Lurker > foolm0r0n

transience posted...

I wonder how much of the Battlefront 2 backlash is merely Star Wars fans being Star Wars fans

There were like a dozen games in 2017 with loot box backlash. BF2 backlash was definitely star wars mania.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

NFUN posted...

but, as fool said, it has potentially infinite potential due to its vast possible usefulness in the future

When did I say infinite? It definitely is not infinite. $100k is a soft ceiling and $1m is a hard ceiling for bitcoin. This means you can only really expect a 500% gain on current bitcoin investment. Other cryptos have far more potential if you just want to make money.

But beyond that, no one knows if bitcoin will remain the leader. Or Ethereum, Litecoin, whatever. You should always diversify and look out for new tech to keep diversifying into so that if one of them fails completely due to very real tech risks, then you're not completely lost.

That being said, bitcoin right now is representing blockchain tech as a whole. It's like the dotcom bubble where companies sitting on top of the internet failed but the internet was fine. Bitcoin is the internet right now, and the ICOs and forks are the scammy companies trying to cash in... but some are actually their own internet (Ethereum) and could win out overall. You just have to research and follow good tech and concepts, not hype.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

OliviaTremor posted...

I thought the movie was incredibly good. I really enjoy fan reactions that are pissed about the force projection as 'a made up ability'. Everything about the force is fucking made up. This isn't some Name of the Wind shit where there is science between how and when magic is used. Were these fans also pissed Luke didn't mention midichlorians in his training?

To be fair, made up magic can have an internal consistency that makes the magic way better in the story. ATLA bending for example, which I thought was ruined by that Korra S2 stuff. I'm not sure if the Force ever had that kind of consistency (definitely not after midichlorians) but it's a valid complaint if you think this movie ruined it. The Force use here seemed good though. It became more powerful in the right ways.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

We're just going in circles now since my question was essentially "why does this happen when it seemingly doesn't actually matter to most people?"

How is it going in circles? Everyone (except for you) recognizes some special value to human life, and everyone has their own moral structure for deciding when it is justified to take a life. That moral structure doesn't even come into play in most abortion arguments. What else is there to be confused about?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Basically they're saying they can't ban @POTUS
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

Then there's no inconsistency in your case I guess, as with foolmo. I still wouldn't feel good about imposing this kind of thing on people on the regular but my feelings on it are irrelevant.

I mean you SHOULD feel bad about invading my home and attaching yourself to my iron lung

But I agree with red that I still wouldn't kill you for it... it's honestly a pretty impressive feat so you deserve some charity for it

Also I am fine with first trimester abortion and also with kicking your deadbeat ass out of my house if you don't pay rent
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

Sure and yet those people are still fine with human death/denial of rights/etc in tons of other cases where the ambiguity of their life isn't even in question.

Yes but what I'm saying is that abortion arguments never even get to that level. They almost never get passed "is this bundle of cells a human or not". The argument earlier ITT definitely didn't.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

On an unrelated note if you need a roommate who doesn't pay anything and who you can't get rid of, hmu

Jian Yang?

Kenri posted...

I don't see anything wrong with arguing the morality of killing an apple? I wouldn't because who cares but knock yourself out.

Okay so your thinking if just fundamentally different from others so this whole argument can't really make sense to you.

But most people definitely see human life as a special distinction with very special rights and value and all that stuff. Therefore it's naturally very important when exactly a blob of cells becomes "human".
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Jakku was good but every other planet feels like there's just 1 thing on it
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

redrocket_pub posted...

Pregnancy is also a guranteed temporary condition

I think he was talking about parenthood too which is pretty permanent
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Okay so you see nothing wrong with arguing about the morality of killing an apple?

Everything you're saying seems to be stemming form the fact that you apply the same morals to humans as you do plants for some reason

Kenri posted...

Do you think the physical/mental/economic burdens pregnancy inflicts on a person, if inflicted by an unrelated adult in the exact same degree and instances, would justify self-defense?

I wouldn't find killing justifiable in that case but I'm more anti-violence than most
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

The EU has a ton of awesome stuff about lightsaber training and combat

It's all garbage nonsense in the movies though
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Also for anyone who played DDLC, Snoke is basically Monika.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Jeff Zero posted...

I love the straightforwardness of this post relative to the rest of the internet

Seems to be a very common kind of reaction though. It was okay.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

TheRock1525 posted...

That's what you said, though. 100% of arguments come down to whether you believe life begins at conception or not, when it doesn't necessarily. I would argue there's definitely options beyond those two.

Oh okay yeah I didn't mean to set it up like a binary option. A better way to say it is it comes down to when you believe life begins.

Kenri posted...

I don't think this is obvious at all, especially when talking about abortion.

Are there any abortion arguments about non-animals? I have never heard any or had anyone even go slightly in that direction, so I think it's pretty clear when we're talking about abortion that's it's about human life.

Kenri posted...

For example, under libertarian principles can't you use self-defense to protect yourself from non-lethal harm, protect your property, etc.?

Proportionality (which any libertarian with any credibility supports) requires a reasonably lethal threat to defend yourself with killing. Obviously that's subjective though and would be up to the decentralized court systems.

Kenri posted...

Tons and tons of people would say that there are cases where you can morally kill people without it being self-defense, especially if we include "I don't want to spend my resources on you even if you'll die as a result" as killing.

You're missing the point. When you talk about all the "cases where you can morally kill people" regarding abortion, you first have to acknowledge the fetus is a person. If you don't think the fetus is a person, then it's completely irrelevant to talk about the various moralities of killing people. It's like talking about killing an apple in self-defense.

And my whole point is that the core (pun intended) of any abortion argument is not the morality of killing people, but whether you're killing a person or an apple. Which is a dumb and pointless argument.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Vlado also was part of the movement that got the reddit CEO voted out and was extremely proud and self-congratulatory of that, but apparently it's impossible for that to happen

His memory is so short that he even forgot one of his proudest moments
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Vlado posted...

lmfao, imagine saying this with a straight face. Yeah, you can vote out a CEO, you just need to own a significant amount of shares in his company. Totally the same as presidential elections!

Are you talking to me again? Tail came out from between your shaking legs?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

I could finally date prepubescent girls without society judging me
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

It doesn't matter if it's a shifting time line. The point is that the moment you recognize the fetus is its own individual life, you find it immoral to kill it.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

I'm just really sad that Kylo isn't stronger.

Like, his whole character is supposed to be "ridiculously huge natural power level but a lack of discipline" - like Anakin but even moreso.

The fight against the red guards was awesome for this though. Kylo was obliterating multiple of them with really crazy forms. Rey struggled against just 1 or them.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

CaptainOfCrush posted...

I mean, TLJ Luke is the funniest Star Wars character in nine movies, so it doesn't seem that far fetched. He trolled as a Jedi master and literally the last member of his religion. Trolling as a ghost would be easy mode.

Yoda ghost trolled way harder already
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Was he trying to troll Kylo? Mission accomplished (got em good!), but how does that really affect Kylo long-term?

He had to give Kylo a major failure because the movie is about how holding on to the past causes you to fail (his hate of Luke)

So now Kylo doesn't have anything holding him back anymore
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Then you wouldn't support aborting a fetus after that point
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

VintageGin posted...

I still don't see how last mile affects this. The last mile regulations are just about what ISPs are required to offer other competitors. Without them, they wouldn't be required to share any existing infrastructure. So how exactly would the removal of last mile benefit small ISPs?

Last mile just refers to the part of the infrastructure that is the "last mile". That's where MOST of the infrastructure costs are, because you're digging around a city and underground and all that stuff. That's where new ISPs get blocked from coming into a city.

So that one regulation about sharing last mile infrastructure might be okay, but it's just one of many regulations that the FCC has control over via Title II which it can choose to enforce completely up to its own whim (which is not at all informed by democratic or market forces).

My whole point is that FCC controlling every single city and house in the country's wires from their 5-seat ivory tower undeniably dangerous and ridiculous. If you want those regulations which you think are beneficial, then do them at the state and local level and take the power away from the evil FCC. States are the ones who do the most cronyist monopoly deals with ISPs anyways if you look at the stats.

VintageGin posted...

I don't think anyone is arguing that having 5 guys on the FCC decide these regulations is the best system, only that it's better than the alternative of giving cable companies unregulated reign.

Which is dumb as hell since the status quo regulations end up with the major ISPs having wide-spread monopolies, which is the supposed worst-case scenario of the latter option.

We're already in the worst place possible. Why are you fighting so hard to keep things like they are?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Obviously I'm talking about human life, not sure why that's worth mentioning

Kenri posted...

(whenever they believe life begins -- it shouldn't matter to this hypothetical)

I dunno why you keep saying this when it directly answers your question. If a fetus is a human life then obviously you can't morally kill it, just like you can't morally kill any other human.

The exceptions are the same too, in the case of self-defense or something, it can be justified. Self-defense for a fetus meaning if it threatens the mother's life or something (rape/incest abortions also morally fall into the self-defense category I think, though it doesn't make much sense).
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Right because abortion arguments are always about the abstract general rule. When it comes to a specific individual case of abortion, two people who disagree in theory might very well agree on the morals of that case, once they look at all the info.

What I'm saying though is that people's idea of general rule is pretty much entirely decided by when they believe life begins (conception or birth or whatever).
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

try nazism
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Trezor should just be 100...
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Something I noticed which would've been cool is Rey was training with the lightsaber in a backhand grip so that could've been her style... but she ended up using it normally
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

That the episode she just watched is by far the peak of the series
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Jeff Zero posted...

If you think The Last Jedi won't be talked-about for years, let alone weeks, you're a better chef than gambling man

I guess I need to read the topic to see what people are talking about but nothing jumped out at me
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

LeonhartFour posted...

this is foolmo's "thing" now

holy shit you fucking got me oh my god that was epic
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

I don't think there are many people who care about life - even specifically human life - in this abstract, self-sacrificing way you seem to be describing.

You're wrong then. Basically everyone cares about life, especially in the abstract/theoretical sense. In concrete examples they can pretty easily forget the value of life though.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

The only criticisms of TFA were that it copied episode 4 too much, and some dumb people calling Rey a mary sue because they don't understand basic power inflation. That's about the most positive kind of criticism a movie could have. No one found it bad or half baked. Everyone was talking about it for weeks afterward, theorizing. It also held up to the insane hype for a new Star Wars.

This one definitely was half baked. There's like nothing to talk about. Just waiting for the next one...
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Also I'm amazed that Phasma had basically equal screentime as in Force Awakens, first shown 2 hours into the movie. Wasn't she supposed to be a major character in this one? I guess that explains why the actor always seemed uncomfortable in talk show interviews about how she's "this really cool important star wars character".
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

ZenOfThunder posted...

But the point didn't add much to the movie overall, probably could have been cut for time

That's most of the movie
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Nanis23 posted...

Ray scene in that dark hole was pointless

It was her finding out that her parents were nobodies and she was alone
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Tag

It was a long movie but nothing really happened. Really wish there was more character development. Rey and Ren are basically at the same place they were at the end of 7, just with more resolve or whatever.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

That my beliefs/argument depend on when life begins.

I don't even think it's a meaningful category or relevant, really.

Ok so given that you value life, it depends on when life begins. If you don't care about life then it's also a moot argument because of course you're just gonna go with whatever your judgment is. Can't argue any morals there.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

SmartMuffin posted...

feminists are a lot sluttier tho

Come on don't you want to see how many girls you can wait until marriage with

Consummation with God as your witness mmmmmMMMMmmm
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Kenri posted...

this actually is not true of me at all and I can't figure out why it would be for libertarians who don't believe in a general imperative to care for others, either

What's not true of you?
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

This blocks death threats, doxxing, and child porn. How can anti-SJWs possibly support it? That's so limiting
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Phone as usual....
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

100% of abortion arguments come down to whether you believe life begins at conception or not, and this one is no different. You can't convince anyone one way or the other with that so it's pointless to argue about it.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

He's prob not reading the topic anymore but
VintageGin posted...

I actually couldn't find any good examples of this, which is why I asked. Maybe I wasn't searching for the right things.

This article is badly written but it pulls together a good amount of examples, and sources for how fees and regulations multiply the cost of building a local network way more than it should be
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

What the article is missing is that the FCC does have ultimate control over the city's internet regulations, under Title II. This is seen in places where the FCC forced cities to change their limits and last mile policies (ex: https://gizmodo.com/fcc-just-overruled-the-state-laws-that-blocked-municipa-1688200941) in certain cases (lobbying). That is what everyone wanted with Title II and for some reason they never thought about how just 5 dudes at the FCC having power over all this stuff could ever be a bad idea. Even after the net neutrality vote no one thinks the problem is that there's just 5 dudes in control, just that those dudes don't agree with them.
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

banananor posted...

You can vote out a us president/senator/etc

Why haven't you voted Trump out then you monster

also you can vote out CEOs, that's literally the whole point of a public company
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

hockeydude15 posted...

Never? For the standard reasons why online shooters can't have crossplay.

Literally no one who plays pubg can aim though so it would be fine
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

They would probably be posting about anime girls and shit
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

They just want it to be expensive and annoying for the government. They don't care about the morality of eminent domain either way.

i.e. they specifically only oppose the wall, not all eminent domain
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4

Buying some land apparently makes a super socialist company libertarian, and defending bodily rights makes a libertarian socialist. Talk about derangement...
---

_foolmo_
2 + 2 = 4