Lurker > Philip027

I'm down for more holidays, but the name is indeed stupid. The numbery sounding name, aside from conveying absolutely nothing about what it's for, still doesn't even make it particularly clear what date it's on. It could very well be the sixteenth, or the fourteenth...

I sure treasure threads like these; it's really helping me pad my ignore count.

Anyone else gonna volunteer...?

lol so you lose and then try to act like you won. Very impressive. For someone who has had their account for 20 years I don't think I've seen you post before.

Someone basically saying "nope; what you say about yourself is invalid, because I say so" isn't even participating in a real debate. It's like someone trying to argue with someone else about what the other person's gender is. You don't get a say. There is nothing to be debated.

There was nothing to "lose" here, and the fact that you think there was tells me you're cut of pretty much the same cloth as that guy.

I said the discussion is over now. Keep prattling on if you wish, but I won't be seeing it.

They've been asking for names for years, at least at the locations I've seen.

At Arby's, you mean?

This just further proves that it's been too long since I've been to one :(

Breathing's a lot more straightforward: If you're getting the normal amount of oxygen into your blood, you're breathing fine.

I don't need a measuring of blood oxygen intake to know that I'm having a harder/easier time breathing. If you think that it is necessary, you're being ridiculous.

This discussion is over now.

what I know tells me that there is no physical explanation for your experiences

Yeah, I've found doctors are pretty fond of giving that sort of line out when they can't otherwise explain why their patients are in pain. Guess that means they're just making the pain up though and it must be all in their head though, right?

Whatever you want to call it, the central point is that you only feel like you're having trouble breathing.

And my central point is 1) you're wrong, 2) I am, and always will be, more qualified to speak about my own experiences than you.

Do you go up to people who are clearly feeling like shit and say things like "nah, you only think you're feeling shitty" as if you were some kind of expert on the subject on someone else's experiences? Because that's basically what you're attempting here. It's not working, by the way.

So you believe that your O2 saturation readings would differ significantly if you were to conduct this experiment on yourself?

I believe that I wouldn't give a damn what some readings would say.

I have a noticeably harder time breathing when I have a mask on than when I don't. End of. If the "O2 saturation readings" wouldn't account for that, then maybe a new metric needs to be found.

Again, it's not going to make me not wear a mask in situations where I should. But I'm also not going to go and say that it doesn't affect my breathing whatsoever, because that would just be a lie.

Again (...) it's not panic, it's not anxiety. I know what these feel like, and this ain't it, chief.

Your "data" doesn't account for everyone, simple as that. You don't speak for everyone.

If you're not even going to listen to what people are actually telling you about their breathing, I don't know why you're even participating in the discussion.

There are countless examples out there of people that have worn pulse oximeters for entire 8-hour shifts while wearing a mask and seen no change from their regular O2 saturation levels.

Good for them.

There is no amount of examples you can provide that would change the fact that my breathing is noticeably impaired when I'm wearing a mask.

It is not an anxiety response. I don't experience any such thing about wearing a mask. I know what an anxiety response looks/feels like, and it's not what I'm experiencing here.

Again, please don't try to dictate to me or others what's going on in our heads.

I have a harder time breathing with a mask on, and it sure as shit isn't "psychological"

That isn't going to stop me from wearing one when I'm supposed to, but please don't try to tell me that any breathing difficulty I may encounter with it in is just in my head.

Man, I miss Arby's. Haven't been in ages.

Obviously the firing on the spot was the right thing to do, but I'm curious as to what there's even an "order name" field for in their system. Every sort of fast foody kind of place I've went to like this never even asked me for a name and just gave me a number.

And this is pretty much why I don't even bother telling the (many) people I see wearing their mask wrong that they're wearing it wrong. Better to just assume they're wearing nothing and act accordingly.

HornedLion posted...

This. Easily.

You guys think I wont chug this antifreeze? $10,000. Lets go!

I interpreted the option in the poll as basically "you never get full"

But if it's more like "you can consume anything you want without risk" then yeah, I would maybe have to reevaluate.

Easily the million dollars. Eating to me is just a chore that I would never want to do more than I have to.

Seriously what the hell did you expect? You want me to read 50 articles saying how difficulty made the game popular and quote them to you?

You understand opinion pieces (that pretty much anyone, anywhere, can post on the internet) are not proof of something, yes?

This is also why any learning institution worth its salt doesn't let you cite things like Wikipedia as your source.

Actually this is a little wrong.

Just halving or doubling numbers is a lazy and kind of inept way to approach difficulty.

I generally agree, but that doesn't change the fact that it's pretty much all of what many games do when they implement difficulty settings.

Playing many games on hard mode in recent years is usually pretty much "do the exact same thing you did on normal, but do it for longer, and without getting hit". It probably isn't even a recent thing; I'm sure plenty of older games were the same.

What were you expecting? Me to summon the voice of god?

I was expecting proof. As in, actual evidence that the foregoing of an easy mode is precisely what made what (presumably) would have otherwise been an unremarkable game, popular.

Not just the opinion piece of Joe Random (who, by the way, never actually made that same claim in the article that it was specifically the lack of an easy mode, which is optional and nobody has to play, that sold the game)

Nothing in Souls games dies in two hits. Half-Health and Half-Damage would still require someone to practice.

That was just an example. Tweak as necessary.

Point is, it's not the huge workload/financial undertaking that several people in this thread have made it out to be.

Some random essay some dude posted on the internet isn't proof.

Also if you think it's difficult or expensive to make a game setting where enemies have half health or do half damage or whatever (which is basically all that difficulty modes in most games amount to), you don't understand programming very well and probably shouldn't speak about it like you do.

Demon Souls only became popular because there wasn't an easy mode.

Proof?

The point isn't that people don't want to play an easy mode, the point is that the devs specifically designed the game a certain way and don't want to add one.

I'd say it's you that is missing the point of the topic.

The thread isn't asking about what the devs feel about adding an easy mode to the game. We already know how they feel. It's asking the players, who are clearly very opinionated about the issue despite the fact that, as I said, anyone who doesn't want to play an easy mode doesn't have to play it.

The people who don't want to play an easy mode... don't have to play one.

This is a stupid argument that should never have existed.

Gonna do it anyway. If you're offended by it, you're the type of person I don't care about offending.

"mood"

Just say "same", you sound like less of an idiot that way and it doesn't even cost you more keystrokes

Where I am, it's still enforced indoors regardless. And even if it wasn't a universally mandated thing, there's still plenty of businesses that won't care if you say you're vaccinated; they're gonna enforce it regardless.

So still going to have to carry a mask around for the foreseeable future.

I can't name one, largely because I don't care.

Even since when I was younger, I always felt I would have preferred 4 school/work days and 3 days off.

I always sit on the toilet seat, so leaving the seat up would frankly just be extra unnecessary effort.

To be fair, playing football both requires a lot more and is dangerous.

What does that have to do with the inherent entertainment value of watching it? Is a TV show immediately not worth anyone's time without a big budget, violence, death-defying stuntwork, etc?

I find football boring as fuck to watch, and neither of the qualities you mentioned contribute to making it more interesting for me. But I'm not going to sink to Maher's level and (rather hypocritically, as the comic points out) belittle everyone who does find it entertaining, though.

I'm in my 30s, but what is the "new" 20, exactly?

Unless 20 stopped being 20 and transitioned to being the "old" 20 (so 30 could presumably take over) while I was still around 20, how would I even know the difference?

Bill Maher's commentary only made me think of this comic.

How dare you, etc.

Not in the slightest; they're usually annoying, much like the RL versions. Don't at me.

I'm not really an advocate of arresting people on the basis of their attractions that they can't necessarily help, so long as you know where the line is -- what is appropriate and what isn't, and act accordingly.

When you go to the point of outright being asked if you'll never touch a kid and responding "never say never" I feel like you've crossed that line. Even if he's technically not committed any crime yet, it's still basically an admission that you don't care if you'll commit a crime, and given the severity of the crime in question I feel it's something that warrants monitoring at the very least.

School most definitely isn't for everyone. For some people, all it's good for is putting them in debt.

Where I got married, it's actually not allowed for either spouse to inherit or otherwise incorporate the other's surname.

Honestly, either spouse "taking" the name of the other is a weird concept to me.

XI isn't as "horizontal progression" as it used to be. It's now also introduced equipment levels, and don't be fooled by the fact that none of them seem to go over the item level of 119 -- i119 gear is not created equally. Some i119 bits from when the item level system was first introduced pale in comparison to some of the i119 stuff that has come out since. (They just cannot visibly increase the item level any further, because it would break some other systems that rely on your character's average item level.)

Overall though, XI is more playgroundy when it comes to all of its older content, and there's a lot more of it than in XIV (naturally, since it's been around a lot longer). Many adjustments have been made to the solo/lowman experience to make XI overall far, far less painful than it often used to be, as you are probably well aware of by now if you've played it recently. If you're the type of player that just loves taking your max-level, reasonably-outfitted character and taking on things that in years past you would have needed a group or an endgame LS for, I feel XI has a lot more to offer in that regard. XIV tries to let you do similar stuff, and in most cases you probably can, but its encounters are more mechanically intensive to the point where you will run into roadblocks trying to do some stuff on your own. For instance, the level 50 raid encounters are filled with stuff that'll just 1-shot you, even at the now- level cap of 80, unless you have other people with you to handle the mechanic correctly.

Some people cannot fathom friends being their relationship partners; they are two totally separate groups in their minds.

Overall, yeah I would agree.

As pretty much the entire topic has consisted of saying, the central point is not "the concept of virginity doesn't exist at all," it's "the concept of virginity has no particular value, so I'm going to treat it accordingly and criticize anyone who acts otherwise." It doesn't exist *meaningfully*.

Some people are really struggling with the whole non-literal interpretation thing in this topic.

I'm going by what the other person literally said, verbatim. If that isn't what she meant, then she should have chosen her words more carefully before making them public.

I really don't care what you or anyone else in this topic chooses to interpret those words as, or what they think the "central point" is. Unless you are the mom in question, you can only make guesses as to what she "really" means.

He's clearly trying to troll and it's not working as what he posts doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry that the logic that if you're not yet considered an adult you are basically still considered a kid seems to elude you.

She isn't a adult sure

Again, you're only supporting my argument. You aren't very good at this, are you?

If you're not a adult you are a baby, toddler, child or teenager.

All of them =/= adult, so you're basically supporting my own argument.

The key difference being that "newbie" is a general-purpose term, which is modified by context and qualifiers to provide a useful description of experience levels. "Virgin" is a special term made just for sex (it can be adopted into other contexts with specific qualifiers, but I feel it goes without saying that those aren't particularly relevant here), which is assigned significance in far more contexts than the one in which it's relevant. Even during sex, it's an arbitrary milestone that indicates very little about overall sex-having ability (the only functional difference between "I've had intercourse once" and "I've never had intercourse" is the fact that there might be a bit of blood/pain during penetration, and even then, dildos are a thing), meaning it's a pretty useless description.

We have plenty of "pretty useless" descriptor terms. That doesn't stop them from being terms.

Again, people attaching weight to virginity that doesn't belong is their own problem, not the fault of virginity itself

The mere existence of the term "virginity" isn't what's being objected to here (hence my disclaimer that "virginity doesn't exist" isn't entirely accurate), it's treating virginity as a special concept that requires specific recognition and should have social significance attached to it. It's really not, and I'm all in favour of this mother teaching her kids not to put it on a pedestal the way so much of society does.

Teaching not to put it on a pedestal is all fine and good, as I said.

But that's not what we're talking about here -- she's explicitly teaching "no such thing as virginity", which is categorically and demonstrably untrue. One's discomfort with a term or concept doesn't stop the term/concept from existing.

Then you clearly don't understand what a child actually is. People stop being children at 13.

That's definitely a matter of opinion.

My point (again) was, as far as some people are concerned, you're either an adult or you're not one -- and if you aren't an adult, you essentially are still a kid in most of the ways that matter.

To some people, you're either an adult or you're not.
*shrug*

In any event, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic. It's not like this incident wouldn't have occurred if the student in question was 18 instead of 17.

Explain to me why exactly a 17-year old is a child when in less than an year she will be a legal adult.

Some would say it explains itself.

If you attach the "patriarchal concept" aspects of virginity onto it, that's all on you.

All it is is a term indicating whether you've had sex or not. That's it.

You might as well be getting all uppity about the term "newbie". Trying to hide or get rid of a word won't change the fact that someone will have either had prior exposure to X thing, or not -- and whether or not you attach a term to such experience (or lack thereof), other people and prospective relationship partners will evaluate and weigh such experience (or lack thereof) accordingly to their own values. You can't put a stop to that, any more than you can't put a stop to employers not hiring you because of your lack of work experience.

I'm all for teaching kids not to place virginity on some kind of weird pedestal, but I don't feel sheltering them from the term entirely is the correct way to go about it.

I feel like people either dress for comfort or for style and I just cant see how the outfit accomplishes either of those things. I'm sure she is a pretty girl, and if it is her desire to dress to be pretty then she can do better.

You don't have to understand it. You're not the one wearing it.

Regardless, that isn't the point of the topic -- unless you're suggesting that teachers should get to ban clothing on the basis that they "can't see how it's comfortable or stylish"

Luckily, clothes are not made with the sole intent of "looking good" to other people.

keyblader1985 posted...

I literally have no idea what's wrong with that outfit.

That.

Maybe the teacher needs to be sent home.