or more England being England since Scotland and Northern Ireland voted massively for Remain, and Wales was almost evenly split.
They do this incredibly boneheaded move and complain about the stereotype when called on it. :D
-
Well the poster is supposed to depict Apocalypse as a terrifying villain. What would be more terrifying than him strangling a character we're supposed to be sympathetic towards?
Besides, if women want equality in comics, they should be expected to take a beating in the story from time to time, the same way male heroes do.
-
SJWs love to mistake strong friendships for romantic relationships. This "request" that the Cap come out is absolutely silly.
You'll notice that there's a push for turning characters into homosexual whenever they aren't firmly in the heterosexual camp, or when they have a troubled or non-existent romantic/sexual life. It's as if they needed to "convert" as many characters as possible to "strengthen" their cause. Why not leave them as they are? This way, everyone benefits and can fantasize about them without any guilt. Who cares if they're made "straight" by default by most fans, if characters are neutral then it's not a problem that it happens, as "straight" people are the majority, but at least it's not "set in stone" that the Cap or Elsa are straight.
This "hunt" for homosexuality is hilarious because it reminds me of Wertham trying to convince everyone that Batman and Robin were a homosexual couple in the 50s. Except Wertham was an extremely conservative fellow whose works did far more harm than good, as opposed to LGBT activists who I expect not to be so conservative.
-
does it matter if his voter base is "educated" lol
The bane of the intellectual's existence is that his vote is worth the same as the vote of the lowly, uneducated peasant. :D
-
Well...
Honestly, the description Jon gave of death itself was pretty lame IMO. How the fuck can you come back from the dead as "you" if you drowned in nothingness when killed, effectively becoming "nothing"? They tried to run away from the "I saw God" cliché, but ended up with something equally shitty and which did not make any sense.
I was actually wondering if Melisandre's spell worked. I didn't watch the last season finale, so I haven't watched the scene where Jon is stabbed to death, but in The Red Woman they gave clues that Jon's "death" might not have been as much of a death as implied.
I believe that Jon came back a little different from his "death", but they haven't shown "how" different yet.
I haven't read the books but I don't mind being spoiled by them if the explanation is there, so post away! :)
-
Clinton is beating Trump nationally in every poll except Rasmussen. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Electorally, Clinton also currently holds advantages in key states. http://electiongraphs.com/2016ec/
'Abysmally' does not seem like an accurate statement.
There is fresh poll that shows Clinton and Trump evenly matched.
-
You should produce what's more economically strategic. Thatcher's quote about food being the most strategic thing isn't really true anymore because food is one of the cheapest commodities and raw sources aren't worth much in the global market.
Energy is far more strategic than food. I can't help but think the push for renewable sources is a route Western governments want to take to kick the Middle Easterns out of their affairs. Without energy, you can't do anything, even produce food! I don't know what Trump's energetic policies are, but if he is one of those who sides with the oil companies, he'd be left in the past very quickly.
The jobs are lost to cheap labor in Asia and other places because that's how capitalism is. This cannot be changed and Trump would fail horribly at trying it. Labor might be more expensive for a matter as simple as the exchange rate; what'd you do, then, force your money to lose value and ruin the rest of your economy?
His speech of restoring glory is pure vapor, and the GOP knows it, that's why they've been trying to stop him at all costs.
-
governments grant rights, and governments also take away freedoms. the reason for their existence, i think, is to maintain safety by protecting granted rights from being taken by me from any other, and to maintain order by restricting freedoms that are deemed harmful to the public. this is why i support democracies, because democracies get to decide what's best for society (ideally), whereas in a purely hobbesian world a king would have final say in any matter. what the united states seem to not understand is that the more educated a populace, the better the democracy. since inception people have feared mob rule.
Yeah but at the very "core" of everything is safety. Everything else was fluff that Locke, Rousseau, etc. added because the monopoly of force alone does not protect the individual's integrity.
The hobbesian model (that is, how he felt safety should be endorsed) is no longer relevant, but the democracies as we know them today could only be realized through his concept of social contract. Everything that came after builds upon it.
-
A Government's job first and foremost isn't to keep people safe, it's to facilitate an environment where everyone is as free as possible. The Government does not grant the rights (literally nothing does), it exists as a means to achieving them.
Note that "free as possible" does not mean "doesn't do anything" because slight restrictions can be observed to increase overall freedom. We are overall more free in a world where you are legally required to get an education for example, as one's overall opportunties in life increase significantly when they have basic reading and writing skills. We are overall more free in a world where violent criminals are incarcerated, as such people restrict everyone else's freedoms.
I believe that making it a legal requirement to educate children means the Government neccessarily must be involved on some level in making sure those facilities are provided (especially to the poor) and maintain good standards. That is not to say the schools must be public services, but just that there is a vested interest. The same goes for healthcare, the Government should have an interest in making sure that everyone has access to Healthcare, because the overall freedom of society goes up if everyone has some kind of healthcare plan. Options are fine, but due to the wildly variable cost of medical treatment, having a publically funded body (even if it is not directly publically controlled) that shoulders the burden of more expensive treatment to me seems like a sensible solution, if only to the less privileged of society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
To summarise: "The poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish"
You can't be free if you're not safe.
But it's not a bad post at all, in fact, it's pretty much coherent throughout.
Climate Change
in Serious Discussion
Posted
Warmest winters and summers here in years, I guess I'll side with the scientists.