 |
|
 |
|
| Posts by HuFlungDu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by MVSI thought we'd gotten away without the panic thread.
Never gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by MrDeePayI prefer Rameau's proposal in that the green duck at the end of Carnival Capers be the boss instead of a white one.
I agree with that.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by AquamentusDay and night
Wait, does this hack have a day and night system that I was previously unaware of? Or is it just something in this level (that, again, I was previously unaware of)?
|
|
| (restricted) |
|
|
Originally posted by BlackMageMarioOr better, a person
Yeah, everybody in here looks exactly the same, so you should describe the person you are looking for as "a person", that will surely narrow down the possibilities. Even saying "a dark skinned person" is not valid, because other ethnicities are also dark skinned, though maybe not as much as black people. Often saying "the black guy" is the most efficient way of delineating who you are referring to.
Also, there is no term more racist, I think, than "African-American". Besides the obvious hyphenation issues, you are also assuming that the person both has an African lineage and is now a citizen of the United States. What if they are just Africans? What if they are Canadian? What if (gasp) black people come from other places than Africa?
Originally posted by AxemJinxI don't hear anyone using "yellow" nowadays to describe people hailing from southeast Asia and nearby islands, for instance
That's because they really aren't that yellow, so it's not a very good description. I didn't even notice they were yellow-ish until someone told me. A more obvious descriptor is the general facial structures and body types that have evolved in those areas, making "Asian" or such a much better and more efficient descriptive term.
To add to the original conversation, I don't understand political correctness, or indeed most kinds of social etiquette, so I tend to just ignore them and state facts and hope people are mature enough to not be offended, since I do at least know not to make personal attacks.
|
| Last edited on 2012-08-07 01:25:33 AM by HuFlungDu. |
|
|
|
Originally posted by AxemJinxFair enough, but it seems odd to me somehow that the most efficient descriptor for one kind of people is skin color whereas for another it's facial/body structure. Maybe that's just the way it happens to play out, though.
Well, I mean, my nephew is 1/4 Korean. His skin is totally white, but he has clearly "Asian" features, therefor calling him yellow would not be particularly descriptive, and in fact would be just wrong. Calling him Asian makes more sense than calling him yellow. It's possible that it's just random luck that we call black people black and Asian people Asian, but I'm pretty convinced it's just because to a lot of people (I would assume, given that it is this way with me) they don't even look that yellow, so it didn't really stick.
Originally posted by BlackMageMarioOr you know, you could say there name. Or point them out.
I don't know their name and they are in a group. Sure, I could describe their position within the group, but it is more efficient just to describe their skin color, and if you are offended by that, there is something wrong with you, not me.
Originally posted by EgaddFixed that for you.
You changed nothing... I don't understand...
I see. You should be more explicit.
|
| Last edited on 2012-08-07 01:38:36 AM by HuFlungDu. |
|
|
|
Originally posted by AxemJinxnor am I sure the various facial/body types are really homogeneous enough, relatively speaking, to do that.
That would be my best guess.
Originally posted by AxemJinx...I hope I'm making sense, anyway ^_^;
Yep, I get you.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by enigmahackAnyway, either way, while this would work for some people, things just feel different to me. I love my SNES, and I like the idea that I'm playing hacks on real hardware, the way it was meant to be played.
We're all just nostalgic fools, aren't we? Oh well, I guess we wouldn't really be here if we weren't.
Also: Apparently I haven't replied to this thread yet, so I'll add that I use my real SNES to play Mario hacks, and am as disappointed as anyone else who does the same that hacks don't work. In case anyone thought that I fixed addmusic for other people, it was purely a selfish act; I want to play the darn hacks on the SNES.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by millieman76or hit them
Do it. Then, follow it up by saying "YOLO" and giving them a Reggie Shrug.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by infestationI am personally against the legalization of pot... That being said I have nothing against people who do choose to use it.
"I have nothing against people who use it, I just think they should be sent to prison."
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by infestationhaha now you are putting words in my mouth
I'm sorry, what was your plan to enforce the illegalization of marijuana if not prison?
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by TomPhantoI also remember Livewire
I'm a big fan of orange soda, so livewire was awesome to me. As far as I can tell, it makes the occasional comeback during the summer months, but they don't sell it year round here (instead we get code red, gross).
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Onyx3173Wouldn't it just make LM a ton more difficult for FuSoYa to keep updated since it would be just that much more work for him anyways?
Not if there was a plug-in system.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by eXcavatorIf somebody asked me why I wear a seatbelt while in a car, I would tell them "I do not want to be ticketed or punished for not doing so." For any question like this, I would never simply answer "Because it's the law!"
Technically, you are answering because it's the law, not because it's actually wrong to do, but because you don't want to face the imposed penalty that the law puts forward. Without the law, you probably still would wear your seatbelt, but it would be because it's stupid not to. The law being there changes the answer.
Originally posted by eXcavatorI would like to sum this up with a question: If you were in a (hypothetical) situation where breaking a law would benefit you completely, would not compromise any of your moral values, and if you had basically no chance to get caught and punished, would you break that law? Or would you not do so because you believe that breaking the law is always wrong?
Without hesitation. Laws only exist as a way of protecting your (or others) person or property from force, if they aren't doing that, there is no reason to follow them besides fear of consequences, and the only consequences in this scenario are good.
|
|
| (restricted) |
|
|
Originally posted by DinomarYes, i think laws must be in any community, otherwise [...] everyone would kill someone
Really? Who is on your kill list? Because mine is empty.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by DinomarIt was a mere example, no need to be nitpicky
It's not nitpicky, you said everyone would kill each other if there were no law, I was demonstrating that it doesn't hold to be true. I don't think that morality depends on laws, and I think that the violence rate would be exactly the same if there were no laws, because, for the most part, we don't kill people (or steal from them, or rape them, or whatever) not because it's illegal to do so, but because it is immoral to do so. I was arguing that a lack of law does not necessarily mean chaos, it would pretty much be a few (comparatively) nutbags who do any of the actual violence. You can claim that the law is important to stop those nutbags (and I don't know that I would disagree) but to say that, deep down, everyone is a criminal restrained only by fear of consequences is, I think, totally wrong.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by KaijyuuYou don't believe in the concept of deterrence?
I'd never thought of it before but, back up against the well, I'm going to have to say not in a grand scope, no. It works from person to person (and that's how I would want a society to work), but from a top down point of view, it's never really been particularly effective, see violent crime rates in states that have the death penalty. For some things it obviously works, like the aforementioned seat belt laws, but it only works in cases where the thing being deterred is not actually immoral, aside from that, laws are just damage control.
|
| Last edited on 2012-08-18 01:11:49 PM by HuFlungDu. |
|
|
|
Originally posted by BlackMageMarioIt's how ships in Star Trak get from place to place
Off topic, but I'm pretty sure ships in Star Trek work by shrinking space in front of them and growing space behind them, rather than by folding space like paper. I guess it beats star wars, where they just change to a dimension where the laws of physics are more like suggestions.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by BlackMageMarioWell, I'm pretty sure that's like folding paper.
Eh, not really, it's more like moving space around you.
Originally posted by BlackMageMarioThat, or I was thinking of something different.
You were right about that being how wormholes would work, just not that star trek does it that way. Maybe you were thinking of the stargate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.
Copyright © 2005 - 2013 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Link To UsTotal queries: 27
|
|
|
|
