Lurker > StealThisSheen

paperwarior posted...

And the camera getting stuck in the back of the house not following your character leaves a strong impression.

See, I honestly don't even remember that happening. I couldn't tell you if it did or not to me, because to me, something like that is just... 3D gaming, so I never pay attention to it unless it's a legitimate problem.

When people go "This looks like a PS2 game," I just assume they're either already determined to hate it no matter what, or forget what PS2 games actually looked like.

I just started the game and I really don't get what's so bad about the intro cutscene/house graphics? They certainly aren't amazing, but they're nowhere near as bad as people on GameFAQs seem to be suggesting.

Now that I think about it, the only store that offers paper around here is WinCo, which is basically an employee owned warehouse style grocery store that typically offers promotions for holiday shopping (spend X amount and get a free turkey), which is probably why I equate paper to holiday shopping.

I typically do small trips over large ones, so I pay with plastic, bag with plastic. Occasionally I'll have larger purchases, for the holidays or such, which will become pay with plastic, bag with paper, but not often.

Hitmonchan and Hitmonlee were named after Chinese card player Johnny Chan, known for his fantastic poker hands, and founding father Francis Lightfoot Lee.

plum would rather leave that info out and blame leftists, though.

https://twitter.com/joekent16jan19/status/1580274004514213888

This makes his loss so, so much more satisfying.

I'm avoiding looking at anything because I like seeing Pokemon for the first time in game, but maybe they took a different direction since people were complaining recent gen Pokemon weren't generic enough and looked more like "anime main characters" than wild animals/etc.

Kenri posted...

You're probably not wrong but I think it also gets less traction when it's clear someone is already facing appropriate consequences for their actions

I think this is the key point. One side certainly has much more trouble holding their own accountable, and thus those stories naturally gain more traction because they aren't dealt with swiftly.

He ended up having a lot of problems, which sadly isn't uncommon for child stars.

CassandraCain posted...

Shit! Sorry SEP, def didn't mean to skip you

Oh, whew, no biggie! Was just making sure I didn't do something dumb lately.

Am I ignored or did I just get skipped

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2_-gx0C3dE

MW2 just had the biggest launch of the series ever on the PS store, so it's probably not going anywhere for awhile.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Even if you're right about the money being completely fungible, most people don't think in those terms. Taylor directing funding towards Billboards for Life vs a general church fund says different things about her priorities.

This is the point. It's not about the organizations themselves, but what it says about the person's intentions. Somebody can intend to donate to a general church fund primarily thinking it'll go to Good Cause X and Good Cause Y. And yes, it will probably also go to Bad Cause A and Bad Cause B, but it can't automatically be assumed Bad Cause A and B were part of their intention/thought process directly, even if the money may end up there. When you are pushing donations toward an organization whose literal only purpose is Bad Cause A, you know the donator is intending to support Bad Cause A directly. There's a difference in what each says about their intentions and what they think matters most.

foolm0r0n posted...

You're 100% incorrectly reading my post btw. I'm sorry I made it too complicated.

Then in the 2nd post I quoted you INDIRECTLY said it was okay since it was part of a church that does some good stuff. You did this by mistake, because you would never intentionally make such a contradiction, but you did do it and I tried to point it out.

So to fix the contradiction you either have to retract your blatant statement (which is blatantly correct), or your indirect statement (which had faulty reasoning). I'm assuming you are retracting the latter and you do agree with my point about Christian orgs now.

That's important because it's the whole lesson of this drama: Normalize being wrong and changing your tune. I mentioned this before but it seems like everyone forgot.

It's also important because if you really care about abortion rights, you will not donate to a church (or any anti-abortion org). It seems like a lot of centrists ITT think you can donate to JUST the homeless shelter part of the church. Or they don't actually care about money going to anti-abortion.

Okay wow I have greatly overestimated you over the years, it appears. You've gone into full "oops i mess up better deflect" mode.

foolm0r0n posted...

What?

Go to the website and the link to the church it's associated with. They do a bunch of stuff and this is apparently one of them. Looks like your classic set of charities for homeless and kids and such. If you're donating to a church it likely has this combo anti-abortion/homeless/kids stuff, so go check.

It's official then, The SEP finds billboardsforlife.com acceptable because it's part of a good Christian org. Hellena did nothing wrong here. Let's all eagerly await a better reason to hate on her.

You're not actually very smart, are you? Today I learned.

EDIT: Seems like you just now realized what people were saying, and you attempted to move your shitty logic to somebody else. Except I blatantly said billboardforlife.com is bad, so you fail, here.

This is classic "Oh shit I defended this person, so now I need to pretend it was actually somebody else defending them." Sad, really.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Twitter seems to believe the attacker was paul pelosi's homosexual lover.

Also that he is a false flag because of positions he had taken a decade ago before becoming radicalized. "He was a Castro protesting nudist 10 years ago, that sounds more like a liberal than a conservative to me!"

Nevermind the events of the past decade.

Ah, so this is another case where the "back the blue" party thinks the cops are lying. Interesting.

Like, Tony and I agree on things more often than not. But I was in his face about both Hillary and Tulsi. One I was right on, one I wasn't. Granted, it wasn't because I actually supported Hillary over Bernie, but because I quickly accepted the reality that she was gonna be the nominee, whereas Tony was willing to cling on to hope and principles longer than I was. I, admittedly, sold my principles down the river to desperately back the "winner."

And, well, we saw how that went.

charmander6000 posted...

I disagree. For example, a Christian organization which runs a homeless shelter and is against abortion, but doesn't do anything about it is better than a Christian organizations whose sole purpose is to promote anti-abortion views.

This. There ARE good Christian organization causes, even if they're usually outweighed by the bad more often than not. This one doesn't do any of those, though. It ONLY focuses on the bad.

Though you're right, everybody has a stinker. Mine was jumping to Hillary quickly as soon as I thought it was obvious she was going to win the nomination, and thus I was hostile to people against it more than I should have been.

That said, if there's anything I'll feel vindicated on almost as much as hating Tulsi, it'll be defending the "deplorables" comment.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Everyone has a stinker in their past, it happens.

I just can't remember what was who's!

SOMEONE used to be Tulsi Gabbard Stan!

That was like half the topic! Which is why I gave people shit for it all the time.

Luckily, everybody learned while ago, which, admittedly, gave the giving of shit less fun.

I think Biscuit's most recent "Uh..." moment was the "Just leave poor Kyle Rittenhouse alone, he doesn't want the attention" stuff, but I think he has openly admitted how wrong he was on that since.

Maybe. I honestly don't remember.

foolm0r0n posted...

Is the goal to make me explain to you how that's a Christian org like you're a bunch of toddlers or something? I don't get it

The point is that it isn't a Christian org that just happens to run billboards, it's an org that is SPECIFICALLY anti-abortion/runs billboards and just happens to be Christian.

There is a stark difference between a Christian org that goes "well, yes, this is Christian," and an org whose main focus is literally the anti-abortion subject.

Yes they're technically Christian, but, uh... It's not like they're outwardly pushing multiple Christian values. Just one specific one.

I'm pretty sure it was Wang, who was 1,000,000% gamergater, and claimed to be left leaning, but his posts never really reflected it.

Biscuit I don't think was pro GG, and he's generally left wing with a few glaring examples (defending Richard Spencer in the past), but those also aren't very current.

But does it burn the urethra?

The only black cat I know from video games is Mae from Night in the Woods

Yeah, I think the issue is that it seems like every time you have a big argument with other people in the topic, you immediately go to "You just attack REPUBLICANS, Biden stan!"

Like, you think that's just some easy card to play, no matter how accurate or not it is. You've even used it against people like LTM and Tony.

Tony.

Do you know how many arguments I, alone, have had with Tony over Biden? And Biden was like, my fourth choice!

Jakyl25 posted...

This is such a fun debate Im gonna feed plum some ammo

You people are all for a mother breastfeeding in public! Whats the difference?? <_<

Hey, if he wants to push for masturbation in public to be legal, he's free to make that push!

That said, I should be more fair, so I'll re-ask it.

plum, if a cop is walking down a street or through a parking lot and happens to see a baby inside of a hot car, should they do anything about it? And no, no deflecting with "A cop shouldn't be looking in cars." Most people who see babies/pets in vehicles aren't peeping in backseats, they see it because you can see inside cars when you walk by them.

Kenri posted...

This is honestly an incredibly embarrassing pair of posts even in the context of what you're responding to

I'm being incredibly facetious because I feel at this point he doesn't actually deserve legit responses.

That said, my first post appears to be accurate, since he's making the claim that you can't see in a car window unless you're trying to look/peep, and he said cops shouldn't ever be looking inside of a car, so that actually is a natural conclusion to draw, since it'd mean a cop is "peeping" if they see a baby inside. And he did, in fact, say that about rape/murder.

The second post is me being a dick, yes.

Years ago I bought one of those window clings you put on the inside of your car window so that people know something important about you, like if you have an honor roll student or if you eat at Joe's. Well, I wanted people to not have any doubt whatsoever that I support the Pittsburgh Steelers in some way, but now I've finally realized I've wasted my money, since nobody can see through car windows.

Dammit. How will they know I believe this is Steelers country now?!

Xeybozn posted...

I feel like plum masturbates in his car and wants people to see him do it, but he doesn't want the police to be allowed to stop him. He's never assumed people can't see him, though.

Good point. He did seem okay with other people seeing inside cars, just not cops.

masterplum posted...

Grabbed a random pic off google
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/6/AANz_VAADzP6.jpg

You can't see what is going on in the back of that gold car unless you are trying to look. Hell, its hard to see what is going on in that black toyota and the front window is easier to look through than the back one

You can literally see the seats and dashboard of that silver car in the back, not to speak of the other two cars up front. You ruined your own argument. I like how you point out cars with tinted windows/sun glare and think that's a victory, ignoring like all of the other cars that you can see inside of. This was not your finest moment, and now I just assume you don't ever drive or park anywhere near other cars.

I feel like plum has all but admitted to masturbating in his car in public parking lot and he just assumes either nobody can see him, or everybody just shuts their eyes when walking through parking lots so they don't accidentally see through somebody's window and got to hell.

Grimlyn posted...

i remember as a little kid climbing a giant pile of plowed snow in a parking lot, there was a cop car like way across the lot

and little child me could spot the officer in his vehicle gesturing downwards to communicate for me to get down and i did

You dirty peeper.

masterplum posted...

Go ahead and say you peep into everyones backseats without saying you peep into everyones backseats

So you've never seen a car before. That explains a lot.

masterplum posted...

No, I said a cop shouldn't be looking. That wasn't a very hard statement to understand

It's extremely easy to see inside of cars without "looking" in some illegal way. You realize this, right? Have you ever seen a car before?

masterplum posted...

A cop shouldn't be looking

So, then, yes, you're saying if a cop sees a baby in a hot car, they should let the baby die.

Just go ahead and say it.

You already said a cop shouldn't stop a rape or murder as long as it's in a car, no matter where that car is parked, so...

masterplum posted...

People walking by aren't police

So if it's a cop he should let the baby die?

You can't just say "I rescind my argument," keep arguing the exact same thing, and then go "But I said I rescind!"

Here's another question, since you seem to think looking in car windows is a sin more heinous than rape and murder.

If you're walking by a car and you see a pet or baby in the back seat, and the windows are up, and the car is off, and it's a very hot day, are you arguing that NOTHING should be done with it? That pet or baby should potentially die, because it's more important that the car owner has their privacy?

masterplum posted...

What part of if he had cause I recant my statement did you not understand?

It's hard to understand it when you immediately back pedal to "durrrr looking in car windows without cause is bad!"

What you do in your car, in public view, is not private. That means that anything from murder to smoking weed (assuming it's illegal in that state) is a crime and, if seen when you're sitting in your car in public, should be treated as such. The argument shouldn't be "It doesn't count if you're in your car and they see it." The argument should be, I don't know, smoking weed shouldn't be illegal?

masterplum posted...

I don't understand why its so hard to comprehend the act doesn't matter. He could have been doing drugs, he could have been murdering someone, he could have been drunk in the drivers seat

Cops checking cars without probable cause is bad

He. Had. Cause.

You ignoring that doesn't change it.

And, again, you keep trying to paint this as something like "so ackshually the cop ran over for no reason and tore the car door off its hinges and pulled this poor man out of his car and beat him half to death and then threw him to the ground and then jerked him off and then charged him with masturbating in public. how are you guys not against this?! acab!"

This is no "illegal search and seizure," no matter how desperately you argue it.

masterplum posted...

I am assuming innocence until proven guilty and not crucifying the guy without full information

He literally admitted to the crime he's being charged with. He was literally caught in the act of the crime he's being charged with.

"You guys are crucifying him without full information!"

You are fucking disgusting.

masterplum posted...

The dude admitted he was near a preschool when he was pressed on it. That doesn't change the fact that the location has nothing to do with the act. He could have been near a preschool, church, circus whatever

How do you know that, other than taking the guy's word for it? How do you know what he was actually watching on his phone? How do you know his proximity to the preschool wasn't helping him get off?

You don't. You're making assumptions because you want to defend this guy and/or this act so badly.

masterplum posted...

Nah, I just read the article and was annoyed the headline made it sound like he was jerking it to preschoolers when the article said he was just watching porn on his phone and a cop showed up

So, wait. You automatically jump to "That cop has to be lying," but you just immediately believe the dude masturbating in public about what he was masturbating to on his phone?

masterplum posted...

That wasn't in the article I read

If that is the case I rescind my argument

So you didn't know about that, and you didn't know the guy acknowledged he was near a preschool and basically was hopeful that would be omitted from the report. Which means you were ignorant of several key pieces of information about the event in question.

And you STILL argued to this extent?

masterplum posted...

If the cop in this story indicated that they suspected the dude was doing something wrong before approaching the car this topic would have 100 less posts

He did. The dude was idling outside of a preschool for an abnormal amount of time at a time that wasn't normal for people to be idling there, which is suspicious in this day and age.

Try again.

masterplum posted...

I mean yeah. You can find corner cases for every amendment in the bill of rights where you don't actually want that right to exist but that is the price you pay for having them. You want freedom of speech but that means people can be openly racist or anti-Semitic. You want freedom of religion but that means sometimes people brainwash kids in cults.

I believe in protection against unlawful search and seizure. Of course we would reduce sexual crimes if we installed cameras on every street corner. That's what China does, but I value that freedom even if it means sometimes sexual assaults will occur

Please explain how what is visible through a car window in a public fucking place is "unlawful search and seizure."

You literally just argued "Yep, better let dudes just go to town on themselves OR on an unwilling victim as long as they are in their car, even if it's next to a preschool or in any other public place."

I feel like you had some kind of gut, emotional reaction to this case in particular, and now you're desperate to turn this around on us by making it some kind of privacy/ACAB issue when it isn't even remotely.

This isn't about cameras. It's about something the cop saw happening because IT'S IN. FUCKING. PUBLIC.