Lurker > darkknight109

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Would you prefer that the children be incarcerated with the adults, any of whom could be a dangerous criminal?

Nice false dichotomy you've got there.

ssj4supervegeta posted...

Yeah, it's weird to separate kids from abusive parents and people who are just trafficking them.

Clearly these are the only two types of people coming over the border. Literally no one could have any reason for bringing a kid over the border except for these two circumstances.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The highest office in Islam I'm aware of is "Grand Mufti", but I freely admit I'm far from an authority on the subject.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

It's pretty impressive when the leader of a free country can fuck up hard enough that the freaking pope takes time out of his day to single out the assholery.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

The prequels were not just tremendously awful movies (Episodes II and III in particular), but they were supposed to be - and easily could have been - incredible.

There really is no other choice here. You can say have the opinion that other movies were worse, but objectively there really is no topping the prequels for how hyped they were and how badly they fell short of the mark.

I'm a little surprised that you put more emphasis on II and III, given that I squandered so much of its run time.

No argument that TPM was a complete waste of time - you could skip Episode I altogether and you wouldn't have missed any important plot points - but of the three it was, in my opinion, the most enjoyable of the bunch (not that that's a particularly high standard to reach). Liam Neeson anchored the cast and provided a much stronger central character than Hayden Christiensen could manage in the two sequels (Neeson's acting chops showed here, as he managed to take a completely flat and uninteresting character and still pull a half-decent performance out of bad writing).

The plot is nonsensical and logically inconsistent, but not nearly to the degree of Episode II, and its pacing isn't mangled to all hell like Episode III. It lacks the downright putrescent cringey-romance scenes that took up far too much time in its successors and the final battle is more coherent than anything the other two movies could manage. And while I know this is not a widely shared opinion, I think that Jar Jar Binks and the podracing sequence aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be.

Of the three prequels, Episode I is the only one that I would ever bother watching again. I don't think I would ever willingly pick it as my movie of the evening, but if someone else wanted to watch it (my Dad has a soft spot for the movie, so when I'm visiting he occasionally decides he's in the mood for a viewing) I'll watch it.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The prequels were not just tremendously awful movies (Episodes II and III in particular), but they were supposed to be - and easily could have been - incredible.

There really is no other choice here. You can say have the opinion that other movies were worse, but objectively there really is no topping the prequels for how hyped they were and how badly they fell short of the mark.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Probably Crono.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

zebatov posted...

He just doesn't have any moves of his own aside from paw swipes.

Link was my favourite because they used all of her moves.

zebatov posted...

Yeah he can't enter his backpack.

Somebody never played Banjo Tooie
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I hear Daedra worship has become increasingly prevalent in the Summerset Isle.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

adjl posted...

I'm not really sure why people are so bent on insisting this one's a port. It's an engine rewrite with improved graphics and a few new characters, stages, and items. That's all Smash sequels have ever been

That's pretty much all fighting game sequels ever are.

I mean, Mortal Kombat 10 is, at its core, the exact same game as Mortal Kombat 1. Yes, combat is now much smoother, there are some new mechanics, the roster is bigger, but at the end of the day you're still pressing back-back-low punch to toss a spear at some dude and get him over here.

Yeah, every new entry tweaks things and adds a few bells and whistles - much like Smash Ultimate is doing - but rare is the fighting game that rebuilds itself from the ground up every sequel.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

zebatov posted...

darkknight109 posted...

None of the quests after the "entry exam" require you to cast any spells whatsoever.

Even if I were to join the College of WInterhold itself? (Not that I would, I just have to get inside there for another quest.)

See previous comment. Once you're in (which I recall requires casting one spell, but someone above said you can bypass that requirement with high speech), you never need to cast another spell. You can become the head of the College without ever using magic again.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

None of the quests after the "entry exam" require you to cast any spells whatsoever.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Obama and Clinton caved and gave him resources when it was obviously their typical ploy to get things they temporarily need. Once they got what they needed there was no need to uphold a bargain.

And what do you think this is? Do you seriously not see the game being played here?

Ask yourself this: why is North Korea doing this? Kim Jong Un has spent the better part of the last decade pouring tonnes of resources into developing nuclear weapons. He's conducted nuclear tests and rocket launches in flagrant violation of previous agreements. He's resisted every sanction thrown at him and even managed to alienate China, North Korea's one real ally. He's rebuffed all previous offers at negotiation, saying that nuclear arms are North Korea's birthright.

Then, in January, he suddenly turns around and says "Just kidding! We'll totally get rid of our nukes, let's have a sit-down chat, shall we?"

The question is why. Why would Kim, after a decade of belligerence and intransigence, suddenly be willing to put on a friendly face and negotiate? It's not like he was forced into it; his regime isn't facing any existential threats, nor had Trump taken an appreciably different tack with him than previous presidents (overly bellicose rhetoric aside), so nothing in that area has changed.

It's not hard to figure out the calculus here. Kim has what he wants. He's developed the nuclear weapons he needs to secure his grip on power (and no, it'll be a cold day in hell before he gets rid of them willingly). Now he needs sanctions relief. So he puts on appearances, launches the charm offensive, and pinky-swears that he'll give up these nukes that he's spent all this time, money, and effort into developing.

And it worked. Trump took the bait and, in recognition of the successful summit, China has said they're dropping all their sanctions. Kim got the relief he needed for his country. He'll milk this along for as much as he can (and if he can extract concessions from China and Russia for getting the Americans off of the peninsula, he'll do so) but he has absolutely no reason to give up his nuclear ambitions. After all, consider that America was helping support the overthrow of multiple dictators that gave up their nuclear ambitions (Hussein, Gadaffi) and that Trump just demonstrated that the US is willing to tear up nuclear arms control agreements, entered into in good faith and to which all parties are adhering, simply because the current president doesn't like it. A nuclear agreement with America means nothing these days and Kim would be a fool to trust in it.

OhhhJa posted...

With this deal, we actually gain money back that we were spending on being stationed there.

At the cost of basically ceding increasingly dwindling influence in east Asia to China, sure.

OhhhJa posted...

Are you that bad at math?

Not as bad as you are at geopolitics, apparently.

OhhhJa posted...

And on top of that, part of the deal was that we will be putting troops right back if terms are not agreed upon.

And you're not concerned about the military reps who have sounded alarm bells about lack of operational readiness given that the joint military exercises are being halted?

Pardon me for doubting your military knowledge, but I trust their word over yours.

OhhhJa posted...

This time we gave them nothing except the promise of keeping our troops out IF they hold up their end.

You also left out "an end to sanctions", which is North Korea's far bigger win here.

You don't think it was coincidence that Kim met twice with the Chinese President just before his meeting with Trump, do you?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah but we actually gave something in return this time.

In other words, Trump paid more and got less than everyone else who's been in his position in the past.

Winning!

(actually, even that's probably giving him too much credit, given that it was South Korea that secured the agreement with North Korea first; Kim just restated it for his agreement with Trump).

OhhhJa posted...

Of course a deal won't stand if you offer nothing in return.

Things like food or financial aid or light water reactors?

Again, you don't know history if you think that previous administrations offered nothing in return for denuclearization.

OhhhJa posted...

So clearly you read a wapo article since that's what they're harping on. But in agree that the deal should be more specific in regards to steps toward denuclearization

Ha ha ha!! I love this! "You've clearly been reading this horrible rag that I hate, even though I agree they're completely correct."
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

joemodda posted...

People getting triggered by what Trump has to say.

What else is new?

...Oh, he just denuclearized North Korea? That fucking BIGOT

By that standard, you know who else denuclearized North Korea? Bill Clinton. And Barack Obama. And George W. Bush, who managed to do it twice.

This is the infuriating part about this. North Korea hasn't even agreed with the US definition of "denuclearization", they've committed to nothing except extremely vague promises that they already made with South Korea, and their nuclear arsenal is no smaller today than it was before Trump visited, yet Trump supporters are acting like Trump just went in and personally oversaw the destruction of every last ounce of fissile material on North Korean soil.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

quigonzel posted...

I'm a bit confused. A little less than a year ago, everyone was outraged that Trump was goading Kim Jong Un into a nuclear war but now we're supposed to be outraged that he's playing nice to speed along negotiations?

darkknight109 posted...

There's a rather significant middle ground between "being a dick to someone" and "pretending they are the greatest person to ever live".

MacrossSpecial posted...

I am by no means a fan of Trump but recognizing and practically fellatating Kim seems to be the last ditch effort and only choice we have left.

How is it the only choice left? Again, the US is holding all the cards here. It's not like North Korea has America backed into a corner; if this entire conference never happened, life would go on.

And lest my words get taken out of context, I'm not even saying that diplomacy is the wrong choice here. Indeed, one thing I will absolutely give Trump credit for is that the leader-to-leader talks were a good idea. The problem is that the actual results of those talks were almost as bad as they realistically could have been and Trump wound up giving up a tonne of leverage in return for hopes and promises from a nation with a lengthy history of not living up to their word on them.

Trump botched the execution, but the idea of talking to Kim directly instead of through lower-level functionaries is a good one.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

However, if you want general praise from presidents for monsters, keep in mind that FDR called Mussolini "admirable" and that he was deeply impressed by what he has accomplished. Took like two seconds to find, btw, so your outrage wasn't really fact-checked.

In 1933, before War had broken out and before the full scope of Mussolini's atrocities became known (and even then, he received considerable criticism for the remarks). Not even close to the same thing.

yutterh posted...

Okay I get he is a evil dictator but what do people want in negoations? To be a dick to him? which everyone was afraid of trump doing, but then get pissed that he didn't?

There's a rather significant middle ground between "being a dick to someone" and "pretending they are the greatest person to ever live".

yutterh posted...

Look I am against a lot of what trump does but wow people....just take the victory jeez.

What victory? Trump, from a position of strength, gave up just about every negotiating advantage he had and made significant concessions to North Korea and in return got an agreement that was weaker than the ones previous presidents had secured from North Korea (which were summarily ignored by North Korean leadership after they had served their purpose) and which, for that matter, were far weaker than the Iran deal that Trump just tore up after calling it "the worst deal ever".

He got absolutely fleeced and I remain stunned that most of his followers still refuse to accept that. Some of the more principled voices amongst the Republicans have recognized what have happened, but a disappointingly large number either don't or refuse to publicly acknowledge it.

Bugmeat posted...

Once we've gotten him to stop being a threat to world peace we can work on getting him to stop big such a threat to his own people.

For all their provocations, North Korea isn't and never really has been a significant threat to world peace. Nukes weren't acquired because the Kims wanted to take over the world, they were acquired so that they could make deposing them such a costly proposition that no one would dare attempt it. They want survival of their own dictatorship, not Armageddon.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Zeus posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

Zeus posted...

I was wondering how this was going to be spun =p Like I said in the other topic, one battle at a time. The media is trying to put Trump into a position where he'll say something that can tank the negotiations. In reality, I fully expect that if things proceed, we'll eventually see concessions in other areas as well.

Spun? The media is trying to put Trump into a position?

The lunatic said this shit himself! There's no spin to his statement.

This is the narrative that they tried to create and run with. They put him into a no-win position where his stance could either threaten or derail the negotiations. He said nice things about an objectively horrible person, just like other politicians have in the past to keep things moving.

I'm sorry, but despite the US's lengthy history of dealing with (and occasionally installing) dictators with horrible human rights record, this is the first one I've heard verbally feted like he was the second coming of George Washington.

Seriously, can you point me even one example where a murderous dictator with a record half as bad as Kim's was referred to by a sitting US president as "very honourable" and "very talented" and "very worthy" and, oh yes, "His country really does love him. His people, you can see the fervour"?

Go ahead, I'll wait.

With such exceedingly narrow goalposts, it seems like the question is designed for a wait.

Yes, "US president treats a mass-murdering asshole like a minor deity" is extremely narrow goal posts because only one of them has ever done it. That's the point.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

Zeus posted...

I was wondering how this was going to be spun =p Like I said in the other topic, one battle at a time. The media is trying to put Trump into a position where he'll say something that can tank the negotiations. In reality, I fully expect that if things proceed, we'll eventually see concessions in other areas as well.

Spun? The media is trying to put Trump into a position?

The lunatic said this shit himself! There's no spin to his statement.

This is the narrative that they tried to create and run with. They put him into a no-win position where his stance could either threaten or derail the negotiations. He said nice things about an objectively horrible person, just like other politicians have in the past to keep things moving.

I'm sorry, but despite the US's lengthy history of dealing with (and occasionally installing) dictators with horrible human rights record, this is the first one I've heard verbally feted like he was the second coming of George Washington.

Seriously, can you point me even one example where a murderous dictator with a record half as bad as Kim's was referred to by a sitting US president as "very honourable" and "very talented" and "very worthy" and, oh yes, "His country really does love him. His people, you can see the fervour"?

Go ahead, I'll wait.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

zebatov posted...

Nobody saw the links I posted, I guess, because everyone here is talking about someone different.

That would be because xjay referenced giving a "terrorist" over 10 million dollars. That was Khadr, not the Toronto 18.

zebatov posted...

The guy I'm mentioning (and posted links to) was not Canadian originally.

He was a Canadian at the time he committed his offence, having immigrated to Canada when he was 13.

Moreover, your own statement is also pretty detached from reality. No, Trudeau didn't "pardon" Zakaria Amara - he remains in prison serving out a life sentence, which is exactly where he was before Trudeau was elected. The only thing the Liberal government did was reverse a piece of Conservative legislation (C-24) that allowed the government to strip the citizenship of any dual citizens convicted of terrorist acts (notably, Amara was literally the only person in history that this law was used against, which should tell you something straight away). The Liberals, in essence, returned the law to the way it was prior to Stephen Harper's election. That's a far cry from a pardon and it's still likely that Amara will die in prison; the only thing that's different is that if he shows enough rehabilitation and progress to make parole, he will be allowed to remain in Canada rather than be deported to Jordan, a country he hasn't lived in since he was four years old.

Obviously this is a more subjective case, but I don't look at this as a terrible thing. Parole is supposed to indicate that an inmate has made enough progress in their attempts at rehabilitation that we as a society are willing to put a degree of our trust in them. That being the case, there's no logical reason why they should be punished further at that point - their debt to society has, according to our laws, been paid.

Now you may disagree and that's fine. Go ahead and argue that point and we can have a discussion on it. But do yourself a favour and make it a grown-up discussion by leaving the gross mischaracterizations of what actually happened at home. If you want to argue that this legislation is misguided, that's fine, but you don't need to lie and suggest that Trudeau pardoned a terrorist when he actually did no such thing in order to make that point.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

PKMNsony posted...

darkknight109 posted...

PKMNsony posted...

Because lately it's been mostly the PC, SJW, and feminists complaining and are having a bigger impact than the conservatives ever did on video games.

The last several mass shootings have seen the NRA blame violent video games for America's gun crimes. Hell, not three months ago Donald Trump called video game executives to the White House to "solve" the problem of violence in video games prompting gun crimes.

You can stop pretending this is a left wing thing now.

Something three months ago had an impact on video games for years now? Talk about stop pretending.
To pretend the left has nothing to do with this is just moronic.

Which, if you'd read literally any other post of mine in the topic, you'd know I haven't done.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Dikitain posted...

Not really, I mean you have people complaining that the US is too militaristic, then you have the same people complaining that we are reducing our military presence in South Korea. Which is it?

I don't know - take it up with those specific people. For what it's worth, however, the two complaints are not mutually exclusive. You can think that the US is too militaristic overall while also believing that the US military presence in South Korea specifically is dollars well spent and that the budget should be cut elsewhere (like the perpetual misadventures in the Middle East, for instance).

Dikitain posted...

Plus, like you said with the nukes thing, it is all just a gentleman's agreement anyways. We want them to stop trying to make nukes, they want us out of South Korea. So that is what we agreed to. If one side doesn't keep their end of the bargain you can bet the other side is not going to either.

See, I'd be fine with that, except Trump agreed to concrete steps and North Korea did not. Hell, this "gentleman's agreement" doesn't even have an agreed upon end goal right now. "Denuclearization" is a buzz-word and North Korea has a very different vision of what that means than America does and absolutely no effort went into bridging that gap.

Trump could have made significantly better use of his leverage here. Instead, he was so eager to pocket a deal that he could brag about back home he gave up far more than he got despite the fact that the US is holding all the cards here.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

PKMNsony posted...

Because lately it's been mostly the PC, SJW, and feminists complaining and are having a bigger impact than the conservatives ever did on video games.

The last several mass shootings have seen the NRA blame violent video games for America's gun crimes. Hell, not three months ago Donald Trump called video game executives to the White House to "solve" the problem of violence in video games prompting gun crimes.

You can stop pretending this is a left wing thing now.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

Who cares?

Honestly, I'm not sure why I bother trying to explain this stuff to you. You clearly don't have the capacity to understand it, so I give up. I'll stick to talking to people who can manage reading and writing posts longer than a Tweet.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Dikitain posted...

OhhhJa posted...

This darkknight weirdo keeps insisting we gave up something... we didn't lmao

I know.

"We gave up spending billions of dollars on military presence in a country that has never lead an attack on American soil"

This is bad?

Yes, it is.

South Korea pays half the costs of the American military presence stationed there, so it's not like the US is shouldering the full costs. More importantly, Seoul represents a power bulwark that has served to check China and North Korea's militaristic ambitions.

People seem to be forgetting that China is increasingly trying to lay claim to international waters that surround its territory, which are vital shipping lanes for the rest of the world (including America) and which would have significant economic effects if China were allowed to extend its influence into them. Or that North Korea, just a few years ago, torpedoed and sunk a fishing boat in South Korean waters. These sorts of actions absolutely justify a military presence in the region.

Far East Asia is a centre of power for the US, including America's own pacific territories as well as allies in Japan, Australia,New Zealand, and South Korea. I get that America is all about abdicating its international power these days, but surely at least someone on the conservative side of the political spectrum understands the inherent risks in this?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

OhhhJa posted...

This darkknight weirdo keeps insisting we gave up something... we didn't lmao

Except, y'know, the whole joint military exercises thing. And the fact that Trump has said he's going to pull troops out of South Korea.

But sure. I guess that's "nothing". Keep telling yourself that.

BlackPortrait posted...

Do you know anything about summits?

A vast majority of summits don't accomplish much.

And I wasn't expecting much to be accomplished here. Again, if "nothing" had been accomplished, I would have been satisfied. As I mentioned at the start of my post, the summit being a waste of time would have been an improvement over it actually was: Donald Trump selling the farm for a bag of magic beans.

BlackPortrait posted...

The point is that it gets people talking. That, in itself, is huge.

It is. I'm not objecting to that.

Honestly, if there's one thing that I think Trump got correct it's that leader-to-leader dialogue with North Korea is a good idea. I will give him credit for that.

The talking part is not what I'm objecting to. It's what the talking led to that's looking like an unfolding disaster.

BlackPortrait posted...

We're not going to see any real benefits from this for a long time, but talking again is a necessary step.

We're not, but North Korea sure as hell will.

China's lifting their sanctions and is almost assuredly not going to be enforcing any of the ones imposed by the US (which they've explicitly credited to the summit and its results). The US is stopping their joint military exercises and, assuming Trump follows through on his pledge, reducing their troop presence. Those, plus the PR boost, are immediate wins for the world's most brutal regime.

Meanwhile, the US gets a handshake and a promise from a regime that has a long, long history of breaking similar promises.

This doesn't sound like the winning deal Donald Trump keeps insisting that he's the master of.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheOrangeMisfit posted...

One thing at a time. The denuclearization is a step and obviously NK won't be fixed over night. Sheesh I get people obsessively hate on Trump, but he really deserves the credit here.

Credit for what? What did he even do?

Lest we forget, it was North Korea that initially reached out and tried to make this summit happen with their charm offensive at the start of the year. Donald Trump didn't suddenly have a change of heart and offer peace, it was Kim that came to him with a suggestion of a summit.

And it's worth noting that Trump is now the fourth president in a row that's signed some sort of a denuclearization treaty with North Korea and so far none of them have stuck. Aside from the pomp and bombast he attached to this one, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about it (aside from, as previously mentioned, the fact that the US - negotiating from a position of strength - somehow managed to give up far more and receive far less in return than previous negotiating sessions).

Dikitain posted...

Even when you have the leader of South Korea say on camera that Trump is to thank for this people are still putting their fingers in their ears and singing "LALALALALA!!!!!!!!"

Of course Moon said that. Are you familiar with Donald Trump? Appealing to his narcissism is the fastest way to get him to do what you want.

Not to mention Moon's party has local elections coming up (as in, today) and he's riding the wave of optimism to what's expected to be a landslide victory. It's as much in his interest to book this as a "win" as it is Donald Trump's. If he has to kiss ass to do that, then that's what he's going to do.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

No, if it was a waste of time that would have been an improvement on what actually happened.

Trump has shut down the joint military exercises with South Korea (even using North Korea's terminology in calling them "war games"); he's talking about downsizing and removing the US troop presence there (one of the few footholds America has in Eastern Asia to serve as a check on an increasingly imperialistic China); he lavished the world's most violent and destructive dictator with effusive praise that wouldn't have been out of place coming from one of Kim's own toadies; he gave Kim a massive PR victory and equal status with the leader of the free world; China has announced it is lifting sanctions and Trump gives nary a whisper of objection; he's now even going so far as to insist that North Korea "is no longer a nuclear threat".

Now, this isn't in and of itself a dealbreaker. I could understand using any or all of the above as bargaining chips in return for concessions from North Korea.

But what did Trump actually get? Vague promises at best. For all the blather about "CVID" and how Trump swore that's what he would extract from North Korea, he didn't manage any part of that acronym. Nothing complete, no verification, nothing irreversible, and the two sides haven't even agreed on what they mean by "denuclearization". Human rights? Barely mentioned. Access for inspectors? Not discussed. Trump says that North Korea isn't a nuclear threat anymore, yet their arsenal today is exactly the same size as it was yesterday. The deal that Trump signed is far weaker than the previous agreements secured with North Korea (agreements which, it bears repeating, North Korea flagrantly ignored after it had secured aid). Hell, Trump just finished tearing up a far more comprehensive and effective treaty in the Iran deal after criticizing it as "the worst deal ever".

Trump got absolutely fleeced here. Kim played the entire conference masterfully. He appealed to Trump's massive ego and dangled a prize that he knew the president would not be able to resist - the ability to claim something none of his predecessors could - and got him totally invested in "making the deal". Then he took Trump for everything he was worth and Trump was so desperate for a "win" that he got suckered into it. I honestly can't think of many ways this conference could have gone better for North Korea (or China or Russia for that matter); the US is voluntarily ceding its influence in East Asia and North Korea hasn't actually had to do anything to earn it.

Honestly, I thought the smartest thing Trump did with this whole fiasco was when he initially cancelled it. Yes, it gave North Korea a PR victory, but that's small potatoes compared to what Trump gave up here.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Hop103 posted...

The politics of violent video games has shifted with the exception of politicians (they tend to be in agreement against violent games for the most part throughout history). In the 90's-2000's it was mostly the left that fought for violence in video games, no it's more right and the center.

Disagree. It's never really been a partisan issue.

In the 90s I saw more left-wingers concerned about violence in video games, but a big part of that was because it was the left-wingers who were in power at the time. In the 80s and 2000s it was the right-wingers and, not surprisingly, the right-wingers held government during those periods.

Old, out-of-touch morons who don't get these newfangled fads the young-un's are all crazy about are constantly overreacting to things, whether it's on the left or the right. You can find newspaper stories about similar trends from the turn of the 20th century, back when the term "teenager" was first coined.

These days it seems to have more of a right-wing bent, as "violent video games" is now one of the NRA's stock responses for why America has so many school shootings and so much gun crime in general, but again, it's the right-wingers who currently hold power in America, so that's probably to be expected.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

yourDaddie posted...

Loyalty to gaming and gamers is more important than loyalty to your party, race, gender or country

Um...
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

xjayguyx posted...

Foppe posted...

So xjayguyx and zikten supports the right to capture, prosecute, and torturing child soldiers.

Terrorists yes

See what I mean?

What xjay says is so far removed from reality and glosses over so much nuance it's basically fiction.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zikten posted...

why does reintegration need to include giving them free money? in america we don't give money to reformed criminals.

Well, as both I and the mod were alluding to, what xjay is describing and what actually happened are two wildly disparate things.

The individual in question is Omar Khadr, a Canadian-born citizen who was captured in Iraq 15-ish years ago during a raid where an American medic named Chris Speer was killed by a grenade. Khadr was accused of throwing the grenade and was sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he underwent torture at the hands of the Americans, torture that the Canadian government, under three successive administrations, was aware of (and, on at least one occasion, bore witness to). He eventually confessed to killing Speer and pled guilty to Murder in Violation of the Laws of War in return for a plea agreement that saw him released from Gitmo and returned to Canada to serve out an eight year prison sentence.

This is the story you'll hear from people like xjay. Unfortunately, it also conveniently omits a few rather pertinent facts:
-Khadr consistently denied that he threw the grenade that killed Speer and only confessed after being subjected to years of torture. He was badly injured in the raid and maintained that he did not remember the battle where he was captured. Once he was repatriated to Canada, he immediately recanted his confession and insisted that his original testimony - that he cannot recall what happened - was accurate.
-Khadr was only identified as the man who threw the grenade at Speer based on the testimony of two witnesses from Speer's squadron. Both of them have since recanted their testimony and now say they do not know who threw the grenade that ultimately took Speer's life.
-Khadr's conviction did not come from a court of law, but from a widely-discredited military tribunal.
-The charge that Khadr was convicted of - Murder in Violation of the Laws of War - did not exist when Khadr was captured. It was passed into law by the Bush administration in 2006, four years after the supposed offence occurred.
-Khadr was just 15 when the attack took place, making him a child soldier (notably, the only one ever captured, prosecuted, and tortured by the United States since the Geneva Convention outlawed such treatment).

Based on a combination of the above facts, Canadian courts - despite being fought every step of the way by the then-Conservative Government of Canada - ruled that Khadr's rights had been violated and allowed him to be released from prison on parole (despite the fact his original conviction precluded that possibility). He is currently fighting to have the original conviction vacated (understandable, given that it is based on a slipshod case and a confession obtained via torture, for a crime that didn't exist when it was committed by a person who, by international law that both Canada and the US are signatories to, is ineligible for prosecution in the first place).

He also sued the government of Canada for their role in his torture. The Trudeau government, having been elected over the Harper conservatives, were advised by their legal team that they had no realistic chance of winning the case (the Supreme Court had already issued a ruling confirming that Khadr's rights had been violated) and, thus, they opted for a settlement instead of making the taxpayers pay for the trial and a judgement that would almost inevitably have been higher than the settled amount.

So yeah... that's a pretty far cry from "We welcome terrorists and give them free money."
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

xjayguyx posted...

darkknight109 posted...

xjayguyx posted...

Mods reply:

A Mod/Admin said on 6/13/2018 4:36:15 AM:
Canadian mod here. Yeah, no. You are twisting the reality of the situation. Offering a reintegration program and support services while closing monitoring doesn't mean Canada is appeasing terrorists.

Obvious liberal here :/

It's hilarious that you don't seem to realise how ridiculous you sound in this topic.

How so?

I mean, the mod already said it - the things you're alleging in this topic have absolutely zero to do with reality. The events you're describing are so completely different from your descriptions of them you're literally just spouting nonsense at this point.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

xjayguyx posted...

Mods reply:

A Mod/Admin said on 6/13/2018 4:36:15 AM:
Canadian mod here. Yeah, no. You are twisting the reality of the situation. Offering a reintegration program and support services while closing monitoring doesn't mean Canada is appeasing terrorists.

Obvious liberal here :/

It's hilarious that you don't seem to realise how ridiculous you sound in this topic.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

FatalAccident posted...

Whos excited for E3 this year?

I wasn't, but I wound up enjoying what little of it I followed.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

FE7 > Radiant Dawn > Awakening > Sacred Stones > Path of Radiance > Fates > Shadow Dragon

Haven't played the others yet, although FE6 and Echoes are both in my queue.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

adjl posted...

And, of course, same same people saying "we shouldn't restrict guns, it's a mental health issue!" are the same people slashing funding for mental health services and refusing to do anything to extend those services to said mentally ill people.

It also conveniently ignores the fact that most shootings - both of the mass-killing and the everyday variety - are not committed by the mentally ill.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

dancer62 posted...

So why does it work so well in Israel? Everybody is part of the militia, everyone is trained, everyone has an issued submachinegun: minimal terrorism besides being a such a fat target, no school shootings.

This is 100% wrong, as Israel itself has attempted to explain to the NRA nuts who attempted to make this same point. First off, the idea that everyone is issued a submachine gun is complete horseshit and is not even a little bit true. Israeli gun laws are significantly tighter than American gun laws. There is no guaranteed right to bear arms. Private ownership of weapons is restricted to those who can prove that their professions or places of residence put them in danger. Weapons ownership requires licensing that must be renewed every three years (and renewals can be denied - about 80% of all gun license applications in Israel are rejected). Licensing includes background checks, mandatory training (above and beyond their mandatory military service), and medical exams, including a mental health assessment, all of which must be repeated every three years to get the license renewed.

Consequently, there are only ~4.17 privately owned guns per 100 people in Israel, putting Israel at #81 in terms of levels of gun ownership worldwide (the US, by contrast, is #1 at 101.05 per 100, infamously being the only country in the world with more guns than people).

If you're going to argue this point, do yourself a favour and back up your arguments with facts rather than bullshit.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That explains every country with guns (most) without school shootings.

I don't think you quite understand the scope of the problem.

The US has more guns than anyone. And not just by a little bit either - the next runners up are Serbia and Yemen (at 58.21 and 54.80 per 100 people) and those two countries are the only ones who have more than half of the US's gun ownership rate (#4 on the list is Cyprus, with "only" 36.4 guns per 100 people).

But perhaps more worryingly than raw numbers of guns is the laws surrounding those guns. Most countries in the world where guns are common have legal infrastructure in place to support gun ownership, including licensing, registration, background checks, medical exams, mandatory training, and mandatory wait times; US laws on the subject are almost comically threadbare, and America seems to be the only country that thinks it's a good idea to hand out guns to anyone who wants to plunk down the money to buy one without doing any more than the bare minimum to make sure those guns don't wind up in the wrong hands.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Elsweyr seems to be the obvious candidate. It's the only province of Tamriel that has yet to be explored in any of the games (the main games have covered High Rock and Hammerfell [Daggerfall], Morrowind [Morrowind and Skyrim], Cyrodil [Oblivion], and Skyrim [Skyrim], and the ESO has also added the Summerset Isles, Valenwood, and Black Marsh) and it's also supposed to be predominantly desert.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

America: "We have more guns than anyone else and, in what I'm sure is a totally unrelated coincidence, we also have an enormous problem with school shootings that none of our contemporaries seem to be suffering from. I wonder what is causing it and what we can do to fix it..."
Rest of the World: "You know, the rest of us have kind of figured this out, but maybe - just maybe - the problem has something to do with-"
America: "I've got it!! More guns! That outta do the trick!"
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

And then we go full circle since there is no real problem except for maybe some certain countries in the Middle East.

Except there is. Which numerous studies have shown, even accounting for hours worked.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

You... do know that "correcting for" something isn't the same as "correcting" it, right?

Sure. The point still stands.

That is logically impossible.

Here, let me make it really simple:

I said: "There is a problem"
You said: "The cause of the problem is X"
I said: "No, even if you correct for X, the problem still remains"
You said: "True, but the cause of the problem is X"
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

darkknight109 posted...

As opposed to Trump, who has said he is going to get a deal where North Korea will permanently get rid of their nuclear weapons?

He is. Just like how he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal (which Obama made, which gave Iran over $100 billion dollars, and nuclear material, with the promise that Iran would never ever make nuclear weapons, despite funding them and giving them the tools to make nuclear weapons).

Good point - the Iran deal (which, by all metrics - and there were a lot of them, thanks to inspectors having an extraordinarily high level of access to the country and its nuclear sites - Iran was complying with) is an excellent reason why North Korea probably won't even bother to seriously entertain a deal with Trump, given that he has shown he's perfectly willing to withdraw from a deal entered into in good faith and to which all parties are complying, simply because he doesn't like it. I totally agree.

You may want to brush up on your facts, though - Obama neither gave any money to Iran (he released frozen money that was already Iran's to begin with, which is a pretty far cry from "giving them $100 billion") nor gave them nuclear material (to the contrary, Iran agreed to give up 97% of its enriched uranium and closed down 14,000 of 20,000 centrifuges).
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

"We students feel and we know that something is very, very wrong in our schools," Yin said.

I wonder if he's referring to teachers using students as props? >_>

See me, I'd guess it was something to do with students wanting to go to school without feeling like they're going to get shot, but your guess is pretty good too.

After all, it's not like teenagers form opinions on their own, right?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TheWorstPoster posted...

So, you would rather the Bill Clinton approach, where, in his presidency, announced that he had a deal that North Korea would not develop a nuclear weapon?

As opposed to Trump, who has said he is going to get a deal where North Korea will permanently get rid of their nuclear weapons?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

You can't correct it since that's the reason it literally happens.

You... do know that "correcting for" something isn't the same as "correcting" it, right?
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

There is, much as people don't seem to bother reading the studies confirming it. Yes, the "20%" figure or whatever it was that was being bandied about last election was misleading at best, a falsehood at worst, but a genuine wage gap still exists even after correcting for things like experience and hours worked.

Some people insist that feminism is about equality of the sexes, which explicitly means that it also involves advocating for men in areas where they are disadvantaged (criminal justice, education, suicide, etc.). Some insist it is a movement exclusively focused on women's rights. Some say it is a vehicle for female supremacy.

Which is why I always get a chuckle when someone starts ranting about "those damn feminists", because it's a meaningless word nowadays.

Yes those studies show that the men are working longer hours. This isn't 60 years ago where people purposely paid them less. If they worked the same longer hours they would make the same amount of money.

Also in that sense feminist is about equal rights for women such as being treated unfairly. True equal rights is egalitarian.

You apparently didn't actually read my post. Important parts in bold.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It was about equal rights. Equal (and beyond) rights have been achieved, thus all claimed feminists are SJWs.

Real feminists are still fighting about wage gaps. Of course there's really no such thing as that anymore.

The word "feminist", honestly, has ceased to be a meaningful label in any way because no one - including self-identified feminists - can agree on what it's supposed to mean.

I think this was most effectively displayed at the Women's March after Trump's inauguration, when a pro-life "Women for Life" movement was barred from marching because the event organizers believed that a pro-life viewpoint was inherently anti-feminists (a sentiment to which the banned group - who also considered themselves feminist - vehemently disagreed).

Revelation34 posted...

Of course there's really no such thing as that anymore.

There is, much as people don't seem to bother reading the studies confirming it. Yes, the "20%" figure or whatever it was that was being bandied about last election was misleading at best, a falsehood at worst, but a genuine wage gap still exists even after correcting for things like experience and hours worked.

Some people insist that feminism is about equality of the sexes, which explicitly means that it also involves advocating for men in areas where they are disadvantaged (criminal justice, education, suicide, etc.). Some insist it is a movement exclusively focused on women's rights. Some say it is a vehicle for female supremacy.

Which is why I always get a chuckle when someone starts ranting about "those damn feminists", because it's a meaningless word nowadays.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ForteEXE3850 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

ForteEXE3850 posted...

But every other president straight ignoring North Korea because they didn't want to get involved wasn't better.

Literally no other president did this.

What did the other presidents do?

Keep sanctions in place (which is basically ignoring the problem)?

Mention how North Korea is bad every once in a while?

I mean take possible steps to changing North Korea for the better.

There is no way to know to know if the talks between Trump and Kim will bear any fruit but it's better than keeping them at arms length and everything else being lip service.

I take it you aren't really up to speed on this whole "North Korea" thing, then.

Clinton had to deal with what was, in essence, the first North Korean nuclear threats as North Korea declared its intent to create a nuclear weapon. He threatened military action before eventually convening negotiations that resulted in the "Agreed Framework", an agreement that North Korea would freeze and eventually dismantle their nuclear program and make peace with the US in return for fuel and some light-water nuclear reactors meant for energy production.

Bush Jr. torpedoed that agreement, accusing the North Koreans of not living up to their end of the deal (basically picture Trump with the Iran deal and change the names and that's what happened here) and North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in response. Bush then decided to give negotiation a shot with the Six-Party Talks. North Korea agreed (again) to denuclearize, rejoin the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allow IAEA inspectors into the country, and make peace with the US in return for fuel and some light-water nuclear reactors meant for energy production. Then they decided to start testing long-range missiles, which they'd previously agreed not to do, so they got hit with a fresh round of sanctions to try and force them to the table.

A second round of Six-Party Talks followed and North Korea agreed (yet again) to denuclearize and make peace with the US in return for aid, fuel, sanctions relief, and some light-water reactors. Things improved for a while right at the end of Bush Jr.'s second term.

Then Obama was elected and North Korea responded by almost immediately conducting a rocket launch. More sanctions followed and North Korea reneged on the agreements it had made under Bush, culminating in a second nuclear test. The Obama administration continued negotiating with North Korea, past Kim Il Sung's death in 2012, and North Korea agreed to a moratorium on nuclear and missile tests... then almost immediately broke that agreement with rocket launches.

So yeah, you are correct that Trump is the first president to negotiate and seek peace with North Korea, as long as you ignore literally every other president since the end of the Cold War. Those of us who are old enough to remember when the USSR was a thing have seen this story play out many times now. New president comes in, offers peace, North Korea agrees in return for aid, once aid is received North Korea abandons agreement and resumes development of nuclear arms. And given how strikingly ignorant Trump is of history, I don't anticipate he'll be able to do any better.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ForteEXE3850 posted...

But every other president straight ignoring North Korea because they didn't want to get involved wasn't better.

Literally no other president did this.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

adjl posted...

The key difference there is that Steam is just one storefront, and developers have other places they can go.

Sure, which is why I say the situation isn't completely analogous. Obviously this won't crash the market or even just the PC market... but it might crash Steam and they should be worried about that.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!