TheCzarsHussar Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Good Doctor said: How’s the story so far? Its actually pretty good, Henry is a dork but rather likeable. I'm not too far into it yet but well out of the tutorial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Terydacyl has been here for 9 months... he graduated, but had a fractured hip so he had to stay until he got off profile, now he’s trying to get his Airborne physical done so he can go to Airborne and this happened lol. Fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celan Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, The Good Doctor said: That is a popular belief? None of us are saying that gun control literally caused the holocaust. We’re saying that it was a component of the regime’s plans to make it go over so terrifyingly smoothly. Even if the minorities of Germany being armed wouldn’t have been enough to stop what was happening, I doubt you could’ve found a single one who wouldn’t have preferred to have been armed. The limited but very significant moral victory of the Jewish resistance in Warsaw illustrates why it was important. Hitler had declared that Jews and Poles were weak and wanted German rule. The fact that a few of them decided to fight back, with arms from the Polish Home Army (who also were skeptical of the Jews having arms at first), struck a blow to Hitler's notion of Aryan supremacy. Of course this ultimately wasn't successful militarily. In the US, there is an implied classism to calls for stricter gun control. The rich will always be able to afford the license fees and taxes, they'll be able to have armed security, and the poor will go to jail so that the rich can feel some symbolic victory for "doing something about guns." It would be the same thing as the war on drugs. Already it costs quite a lot to get a concealed carry permit in some states. The interesting thing about open carry is that it reveals that gun control still has a racist nature. Edited February 15, 2018 by Celan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCzarsHussar Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Holy shit, ten outta ten. Game of the Year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celan Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 (edited) Would like to add that it's nice to finally have a thoughtful discussion on the subject, instead of the screeching on social media. Changing gears... Oh sheeeeet. Sort of a PoE 1 spoiler... Edited February 15, 2018 by Celan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Good Doctor Posted February 15, 2018 Author Share Posted February 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Celan said: Oh sheeeeet. Sort of a PoE 1 spoiler... What an awesome cross-game reference! * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTC Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 13 minutes ago, Celan said: The limited but very significant moral victory of the Jewish resistance in Warsaw illustrates why it was important. Hitler had declared that Jews and Poles were weak and wanted German rule. The fact that a few of them decided to fight back, with arms from the Polish Home Army (who also were skeptical of the Jews having arms at first), struck a blow to Hitler's notion of Aryan supremacy. Of course this ultimately wasn't successful militarily. It was indeed a moral victory for those in Warsaw, but it also likely resulted in faster liquidation of the ghettos for fear of more uprisings. Of course, something similar can be said about compliance, because the most compliant ghettos were still liquidated, just after the ones that resisted more. The most unfortunate thing about the Holocaust is that neither answer was right, and ultimately the result was the same. Neither resistance nor compliance would ultimately save them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celan Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 I don't know about any of you, but I'd rather stand up and die than roll over and live a few extra hours. Not that I'd ever make that choice for anyone else. But neither will someone make it for me. America's founders were responding to a specific threat, one they had experienced in England and which is the same one as the Hitler example which is why it's valid- the notion that only a ruling elite deserves to be able to defend their lives and property. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTC Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Sure, I think most of us would. But most people don’t have the same history of oppression that the Jews in Europe had, and that history informed why some of them complied. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t so easy a choice for them, and that doing so had unforeseen consequences. It was neither right or wrong for them to resist or comply, it unfortunately just was, and none of them could really have known that both paths would lead to the same endpoint. 20 minutes ago, Celan said: the notion that only a ruling elite deserves to be able to defend their lives and property. I think this is already present in America, though, from the way the poor are more adversely affect by things like the Flint water crisis and healthcare being privatized. The problem is many people who might make the same argument you did, that gun control would adversely effect the poor, don’t recognize or don’t care about the many other things that adversely affect the poor in America. It’s selective, from both sides obviously. Neither party really cares about anyone other than their donors. Agree or disagree with his politics, but it’s why I wanted Sanders to get the nomination over Clinton. He’s been preaching the same stuff his whole life and wasn’t beholden to corporate interest, and his policies would’ve benefited the poor more than the rich, I thought. It’s why I believe in a stronger social safety net and certain industries being nationalized, because otherwise we perpetuate inequality and the poor stay poor while the rich don’t have to worry about education or healthcare or being put out on the street. Without things like that it’s difficult to argue everyone has the same chances to succeed, when clearly some are born with a leg up on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelKillaBee Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 54 minutes ago, Celan said: The limited but very significant moral victory of the Jewish resistance in Warsaw illustrates why it was important. Hitler had declared that Jews and Poles were weak and wanted German rule. The fact that a few of them decided to fight back, with arms from the Polish Home Army (who also were skeptical of the Jews having arms at first), struck a blow to Hitler's notion of Aryan supremacy. Of course this ultimately wasn't successful militarily. In the US, there is an implied classism to calls for stricter gun control. The rich will always be able to afford the license fees and taxes, they'll be able to have armed security, and the poor will go to jail so that the rich can feel some symbolic victory for "doing something about guns." It would be the same thing as the war on drugs. Already it costs quite a lot to get a concealed carry permit in some states. The interesting thing about open carry is that it reveals that gun control still has a racist nature. Hide contents That videos why I’d never do that shit "Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBossBalrog Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 3 hours ago, TheCzarsHussar said: Its actually pretty good, Henry is a dork but rather likeable. I'm not too far into it yet but well out of the tutorial. This is the understatement of the year. After beating up the town drunk, Henry goes off to cry to his mother. He's likable and sweet, but the guy is a complete loser. The game though...is unlike anything i've played. The only way I would describe it is New Vegas with swords. It's the first real RPG in a lonnnggg while. The quests are REALLLY good and you can solve them in a rather large amount of ways. Your stats matter. The Medieval World is super immersive as well. It's kinda buggy and a little janky though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelKillaBee Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 You’d like divinity 2 then "Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBossBalrog Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 1 minute ago, ColonelKillaBee said: You’d like divinity 2 then Isn't that the one we're you bang skeleton prostitutes? LOL maybe in a couple months. I have five games sitting in my backlog. Not going to buy anything else until I finish all of them! The cool thing about Kingdom Come is there's zero fantasy. Very fresh and unique setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCzarsHussar Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 11 minutes ago, BigBossBalrog said: This is the understatement of the year. After beating up the town drunk, Henry goes off to cry to his mother. He's likable and sweet, but the guy is a complete loser. The game though...is unlike anything i've played. The only way I would describe it is New Vegas with swords. It's the first real RPG in a lonnnggg while. The quests are REALLLY good and you can solve them in a rather large amount of ways. Your stats matter. The Medieval World is super immersive as well. It's kinda buggy and a little janky though. Im having such a love-hate relationship with this game, on one hand it shackles you by allows 99.99% of enemies to be at the very least superior combatants then Henry despite leveling up very well in combat skills. The game locks combos, master stokes and even dodging behind story progression+perks while the majority of enemies even lowly bandits have them unlocked. Its the most frustrating experience, I know for a fact it will get better when the game allows Henry to not suck some serious balls but for now I love-hate it. Henry needs to git gud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelKillaBee Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 12 minutes ago, BigBossBalrog said: Isn't that the one we're you bang skeleton prostitutes? LOL maybe in a couple months. I have five games sitting in my backlog. Not going to buy anything else until I finish all of them! The cool thing about Kingdom Come is there's zero fantasy. Very fresh and unique setting. I heard you can bang one of the followers who’s an ancient, and immortal... but I can’t confirm and never will. This is who I’m virtually smashing: "Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelKillaBee Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 If you do get it, I’ll start a campaign with you. It’s got excellent co op. Remember how I said I want an rpg with excellent open ended stories and has a co op element that doesn’t take away from the quality? Yo. "Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celan Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 30 minutes ago, BTCollins said: I think this is already present in America, though, from the way the poor are more adversely affect by things like the Flint water crisis and healthcare being privatized. The problem is many people who might make the same argument you did, that gun control would adversely effect the poor, don’t recognize or don’t care about the many other things that adversely affect the poor in America. It’s selective, from both sides obviously. Neither party really cares about anyone other than their donors. Agree or disagree with his politics, but it’s why I wanted Sanders to get the nomination over Clinton. He’s been preaching the same stuff his whole life and wasn’t beholden to corporate interest, and his policies would’ve benefited the poor more than the rich, I thought. It’s why I believe in a stronger social safety net and certain industries being nationalized, because otherwise we perpetuate inequality and the poor stay poor while the rich don’t have to worry about education or healthcare or being put out on the street. Without things like that it’s difficult to argue everyone has the same chances to succeed, when clearly some are born with a leg up on others. Now we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about basic human rights, the sovereignty of the individual, not a broad social egalitarianism. The right to speech, assembly, due process, private property and yes, self defense. And not even that these things must be secured, only that the government can't infringe on them. It's up to the individual to exercise their own rights, the only thing the state must do is get out of the way. I want no part of social egalitarianism. That's totalitarianism that pretends to be benign. It boggles me that the same people who advocate a massive social state also complain about the police and surveillance state, as if those things aren't connected. I liked Bernie for standing up to the Clinton machine, but he doesn't tell the truth about his policies, so he's just like the rest of them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTC Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Except, you know, access to healthcare is just as fundamental a part to someone’s right to life as is their right to self defense. Whether you believe humans determine rights or God does, there’s not something innate in the right to self-defense that isn’t in the right to healthcare. It’s about the ability to live your life as an individual not be beholden to your social status or race or anything else. In this day and age our ability to meet the needs of all of humanity has grown to the point where we can and should meet the basic needs of each other. We’re at the point where we can and should have a right to healthcare and housing and education, and it is not totalitarian to think that at all. Nowhere did I say that requires any type of subservience or total state control, and it wouldn’t. If we stop thinking we’re exceptional or special, we can look at other countries and see that they’ve done this without the state dictating their lives. And honestly, we have a massive police and surveillance state without being anywhere near what I would call socially egalitarian. And that didn’t come from people who advocate for ‘social egalitarianism’ either. It came from those who served corporate interests above the interests of the country, and involved us in a forever war in the Middle East. I’m talking Bush and Obama, not just one or the other. Call me idealistic or delusional but I think we can and should evolve our understanding of basic human rights as our ability to meet the needs of humanity increases. And I want no part of individualism that is self-centered and callous. Our lives are too short to not care about each other, and it doesn’t fit my personal morals at all. But this is the internet and no one is changing their minds and I’ve got papers to grade so I think I’m done with politics for today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 Eyyy I have a new post in TES. It introduces Aetius. 1 Fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celan Posted February 15, 2018 Share Posted February 15, 2018 6 minutes ago, BTCollins said: Except, you know, access to healthcare is just as fundamental a part to someone’s right to life as is their right to self defense. No, it's not. For one thing, you don't have a "right" to a doctor or nurse's labor, for example. That right there illustrates the difference. Individualism isn't self centered or callous. The only difference is whether concern for your fellow human being should be enforced at the butt end of the government's many, many guns. I don't find any particular virtue or enlightenment in that kind of "compassion." I do agree Bush and Obama are two sides of the same coin. Was just saying that to Colonel today, have always said it. And agreed, there's never an end to it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelKillaBee Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 And I still don’t see that personally. Bush wasn’t very intelligent. I may not agree with Obama or like him but he’s not stupid. Obama and Reagan however are actually very similar. Ronald and Obama are both practically worshipped by their respective parties. Guarantee democrats will be putting his name on mountains first chance they get, just like Reagan. Obama and Reagan both helped bring in illegal immigrants, and both were known for saving prisoners by making deals with terrorists or would be terrorists. "Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Bush Jr wasn't stupid, either. He was very well read. Our media likes to portray any Republican as stoopid. They're similar because they're both ideologues who insulated themselves with yes men and didn't try to actually solve problems, rather enacted their respective ideologies. Bush was big on social entitlements- the biggest expansion of those before Obamacare was Medicare Part D. Their main difference was in approach to foreign policy but both of them left foreign policy disasters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelKillaBee Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Haha I think we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on that dude’s intelligence. At most I will say the media does try to portray republicans as dumb asses. They ain’t always wrong though. edit: and of course I know it ain’t just them. "Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celan Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 (edited) Bush adopted a folksy way of talking, that's all. So did Obama, he just used the black preacher voice instead of the hayseed variety. Bush Jr never struck me as unintelligent or "incurious," as the idiot press used to call him. On the contrary, he had a very clear idea of what he wanted to do and that's what he did, hell or high water. ( <-- I don't say that as a compliment) Edited February 16, 2018 by Celan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelKillaBee Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 I don’t honestly think Bush did much of anything really besides do what he was told... Cheney was the real head behind his presidency. He’s who I blame for Iraq. "Even the hardest dick must go flaccid." -Colonelkillabee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts