Quote from: Doc Sammy;1085432This guy gets it.

....?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085437....?

He likes cutting tires on bicycles......

Quote from: Razor 007;1085456He likes cutting tires on bicycles......

In my defense, I was drinking when I was posting this evening and I just now have started to sober up.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1085429I'm seeing an anti-Muslim group, as if Islam wasn't the very best thing for America (aren't we revolutionaries?)

I am anti-fundamentalist Islam. I've met enough Muslims to believe there is an Islam of peace, but their faith has been horrifyingly corrupted by the extreme death cults being promoted by Saudi Arabia and Iran...and now the MSM of the USA.  

And I'm quite aware the vast majority of Islamic terrorist attacks are against their fellow Muslims.

In LA, I've met lots of older "Persians" and they talk about their lost homeland. Iran was Muslim before the Ayatollah when Tehran was one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Nobody was blowing shit up, Jews and Muslims lived together in peace in Iran (and intermarried) and women didn't wear garbage bags from head to toe.  

Quote from: Theory of Games;1085429Of all the fighters and peoples I've faced, I respect most the Muslims --- the largest organized religion on Earth. They take their shit personal. Unlike the Christians who take it serious on Sunday.

Roman Catholics are the largest organized religion. Most everyone else isn't particularly organized. But I agree with you that most modern Christians don't integrate their religion into their daily lives the way you see with Buddhists or Muslims.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1085429What if 'winning' required sacrificing what was important to you? Could you? Could you change in order to make the world a better place?

I'm with Patton on this one. Make the other guy sacrifice for his country.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1085459In my defense, I was drinking when I was posting this evening and I just now have started to sober up.

More whiskey for you!!!

Quote from: Theory of Games;1085429What if --- the truth was different from what you thought? What if 'winning' required sacrificing what was important to you? Could you? Could you change in order to make the world a better place?

Thanos thinking? Are we ready to talk about Avengers Endgame already?

Spent my childhood in Saudi Arabia.

My view is I respect the fundamentals of a discipline, but I reject fundamentalism as too simplistic for this world. It loses sight of humanity, which in turn makes it easy to destroy humans for the sake of appeasing our happy abstractions. Life has gaps, life has nuance, life has mysteries, life has ambiguity... and in the end I want to side on stepping lightly upon the fragile beings that live here ever briefly, as best I can.

But the omelet demands broken eggs. No one said having a moral world view was easy. "Even Lawful Good will disagree with each other to the point of violence." - me.

At least one of the first big steps is having open channels of dialogue. And thankfully this place tries its best to maintain that (within reason). Other websites... well, fundamentalism does not strictly infect world religions. Poor rpg.net...

Quote from: SHARK;1085424All SJW's are Liberal, but not all Liberals are SJW's.

Not really, no.  There's a distinctly anti-liberal thread in at least some branches of SJWism.  The most common manifestation is a desire by SJWs to greatly restrict speech, while absolute (or at least nearly-absolute) free speech is a cornerstone of classical liberalism.  I've even seen a handful of SJW types who openly admit that they believe avoiding offense to be more important than free speech.  Can't think of any offhand who have outright described themselves as illiberal or anti-liberal, but I would be extremely surprised if they aren't out there.

In other words, despite the terms used in typical discussion of (US) politics, this site is infinitely more (classically) liberal than TBP.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1085479I am anti-fundamentalist Islam. I've met enough Muslims to believe there is an Islam of peace, but their faith has been horrifyingly corrupted by the extreme death cults being promoted by Saudi Arabia and Iran...and now the MSM of the USA.  

And I'm quite aware the vast majority of Islamic terrorist attacks are against their fellow Muslims.

In LA, I've met lots of older "Persians" and they talk about their lost homeland. Iran was Muslim before the Ayatollah when Tehran was one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Nobody was blowing shit up, Jews and Muslims lived together in peace in Iran (and intermarried) and women didn't wear garbage bags from head to toe.  

My dentist is "Persian".  His family emigrated here when he was a kid, a little before the fall of the Shah.  The Shah's government had issues but it is amazing how everyone...media, governments and the UN want to memory-hole what modern Iran was like before 1978.  Beirut seems to get the same treatment.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1085520My dentist is "Persian".  His family emigrated here when he was a kid, a little before the fall of the Shah.  The Shah's government had issues but it is amazing how everyone...media, governments and the UN want to memory-hole what modern Iran was like before 1978.  Beirut seems to get the same treatment.

And Havana.

Quote from: nDervish;1085500Not really, no.  There's a distinctly anti-liberal thread in at least some branches of SJWism.  The most common manifestation is a desire by SJWs to greatly restrict speech, while absolute (or at least nearly-absolute) free speech is a cornerstone of classical liberalism.  I've even seen a handful of SJW types who openly admit that they believe avoiding offense to be more important than free speech.  Can't think of any offhand who have outright described themselves as illiberal or anti-liberal, but I would be extremely surprised if they aren't out there.

In other words, despite the terms used in typical discussion of (US) politics, this site is infinitely more (classically) liberal than TBP.

Greetings!

Well, yes indeed, there's a huge difference between "Classic Liberals" and SJW's. Of course. However, in modern American politics, *Liberalism* is entirely left-wing, various flavours of leftism/socialism/marxism and collectivistic utopianism which is primarily hostile to conservatives, religion, tradition, capitalism, and heterosexuality. This modern manifestation of "Liberalism" doesn't have much in common with "Classic Liberalism" at all, though any aspect that it does embrace--such a freedom of speech--is increasingly condemned and excised by the more radical SJW's. I get that there's a distinction, but the SJW's grew out of "Liberalism." Liberals have increasingly abandoned "Classical Liberalism" to the point where today if you hold to such in SJW circles, you are villified as a Nazi. So, yeah, there's a distinction, though it's mostly an academic one now, rather than an actual social or political distinction. Classical Liberals have fled en masse to join the Conservatives. Honestly, while there were some differences in the old days between Conservatives and Classic Liberals, it was more of a coffee table difference, because most Conservatives and Classic Liberals shared most of the same values and goals, merely differing on the techniques or priorities in accomplishing such shared goals.

Now, well, it's a vicious and savage jungle!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: nDervish;1085500Not really, no.  There's a distinctly anti-liberal thread in at least some branches of SJWism.  The most common manifestation is a desire by SJWs to greatly restrict speech, while absolute (or at least nearly-absolute) free speech is a cornerstone of classical liberalism.  I've even seen a handful of SJW types who openly admit that they believe avoiding offense to be more important than free speech.  Can't think of any offhand who have outright described themselves as illiberal or anti-liberal, but I would be extremely surprised if they aren't out there.

In other words, despite the terms used in typical discussion of (US) politics, this site is infinitely more (classically) liberal than TBP.

Tim Pool has an interesting video on Liberals and the "culture wars". The culture war is not so much liberal vs conservatives as it is liberals tearing themselves apart. There are now basically to factions on the left, or so it seems. I'm not too happy about it, because there are many tendencies on the right that I don't like, such as ignoring nature conservation (some conservative politicians have actually worked on this, but it's rarely clear from their party program). I just hope things can balance out over time.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1085496Thanos thinking? Are we ready to talk about Avengers Endgame already?

Thanos almost had a point. Is there a thread for Endgame? Bad sequel to a horribly-ended movie. I read The Infinity Gauntlet series as a kid so I know enough to recognize Disney's sketti. They would do Waterboy prequels.

Welcome, Rpg.spuge escapees! This site aint bad. Chat as you like in any vernacular and have fun!

Quote from: Theory of Games;1085579Thanos almost had a point.

A point? Really? Rather than killing 1/2 the population everywhere, why not use that same near-infinite power to double (or more) the resources available everywhere?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1085594A point? Really? Rather than killing 1/2 the population everywhere, why not use that same near-infinite power to double (or more) the resources available everywhere?

That was my first thought as well. Why not make the universe more abundant, or even infinitely so? I don't know the limitations of the stones, but don't they each define reality within their domain? Thanos' solution was, at absolute best, one that entirely lacked in imagination.

Quote from: SavageSchemer;1085612That was my first thought as well. Why not make the universe more abundant, or even infinitely so? I don't know the limitations of the stones, but don't they each define reality within their domain? Thanos' solution was, at absolute best, one that entirely lacked in imagination.

Cart and horse. The reason he wanted them was to reduce the population of the universe by half.

Any way you slice it, it's not a practical idea. The halved population will continue to grow until the universe is back to the same problem.
Or the increased resources will cause the population to boom, until they are all consumed and the universe is back to the same problem.

But Thanos did what he did because he was nuts. (Fixated on a solution)