Messages

fierce's ego

Hey now, at least call my self-righteous white knight complex by its real name

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf-UD0Dfeo0

[close]

this actually made me smile

like, physically

with my face

And these productive ways of which you speak do not include openly implying that your opponent is obstinate and brainwashed.

My observation is that he can't look past what he's been told about Christianity and he doesn't realize it. What is that called again???

That and a lot of previous ones, so don't make it sound like I'm the one feeding the flames. I think it starts when dirt from some previous topic that has nothing to do with this one is brought in just to start a fuss.

You're missing the point. If one's to claim the moral high ground, a personal attack of any kind is unacceptable. It's not constructive to the argument in any way, shape, or form, so I can't imagine any morally sound reason to do so, regardless of how much better or worse his response may have been.

I think what olimar is trying to say is:

LET US END THIS CEASELESS DEBATE, LEST IT FURTHER TEAR US APART AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE ONE TRUE GOD

LET US PRAY

FOREMAN, WHO ART IN TEXAS
HALLOWED BE THY GRILL
THY T-BONES COME, NOT QUITE WELL-DONE,
ON EARTH AS THEY ARE IN HEAVEN
GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY STEAK,
AND FORGIVE US OUR BURNT MEALS, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO BURN MEALS AGAINST US
AND LEAD US NOT INTO FROZEN MEALS, BUT DELIVER US FROM BLANDNESS
FOR YOURS IS THE COOKOUT, AND THE SWAPPABLE GRILL PLATES, AND THE FAT-REDUCING MODEL FOREVER
AMEN

My observation is that he can't look past what he's been told about Christianity and he doesn't realize it. What is that called again???

I can remember when you couldn't look past what you knew about a certain something too *cough*

Oh look here, trying to escalate it with a personal attack, huh?

Can't we just agree that everything in this exchange was unnecessarily inflammatory?

RD

Just got to the part after Ike's dad dies. Kind of sad.

[close]

FE is such an emotional series for how intentionally cheesy it can be at times

Oh right. What I'm playing right now:

I don't actually have time outside of work to play much, but there's quite often downtime at my jobs, and since I'm not allowed to have headphones or my own computer with me (and therefore have very limited options for using that time productively), I've taken to playing games on snesfun. Started and finished Super Mario World in ~3 hours during a particularly uneventful shift.

So... Jessie can beat a Seviper to a pulp with her bare hands. Yup.
(Now do that to Ash and Pikachu)

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2YWF74cCts

[close]

"Rice ball-stealing"? Don't you mean "jelly donut-stealing"?

guys wait we were doing so well

[1. People should not expect their faith to be forced onto others, or treated as fact by the rest of society.]

If you claim that denying something beyond the realm of proof is faith, well, guys I have a confession, I'm God. You can't disprove my claim since I can just respond to anything with "I'm omnipotent, I allowed that inconsistency to happen", thus anyone who doesn't believe me is doing so entirely out of faith. In fact, so much so to the point that it could be called it it's own religion. I'll name it "FireArrow is an idiot."

Pastafarianism is my favorite example for this. PROVE THAT A GIANT SPAGHETTI MONSTER DIDN'T MAKE EVERYTHING, I DARE YOU

The definition of faith I prefer is "belief in what cannot be seen."

Technically this doesn't disprove FA's claim in the slightest. Can you actually observe FA's omnipotency? The fact that he (probably, idk I've never met him) has a physical existence on this earth doesn't change that fact. Faith in Jesus as the messiah follows a similar principle; he was definitely here at one point. There is enough empirical evidence to support that. But to believe the accounts on his identity as the son of God is what takes faith.

Here's my spiel, guys. I was raised protestant, and am still Christian to a certain extent (though honestly it's probably closer to agnosticism at this point). But I believe in a rational and just God more than I do in some unverified, widely variable scripture written by imperfect men on his account. The probability that certain parts were included just as a reflection of each writer's personal views, or of the views of the culture in which they were written (because who's going to follow a religion that doesn't make at least some concessions to what you already believe?), is just too high for me to accept them as truth.

When it comes down to it, I don't really care whether somebody believes in God or not. And unless God is a narcissistic prick, he/she/they/it shouldn't care, either. Here's what I do care about:

1. People should not expect their faith to be forced onto others, or treated as fact by the rest of society. and
2. People should only follow their faith insofar as it does not infringe upon the rights of, or cause considerable suffering to, others, just as they should only oppose practices against their faith if those practices do the same.

This applies in multiple ways:

-If your beliefs contradict scientific findings, that's fine. Just don't expect your beliefs to be considered on the same level, or to limit advancement in that field.

-If a cultural practice such as gay marriage opposes your faith, that's fine. And if you are a pastor with such beliefs, I believe that you should have the right to refuse to oversee such weddings, so long as they have another feasible option available. However, this does not mean that we should prevent the practice itself on a legal basis. It would incur no plausible detriments to society. It would not infringe upon anyone else's rights, nor would it incur any plausible detriments to anyone. As such, it is purely based on faith, something that cannot be expected to be forced onto others at the cost of their rights.

-If someone believes differently than you, you have no reason to treat them differently, unless they are using that belief in opposition to rules 1 or 2, in which case it is only acceptable if intended to rectify said behavior (and of course, without infringing upon rights or incurring considerable suffering, yourself). I want to stress, this applies equally to both sides. Mistreatment of another human being is wrong, regardless of what they believe. (That's not to say there shouldn't be legal ramifications for anything, but in this case I interpret "cruel and unusual" to mean anything excessive to solving the problem.)


This isn't a perfect theory by any stretch of the imagination. For example, it still leaves "rights" as pretty ambiguous, as when is one right infringing upon another, instead of the other way around? For this, my interpretation is that "intrapersonal rights" (i.e. things that affect you and noone else) take priority over "interpersonal rights" (i.e. rights you have regarding your interactions with others). But that's in the realm of legal theorists, and is not the point of this spiel. My point is:

People should have the right to their own faith, and should respect the different faiths of others. But for this to happen, there has to be a middle ground for societal interaction when these faiths are in opposition. And the only rational solution to this is to have the middle ground be that which is empirically observable. It is okay to believe differently than these observations, but the moment that you try to use your faith as grounds to disprove, or even worse, ignore, these things, you are misusing your faith.

[really]

Just to be clear I was joking about my conspiracy theory

And kinda really hope you are as well

My friend had a good theory

Donald Trump is actually rooting for the democrats, and is appealing exclusively to the most vocal Republican base in order to win the nomination but not the general election

I really want to believe that tbh

>just won first game in remotely competitive scenario
>claims knowledge of competitive landscape of game
>mfw:


>you're goddamn right I'm using greentext where it doesn't work

I'm fairly certain someone in my building is running an airbnb out of his/her overpriced apartment. There are different people coming in and out of the building, sometimes with suitcases. If all else fails, my friend is a decent landlord and owns a few places in Queens. Also I know people who aren't violent mobsters so maybe as a last resort...

Also, a lot of people in my building (mostly old, me included) live in rent stabilized apartments. You're far from running out of options. I think demanding  a year of rent upfront is out of the question and you should take it to the city...I'm always trying to sock it to the landlord, the bastard with a bad tan, so go ahead and complain to the city about possible violations.

Ya, in many cities it's illegal to ask for anything more than 1 month of rent as deposit, I'd check renters laws if you get some shady deal like that.

The problem is, the landlord isn't officially asking for it. It's being moderated by brokers, and since we were initially rejected due to our guarantor situation, our broker suggested offering that ourselves, considering we're likely to be rejected from most apartments in our situation (and have been thus far)

And ultimately, we're able to pay it; it caused some serious sticker shock with my parents, but they've been saving up for situations like this, and we would've had to pay just as much in the long run anyways, so it's not an unbearable burden.