Recent posts by biguglyorc on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Your hyperbole is too unstable. Somehow the fact that I would not kill someone equates to your claim that I would “do nothing at all.”

Kill or let your kid die. What’s so hard to understand here? It is a hypothetical situation, with set axioms and boundaries.


You are distorting my position into areas that support your fabricated

Why bother pointing out a hypothetical situation, as I’ve called it myself in the first post, is fabricated? Of course it’s fabricated, as to my knowledge you partook in no such event.
and highly implausible story about a crazy man that wants me to murder him.


Yeah, no.

You also claim that there’s a difference between murder and killing.


Yes. There is.
All murders are an act of killing, but not all kills are murders. They are two different terms describing different acts, whatever your beliefs are. As I’ve said, I respect your beliefs, please respect my affinity for proper terminology.

Also, since you recommended checking Exodus 20:13. Learn your bible, if you must insist on using it on others. But please, let’s not make it another religion discussion.

If there were nobody else that could end someone’s excruciating pain, I don’t know that I would. Probably not, but perhaps I could find the means for them to do it themselves.

Fair answer, I take it. Thank you.


What if I’m delusional and I’m projecting that they want to die? What if my dog tells me that they want to die? What if they’ll probably get over it? What if my friend, in passing, says something like “this sucks… I wish I could just die”? At what point am I supposed to grab a gun and end their life?


It’s beyond the case I presented, but I understand your doubts.

Here’s my answer: NEVER.


See how simple that is?

I don’t, actually. It gets complicated more than it is, because you redefine terms to your needs and cause confusion as you do it. And you still haven’t responded to the first fabricated story of mine. Could you do that, please?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Biguglyorc, I think you missed an earlier point I was making. Justifying violence is relative and contextual. There is no instance that you can come up with that I would “without question” commit an act of murder.

There’s a difference between murdering people and killing them – mind you, it lies in terminology, not ideology. Murder requires pre-emptive action, motifs, etc. Killing does not. The first example I gave was about killing in defence of your loved ones, not murdering in cold blood a person that might some day come after them.


For example, “an insane person hands you a gun…(etc.)”.


This is preposterous. Will the insane man change his mind in a moment like God staying Abraham’s hand as it’s poised over his son’s neck? This person is requiring ME to kill THEM or THEY will kill my kid? Why doesn’t the dude just kill himself?


‘Cause he’s insane. I gave this example to get rid off of dumb at first look, yet completely possible explanations, like “the guy wanted to die badly, but couldn’t pull the trigger on himself”. So let’s just say it’s an axiom that he will kill your kid, should you do nothing. It is also an axiom that he wants to die by your hand. Pardon the phrasing, but as this situation is all about action or lack thereof, do you kill the man who wants to die and who will kill your kid if you refuse?

If I do nothing, I did NOT kill my kid. The insane man did. You said so yourself.

I didn’t say it would be the same as killing your kid yourself, nor would such thesis hold up in a court. But then again, let’s imagine such situation did happen in real life, you let the madman go, the police come, you explain to them what happened. The officer asks you ‘Why didn’t you just pull the trigger?’ – which, really, is the thing I think any sane person would do. What’s your answer to the cop? That you’re a pacifist?

I respect your thoughts on violence and how to counter it, I agree that violence causes violence, but there are situations when you can’t just turn the other cheek to people who harm you OR people you are supposed to protect. Sometimes -although I think such times are fewer than karma seems to – protection means aggression.

I’m not sure why I’m somehow responsible for engaging with crazy people that are taking hostages and such.

You are, though. You aren’t responsible for what they do, sure, but you are responsible for what you do, or do not. To put it literally, in this scenario “you are responsible for doing nothing at all to save your child”. Fault doesn’t equal responsibility.

The euthanasia question is much more interesting. I do not consider assisted suicide murder. Therefore I would “endorse” that act if it was required. I would not inject the life-ending serum myself because I am not trained.

I thought I did say “they ask you specifically”, but I probably should’ve phrased it better nonetheless, and although I know you expanded on it in your following posts, let me reword it: there is no-one else who could do it. Would you?

It’s super simple (and I’m surprised that it is even worth talking about): I will not kill anyone for any reason.

I’ll quote it just to point out that I’m aware that all of my questions could just as well be answered with this line, but you did elaborate on how you view euthanasia, so I’ll leave it at that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

@petesahooligan
Since we’re playing with clearly hypothetical situations, I hope you don’t mind if I join in. You’re a pacifist, I get it, you abstain from violence when you can, I get that too, but what if you’re forced (that’s a keyword here) to act?

Say, an insane person hands you a gun and tells you to kill them or they will kill your kid who is right next to the two of you – you know they’ll do it, and you are also in a way permitted by that person to take their life. Question one, what will you do? Question two, if you choose to do nothing at all, which ends as your kid being dead, do you think you’re responsible for your child’s death by not partaking in the choice you’re given, which in the end means choosing to do nothing?

And another hypothetical situation – euthanasia. A person dear to you is terminally ill or wounded – it is clear they will die in torment – and asks you, begs of you specifically to ease their pain, so they wouldn’t have to suffer any longer. To make this situation easier, let’s assume no legal consequences would ensue. What do you do?

Given your own examples, I take it that you find killing another human being the most immoral thing to do, no matter what the competition is. So… no exceptions?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is there even a war with OT/SD

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
textwalls are just as intimidating to me as to OTers. I don’t even like my own. But what happens is somebody posts a lengthy rant, and one of our robots deconstructs it line by line, and then we’re all doing it otherwise it’s confusing what we’re responding to.

It’s understandable, I quote too. However, quoting one point of a post at a time to present your argument supporting it or against it is one thing, another is picking single sentences out of their contexts and commenting on them as if they were presented that way.

We ask for links if you got a claim, not always but if you’re acting like a douche it’s a good silencing method. I don’t think it’s asking that much.

It’s natural. Not being a dick about claiming evidence is another thing, but it’s different in every scenario.

Apart from karma and occasionally me, nobody hassles newbies

There’s also tenco, jhco and even vika had her go along with you and karma against yeasy not long ago. She was probably the most civil about it, but still joined in. Using that thread as an example, though, I’d say yeasy, although he couldn’t handle arguing too well, was far more civil there than any of you.

Being right is probably important on a forum like this, but one doesn’t need to be a dick about it. Especially when three other people are already explaining in detail how right they are.

but if they make a garbled textwall like this, mocking shall ensue.

I get it’s annoying, but – again – why start off with mocking? Mocking someone who repeats the same mistakes over and over again is fairly understandable, but someone who can barely type, yet whatever they wrote carries an interesting point, it’s excusable, isn’t it?

Or reverse the situation, someone knows how to type, but is spilling utter bullshit. That can provide interesting responses, too. Really, attitude can work wonders.

Also, it’s funny how my comment in the thread I linked isn’t far from this thread’s topic.

/edit

@vikaTae
Maybe I worded it wrong, but I was really just asking a question there, it wasn’t my intention to call you out on hypocrisy.
If anything, I did call you out on the thing with yeasy in this post, which you’ve just covered, and while I know you tried, it still wasn’t very elegant.


Summing up everyone like that is not what I’m trying to do here, but I’ll leave it at that, rather than edit it out after I posted it. Sorry, I realised too late it may have come off as patronising or moralistic.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is there even a war with OT/SD

Originally posted by Fronebular:

Intelligence can not be based solely upon one’s written arguments, vocabulary, or their ability to spell correctly.

Except for the “written arguments” part, which is essentially presenting thought-through, not rushed (and these two both work in favour of any poster), logical arguments, I agree. On the other hand, though, these are all features necessary to make your point as easy to understand as possible for your adversary to know what you mean, which in the end is your goal when making a point, isn’t it? Other than that – simply getting a thought across – it’s also good manners: when you engage in a discussion, you want to understand others as much as you want to be understood yourself.

That being said, I also agree that some SD regs placed themselves on a high pedestal and use complicated phrasing and “big words” that often carry no meaning whatsoever, just to come off as high and mighty, and consequently look down on anyone who doesn’t. Some, on the other hand, may seem like that, but they’re not like that, because some discussions just require usage of, say, specialist vocabulary or support of quotations by authors most people, not only kids, have never heard of.

Ya say you like getting a variety of viewpoint, but isn’t shutting down a place on the pretenses of “intelligence” a bit hypocritical.

Maybe not hypocritical, but unreasonable or just stupid, sure. The thing is, while I think vika did give SD too much slack in her version of “how things got bad”, it is OT “raiding” SD every now and then, not the other way around. I agree, though, a warm welcome is not expected in SD, to euphemistically summarise what I said in the original thread.

But I think you also forget that “warm welcomes” isn’t really OT’s specialty, either. The most common answer to one of those countless “Hi” threads is “fuck off”, a link to the appropriate thread holds maybe the third place, after a jolly “I don’t care who you are”. Sure, OT’s a different place, with different rules, and different people – but so is SD.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

It’s a hard cycle to break, but if it is to be broken it has to be broken by those coming from OT.

This I completely disagree with. Regarding SD, the only thing OT should do is to stop sending their self-proclaimed trolls, like niceman, and to be fair, it isn’t really up to OT whether or not a moron like that decides to try to be funny.
On the other hand, almost all SD regs by “getting a point across” understand “trashing everyone who stands in the way of their opinions”, and it is something SD as a community can abstain from. Correct me if I’m wrong, because I don’t really remember if it was your initiative, but I think I did see your signature under it – wasn’t there some sort of a special thread in the form of a declaration of sorts where some of SDers vowed to follow guidelines like “less hostility, more formatting”? I think it was about a year ago or so. Whatever happened to that? Some regs still are utterly unintelligible, some still value their opinions as facts, and some still lunge at new people. I agree that a change should be made, but “if you want change, you need to change yourself first”, or however it went. In the end, the people who “raid” SD are most of the time “newfags”, as they’re called in OT. The ones familiar with unwritten rules don’t usually do shit like that.

Originally posted by Fronebular:
That’s great, and by your actions you’ll never fix it because the people who present you with conflict are labeled as lessers.

You’re even doing it with me. I’m giving you conflict, so clearly my only objective is to cause strife. Little pre-madonna.

Man, really. She’s trying to explain her stance to you, stop being provocative. I don’t think you came here for pointless flames now, did you?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / SUGGESTION: Ban OTers from SD

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I enjoyed the bitching about Karma and Immortal’s [I always wondered where that dipshit went] jab at me.

Yeah, it’s a fair point. SD is a room full of people who fucking despise each other but [for some reason] have nowhere better to go.

I actually meant points like Stots’s, encouraging to more open discussions and finding advantages in having access to a “Serious Discussion” sub-forum at all. But sure, let’s go with ubiquitous hatred in SD and contempt for it in general, that works too.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / SUGGESTION: Ban OTers from SD

On a side-note, regarding this little war OT and SD have been in since forever, you might wanna have a look at this thread. It was made in OT, so just skim through most of it, but some replies make a lot of sense. What you implied earlier in this thread, that there are basically two war camps on Kongregate, isn’t true, although both sub-fora make fun of one another, as they both are, to be fair, laughable at times. I wouldn’t exactly call OT an army of intellectuals, but there are people here that can conduct a proper discussion – and at that more intelligently than endless jhco vs karma vs vika debates SD’s been almost all about for quite some time now. It could gain a lot if the regs stopped being so hostile towards anyone they suspect is a troll. Which is almost everyone.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / SUGGESTION: Ban OTers from SD

I actually hoped this thread was meant to troll, but if you really mean it, then I don’t see why you would want Mafefe (CROW) gone. His comments are often both amusing and meaningful, while they further ridicule karma’s or vika’s posts, which they always fail to see. Give them karma instead – trust me, everyone would win then.

It’s good there are users who refresh SD, otherwise it’s the same circle-jerk it’s been for several years now. The idiots you refer to as ‘trolls’ who post their opinions or entire threads in SD are usually both uneducated and genuinely stupid, like niceman, and the only thing you can do is to ignore them, which is really the same piece of advice you once gave me regarding “certain” people’s jibber-jabber, if you remember – so it’s always about ignoring “certain” kind of people anyway.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Artwork for an MMORPG / TCG

Ah, I take it the knight in your last screenshot is the one named Kronos on one of the earlier cards? I think I get now where you’re going with this. It’s an interesting concept.

I like the story background you’ve created for this – quite elegant.

I think you succeeded in merging the notions of ancient civilizations, all the same giving them a somewhat sci-fi feel, also with allusions to Stargate and aesthetically some far echoes of that recent film, Thor, I think? Since you seem to be focusing on mysticism, both visually and story-wise, symmetry as a concept to follow is definitely a smart move, yet I think it needs to be often “broken”: otherwise it gets really tiresome. The cards you posted earlier were meant to be symbolic and give off specific vibes – the symmetrical gear and positioning of depicted characters worked well as a pointer to mysticism and allegoric thinking in general. Yet, fortunately, it was a broken symmetry – the hands wielding attributes broke it, making the picture more dynamic and less “up in the sky”, less forgettable. It would be grand if you could use similar effects in creation of your game’s world.

That last screenshot of yours doesn’t really have it. The only asymmetrical elements apart from the shading are the runes, which is a nice touch on its own, but I don’t think it’s enough – even the flames are perfect twins, and the book in the hands of the statue to the left is upside-down. You could add some cracks on those pillars (maybe like the ones on the floor?), spiderwebs, dust – or if you think it would kill the futuristic feel this structure undeniably gives, maybe redesign it slightly so that it isn’t so perfect?

Another thing in that last screenshot is that that minimalism you had earlier kind of changed to simplicity. While I see now what you’re doing with the chibi look of your characters – I’m still not a great fan, but as I’ve said, it’s a matter of taste more than anything else – and I acknowledge it, the structures could use a lot of work: there’s nothing bad about en face perspectives, but it doesn’t feel like you got the angles right with the inner pillars (the two pairs between the statues). It looks a bit clumsy, to be honest.

I am really nit-picking, though, because it still pleases the eye. I’m not really much into card games at all, but I like how much effort is put into making cards a part of this game’s world, rather than creating a world as an excuse for a card game’s background.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Artwork for an MMORPG / TCG

Outstanding work. A great combination of minimalism and symbolism to depict a mythological theme.

One and only thing, though, that I don’t really like that is in the end more of a matter of taste rather than an actual argument against your vision here – I think that those chibi characters are in conflict with the rest of the artwork:

This one, for instance, is a promise of a mysterious world to explore, monumental places to visit, and dangers to overcome. A work more than well done (although that sword could use just a little bit of polish);

this one shows epic characters, armed to the teeth, each of them carrying their own attribute just like in Greek mythology – the minimalistic depiction only emphasises their yet-to-be-learnt potential, while the colouring gives you a choice in interpretation as to their allegiance – you can’t tell whether they’re good or evil. Great advantage, again.

Now compare those little pieces of art to this:

The characters as such are well made, the shading and colouring are great for what they are, and I couldn’t complain if they had their own game with just as juvenile theme, but in this project they aren’t as much a contrast to the rest of the world you’re showing, they pretty much spoil it for me.

Then again, you’re showing us just some fine examples of what your game is going to look like and I can only imagine how exactly these toons are going to blend in with the rest of the world to “coexist” within it. I’m sure you can pull it off as a game of contrasts if that’s what you’re aiming at – but maybe with just a tad more polish.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An interpretation of God

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

There’s no comfort in deism the way there is in theism or actual religion.

Call it a stretch, but it seems like this bit:

Deists are aware by, some sort of proto-faith, that there is a god, but assuming it’s paying attention at all, it views your passing with indifference. The problem of evil isn’t a problem if God simply doesn’t give a damn, but even then there’s uncertainty – that it isn’t indifference at all, just inscrutability. God may be the first cause, but just as we don’t understand the process for how it came about, it doesn’t understand us, or how we view death.

seems to show that you find comfort in your beliefs being demanding of you…

While this bit:


I sometimes think of how Christians interpret God as standing just outside your room, waiting to be invited in. That assumes man is the active agency, to compel or deny, but it seems to me that it’s god who has to take the first move, and it doesn’t know how.

seems to show that Christians “discard their comfort to pursue their god” just by being the active agency here, doesn’t it?

I don’t mean to provoke you by quoting you like that, since I can partially agree with your stance here, but I don’t really like how radical it is: believing in something because it’s less cowardly than something else doesn’t seem very rational to me. Not that any belief is rational in the first place, but you’re trying to support your beliefs with rational reasons for them; hence my question.

Besides, how is atheism cowardly anyway? Usually the last stand theists make in countless disputes is about afterlife and the great void that theists feel is the only thing that can come after a man’s death other than heavens, hells, purgatories or any other “conceivable” places. It’s theists embracing their fears that leads to religions – and if anything, it’s fear that leads to cowardice. I would agree that atheism shows people’s arrogance, but cowardice?

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Non Finite - Original Fiction - Feedback Recquested

Seems like you’ve redone the whole thing from scratch. I find it far more appealing now.

Originally posted by lord0216:

I am not completely sure what you meant by ‘too silly’. Was it too different from neighboring sentences? Too exposition-ey?

Not thought-through, as in I get what you may have meant wording them like you did, but they don’t really mean that.

For instance, the sentence I quoted earlier – now non-existent in your new version – “You see, throughout the infinite worlds, souls are the only true source of energy”; what is a “true source of energy”? Are there untrue sources of energy? Phrasing aside, how do you exactly see that? Are stars, black holes, cores of planets all made of souls? Does your car’s engine run on souls or gasoline?

I’m guessing your idea, a bit less awkwardly presented from this aspect in your new version, is somehow similar to that of the Force featured in Star Wars – everything comes from that magic pool of energy and goes back to it once it’s used or dies or whatever. You need a little bit more careful wording to describe that.

This is also why I said your world is thermodynamically unsound – I don’t know how much energy a soul represents, but you’d need trillions of megajouls of energy to “maintain” a single star. You sure there are enough sapient creatures in the universe to upkeep a trillion of suns in just one galaxy? We’re theorising here of course, but you could polish that idea of yours – wording it right to let the readers know what is for them to be known and what is to be guessed.

I was not aiming at a villain or anti-hero, honestly. To put it plainly, Vis has a most definitely non-human mindset. Did I make him too ‘evil’ with this?

What I was trying to say was, you’re playing with literary proprieties here – which is neither good, nor bad, really – and the way you introduced that character just gave off such vibe. Just thought you expected your character to be perceived that way – but it’s just an introduction nonetheless and you can go with it wherever you want from here.


Since you seem to be doing the very same grammar mistakes, let me point some of them out, as well as some examples of less fortunate wording:

“Its” loses its apostrophe when it’s a possessive (“The entity was more than able to generate it’s its own power”).

“If it did were to turn out to be a disaster, it wouldn’t happen during their lifetime.”

“A few astronomers noted that vanishing stars were getting rather close.” – did you mean something along the lines of “…one by one, stars were vanishing closer and closer to Earth”? My suggestion isn’t perfect either – you’d probably need a work-around description for that, rather than just one sentence – but I think you get the picture.

“Colony ships were being built at this point, inefficient, crude shuttles built from fear.” – Sentences like this, you need to pick them out and edit them somehow.

I guess these are examples of your most common mistakes. That, and maybe reported speech – you’ve got some problems with that, too.

I do commend you for the effort you’re putting in this, though. Cheers.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Would you sleep with anuspal for 20 pesos?

Do I have to pay all at once?

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Non Finite - Original Fiction - Feedback Recquested

The idea as such isn’t bad, but the world you describe is thermodynamically unsound, and you misuse some words (“…the fragment mutated…”); some sentences are just silly (“You see, throughout the infinite worlds, souls are the only true source of energy.”); your style needs some work – even in the first paragraph there are forts and strongholds for each of the ‘factions’ that are in the end identical by your own description, yet you somehow indicate they’re not, using just slightly different phrasing to describe practically the same things.

Also, grammar.

Plot-wise, since I guess that’s what you were really asking for, it seemed like an introduction of the villain, or an anti-hero at the very least – you should probably create some contrast to that, unless you feel you could shed some more light on this. If so – preferably some more thought-through lore behind that soulmass thing, because I don’t really buy it as it is now.
If an undeniably dark setting is what you want, go with that some more – focus on binding on-going events to that demon invasion, so you’d get some realistic background.

 

Topic: The Arts / [Shades...] A Shiny, Psichotic, Mawkingly Holy project!

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / [Shades...] A Shiny, Psichotic, Mawkingly Holy project!

Originally posted by GraphicDesignC:
Originally posted by Venerated_Reaper:

Add me, whores.

Why would anyone want to be added to this.

That coming from a guy who posts nothing but logos made in MSPaint…

@OP
The first story kind of reeks of Assassin’s Creed and such to me, but maybe you could develop it in an interesting direction, since it’s quite well written. I like the idea of this thread, though. I believe it would pay off to have your stories a bit longer – one could compare the styles of each of the authors’ more easily and have a broader perspective on the universe you’re creating.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Why is MmeBunneh the OP of "Quality Threads: Dos and Don'ts"?

Originally posted by occooa:

Why doesn’t it matter who made it?

Because it was stickied, so it’s supported by mods – which they keep saying themselves over and over again anyway, and to me it counts as if a mod made it, even though I’d still prefer there were less hypocrisy to it.

At least one user has already said that they choose to ignore the thread because of the OP.


Honestly, if someone justifies their ignorance with aversion towards somebody else, it only proves their immaturity and takes away their vote privilege. But maybe that’s just me.

Don’t get me wrong, I get why it may be irritating for you, but it’s kind of late to make threads like this one…

@MmeBunneh
Overzealous as ever, yet a fair response. Cheers.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Why is MmeBunneh the OP of "Quality Threads: Dos and Don'ts"?

I only find it slightly amusing that a thread explaining why bandwagons are bad was made by a user widely known for their… affinity for bunnies. Usually expressed by a plethora of infantile wording, allusions and images.

Well, you could probably also throw derailing threads in there, since Bunneh often does that, while her own guideline discourages from doing so.

Other than that, it’s a good link to justify a lock with, and as such it doesn’t matter who made it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Shy Guy & Gardevoir: The Cyclop World: The First 8 Chapters (A Fanfic By Gabidou99)

/constructivecriticism

I am allowed to post my writings time they don’t violate the rules. If you don’t like it, you can keep your opinions to yourself.

And I am allowed to post my opinions. You can keep your writings to yourself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Shy Guy & Gardevoir: The Cyclop World: The First 8 Chapters (A Fanfic By Gabidou99)

Originally posted by Gabidou99:
It’s not a bad story.

It has no narration, the setting is boring and cliché, and so are the characters. The dialogues are dull and are neither informative, nor amusing. There is no suspense, no drama, and the action is so predictable, it can hardly be called ‘action’ anymore. It is bad. Sorry to be harsh on you, but your denial will only result in more time being wasted, both yours as the author and the next person’s that reads it. If you want to develop yourself as an author, write something else from scratch – there is nothing constructive that can come from this setting.

It’s not my fault if kongregate made it so it’s all messed up.

All fora have a max cap for characters per post. Next time you post something of this length, divide it into parts as consecutive posts.

Nobody like what I do anyway lol

Then either give up and stop writing, or change the topic. Cross-overs are usually a bad idea, and the one you picked just doesn’t work very well.
Also, do yourself and the English language a favour and don’t butcher it. Either publish on a forum in your native language or don’t publish at all until you’ve improved your English. Deciphering what you try to say and then finding out it was but a waste of time isn’t the kind of feeling a reader can be grateful for.

Last thing – people on the Internet can easily be assholes, but when they comment on something you created to be commented on, listen to what they have to say. Repeating “It’s not a bad story” and the like will never let you improve yourself, even if it’s true.

So much for my two cents…

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Super Chibi Knight - Soundtrack Preview

I like it.
Question, though – are the samples you linked just cuts of longer melodies or are they the whole thing each and you’re going to loop them after they end? If it’s the latter, I’m sure it would sound better if the original pieces were a bit longer. Looped 50ish seconds can be annoying in games, especially the light kind I remember Chibi Knight was.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Arts / Shy Guy & Gardevoir: The Cyclop World: The First 8 Chapters (A Fanfic By Gabidou99)

You don’t speak English, I get it, but what’s the point in publishing whatever this is in English if you can’t even conjugate? Bad story aside, this is just painful to read. Lack of any editing whatsoever doesn’t make it better, either.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Something to think about

Originally posted by Rolby:

no i just want big ass and breasts and nice face

Just put some make-up on and your wish will have come true.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / History: Role of Air Force in WW2

I’d say you’ve covered it nicely, although you could also toss in the bombings of Dresden and Warsaw, as they left both cities ground to dust, and both were planned military operations focused on maximized usage of air crafts. That, and Normandy, since Airborne Infantry played a huge role there.

Also, not sure how much Luftwaffe was involved in this project, but what about V1/V2 rockets?

On another note…

what other ways did the air force played decisive roles in determining the outcome of the war?

Again, this isn’t about US Air Force this much, since they only incorporated the technology years after the war, but what about Germany’s first jets and wing air-crafts? Do you, in your presentation, count technological advancement as an “outcome of a war” or what you mean by that is just how planes influenced Allied victory?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Addiction A Disease?

Relevant article explaining in detail why addiction is a disease.

In defence of sportsmaster19’s first post which I partly agree with, though, I’d say all the confusion comes from redefining the word “disease” as such, which no longer applies to a state of mind or body there is a cure for, or which can just “pass”, which is what diseases are “culturally” (and which is still present as seen whenever something – e.g. a thought, a series of events – is described as “cancerous” – which on the other hand sounds more dramatic than the old-fashioned “ill”).

Both culturally and medically “addictions” were just “predilections” up to the 19th century, and this is why addictions are often hard to diagnose even today.