Messages

16

General Discussion / Re: Requiem for a Siege

« on: October 20, 2014, 02:16:40 am »

Because it's not just a matter of editing rotation, every single map in it has been edited and made with no deployable ladders in mind. For over 2 years now, imagine the work getting maps available for ladders again. A very tedious job only to get a feature back that is highly abusable. Roofs full of ranged are gone and they will not make a comeback.

all the siege maps are shit anyway, siege was best with the (mostly) native map rotation with ladders when it was still on the community server and not NA2

17

Spam / Re: the truth about anime

« on: October 18, 2014, 04:27:59 am »

ANIME CLAM!

18

General Discussion / Re: Upcoming "Revival" patch

« on: October 18, 2014, 04:16:01 am »

Cool.

19

... and all the other things floating around out there / Re: Dragon Age Inquisition

« on: October 15, 2014, 02:36:51 am »

For the price of GTX 780 you could get the GTX 970 wich performes slightly better but has much lower TDP  .

shiiiit

20

... and all the other things floating around out there / Re: Dragon Age Inquisition

« on: October 14, 2014, 02:38:43 am »

I just pre-ordered this and ordered a GTX 780 in preparation

21

... and all the other things floating around out there / Re: Old games that YOU think they deserve a remake or a modern sequel/prequel.

« on: September 14, 2014, 04:36:20 am »

Legends of the Dragoon

22

General Discussion / Re: Describe crpg with gifs

« on: August 19, 2014, 03:44:44 am »

When dudes in the community think one of your friends is a chick because their character is female and hit on them in chat.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

23

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 10:28:37 am »

This whole argument is absurd. When bilwit said "it's a form of non-violent protest" I for one assumed he was using the agreed upon English definitions, but apparently he was just making some sort of a philosophical statement -- so he's actually trying to argue against capitalism, not even talking about the current event.

Here, I'll try to spell it out for you as clearly as possible. The following is a list of items considered "property damage" to either most states or the feds (also listed sequentially escalating in degree). If you find that any one of these do not qualify as "violence" then we are already in agreement.

• homeless people living at a public park
• spray painting your initials outside a library wall
• turning a mailbox upside down
• keying someone's car
• throwing a brick into a bank's window
• lighting a car on fire

24

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 09:48:43 am »

It was a hypothetical. Obviously I can tell my boss some dude torched my car and I can't come in today or will be late. I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.

Is it a bad thing to torch my car if it is my means of transportation? Is that different from simply breaking the car windows?

If so then why?

Its not inherently bad or good but most people when they see their car torched see it as a bad thing simply because it was their car. The whole idea of owning that car thus depriving them of their possession.

I would think you'd be pissed if something happened to your car/house/computer/etc which would be hypocritical.

Most of this is gibberish but I brought up livelihood since you used it as a defense after xant brought it up. "no one's livelihood is endangered if a ceo's car is torched" well some people really would have a problem with that and would lose their livelihood (which is their job.. not their life)

You also ignored my skepticism of an act of aggression not being violent. Interesting.

You're straying really far away from the the violence versus non-violence argument but I'll entertain this. Is smashing up some random person's car for no particular reason "bad"? Uhh probably. Will someone be likely be upset afterward? Yes. Was it an act of violence? No, not particularly. Aggression can lead to violence as a consequence. If someone calls you a twat or scribbles on your book while you're reading it, are they being violent? No. However you could take this as an act of aggression and then punch him in the face, which would then be an act of violence.

25

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 09:22:14 am »

An act of aggression that isn't violent? skepticalhippo.jpg

But I see from your comment to xant that you don't believe in ownership. Or at least some very flimsy version of it.

Let me just propose a scenario to you and see how you respond.

If you burn my car and its my sole means of transportation to my job, you have destroyed my ability to get to my job. I get fired.

Is that a bad thing and would burning my car be a violent/bad act?

If so, why is that different from simply breaking my car windows? Is the sole way to justify it "well the livelihood of that person isn't endangered"?

That's a stretch and very narrow viewpoint. You can ride a bike, take public transportation, bum a ride from a friend or coworker, rent a car, etc and on top of that, you can tell your boss the situation and they should at least be lenient. Now you are arguing that violence == "bad" which is also a stretch. On top of this your job != your life anyway so the whole argument is void. Would you consider flirting with a coworker and being tagged for sexual harassment at the workplace an act of violence because you put your own "livelihood" in jeopardy? No, because if you get fired for any reason at any point you will still live on the next day and the day after that. Xant was the first person to bring up "livelihood" as a requirement which I don't agree with. Violence is strictly bodily harm.

The thing that really gets me with people like bilwit is that they are, without fail, complete and utter hypocrites. If someone walks up and breaks their computer for the lulz, you bet your berries they're not just going to sit there, smile and spout bromides about how ownership doesn't really exist.

And there it is with the namecalling again. Like I said, property damage can be an act of aggression that could potentially incite violence as a reaction, but it isn't an act of violence in of itself.

26

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 09:02:29 am »

Its not the first time I've heard it. I've heard it many times. Mostly from people who dispute ownership of things.

But if you break my window, you've done damage to my window. I must replace that window. It directly affects me. It is a violent act and to try and spin it as a rights thing is laughable.

You're telling me that if I break your car windows, you're not going to be pissed and think I did something violent to your car? Please.

So you're saying it's violent because you have to buy a new window? Sure it indirectly affects you, but it isn't violence. Act of aggression? Maybe. Violent? No.

27

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 09:00:41 am »

Putting aside definitions for a moment, let's explore your retardation a bit further.

If you think destroying people's livelihoods isn't likely to turn into what you seem to think is "real violence", then you are, once again, retarded. What happens when those people defend their property? Putting aside again the fact that if they don't and have no insurance or something screws up along the way, they're fucked... thanks to these "non violent protests."

So yeah, newsflash: you're clueless.

You can tell someone's panties are in a twist when they start personally attacking you as a means to try to argue a point. It's just a bad look, Xant.

Throwing a brick into Well's Fargo is not destroying anyone's livelihood. Setting a CEO's car on fire is not destroying anyone's livelihood. Smashing a window of your local coffee shop isn't even going to destroy anyone's livelihood so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. The concept of property is a complete farce anyway. You can possess something but you'll never truly own it.

28

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 08:47:29 am »

Sure it isn't. How is it not violent to break a window or property in general?

Companies not being people have nothing to do with what you originally said.

It's the same parallel. Windows aren't people or living beings, they don't have natural rights. Throwing a brick at a window or spray painting a wall is not violence. Is this seriously the first time you've heard of this argument? You guys should read a book sometime. The definition of violence extending from anything other than "bodily harm" is just 20th century capitalist bullshit.

29

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 08:30:48 am »

Breaking a window isn't violence, just like how companies aren't people.

30

General Off Topic / Re: Shooting and protests in Ferguson, Missouri

« on: August 16, 2014, 06:16:48 am »

"A protest"...

Did you miss the small detail that they're looting and burning shit down, and a lot of them have guns? Robbing a doughnut store sure shows them pou-lice what's what.

Property damage is still acts of non-violent protest, sorry.