Messages

1

Games / Re: Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas

« on: November 05, 2016, 04:10:24 PM »

New Vegas without a doubt. If you're running a windows 10 machine, get the NVAC Beta. It'll fix the crash at the beginning of the game.

2

Off Topic / Re: real talk: is abortion okay in normal circumstances?

« on: March 12, 2016, 12:20:27 AM »

Honestly, I find the exceptions less logical than no abortion at all. With the abortion is murder argument, if exceptions are included, then murder is alright if it was rape or incest. Logically, its a little silly.

3

Off Topic / Re: #TheTriggering is the #1 trending hashtag on Twitter...

« on: March 10, 2016, 11:46:34 PM »

I'm a little late but frankly, as a incredibly liberal person, I felt the need to respond.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

So wait, an unlead hashtag can coordinate harassment as the vast majority, but the vast majority of  feminists are not SJWs? Obviously, both of these are ridiculous arguments, but the double standard is ridiculous within your statements.

"tribal" not true, reverse racism does not exist
"attention seeker" that may be true
"basket case" is an ableist term.i think the exact opposite. i think that they should be equal, but sadly, men have more privilege/power. way to misinterpret my point

You're right, reverse racism does not exist. Its just loving racism.
Also, you fail to realize some basic sociological concepts. EVERYONE HAS PRIVILEGE, in some way or another at least. Just because the potential for privilege is there does not mean that the privilege manifests, and for that reason, privilege is a useless point unless otherwise proven.

racism =/= prejudice

Wrong again with sociological concepts. All racism is backed by prejudice, but the whole power + prejudice = racism stuff is bs. That form is institutional racism. You're still a tribal, just not an institutional one.

Watch the film "Dear White People," it sums it up neatly.

That movie is satirical lmao

4

Off Topic / Re: anyone know how to get mud off of white shoes

« on: December 30, 2015, 03:18:26 PM »

I bought these for only $25, and let me tell you something... they're more stylish than those stupid little Converses.

nothing black is stylish


kappa

5

Off Topic / Re: Who will you vote for the 2016 presidential election?

« on: December 15, 2015, 06:27:42 PM »

Sanders will be unable to do anything that he wants if Congress stays as a republican majority.

Sanders' economic ideas themselves are also unsound. The way he thinks he can do everything is basically create these massive welfare, healthcare, and college loan reform initiatives and just take the money away from the rich to pay for them.

You don't take (too much) money away from the bloody rich. What stops them from moving the HQ out of the US and just moving? You can't take their green, or it won't trickle down. Same thing for raising minimum wage - people will HAVE to get fired and human work will be too expensive that people will just start looking at automation for making your hamburger. You can't raise the prices of fast food and expect profits to go up - people don't want to pay 58 bucks for a Big Mac. This is simple economics.

Trickle-down economics doesnt work.

My decision of who to vote for currently is between Ben Carson and Donald Annoying Orange, though I don't like Carson because he's super weak and soft-spoken, and I strongly object to Donald Annoying Orange's plans to monitor/spy on US citizens based on their religious affiliation (he wants to create a spying/monitoring system on muslim american citizens from what i've heard), as that's a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.

Both are god awful imo. Annoying Orange is a tribal warmonger, and Carson is an evangelist

Even if I agreed with Hillary's stances more, I'd still vote Bernie. She's utterly unconvincing in argument. She refuses to choose a stance and skates issues pathetically.

I agree. Bernie also feels more like a real person who cares about what he says. Hilary feels robotic. Plus, Hilary is heavily pro-war iirc.

6

Off Topic / Re: "Political Compass" test

« on: December 15, 2015, 06:08:38 PM »

damn im left tho

7

Games / Re: Games were armor is an actual object?

« on: December 15, 2015, 05:04:13 PM »

DUCK GAMEEEEE

8

Off Topic / Re: 11 Injured, 3 dead in Colorado abortion clinic shooting, gunman arrested

« on: November 30, 2015, 11:27:35 AM »

The title is misleading. Abortions are 10% or less than what Planned Parenthood actually does.

9

Games / Re: [MEGATHREAD] Fallout 4

« on: November 15, 2015, 12:19:01 PM »

Still no hardcore mode?

You figure Bethesda would add it in since it was a popular mod with Fallout 3 and Skyrim and it became a popular mode in New Vegas. Guess Bethesda don't know what their fans want.

They added in some of its elements, like stimpaks healing over time.
Plus the game is much harder than previous ones in my experience.

10

Games / Re: [MEGATHREAD] Fallout 4

« on: November 15, 2015, 12:12:39 PM »

I had to fight the deathclaw from up there on Survival. Literally used up like 90% of my total bullets killing that thing.

Oh god, survival is so good when you go down. It literally took me about 20 minutes to kill him. He is scripted really interestingly, like if you go somewhere he cannot, he will run through alleys and hide. It provides this sense that he is a killing machine and he is trying to outsmart you.

11

Games / Re: Is Black Ops 3 any good?

« on: November 15, 2015, 12:10:59 PM »

From what I've played, Multiplayer is far superior to Ghosts and AW, but not as good as BO2. That may be my intense love and the fact that I was pretty good at it, but BO2 is still the best in recent memory.

12

Off Topic / Re: gun control

« on: October 25, 2015, 05:32:13 PM »

vague wording aside, my point was that by constitutional law, a militia** would be able to rebel against the government.

Sure, but that isn't an argument against gun control. A militia should be able to rebel. Would it be effective? Probably not, but the ability should be there.

13

Off Topic / Re: gun control

« on: October 25, 2015, 12:25:57 AM »

It's not like that, though, it's "Well regulated militias will keep the government in check; the right to own guns will not be infringed."
You're arguing that "it's not cherry-picking when it's half the sentence" while simultaneously cutting off the other half of the sentence

The problem with that is that "Well regulated militias" affects the meaning of "the right to own guns will not be infringed.
Moreover, within the last century, we have started treating it like what many think it means now. i.e. right to bear arms for all people. Before that, we treated it as having the right only for militia use

"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."

For instance, if the sentence were to mean that all people had the right to keep and bear arms, it would just use " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Because it includes ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,." it is highly likely that this is meant to change the overall meaning of  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is the product of age old colonialism and modern day globalism. It's true it is advanced, but's not the only high tech army out there.

However as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, drones are pretty ineffective against low tech asymmetrical forces. We've been fighting the Taliban since 2001 and we are in 2015 and the Taliban is still around. Obama even said we are expected to be there until 2017. Drones only carry two small hellfire missiles.

In Vietnam we tried bombing North Vietnam into the stone age. All north Vietnam had was Hanoi which was a just a small shanty concrete city with no electricity, and tons of bamboo villages. Tons of B-52s droppings many bombs, blowing miles of jungle, and we still didn't achieve anything. South fell to communism despite the effort of our big and vast high tech air force at the time.

Heck the North had the Support China and Russia. Look at the FSA and the Kurds fighting today. We don't like Assad, we give Assads enemies weapons. If a civil war broke out in the US today, Russia, China, and whoever doesn't like the US would immediately start funneling weapons over the rebels side to win them over in hopes of establishing a puppet regime. There are plenty of times in the cold war to show where this has happened.

That is a good point, though it is possible that nuclear warfare could break out due to the resulting conflict. Either you defeat the government and are a puppet regime, or you get nuked by either the US/ one of the US's enemies.

14

Off Topic / Re: gun control

« on: October 24, 2015, 11:41:49 PM »

There's a lot of debate on that on the whole gunshow thing. Many will point out that is indeed a myth. What I do know is that there are plenty of states that require by law that a background check be performed and transactions be documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole Yeah, I am reading about it again. 18 states + DC require checks.

15

Off Topic / Re: gun control

« on: October 24, 2015, 11:28:56 PM »

It's much, much harder to create guns than drugs. Criminals are most likely getting them from legal gun stores, not some dealer guy in an alleyway. Making private gun manufacturers and not giving them to easily accessible stores would prevent nearly any unauthorized civilians having guns.

Actually, IIRC, gun shows can literally just give guns without checks. Could be wrong, but it is incredibly easy to get guns.