Lurker > Mackorov

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Money literally can't fix some major problems, like mental illness, or desire for genuine love if you're a boring ass nobody.

It's true money cant buy love. That I agree. Because the richer you get, the more you'll think of everyone as simply being after your money. You'll question who actually falls for you and who's doing it just for an ulterior motive.

Mackorov posted...

the phrase 'money doesnt buy happiness' only applies to people with disproportionate expectations to reality. Some poor rubbish cleaner can be equally happy in his life if he is just content with what he has and does not expect to achieve anything more. Someone who is rich and successful but still wants something beyond that will not be as happy.

(cont.)
for instance if you take some tribal person and put him in a city, dress up him and give him luxury... do you really think this dude who spent his whole life in the jungle wilds would suddenly be happy about this?

he'd probably want to return back to the place he came from

the phrase 'money doesnt buy happiness' only applies to people with disproportionate expectations to reality. Some poor rubbish cleaner can be equally happy in his life if he is just content with what he has and does not expect to achieve anything more. Someone who is rich and successful but still wants something beyond that will not be as happy.

get everything in life, and then wonder about the meaning of life and act like you're the most depressed person ever

Christian RULES posted...

4, which is below average for me but understandable due to covid.

below average? WTF.

How the hell are people like you even getting as many as 4 to begin with.

unless you're banging fat chicks i understand

Captain_Qwark posted...

Women in their late 20s on hinge and okcupid seem very desperate

Went from like 2 matches a year in my early 20s to like 5 matches a month using the same profile

that's because women are the one finally at a disadvantage lol.

need to give birth quick or else

Gamefaqs should make a Reddit board too.

But these characters are still really old concepts.

Look at how old Tony Stark's father must be if he was already present as an adult in the 1940s during Captain America's time. It makes no sense.

Josiah_Is_Back posted...

Why Christianity has such a foothold on Western civilization. I am an atheist, so I do not believe in God or in the divinity of Jesus. And although the rise of Christianity can largely be attributed to political forces, I still feel that there must be something inherently special or unique about it for it to be so entrenched in society. Prior belief systems centered on animism (spirits inhabiting everyday objects and animals), polytheism, henotheism (many gods, but only one was supreme), etc., so perhaps Christianity hit the sweet spot where there is a supreme god, yet he has an emissary that was human, so it bridged the gap within the human psyche between the mortal and the divine.

there was a theory I read about how Christianity remained popular over the centuries.

Political movements like the Roman Empire adopting it is one big factor for sure. However, it's also Christianity at its core that makes it so preserving. The religion teaches of only monotheism ,meaning anyone wishing to become Christianity needed to disavow their prior religions. Other religions allowed for multiple god worship so Christinity being the only one that required only one god worship could have helped slowly eradicate other comepting religions.

The other thing is how broad the Christian god is. This god is basically omnipotent and well, impossbile to prove nor disprove. It just teaches God is all powerful and all mighty. There's no way to disprove that. In comparison religions that say God is the sun or God is the sky,water or whatever... like in greek mythology will inevitably die out due to science disproving it. But science can't disprove omnipotence.

Last thing is the Bible allowing flexibility of intepretation. Even though science may now disprove Noah's Ark or Genesis, there are many educated Christians who can turn tails and say these parts of the Bible are not meant to be intepreted literally.

It's these three factors that allow Christianity to be a mainstay (albeit we see the religion declining too in today's world. I find it mainly due to the LGBT issues, not so much science because let's be real, not many people are even knowledgeable about science)

mooreandrew58 posted...

Oh well you didnt make it clear you where only talking about the old batman when referencing his characteristics.

Characters evolve though. Thats how they stay relevant.

but there's a limit to how much you can evolve an existing character. How much can you change before the character no longer becomes the same self he was created as centuries ago?
The reason comic writers can't change batman too much is because of conservatism opposition. They will receive backlash from diehard nostalgic fans who think they'll be ruinining the character.

At the same time, they cannot just create a brand new superhero relevant to modern times since it's well, brand new. Too hard to market, publishers wont want take the risk, no one would be interested. For the comic writer, it's also easier to re-adapt an existing character because they wont need to go through the process of idea creation and whatnot. People are unoriginal who knew

It's the old familiarity bias time and time again. Why do you think we keep having the same CoD games every year? Why does Ubisoft keep slapping Assassin's Creed titles onto their games when it's no longer anything about Assassin's Creed?
Because of branding.

Imagine if Ubisoft called "Assassin's Creed Valhalla" as "Valhalla" or "Vikings". Or if Activision titled "Call of Duty Black Ops" as "Black Ops"?

Not as many people would buy it that's for sure

kg88222 posted...

The Dark Knight has grossed more than all the spiderman movies. I agree Batman and Superman are somewhat overdone at this point where it's changed. Spiderman is still your friendly neighborhood spiderman but even that is getting out of hand with all the knockoffs. They milked Batman to death. So now it's spiderman. There hasn't been a ton done with Batman recently because it's all been done.

They'll keep milking and they'll keep milking for the next centuries and beyond. This is the familiarity bias and advantage fictional works receive by being the first mover into a new industry.

It's why the same old superheroees keep dominating the main screen and any other new subsequent superheroes created can almost never break into the same stardom. Publishers don't dare take the risk. Once they have a successful cash cow, they're gonna try keep it forever no matter what.

Deadpool is probably the only exception but the comic writers such as Rob Liefield and Fabian Nicieza had to push Marvel hard to finally be allowed to be given a title Deadpool comic series.

mooreandrew58 posted...

The cape does have some uses. Short gliding flame proof iirc can deflect some things like throwing knives I think.

The punching and kicking I feel was explained best by captain atom when fighting supes in injustice. He brings up they both have powers yet they elect to pummel each other with fists. Why? Cause it feels good.

The man child thing you bring up his his weakness. He has I assume ptsd regarding his parents death and if someone is in the know they can use it against him. Alfred did in the bet i mentioned and the effect was while batman was momentarily triggered a group of street thugs where able to beat the living shit out of him.

The underwear thing i agree on. Glad they got rid of it. Dont like it in general but with superman I can at least rationalize krytonians just had a different sense of fashion

No, the beginning Batman concept had none of these. Batman was just a stupid vigilanete jumping across rooftopss and plowing criminals in the face. The only reason he's called Batman is cos of his stupid bat outfit.

Here's an excerpt of how the creation of Batman came about:
Collaborator Bill Finger recalled that "Kane had an idea for a character called 'Batman,' and he'd like me to see the drawings. I went over to Kane's, and he had drawn a character who looked very much like Superman with kind of ... reddish tights, I believe, with boots ... no gloves, no gauntlets ... with a small domino mask, swinging on a rope. He had two stiff wings that were sticking out, looking like bat wings. And under it was a big sign ... BATMAN".
....
Finger suggested giving the character a cowl instead of a simple domino mask, a cape instead of wings, and gloves; he also recommended removing the red sections from the original costume

Bob Kane is still credited as creator of Batman even though the Batman he came up with was actually the most uninspiring unoriginal piece of fictional s**** ever created. Literally a ripoff from Superman.

It's like taking a scribbly child's drawing then trying to make it look cool and stuff over the decades. Sure you can do that. But the core essence of that child's drawing remains: dumb and stupid.

FridgeBeard posted...

At a surface level, Marvel is a little more family friendly, while DC is darker all around. DC is probably at its most memorable when it goes into its more disturbing elements, characters at their most vulnerable, and the more deconstructive aspects. That's not to say Marvel can't do any of that, just when they do... it tends to feel more gimmicky than not.

Marvel and DC are both family-friendly. That's the very genesis of these two comic pioneers.

They created characters meant to appeal to children. Not adults. Thus, the illogic like sparing villians alive, non-intervention by military and politics, buildings self-regenerating and whatnot, America-centricness, wearing bright stupid flashy outfits etc...

Now what happens when you take these early 1900s superheroes meant for children and adapt them to a modern-context? A lot, a lot of stupid senseless stuff that's what. Nowadays we dismiss it as a 'nah, it's a superhero thing'. More like, 'nah, it's outdated 1900 trash being forced into today's context'

Mackorov posted...

I find Batman actually the worst superhero creation ever. It's the perfect example of what happens when you take a very cheesy 1939 fictional character meant for little children's entertainment and then try transforming him into a darker adult-appeal character to fit a modern context.

Characteristics like...

* Not killing villians when legal systems allow capital punishment in many countries anyway
* Dumb inside-out underwear and a stupid cape that serves only as a tactical disadv.
* Punching and kicking people when he has gadgets that can do the job better
* Still a manchild affected by his parents' death while weeping in a large ass mansion with tons of money and women

Comic writers over the years tried changing Batman but had to still retain his core character. The problem with this however, is that it's his very core character (made in outdated 1939) that NEEDS to be changed the most.

At the same time, DC cannot just create a new superhero to replace Batman because of marketing purposes. The popularity of Batman was already established so it's better to just keep capitalising on that.

same applies to pretty much every popular superhero today honestly. Marvel characters make more sense because Kirby and Stan Lee only made their characters much later on and were able to build upon and fix the dumbness DC characters suffered from.

mooreandrew58 posted...

He also has a penchant for dragging ten year olds into gun fights. Wont kill but traumatic injury is fine. Wont trust his best friends and even formulates plans to beat them on the regular. So bad in injustice he installed a virus in cyborg mere days after meeting him, that screams extreme paranoia. Has a tendency of falling in love with criminals one an assassin despite his major disdain for murder. And will go out of his way to save the life of a man with a kill count in the 1000s. No not refuse to kill him but actually save him.

Batman is fucked up in the head and im sure i missed some points

I find Batman actually the worst superhero creation ever. It's the perfect example of what happens when you take a very cheesy 1939 fictional character meant for little children's entertainment and then try transforming him into a darker adult-appeal character to fit a modern context.

Characteristics like...

• Not killing villians when legal systems allow capital punishment in many countries anyway
• Dumb inside-out underwear and a stupid cape that serves only as a tactical disadv.
• Punching and kicking people when he has gadgets that can do the job better
• Still a manchild affected by his parents' death while weeping in a large ass mansion with tons of money and women

Comic writers over the years tried changing Batman but had to still retain his core character. The problem with this however, is that it's his very core character (made in outdated 1939) that NEEDS to be changed the most.

At the same time, DC cannot just create a new superhero to replace Batman because of marketing purposes. The popularity of Batman was already established so it's better to just keep capitalising on that.

AdviceMan posted...

Because DC has the main characters are Gods problem. Thus if you look at it from an outsider, most of the Justice League have very similar power sets. The best part about DC is not the powers it's the very human side of each of the characters, but you have to actually get INTO DC to experience it. Furthermore, Marvel's ability sets tend to be more interesting for a lot of their characters because they're often themed. Superman's powers are literally just a hodge podge of powers, like some child made an original character.

That's also a piece of the problem but you could argue Marvle characters are pretty OP too. What Marvel does better is injecting common sense into their characters, something DC lacked because superheroes was a very foreign concept back then.

Eg. Iron Man is just rich Batman with more common sense so as to use tech instead of punching people.

the only flaw to Batman is his stupid parents death backstory which is rather dumb in today's context given almost all the DC and Marvel superheroes have dead parents too.

Don't know why Batman is the only one so stupidly haunted by his parent's death. Like you don't see Spider-man whimpering about his uncle and in fact he already gets over it past the first chapter. Iron Man parents dead, he just moves on. Wonder Woman parents dead, she just moves on. Like come on, it's f***ing stupid.

mooreandrew58 posted...

Batman is very flawed. Man is about as mentally derranged as his rogues gallery. Hell riddler is a more normal person by comparison. He's just a eccentic criminal with a major ego regarding his intelligence where as batman has some severe hangups

lol very flawed? He's a detective, apparently world's biggest genius, world's biggest strategist, world's best martial artists and knows every move ever, world's richest.

Batman is practically the same as Superman, only overpowered in terms of all human potential.
Wealth, strength, intelligence. He has all 3 attributes.

Movies.

All due to movies.

Very few people read superhero ccomics. In fact i betcha 90% of Marvel fans right now don't even read the comics. They're only with Marvel due to the MCU.

DC failed in their movies way too much. They only succeeded in the Dark Kinght, which was what brought Batman back to relevance, alongside the Arkham games. Superman is only still well-known (albeit not actually well-loved) due to his long history and heritage as the first superhero created

eggcorn posted...

I for one would rather see a plastic woman than plastic man

Isn't that literally that wife from the Incredibles?

to me it's the people that keep buying new FIFA games every year.

I feel like the philosophy of these stuntmen are:

"Why live if you won't accomplish anything?"

Might as well die trying than not try at all

Just_a_loser posted...

This is so stupid.

Its like people flying in movies and games like they are just trying to hit stuff. Most of the time they just crash and die. Its completely impratical.

I wish people would stop pushing this idiocy like its a cool or good idea. Its pointless.

you could argue any sport holds its risks and challenges. Overcoming them is exactly what makes the sport appealing.

RedJackson posted...

Dont most of them die doing this? Lol

No, most don't. Like 1 in a 100 maybe. To even be allowed to wingsuit, you gotta be a serious pro stuntsperson to begin with

isn'rt that what doggly style is??

https://youtu.be/8L8UCfxmtSw?t=73

my gosh, this is the ultimate level of daredevil crazy

I stopped reading the moment Marvel went full SJW with their comics. Purposely introducing new characters and superheroes that belong to some minority race or LGBT identity seems to be a requirement for writers in Marvel now.

DC comics doesn't do this as much thankfully. Not sure about now though. i haven't toucjhed a superhero comic book since like 2015

Shadowplay posted...

INTP

Still, the only use for Myers Briggs and getting a rough feel for how intelligent that someone is without an IQ score given that the different personality types have varying correlations with one's IQ. For the other aspects of personality, one should just use the Five Factor model.

not really, because intelligence is subjective too. In general Intuitive people would be more curious, thus seen as somewhat intellectual, but only because they like discussing intellectual stuff.

Like i know most people who are maths-savvy but don't like indulging in curiosity would fall under Sensing type. That means they prefer doing small talk, and don't like talking about the world and meaning of life.

Phynaster posted...

The one time I did it I got INFP. But its astrology for people who think theyre too smart for astrology

It's not the same or as low as astrology is. Astrology is based on utter BS like your birthdates.

A personality test like MBTI is based on actual attributes you do have and show for. It's only inaccurate when people tend to lie too close in between like being 50/50 intuitive and sensing or 50/50 introvert extrovert or when people do the tests inaccurately themselves.

Yeah, it's still pseudoscience but a lot of psychology works the same. We can't read other people's minds after all

Flockaveli posted...

Someone PLEASE stuff me into a locker for my own good. I am unfortunately still INTJ.

what's wrong with being INTJ

Vicious_Dios posted...

I always get ESTJ-A.

are you like a boss in the company or something

BroHelpImStuck posted...

enfp

whenever I hear ENFP I get the impression of someone super sociable and too talkative. Is that true to you?

that's a lot of extroverts we have here..

have you guys taken the test?

https://www.truity.com/test/type-finder-personality-test-new

Xenozoa425 posted...

I can never accept deism, because to accept that ideology means that you believe in something that is outside your means of control; that your existence is externally based and your energy is always directed outward, never being allowed or able to develop your inner self. When in reality, we are all born with the power of consciousness; the power to master the intuitive creative nature of internal self, in order to project and manifest our reality outward, as dictated by the nature of relativity itself and the fundamental laws of the universe.

An example would be if you were to go to the beach and fill a jug of water from the ocean. Years pass by. The water is so detached from itself, that it believes it is the jug, and the ocean is God, and it prays to the ocean for strength so that it may one day join. When in reality, the jug is just a tiny piece of the ocean in a mere physical vessel; it is made of the same elements as the ocean, it has all the same power and properties as the ocean, but the extent of that power or its properties is limited solely by the vessel that it occupies. Our bodies are the same way, we have so much power within us, yet we throw it away for moments of pleasure on this physical plane of existence.

Who needs meditation and a strong immune system when you can get some vagina and play Spider-Man on PS5 while eating a Big Mac.

sure. what's your greater purpose in life then?

dolomedes posted...

you're out of your mind

you think evolution's lynchpin is that it's hard to believe?

since when and where did I even mention evolution?

evolution is the least hard thing. In fact it's very easy to reconcile. Just put god behind evolution.
You see where the problem lies? That's why the god-of-the-gaps fallacy is so easy to use despite it being a fallacy

Xenozoa425 posted...

My signature is my definition. God is not a person, place, thing or idea. It is the cosmos itself, the totality of everything at its highest level of awareness of itself. We as human people are children of the cosmos, born of the same elements as stars and planets. We are souls that have decided to have a human experience on planet Earth. Our bodies are temporary, but our souls are eternal. We share the gift of consciousness, an extension of awareness of universal consciousness itself; we are all connected to everything at all points in space and time, and our thoughts give us the power to manifest our own realities. When we die, we simply eject our of our vessels, like returning a rental car, and depending on how we've treated our bodies, minds and spirits, we strive to reach celestial union with our peak state of awareness, which would be considered enlightenment or "god mode", where you exist as a pure light entity.

that's called being a panthiest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

I'm personally more on the side of deism if you ask me.

dolomedes posted...

no, there's not.

yes there is.

Unless science can adamantly prove these unknowns, people can still resort to the god argument. The only way I've seen athiests fight back is disregard the arguments altogether, which only reveals their hypocrisy. Like claiming the universe can still harbour life even with changes to the universal variables. However, this detaches from our very definition of what life is meant to be in the first place. To argue back they themselves have to resort to pure speculation on their end too.

Also, I think a lot of people also get confused betw. god and religion. The two are NOT necessarily associated. A lot of Chrisitans however have ruined the intelligent design argument by tossing their Abrahamic god into the picture. If so, yeah so it's easy to make fun of the Bible and point of its flaws.

One instead can define a god as simply as intelligent creator. These are not religion but philosophical beliefs. The two most common are pantheism and deism. Charles Darwin himself is a deist if you didn't know. Yes, the creator of evolution believed in a god. Ironic huh.

A lot of scientists nowadays are also creating their own 'religion' since we can no longer resort to material means of backing up science. For instance, they actually believe in panspermia, the theory that aliens actually created life. In this case, we could call the aliens 'god', no?
But then again, the question begs who created the aliens then?

Xenozoa425 posted...

I mean, all you need to do is take a look at my signature while holding concepts like universal consciousness, law of attraction and unified field theory. Everything in the universe is based on two principles, electricity and magnetism.

What's your definition of God? Because it sure doesnt sound like the Abarahamic God you're going after

the only reality is the one you're willing to realise when you accept critical thinking skills.

Something yes...even some liberals lack in

can't he yknow, bribe the electors?

Poop2 posted...

dont dogs prove evolution?

i dont get how people think evolution isnt real.

there are organs in our body that make no sense other than evolution

I'm pretty sure most people ,even logical Christians, believe in evolution, or at least most of it. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree how dogs evolved from wolves or how we evolved from apes. However, some may still find it rather shady we evolved all the way from a fish in the ocean.

Also, many Christians combine science and their religion by believing God is the one who created evolution. Especially so if you don't count the evangalicals and creationists (those who take the Bible at face value). Those that give leeway to their beliefs can reconcile how dinosaurs may exist with Adam and Eve or something but I doubt they think much of it given the controversial nature of thought

There's two very strong points for intelligent design.

1. The first is the fine-tuned universe argument, that argues on how the very slightest variation in our universal constants could crumble our whole universe.
2. The second is the extreme complexity of life, boiled down to our very DNA which has such an elaborate amount of information, it's hard to not believe it was artificially created.

From what I observe, athiests argue the first point with the multiverse theory, which is just as baseless and unscientific, making their point rather moot and hypocritical.
They argue the second point by obviously...natural selection. I wouldn't say it's not plausible given our DNA has lots of junk info too but it still doesn't explain how life came to being that way in the first place. Even if natural selection is the mechanism, there has to be a doer/creator behind this mechanism, no? Randomness alone doesn't explain it.

PlCCOLO posted...

nozawa is like 90 years old

wonder what happens if voice actors for Goku or Luffy dies. What's gonna happen the anime's future?

Master_Bass posted...

I thought this was going to be the Japanese Goku. Still sad, though.

wow dude, scared me for a second there. Condolescenes but yeah, the Japanese voice actor dying would be an overkill for Toei

g0ldie posted...

true.

but while I like Naruto as a character, I think it'll be better for the story if he doesn't make it.

the original series had too many ass pulls.

betcha they gonna revive Naruto one day

Master_Bass posted...

This sounds like a really stupid plot. I never got into Naruto/Boruto, but I might sometime. What's with this alien trash, though?

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Boruto is awful quite frankly.

Why aliens? Why make the series go in such a stupid direction? You have an entire world of many different potential cultures, with their own issues.

Boruto should have been about Boruto being a Genin, not Naruto fighting aliens.

dude, Kaguya the final villian, was already alien.

Boruto enemies are basically all related to Kaguya. So if you think Kaguya was OP as f****, this Boruto villian is even more OP as f****

yeah it's cool to have your favourite classic games come to life in next-gen graphics, but does no one see how game developers are also using it as a good excuse for churning out easy profits?

Don't have new ideas or don't want risk-taking with a new game concept?

Why not just rehash, repackage an existing game for a very low cost and development period, then charge it to consumers like it's a brand new game?

genius!

Also just to clarify, I don't just mean the PS4. The Xbox X is the same marketing scam.

Different packaging. Different price. Exact same s***.