Search:

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;969554]It's an extremely absurd and racist comparison to make.

Firstly, we can refute the idea that dog breeds are like human races. Variation between human races (or more accurately, humans from different regions) is significantly less than variation between dog breeds (3.3% compared to 27%). There are numerous studies showing that aggression in dogs is inherited and specific genes linked to aggression have been identified. Furthermore, humans never went through selective breeding. It's very obvious that behaviour can be bred into animals, look at things like the silver fox domestication experiment. Humans were never artificially bred for fighting, unlike shit beasts, so we cannot presume that a specific race is predisposed to such behaviour.

Secondly, even if the presumption about dogs being similar to human races you're making was right, the action of wiping out a dog breed is far more ethical than wiping out a human race because the former has no concept of what's happening to them. If we neuter every shit beast and let the breed go extinct then there's no pit bull society or culture among them that ceases to exist. They'll have literally no idea what's going on and their lives continue just the same. Not so for a human race.

Lastly, you're an extreme that is incredibly bizarrely removed from my argument. You could just as easily say "oh why did we only eradicate smallpox but not cowpox or monkeypox huh?? Would you also only eradicate one specific race of humans?". Or how wolves are illegal to have as pets when they're still basically the same species as dogs, a matter nobody really takes issue with. It's a lazy and racist parallel to draw.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree with you that there is a massive difference between eradicating a human race vs a dog breed. My point was that if your going to take the stance of absolute Nature over Nurture the thought process does carry over. Removing the concept of race what if we were to identify all genes in people. If we could peg some genetic function that makes the pedophiles, serial killers and rapists what measures would be ethical? Or abstract it to science fiction concepts. Would it be ethical to remove an individuals freedom before they have done anything wrong because they might have a pre-disposition to it?

I disagree on principal with punishing living things without giving them a chance and I believe that there is a balance between nature and nurture; especially when it comes to conditioning an animal you can raise. I am not trying to push a slippery slope fallacy but the ethical reasoning does not translate well unless you invalidate the autonomy of dogs in my opinion. I take a more extreme view than most having a belief that its ok for humans to bend the world around us to our will but if we are going to start eliminating entire species domesticated animals would be very low on my list. It would make more sense to argue gene editing to curve aggressive traits than eradication of a species.

I truly do not want to get into this point but I do believe selective breeding has occurred with humans on a small scale. Its a really nasty subject and I very much do not want to track down some of the stuff I was digging into back then. Your point on the difference in genetic variation is valid regardless.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

It's an extremely absurd and racist comparison to make.

Firstly, we can refute the idea that dog breeds are like human races. Variation between human races (or more accurately, humans from different regions) is significantly less than variation between dog breeds (3.3% compared to 27%). There are numerous studies showing that aggression in dogs is inherited and specific genes linked to aggression have been identified. Furthermore, humans never went through selective breeding. It's very obvious that behaviour can be bred into animals, look at things like the silver fox domestication experiment. Humans were never artificially bred for fighting, unlike shit beasts, so we cannot presume that a specific race is predisposed to such behaviour.

Secondly, even if the presumption about dogs being similar to human races you're making was right, the action of wiping out a dog breed is far more ethical than wiping out a human race because the former has no concept of what's happening to them. If we neuter every shit beast and let the breed go extinct then there's no pit bull society or culture among them that ceases to exist. They'll have literally no idea what's going on and their lives continue just the same. Not so for a human race.

Lastly, you're an extreme that is incredibly bizarrely removed from my argument. You could just as easily say "oh why did we only eradicate smallpox but not cowpox or monkeypox huh?? Would you also only eradicate one specific race of humans?". Or how wolves are illegal to have as pets when they're still basically the same species as dogs, a matter nobody really takes issue with. It's a lazy and racist parallel to draw.

I absolutely agree with you that there is a massive difference between eradicating a human race vs a dog breed. My point was that if your going to take the stance of absolute Nature over Nurture the thought process does carry over. Removing the concept of race what if we were to identify all genes in people. If we could peg some genetic function that makes the pedophiles, serial killers and rapists what measures would be ethical? Or abstract it to science fiction concepts. Would it be ethical to remove an individuals freedom before they have done anything wrong because they might have a pre-disposition to it?

I disagree on principal with punishing living things without giving them a chance and I believe that there is a balance between nature and nurture; especially when it comes to conditioning an animal you can raise. I am not trying to push a slippery slope fallacy but the ethical reasoning does not translate well unless you invalidate the autonomy of dogs in my opinion. I take a more extreme view than most having a belief that its ok for humans to bend the world around us to our will but if we are going to start eliminating entire species domesticated animals would be very low on my list. It would make more sense to argue gene editing to curve aggressive traits than eradication of a species.

I truly do not want to get into this point but I do believe selective breeding has occurred with humans on a small scale. Its a really nasty subject and I very much do not want to track down some of the stuff I was digging into back then. Your point on the difference in genetic variation is valid regardless.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;969390]Oh shit we've hit another two

"it's like racism but for dogs, you wouldn't ban black people would you?"
"it's the owner not the breed"

How many until we get bingo?

"A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him."

A responsible bomb owner can also own a bomb responsibly and not have it blow up and take the neighbour's family out. Maybe it isn't a good idea to let people own bombs despite that, though.[/QUOTE]

Just because you preempt a point does not invalidate the point.

I very specifically drew a connection to the nature vs nurture conversation because you have to take a stance in order to take the position you are which is untenable when the reasoning is brought to other subjects.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Oh shit we've hit another two

"it's like racism but for dogs, you wouldn't ban black people would you?"
"it's the owner not the breed"

How many until we get bingo?

"A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him."

A responsible bomb owner can also own a bomb responsibly and not have it blow up and take the neighbour's family out. Maybe it isn't a good idea to let people own bombs despite that, though.

Just because you preempt a point does not invalidate the point.

I very specifically drew a connection to the nature vs nurture conversation because you have to take a stance in order to take the position you are which is untenable when the reasoning is brought to other subjects.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;968529]You're misunderstanding me.

I can see the "point of view". It doesn't take decades of living in the Texas boonies to grasp the concept of "i want a scurry dog to bite trespassers on muh property in the keester".

I just genuinely do not give a fuck if your idea of personal protection is to get a dog that a) puts every living thing around you in danger and b) probably puts you in more danger than the lack of protection from not having it. Doubly so when other dogs do the same job but aren't prone to randomly snapping and killing the neighbour's poodle. A perspective existing does not mean I have to respect it or think it's rational.

The solution is simple and I've already stated it: neuter all existing shit bulls (massive fines if someone owns an unneutered one), and massive penalties to the owner if their beast does any injury or damage to a person or their property. If your shit beast kills someone, then you get charged with criminal negligence resulting in death. Easy. As for what we define as a pit bull, that's likely up to the vets, but many countries and districts have already implemented these kinds of bans so it's not an unsolved problem. Probably have it be appearance and traits based, with genetic testing as a fallback.[/QUOTE]

This might interest you [url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-cartwright-arrested-after-seven-dogs-maul-freddy-garcia-to-death/[/url]
That part of what you want is certainly already a thing. Picked a recent example from Texas sense you referenced it specifically but to my knowledge anywhere in America people are held responsible for damages caused by their animal on both civil and criminal levels.

One aspect of this conversation we have not touched is that it leans very hard towards the 'Nature' side of the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument. Carry that same parallel to people's races and it gets into some very racist territory. I personally believe both parts play a very substantial role but even more dogs are pack animals. They mirror their owners behavior the same as a wolf in a pack mirrors the behavior of their alpha. I feel like a very large contributing factor to so pitts having such high attack rates is that breed is often preferred by a specific kind of person. When I was in Ohio as a kid I even knew a guy that was giving his pit bull steroids.

You could draw the same parallel to any other breed specific behaviors. A dog with a huge drive to hunt is not an uncontrollable beast that runs down and attacks other animals. A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him.

We may just need to agree to disagree but I have trouble accepting the removal of an entire species of dogs. If we are going to start playing god with what species are allowed to exist I feel like we should start by removing mosquitos from existence.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

You're misunderstanding me.

I can see the "point of view". It doesn't take decades of living in the Texas boonies to grasp the concept of "i want a scurry dog to bite trespassers on muh property in the keester".

I just genuinely do not give a fuck if your idea of personal protection is to get a dog that a) puts every living thing around you in danger and b) probably puts you in more danger than the lack of protection from not having it. Doubly so when other dogs do the same job but aren't prone to randomly snapping and killing the neighbour's poodle. A perspective existing does not mean I have to respect it or think it's rational.

The solution is simple and I've already stated it: neuter all existing shit bulls (massive fines if someone owns an unneutered one), and massive penalties to the owner if their beast does any injury or damage to a person or their property. If your shit beast kills someone, then you get charged with criminal negligence resulting in death. Easy. As for what we define as a pit bull, that's likely up to the vets, but many countries and districts have already implemented these kinds of bans so it's not an unsolved problem. Probably have it be appearance and traits based, with genetic testing as a fallback.

This might interest you https://www.cbsnews.com/news/samuel-...rcia-to-death/
That part of what you want is certainly already a thing. Picked a recent example from Texas sense you referenced it specifically but to my knowledge anywhere in America people are held responsible for damages caused by their animal on both civil and criminal levels.

One aspect of this conversation we have not touched is that it leans very hard towards the 'Nature' side of the 'Nature vs Nurture' argument. Carry that same parallel to people's races and it gets into some very racist territory. I personally believe both parts play a very substantial role but even more dogs are pack animals. They mirror their owners behavior the same as a wolf in a pack mirrors the behavior of their alpha. I feel like a very large contributing factor to so pitts having such high attack rates is that breed is often preferred by a specific kind of person. When I was in Ohio as a kid I even knew a guy that was giving his pit bull steroids.

You could draw the same parallel to any other breed specific behaviors. A dog with a huge drive to hunt is not an uncontrollable beast that runs down and attacks other animals. A responsible owner can spend the time to train it so it can be controlled so if some kid has a pet rabbit its not ripped apart in front of him.

We may just need to agree to disagree but I have trouble accepting the removal of an entire species of dogs. If we are going to start playing god with what species are allowed to exist I feel like we should start by removing mosquitos from existence.

It looks like most scientists no longer consider it an appropriate management strategy for the virus that causes COVID-19.

-The vaccine does not prevent individuals that have it from spreading it
-The vaccine does not totally prevent individuals that have it from getting sick
-The vaccine is effective for a very short amount of time
-Only 70% of Americans got the vaccine sense it was available (Some due to the dangers of getting it)
-Production and supply chain limitations make it improbable to have everyone get the vaccine at once for 3-6 months which seems the only way to achieve herd immunity

Im curious if anyone's opinion has changed. Especially on the note of mandated vaccines and boosters. I feel like requiring individuals to take the risks involved with the vaccine is only justified by the potential of eliminating it and if herd immunity is not attainable its not ethical.

It looks like most scientists no longer consider it an appropriate management strategy for the virus that causes COVID-19.

-The vaccine does not prevent individuals that have it from spreading it
-The vaccine does not totally prevent individuals that have it from getting sick
-The vaccine is effective for a very short amount of time
-Only 70% of Americans got the vaccine sense it was available (Some due to the dangers of getting it)
-Production and supply chain limitations make it improbable to have everyone get the vaccine at once for 3-6 months which seems the only way to achieve herd immunity

Im curious if anyone's opinion has changed. Especially on the note of mandated vaccines and boosters. I feel like requiring individuals to take the risks involved with the vaccine is only justified by the potential of eliminating it and if herd immunity is not attainable its not ethical.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;968515]Oh man, that one's going in the hall of fame.

"shit beasts are so dangerous and unpredictably aggressive that normal, sane people are rightfully afraid of them, which makes them a fantastic companion to defend your family and home with"[/QUOTE]

Its sad that we live in a world where fear and force are things that exist. Its sometimes hard for those who do not fear for their safety and feel the need to have force to protect themselves to understand the reasoning of people who do. But it does not make those people irrational or stupid and if you can not see their perspective you may want to take a moment to understand the limitations of your view.

Again though, if we ignore the arguments and conclusions and cut to the solution how can it be implemented? Are we going to cut to dog breed genocide? Are we only going for pure breeds? Any amount of Pitt DNA at all? If not how much of a mix and how would you test them? How would you enforce any of it and are you ok with showing up to peoples homes and taking dogs from their family's? Is it going to cause more harm to the minds of children for them to have their pets taken from them and murdered? Do we go after the next aggressive breed next if we did remove pits and how many breeds until we stop?

None of that looks workable to me in any way and even taking a stance on where to draw the line is pretty rough.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Oh man, that one's going in the hall of fame.

"shit beasts are so dangerous and unpredictably aggressive that normal, sane people are rightfully afraid of them, which makes them a fantastic companion to defend your family and home with"

Its sad that we live in a world where fear and force are things that exist. Its sometimes hard for those who do not fear for their safety and feel the need to have force to protect themselves to understand the reasoning of people who do. But it does not make those people irrational or stupid and if you can not see their perspective you may want to take a moment to understand the limitations of your view.

Again though, if we ignore the arguments and conclusions and cut to the solution how can it be implemented? Are we going to cut to dog breed genocide? Are we only going for pure breeds? Any amount of Pitt DNA at all? If not how much of a mix and how would you test them? How would you enforce any of it and are you ok with showing up to peoples homes and taking dogs from their family's? Is it going to cause more harm to the minds of children for them to have their pets taken from them and murdered? Do we go after the next aggressive breed next if we did remove pits and how many breeds until we stop?

None of that looks workable to me in any way and even taking a stance on where to draw the line is pretty rough.

I do not think any other dog has such a reputation which makes it a uniquely effective deterrent in a way no other dog does.

My point was not that 'tens of thousands of people make dumbass decisions' but rather that many rational people do not see this issue like you do. Obviously those people feel the benefits of having that animal outweigh the dangers. While I personally would probably go with a different breed I can see plenty of situations where having a Pitt could be a very positive addition to someone's life.

Something like 8 or so years back my friend had a Pitt and a lab that got after a cracker trying to steal some stuff off his property. He had stolen a bunch of copper wire before so we got a laugh watching the video. Next time I see him I will ask him for it if you want but with a quick youtube search tons of videos came up.

I do not think any other dog has such a reputation which makes it a uniquely effective deterrent in a way no other dog does.

My point was not that 'tens of thousands of people make dumbass decisions' but rather that many rational people do not see this issue like you do. Obviously those people feel the benefits of having that animal outweigh the dangers. While I personally would probably go with a different breed I can see plenty of situations where having a Pitt could be a very positive addition to someone's life.

Something like 8 or so years back my friend had a Pitt and a lab that got after a cracker trying to steal some stuff off his property. He had stolen a bunch of copper wire before so we got a laugh watching the video. Next time I see him I will ask him for it if you want but with a quick youtube search tons of videos came up.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;968480]"Pit bulls are so smart they're the 94th smartest dog breed just under fucking wiener dogs" lmao

Horses are at least useful for certain things. Pit bulls have literally no use that a) another dog can't do substantially better without the risk of going nanny mode and wiping out an entire bloodline and b) isn't something barbaric like illegal dogfighting. Your argument is the same as "you should be able to carry around grenades for self-defense".

I also can't find a single instance of a human dying from a horse attack, meanwhile several people let alone tons of cats and dogs die by shit beast every year. In the last week shit beasts have killed 3 people in the US. Not to mention them being responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog and cat attacks.

You seem to be fixated on the "unintelligent" part. My argument is that they're aggressive, but also extremely dumb in a tangentially related fashion, the former of which is the dangerous part. Stop deflecting by nitpicking one comment I made about their intelligence.[/QUOTE]
Sure. The two parts of your argument I take issue with is the claim they are unintelligent and the conclusion they should all be eliminated and have no use. 96th is not bad if they used either the FCI's 360 recognized dog breeds or the AKC's 190 recognized dog breeds. On either that would be average to above average intelligence.

Without even looking I know quite a few people have died from horses. Your talking about a thousand pound animal here that is around people a lot. I have herd plenty stories of a kick to the head from those things ending people.

Something I have been trying to focus on is that other people are not usually unreasonable and irrational. When I see people making arguments or decisions I disagree with I try to understand their thinking instead of assuming they are just dumb or irrational. You see a dangerous animal that you feel should not exist but there are tens of thousands of people out there that bring that dangerous animal into their home and around their family's. Just the fact they are so known for violence makes people cautious around them and offers a form of protection. If a guy is looking to rob one of two houses he may choose the other house because he sees a dangerous animal. I feel like they absolutely have their uses.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

"Pit bulls are so smart they're the 94th smartest dog breed just under fucking wiener dogs" lmao

Horses are at least useful for certain things. Pit bulls have literally no use that a) another dog can't do substantially better without the risk of going nanny mode and wiping out an entire bloodline and b) isn't something barbaric like illegal dogfighting. Your argument is the same as "you should be able to carry around grenades for self-defense".

I also can't find a single instance of a human dying from a horse attack, meanwhile several people let alone tons of cats and dogs die by shit beast every year. In the last week shit beasts have killed 3 people in the US. Not to mention them being responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog and cat attacks.

You seem to be fixated on the "unintelligent" part. My argument is that they're aggressive, but also extremely dumb in a tangentially related fashion, the former of which is the dangerous part. Stop deflecting by nitpicking one comment I made about their intelligence.

Sure. The two parts of your argument I take issue with is the claim they are unintelligent and the conclusion they should all be eliminated and have no use. 96th is not bad if they used either the FCI's 360 recognized dog breeds or the AKC's 190 recognized dog breeds. On either that would be average to above average intelligence.

Without even looking I know quite a few people have died from horses. Your talking about a thousand pound animal here that is around people a lot. I have herd plenty stories of a kick to the head from those things ending people.

Something I have been trying to focus on is that other people are not usually unreasonable and irrational. When I see people making arguments or decisions I disagree with I try to understand their thinking instead of assuming they are just dumb or irrational. You see a dangerous animal that you feel should not exist but there are tens of thousands of people out there that bring that dangerous animal into their home and around their family's. Just the fact they are so known for violence makes people cautious around them and offers a form of protection. If a guy is looking to rob one of two houses he may choose the other house because he sees a dangerous animal. I feel like they absolutely have their uses.

[QUOTE=SuperJack;968408]I mean, if there is a problem of too many guns then adding more won't solve it, and make the problem worse.

Just reduce the amount of criminals.

In your example, having a pistol was not the solution. And not having a pistol would leave you in the same situation.
For somebody less thoughtful and wise than you, having a pistol may of made the situation worse and ended with even more deaths.[/QUOTE]

Its not about solving it in the same way that putting a bandage on a cut does not prevent the cut from happening. Cut off the supply of guns and there are still more guns than people in America with a black market that smuggles truckloads of every other illegal thing into America.

California had an issue of people getting robbed going to the gun range for a while. They passed laws saying you had to keep ammo and guns separate and all that so criminals knew they could just wait until someone was walking into the gun range and rob them of their guns. When you prohibit law abiding citizens from defending themselves criminals take advantage and a 'greater good' argument is hard to justify when the solution is both unlikely to eliminate the supply of guns to criminals as well as likely taking multiple generations to impact the problem.

Reduction of criminals would be great. There is a big issue that current gun laws are not even prosecuted and America has turned its justice system into a revolving door focused on generating income for the prison industry and municipalities. I could ramble about my thoughts on how laws target certain groups and the legal system turns people to a life of crime more than it reforms them but thats a mess of a topic.

For my situation I am very glad I had a pistol. If that guy had decided he wanted no witnesses I would have been in a gun fight but I would have had a decent chance. If I did not me and my friends would probably have just gotten gunned down as we tried to run away with my best option being throwing myself at the guy so my friends had time to run.

Originally Posted by SuperJack

I mean, if there is a problem of too many guns then adding more won't solve it, and make the problem worse.

Just reduce the amount of criminals.

In your example, having a pistol was not the solution. And not having a pistol would leave you in the same situation.
For somebody less thoughtful and wise than you, having a pistol may of made the situation worse and ended with even more deaths.

Its not about solving it in the same way that putting a bandage on a cut does not prevent the cut from happening. Cut off the supply of guns and there are still more guns than people in America with a black market that smuggles truckloads of every other illegal thing into America.

California had an issue of people getting robbed going to the gun range for a while. They passed laws saying you had to keep ammo and guns separate and all that so criminals knew they could just wait until someone was walking into the gun range and rob them of their guns. When you prohibit law abiding citizens from defending themselves criminals take advantage and a 'greater good' argument is hard to justify when the solution is both unlikely to eliminate the supply of guns to criminals as well as likely taking multiple generations to impact the problem.

Reduction of criminals would be great. There is a big issue that current gun laws are not even prosecuted and America has turned its justice system into a revolving door focused on generating income for the prison industry and municipalities. I could ramble about my thoughts on how laws target certain groups and the legal system turns people to a life of crime more than it reforms them but thats a mess of a topic.

For my situation I am very glad I had a pistol. If that guy had decided he wanted no witnesses I would have been in a gun fight but I would have had a decent chance. If I did not me and my friends would probably have just gotten gunned down as we tried to run away with my best option being throwing myself at the guy so my friends had time to run.

Theres some real data out there on their intelligence.
[url]https://thesmartcanine.com/are-pitbulls-smart/#:~:text=The%20Pit%20Bull%2C%20namely%20the,48th%2 0smartest%20dog%20breeds%2C%20respectively[/url].
Apparently its 4 dog breeds categorized as 'pit bulls' stating "The Pit Bull, namely the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier, are average to above average intelligent dogs. For obedience & working intelligence, they’re the 94th and 48th smartest dog breeds, respectively. While this may not impress owners, Pit Bulls tend to have high adaptive IQ, which is the ability to learn for themselves and through past experiences."

I think we could swap out any animal with these talking points.
[video=youtube;77UWCnmjfPs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77UWCnmjfPs[/video]
[video=youtube;pXeM1VC5bFo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXeM1VC5bFo[/video]
[video=youtube;22ZxFif1PvA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22ZxFif1PvA[/video]
Should I argue how horses are unintelligent dangerous animals that should be wiped from existence now?

Even feral predators have their place with people. Some people put all sorts of predators in areas to deny access. I do not follow the reasoning of 'This animal was dumb so all of its kind are unintelligent and should die'

Theres some real data out there on their intelligence.
https://thesmartcanine.com/are-pitbu...20respectively.
Apparently its 4 dog breeds categorized as 'pit bulls' stating "The Pit Bull, namely the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier, are average to above average intelligent dogs. For obedience & working intelligence, they’re the 94th and 48th smartest dog breeds, respectively. While this may not impress owners, Pit Bulls tend to have high adaptive IQ, which is the ability to learn for themselves and through past experiences."

I think we could swap out any animal with these talking points.

Should I argue how horses are unintelligent dangerous animals that should be wiped from existence now?

Even feral predators have their place with people. Some people put all sorts of predators in areas to deny access. I do not follow the reasoning of 'This animal was dumb so all of its kind are unintelligent and should die'

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;968463]I'm not anti-dog, and this is a variant of "my pibble isn't currently mauling a child, therefore they're all good"

My friend's neighbour had a shit beast that they brought over one evening and all the dumbfuck dog did was slobber all over everything then bite me by accident because it was too excited. It then tried to attack my friend a couple of times and actually did attack the owner's father, it was scheduled for euthanization but unfortunately they managed to smuggle it out of the country before that could happen.[/QUOTE]
I’m just saying that I disagree that they are dumb animals. Im sure there are plenty of dumb ones out there but just watch a few Florida man videos and you can say the same about people. I don’t own one and very likely never will but I have been around them enough I recognize how intelligent they can be.

Even if you want to say they are savage violent animals they still have their uses but painting them as unintelligent is not justified from my experience.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I'm not anti-dog, and this is a variant of "my pibble isn't currently mauling a child, therefore they're all good"

My friend's neighbour had a shit beast that they brought over one evening and all the dumbfuck dog did was slobber all over everything then bite me by accident because it was too excited. It then tried to attack my friend a couple of times and actually did attack the owner's father, it was scheduled for euthanization but unfortunately they managed to smuggle it out of the country before that could happen.

I’m just saying that I disagree that they are dumb animals. Im sure there are plenty of dumb ones out there but just watch a few Florida man videos and you can say the same about people. I don’t own one and very likely never will but I have been around them enough I recognize how intelligent they can be.

Even if you want to say they are savage violent animals they still have their uses but painting them as unintelligent is not justified from my experience.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;968447]pit bulls are far too retarded to reasonably use as protection, they're just genetically really fucking stupid animals. its like if you wore a suicide vest for self defense[/QUOTE]
I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

pit bulls are far too retarded to reasonably use as protection, they're just genetically really fucking stupid animals. its like if you wore a suicide vest for self defense

I would disagree. Have you actually spent a real amount of time with one? You seem pretty anti-dog in general.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;968441]What is gonna happen?

[video=youtube;sHoyoKgRq5U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHoyoKgRq5U[/video]

This is gonna happen. Lol[/QUOTE]

That was weirdly dark.
Kinda reminded me of some stuff I came across when I was trying to dig into the nature of evil.

I do not think anything will change. If that guy is out some other like him will take his place. Maybe their loyalty's won't be the same but they will play the same games act against the interests of the public.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

What is gonna happen?

This is gonna happen. Lol

That was weirdly dark.
Kinda reminded me of some stuff I came across when I was trying to dig into the nature of evil.

I do not think anything will change. If that guy is out some other like him will take his place. Maybe their loyalty's won't be the same but they will play the same games act against the interests of the public.

Its usually the people that do not fear for their physical safety that criticize the methods those who do take to protect themselves.

Its certainly a dangerous animal. But some people choose to take them into their lives because they want the protection having a dangerous animal on your side provides. Its sad that people feel the need for protection in this world, but there is a reason so many people take measures others see as unreasonable to protect themselves and those they care about. Invalidating the action equally invalidates the motive imo.

As much as I wish forms of violence did not exist in this world and I see them as very bad things I do respect their utility and that force is needed to protect yourself from force. I may be biased living in a violent place and having had a life that had a lot of violence in it but when you fear for the safety of your family ethical considerations go out the window. I do not see it much different than judging someone who is starving for stealing food. Sure you can call stealing immoral but when your core needs are not met you will get in touch with that very primal thing within you.

I think it hits another level with animals. With a gun or a bomb its a tool you control. An animal has its own autonomy and chooses when and who to be violent against. Recognizing the lack of control that comes with that danger is scary in a way and takes trust. Asking a person to trust an animal they do not know takes a lot; especially if they have not had great experiences with animals.

Its usually the people that do not fear for their physical safety that criticize the methods those who do take to protect themselves.

Its certainly a dangerous animal. But some people choose to take them into their lives because they want the protection having a dangerous animal on your side provides. Its sad that people feel the need for protection in this world, but there is a reason so many people take measures others see as unreasonable to protect themselves and those they care about. Invalidating the action equally invalidates the motive imo.

As much as I wish forms of violence did not exist in this world and I see them as very bad things I do respect their utility and that force is needed to protect yourself from force. I may be biased living in a violent place and having had a life that had a lot of violence in it but when you fear for the safety of your family ethical considerations go out the window. I do not see it much different than judging someone who is starving for stealing food. Sure you can call stealing immoral but when your core needs are not met you will get in touch with that very primal thing within you.

I think it hits another level with animals. With a gun or a bomb its a tool you control. An animal has its own autonomy and chooses when and who to be violent against. Recognizing the lack of control that comes with that danger is scary in a way and takes trust. Asking a person to trust an animal they do not know takes a lot; especially if they have not had great experiences with animals.

I think they have their uses.

Keeping a dangerous animal around works great for protection but it is still an animal and you always have to keep that in mind. The purpose bread German Shepherds can be pretty terrifying and when trained basically become a fur missile. Having them engage barricaded people can be an effective way to prevent putting human lives in danger.

I do think that chihuahuas are the most 'aggressive' breed there is although it does not matter because they don't really do damage.

I think they have their uses.

Keeping a dangerous animal around works great for protection but it is still an animal and you always have to keep that in mind. The purpose bread German Shepherds can be pretty terrifying and when trained basically become a fur missile. Having them engage barricaded people can be an effective way to prevent putting human lives in danger.

I do think that chihuahuas are the most 'aggressive' breed there is although it does not matter because they don't really do damage.

[QUOTE=SuperJack;968405]More than 220 shot and killed in U.S. gun violence over July 4 holiday weekend seems a lot.

Also wouldn't bear spray work better then arming everyone with guns?[/QUOTE]
The issue is that the guns do exist. There are more guns than people in America. If you were to prevent the access to more guns it does not solve the problem and it creates a world where criminals have guns but law abiding citizens have none. I totally agree with you but I just do not see it as a functional solution to the problem. To actually use this approach you either need a time machine to go back 100 years and stop the issue from getting so bad or a magic wand.

Its like having a conversation of
'Nukes are a bad thing'
'Ok, how do we solve this problem?'
'Just imagine they never existed'
or
'What if we prevent the responsible nations from having them'
While I do get the thinking and I see it as being functionally used to prevent the issue in other parts of the world I feel like talking about a method that prevented a problem from existing does nothing to suggest a way to solve a problem that does exist.

I don't think bear spray is a good option against a gun. A few weeks ago a guy got shot up across the street from a house party I was at. I did not engage the guy because he had a rifle and I only had a pistol. Even though I had a gun and probably am much better trained I was not comfortable taking on that fight because of the difference in our tools. If he did not have a rifle sure.. But that goes back to the magic wand solution of saying 'just imagine if there was no problem to begin with'

Originally Posted by SuperJack

More than 220 shot and killed in U.S. gun violence over July 4 holiday weekend seems a lot.

Also wouldn't bear spray work better then arming everyone with guns?

The issue is that the guns do exist. There are more guns than people in America. If you were to prevent the access to more guns it does not solve the problem and it creates a world where criminals have guns but law abiding citizens have none. I totally agree with you but I just do not see it as a functional solution to the problem. To actually use this approach you either need a time machine to go back 100 years and stop the issue from getting so bad or a magic wand.

Its like having a conversation of
'Nukes are a bad thing'
'Ok, how do we solve this problem?'
'Just imagine they never existed'
or
'What if we prevent the responsible nations from having them'
While I do get the thinking and I see it as being functionally used to prevent the issue in other parts of the world I feel like talking about a method that prevented a problem from existing does nothing to suggest a way to solve a problem that does exist.

I don't think bear spray is a good option against a gun. A few weeks ago a guy got shot up across the street from a house party I was at. I did not engage the guy because he had a rifle and I only had a pistol. Even though I had a gun and probably am much better trained I was not comfortable taking on that fight because of the difference in our tools. If he did not have a rifle sure.. But that goes back to the magic wand solution of saying 'just imagine if there was no problem to begin with'

The secrets of the cat whisperer are being revealed

The secrets of the cat whisperer are being revealed

[QUOTE=SuperJack;968376]I mean if the solution to gun problems are more guns then lol.
Should this happen to anyone that is running away and might have a gun? Put so many bullets in them you can melt them down and build a cooker.

People are critical of police but they have to deal with all these guns, but lowing the amount of guns is impossible because America is America, so solution is allow more guns.

Wonder what happens then? Cops have to escalate, and the cycle continues.[/QUOTE]

I don't think more guns is a solution at all. But I also have no idea what would be a solution. A magic wand?

So I did watch the dashcam and bodycam footage for Jayland Walker. He certainly was armed and shot at cops.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28693[/ATTACH] Thats a real photo of his gun. He left in the the car when he ditched it.

The reason he got so shot up was that after stealing a car, leading cops on a high speed chase and shooting at them a LOT of cops responded. They chased him into a field where he did 3 really dumb things. Reached in his waistband, turned around to face the cops, and made a big forward motion with his arm after having shot at them earlier.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28694[/ATTACH]
Its a little gritty but in the video you can clearly see that motion. Im not sure if this was a straight suicide by cop or if the guy accidently dropped his gun in the car with the adrenaline and was moving to shoot the cops but this shooting looks very justified to me. Maybe stealing cars and shooting at cops is more to blame for the guy ending up a piece of swiss cheese than the cops or their training in this one.

Its also interesting that the guy was dressed up like a cartoon burglar with a full face mask and gloves. No part of his skin was really visible and it happened in the dead of night but people will still make it a race thing. Expect more riots when the investigation comes back that the officers were justified. I do not see a victim here. I see a guy that made some very poor choices.

Originally Posted by SuperJack

I mean if the solution to gun problems are more guns then lol.
Should this happen to anyone that is running away and might have a gun? Put so many bullets in them you can melt them down and build a cooker.

People are critical of police but they have to deal with all these guns, but lowing the amount of guns is impossible because America is America, so solution is allow more guns.

Wonder what happens then? Cops have to escalate, and the cycle continues.

I don't think more guns is a solution at all. But I also have no idea what would be a solution. A magic wand?

So I did watch the dashcam and bodycam footage for Jayland Walker. He certainly was armed and shot at cops.
Thats a real photo of his gun. He left in the the car when he ditched it.

The reason he got so shot up was that after stealing a car, leading cops on a high speed chase and shooting at them a LOT of cops responded. They chased him into a field where he did 3 really dumb things. Reached in his waistband, turned around to face the cops, and made a big forward motion with his arm after having shot at them earlier.

Its a little gritty but in the video you can clearly see that motion. Im not sure if this was a straight suicide by cop or if the guy accidently dropped his gun in the car with the adrenaline and was moving to shoot the cops but this shooting looks very justified to me. Maybe stealing cars and shooting at cops is more to blame for the guy ending up a piece of swiss cheese than the cops or their training in this one.

Its also interesting that the guy was dressed up like a cartoon burglar with a full face mask and gloves. No part of his skin was really visible and it happened in the dead of night but people will still make it a race thing. Expect more riots when the investigation comes back that the officers were justified. I do not see a victim here. I see a guy that made some very poor choices.

[QUOTE=SuperJack;968374]You mean whilst they where driving there was something that might of sounded like a gunshot and a flashing light near the car?
Being shot 60 times is definetly a resonable amount of times then, would make more sense to use a grendade launcher next time though or possible an Uzi.

Tell the kids at the schools next time ther is a mass shooter, steel a car.[/QUOTE]

The amount of shots really doesn't mean much to me. Just look into Roy Benavidez who was shot 37 times, blown up by two grenades, stabbed with a bayonet and struck with a rifle butt all in one session but never stopped fighting. Life is not a video game or a movie where 1 shot drops a person.

Maybe I am just a skeptic but I see these stories all the time pushed in utter bad faith. Last one people went nuts over was Leonna Hale. 26 year old black woman who was pregnant and got shot 5 times. Those people that profit from spreading hate pushed for a long time that she was unarmed and gunned down. After a few days of riots the police released this photo grabbed from badge cam to calm people down.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28689[/ATTACH]
Clearly shows she had a gun. What did those same outlets do? Kept stoking the hate arguing the image artifacting like her right ankle appearing to be invisible was proof they photo shopped the image to cover it up. I am not sure why anyone would believe cops would photo shop a gun into an image but then delete the girls ankle for giggles but they pushed that message well. 'Unarmed pregnant black woman gunned down by cops'

I am not going to say that 'I know the cops were justified.' But when I hear a guy was shot 60 times I expect there is more of a reason than 'being black in public.' Its easy to get all worked up on stuff out of context before any information is released but from the limited information available my understanding is that he shot at cops, stole a car and fled. He probably didn't have a gun on him when he was shot but that does not change the totality of the situation. Im certain footage will be released soon although it won't matter. The riots will have already happened even if their actions were justified and there will be those who will ignore any facts and just say 'American police system is fucked because those cops didn't go to jail.'

People are so critical of American police but they work in an environment of hostile criminals with guns. Thats not the case for Germany. Comparing the two is very unfair in my opinion. I do not know why its treated as such a shocking concept that police gun use is so much higher in a place where so many criminals have guns.

Originally Posted by SuperJack

You mean whilst they where driving there was something that might of sounded like a gunshot and a flashing light near the car?
Being shot 60 times is definetly a resonable amount of times then, would make more sense to use a grendade launcher next time though or possible an Uzi.

Tell the kids at the schools next time ther is a mass shooter, steel a car.

The amount of shots really doesn't mean much to me. Just look into Roy Benavidez who was shot 37 times, blown up by two grenades, stabbed with a bayonet and struck with a rifle butt all in one session but never stopped fighting. Life is not a video game or a movie where 1 shot drops a person.

Maybe I am just a skeptic but I see these stories all the time pushed in utter bad faith. Last one people went nuts over was Leonna Hale. 26 year old black woman who was pregnant and got shot 5 times. Those people that profit from spreading hate pushed for a long time that she was unarmed and gunned down. After a few days of riots the police released this photo grabbed from badge cam to calm people down.

Clearly shows she had a gun. What did those same outlets do? Kept stoking the hate arguing the image artifacting like her right ankle appearing to be invisible was proof they photo shopped the image to cover it up. I am not sure why anyone would believe cops would photo shop a gun into an image but then delete the girls ankle for giggles but they pushed that message well. 'Unarmed pregnant black woman gunned down by cops'

I am not going to say that 'I know the cops were justified.' But when I hear a guy was shot 60 times I expect there is more of a reason than 'being black in public.' Its easy to get all worked up on stuff out of context before any information is released but from the limited information available my understanding is that he shot at cops, stole a car and fled. He probably didn't have a gun on him when he was shot but that does not change the totality of the situation. Im certain footage will be released soon although it won't matter. The riots will have already happened even if their actions were justified and there will be those who will ignore any facts and just say 'American police system is fucked because those cops didn't go to jail.'

People are so critical of American police but they work in an environment of hostile criminals with guns. Thats not the case for Germany. Comparing the two is very unfair in my opinion. I do not know why its treated as such a shocking concept that police gun use is so much higher in a place where so many criminals have guns.

[QUOTE=SuperJack;968369]German police fires about 35-75 bullets at people per year, killing between 6 and 15 people. Every bullet is recorded.

Ohio police just fired more bullets at a single unarmed man than German police uses in an entire year.[/QUOTE]

Please tell me your not talking about Jayland Walker. The guy that stole a car and shot at cops.

There is a really disgusting industry out there just dedicated to spreading misinformation about police. Sadly by the time people figure out they have been told some bullshit the riots have already happened and the 'oh we were wrong' is a squeak that does nothing to recover the damage done to police reputation.
I honestly do not think any other country in the world has such groups and individuals that go out of their way to profit from pushing a hateful rhetoric about police.

Originally Posted by SuperJack

German police fires about 35-75 bullets at people per year, killing between 6 and 15 people. Every bullet is recorded.

Ohio police just fired more bullets at a single unarmed man than German police uses in an entire year.

Please tell me your not talking about Jayland Walker. The guy that stole a car and shot at cops.

There is a really disgusting industry out there just dedicated to spreading misinformation about police. Sadly by the time people figure out they have been told some bullshit the riots have already happened and the 'oh we were wrong' is a squeak that does nothing to recover the damage done to police reputation.
I honestly do not think any other country in the world has such groups and individuals that go out of their way to profit from pushing a hateful rhetoric about police.

This is partly just starting a topic on an interesting conversation we were having in Skwirl discord
[SPOILER=Uvalde Shooting]
Some verified facts from the Director of Texas State Police in a special senate committee before their full investigation is concluded. I figured outlining it could contribute to the conversation of gun control

-The shooter had been charged with domestic abuse but the local courts did not report it to the federal government allowing him to pass a background check and buy firearms
-The exterior door lock failed to engage allowing the shooter uninhibited access to the building
-Even if the exterior door lock had engaged it was not built to established standards and would have been easily breached
-There was no duress (mass alert) system resulting in some teachers not knowing there was a mass shooting going on in their school for some time
-The emergency evacuation diagrams were missing in many locations and some were wrong. (They are generally used by first responders to understand building layouts and such for immediate decisions so they dont have to wait for blueprints)
-The incorrect diagrams resulted in a sniper being sent to a position in the library to have a window shot at the suspect while no such shot was possible
-The interior classroom doors were not built with hardware that allowed teachers to lock them from inside. The strike plate for the door lock was compromised. Requests were made by teachers to have the lock fixed but those requests were ignored
-The school resource officer was off location and actually drove past the shooter as he was headed towards the school
-The local Chief of police was the first on scene and took the role of scene commander personally
-The Chief of police did not have a radio resulting in him trying to coordinate the scene by phone with dispatch
-Inside of the school every agency's other than border patrols radios would not function well to communicate outside of the school
-The dispatcher conveyed the wrong room number initially briefly sending police to the wrong room
-Standard Operating Procedure for an active shooter is to immediately assault. Standard Operating Procedure for a barricaded suspect is to isolate and distract. The Chief made the decision to isolate the shooter and wait for Swat against SOP
-Multiple officers pushed to assault but were ordered to hold a perimeter and wait
-Some officers acted against orders to wait and instead evacuated children
-The state investigation concluded within 3 minutes enough officers (7) were on site with appropriate equipment to act
-The Chief declined others suggestions to breach in favor of waiting for a master key
-There was no 'Knock box' which is a box that is suppose to exist with keys for first responders
-The Chief declined others suggestions to engage the suspect through exterior windows in favor of waiting on getting a key to the door
-The school had multiple master keys resulting in it taking longer
-The parents of children's response to try to rush the building resulted in many police being pulled off the situation to hold back parents
-BORTAC (pretty much like a swat unit on steroids that specializes as cartel killers) ended up finally breaching and killing the shooter roughly an hour and a half later[/SPOILER]

The ideology of the 2nd Amendment is contested on a few points:
-Some believe guns should only exist for personal defense or hunting
-Others believe they exist as a balance towards an oppressive government (with the inclusion of having a well trained militia)
-Some believe the amendment did not account for how advanced guns have become and should not apply to some classes of weapons

I feel that no reasonable steps are taken to help the issue because the two major positions want absolute extremes:
-One side wants some guns banned for everyone without exception and a long term goal of removing them entirely
-The other side wants all guns to be legal and feels any step towards restriction is a violation of civil rights

On gun control I personally disagree with the idea of trying to disarm American civilians. I get that worked for most places in the world but that ship sailed a very long time ago here and I do not see it as a viable solution. The credible number I found was in 2017 there are 1.2 guns for every person in America.

I also feel an intelligent conversation on American gun control should include consideration to the unique issue America has that other places do not- Massive amounts of armed criminals and an aggressive cartel presence.

This is partly just starting a topic on an interesting conversation we were having in Skwirl discord

Spoiler : Uvalde Shooting :

Some verified facts from the Director of Texas State Police in a special senate committee before their full investigation is concluded. I figured outlining it could contribute to the conversation of gun control

-The shooter had been charged with domestic abuse but the local courts did not report it to the federal government allowing him to pass a background check and buy firearms
-The exterior door lock failed to engage allowing the shooter uninhibited access to the building
-Even if the exterior door lock had engaged it was not built to established standards and would have been easily breached
-There was no duress (mass alert) system resulting in some teachers not knowing there was a mass shooting going on in their school for some time
-The emergency evacuation diagrams were missing in many locations and some were wrong. (They are generally used by first responders to understand building layouts and such for immediate decisions so they dont have to wait for blueprints)
-The incorrect diagrams resulted in a sniper being sent to a position in the library to have a window shot at the suspect while no such shot was possible
-The interior classroom doors were not built with hardware that allowed teachers to lock them from inside. The strike plate for the door lock was compromised. Requests were made by teachers to have the lock fixed but those requests were ignored
-The school resource officer was off location and actually drove past the shooter as he was headed towards the school
-The local Chief of police was the first on scene and took the role of scene commander personally
-The Chief of police did not have a radio resulting in him trying to coordinate the scene by phone with dispatch
-Inside of the school every agency's other than border patrols radios would not function well to communicate outside of the school
-The dispatcher conveyed the wrong room number initially briefly sending police to the wrong room
-Standard Operating Procedure for an active shooter is to immediately assault. Standard Operating Procedure for a barricaded suspect is to isolate and distract. The Chief made the decision to isolate the shooter and wait for Swat against SOP
-Multiple officers pushed to assault but were ordered to hold a perimeter and wait
-Some officers acted against orders to wait and instead evacuated children
-The state investigation concluded within 3 minutes enough officers (7) were on site with appropriate equipment to act
-The Chief declined others suggestions to breach in favor of waiting for a master key
-There was no 'Knock box' which is a box that is suppose to exist with keys for first responders
-The Chief declined others suggestions to engage the suspect through exterior windows in favor of waiting on getting a key to the door
-The school had multiple master keys resulting in it taking longer
-The parents of children's response to try to rush the building resulted in many police being pulled off the situation to hold back parents
-BORTAC (pretty much like a swat unit on steroids that specializes as cartel killers) ended up finally breaching and killing the shooter roughly an hour and a half later

The ideology of the 2nd Amendment is contested on a few points:
-Some believe guns should only exist for personal defense or hunting
-Others believe they exist as a balance towards an oppressive government (with the inclusion of having a well trained militia)
-Some believe the amendment did not account for how advanced guns have become and should not apply to some classes of weapons

I feel that no reasonable steps are taken to help the issue because the two major positions want absolute extremes:
-One side wants some guns banned for everyone without exception and a long term goal of removing them entirely
-The other side wants all guns to be legal and feels any step towards restriction is a violation of civil rights

On gun control I personally disagree with the idea of trying to disarm American civilians. I get that worked for most places in the world but that ship sailed a very long time ago here and I do not see it as a viable solution. The credible number I found was in 2017 there are 1.2 guns for every person in America.

I also feel an intelligent conversation on American gun control should include consideration to the unique issue America has that other places do not- Massive amounts of armed criminals and an aggressive cartel presence.

I just want to rape war by aborting guns through democratic protests that violently enforce the will of the one that stands for our beliefs above all process.

Vermin Supreme

I just want to rape war by aborting guns through democratic protests that violently enforce the will of the one that stands for our beliefs above all process.

Vermin Supreme

[QUOTE=Norwee;968174]The gates to hell hath been opened.[/QUOTE]

You Rang?


I read a study a while back that indicated guys get less intelligent when looking at an attractive girl so my pro strategy is to include cleavage in the avatar : )

Originally Posted by Norwee

The gates to hell hath been opened.

You Rang?


I read a study a while back that indicated guys get less intelligent when looking at an attractive girl so my pro strategy is to include cleavage in the avatar : )

So we had a few gaming sessions now. It looks like it will be more of a random 'whenever available' kinda time thing. There have been a variety of games played including Dominion, Secret Hitler, Catan, Spyfall, Coup, and Avalon. Some of the more deception focused games have been done with video chat while most have been voice chat stuff.

Something thats interesting is like half the players are not even from Mafia communities. They are from college groups which makes for a very different experience.

The discord will probably stop existing around the end of the summer.

So we had a few gaming sessions now. It looks like it will be more of a random 'whenever available' kinda time thing. There have been a variety of games played including Dominion, Secret Hitler, Catan, Spyfall, Coup, and Avalon. Some of the more deception focused games have been done with video chat while most have been voice chat stuff.

Something thats interesting is like half the players are not even from Mafia communities. They are from college groups which makes for a very different experience.

The discord will probably stop existing around the end of the summer.

For those interested there will be some Video chat Mafia games going on over the summer. It will have people from tons of varied communities with different play styles and should make for a great opportunity to network and learn others approach to playing.

[url]https://discord.gg/Ky875hJp[/url]

Feel free to share the link anywhere

For those interested there will be some Video chat Mafia games going on over the summer. It will have people from tons of varied communities with different play styles and should make for a great opportunity to network and learn others approach to playing.

https://discord.gg/Ky875hJp

Feel free to share the link anywhere

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28637[/ATTACH]
I was wrong. Its down to 0.2 making it the worst rated game ever.

If you gave it a 1 out of 10 it would improve its rating. Lol

I was wrong. Its down to 0.2 making it the worst rated game ever.

If you gave it a 1 out of 10 it would improve its rating. Lol

I think the big change is that companies have gone from trying to sell a product to trying to sell a service.

In a product the company makes the most entertaining game possible then sells it for a price.

In a service the company makes a game that is fun enough to keep people using the service while they are repeatedly given chances to spend money. This new diablo is a perfect example of a system designed in every way to shove people towards the store with every shady trick known.

The sad part is its working. Even though the game has a .5 rating its already made 10 million. I think its less of a question of 'if' these mechanics will be in Diablo 4 than it is 'how much' they will be in there.

I think the big change is that companies have gone from trying to sell a product to trying to sell a service.

In a product the company makes the most entertaining game possible then sells it for a price.

In a service the company makes a game that is fun enough to keep people using the service while they are repeatedly given chances to spend money. This new diablo is a perfect example of a system designed in every way to shove people towards the store with every shady trick known.

The sad part is its working. Even though the game has a .5 rating its already made 10 million. I think its less of a question of 'if' these mechanics will be in Diablo 4 than it is 'how much' they will be in there.

[QUOTE=Lag;967973]At the time this thread was posted there had been an average 5.4% inflation rate over the previous year and an average 2.7% rate over the previous three years

Now its up to 8.6% over the previous year and over 14% cumulative over the previous two years

Ouch[/QUOTE]
I think there will be a 'housing crisis' coming up. The fed is hiking interest rates by tiny increments (because if they hike over half a point or something they have to make some big announcement.) This is to offset how over the last 12 years or so they artificially froze interest rates to make the economy seem better than it is.
If you think about it my home loan is at like 2.4 or so so with 14% over 2 years my lender has lost over 9%. The last housing market crisis happened because the market was contrived and I don't see this as different in principle. This time the real estate market will turn down while everyone with variable rate mortgage will see their rates raise past their means with interest rates catching up to where they should already be.

To CPI I forgot to follow up on it but one thing I found is that the index shifts what it measures. For example 'entertainment' is a field. Although concert and sports tickets have gone up by like 300+% they can keep that metric down by instead saying 'a Netflix subscription only costs X.' Its apparently been done quite a bit over the years so this current bit is not a unique issue.
On the other side (specific to food and some other products) manufacturers have been shifting their products. 1 bag of chips may still be the same bag but now its half empty or sometimes they even shrink the bag because it just looks silly. Some items (such as a gallon of milk) dont have this problem but CPI does not take these shifts into account. This really sucks for those living off social security who's income is based on CPI in a world of increasing inflation and cost of living.

Anyways, Expect to see issues over the next couple of years. I think the places like New York and California that have been loosing lots of their population will be hit the hardest but this will probably hurt the population more than the last housing crisis did.

Originally Posted by Lag

At the time this thread was posted there had been an average 5.4% inflation rate over the previous year and an average 2.7% rate over the previous three years

Now its up to 8.6% over the previous year and over 14% cumulative over the previous two years

Ouch

I think there will be a 'housing crisis' coming up. The fed is hiking interest rates by tiny increments (because if they hike over half a point or something they have to make some big announcement.) This is to offset how over the last 12 years or so they artificially froze interest rates to make the economy seem better than it is.
If you think about it my home loan is at like 2.4 or so so with 14% over 2 years my lender has lost over 9%. The last housing market crisis happened because the market was contrived and I don't see this as different in principle. This time the real estate market will turn down while everyone with variable rate mortgage will see their rates raise past their means with interest rates catching up to where they should already be.

To CPI I forgot to follow up on it but one thing I found is that the index shifts what it measures. For example 'entertainment' is a field. Although concert and sports tickets have gone up by like 300+% they can keep that metric down by instead saying 'a Netflix subscription only costs X.' Its apparently been done quite a bit over the years so this current bit is not a unique issue.
On the other side (specific to food and some other products) manufacturers have been shifting their products. 1 bag of chips may still be the same bag but now its half empty or sometimes they even shrink the bag because it just looks silly. Some items (such as a gallon of milk) dont have this problem but CPI does not take these shifts into account. This really sucks for those living off social security who's income is based on CPI in a world of increasing inflation and cost of living.

Anyways, Expect to see issues over the next couple of years. I think the places like New York and California that have been loosing lots of their population will be hit the hardest but this will probably hurt the population more than the last housing crisis did.

I duno.. That 0.5 user score suggests 4 could be amazing and Blizzard has totally not gone to shit at all

I duno.. That 0.5 user score suggests 4 could be amazing and Blizzard has totally not gone to shit at all

Especially after Diablo Immortal was such an epic hit!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28634[/ATTACH]

Especially after Diablo Immortal was such an epic hit!

An issue I take with apologies is that they almost always come 'after' someone is caught doing something wrong. It feels like for many its just a gesture to pacify the other person as opposed to being an expression of regret. Often the person apologizing does feel regret, but its for the repercussions they are suffering because of their action as opposed to regret for the action itself.
This rings especially hollow when the action is repeated. For someone who truly feels remorse for the action they took they will go to lengths to ensure they never cross that line again. Repeating the action reflects the words were just a shallow gesture they are socially conditioned to make in order to lessen the consequences of their action.

Its an interesting concept to chew on but figured I would through this more internal view out there because your thoughts were mostly focused on the external drivers.

An issue I take with apologies is that they almost always come 'after' someone is caught doing something wrong. It feels like for many its just a gesture to pacify the other person as opposed to being an expression of regret. Often the person apologizing does feel regret, but its for the repercussions they are suffering because of their action as opposed to regret for the action itself.
This rings especially hollow when the action is repeated. For someone who truly feels remorse for the action they took they will go to lengths to ensure they never cross that line again. Repeating the action reflects the words were just a shallow gesture they are socially conditioned to make in order to lessen the consequences of their action.

Its an interesting concept to chew on but figured I would through this more internal view out there because your thoughts were mostly focused on the external drivers.

I do not understand the question but I do have some questions I have been chewing on

I do not understand the question but I do have some questions I have been chewing on

[QUOTE=Lag;967448]I did not expect that[/QUOTE]

If we accept the reality of time cube anticipating how seeing movements of thought processes change by the perspective of an idiosyncratic view into breaking down philosophies of viewpoints; then we must also conclude that the patterns of behavior resulting from such intrinsic modifications to natural processes are not just normative behaviors, but essential to the structure that exists.

Originally Posted by Lag

I did not expect that

If we accept the reality of time cube anticipating how seeing movements of thought processes change by the perspective of an idiosyncratic view into breaking down philosophies of viewpoints; then we must also conclude that the patterns of behavior resulting from such intrinsic modifications to natural processes are not just normative behaviors, but essential to the structure that exists.

MMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

MMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I wonder how much the issue is what is taken as a result vs how many aspects of who takes what as a result in what community is an issue.

I wonder how much the issue is what is taken as a result vs how many aspects of who takes what as a result in what community is an issue.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;967221]I'm not sure I want us to have [I]deep[/I] discussions... or anything else deep.... here.......

:ika:[/QUOTE]

Just a tip
You should detail how [I]deep[/I] we should go. I am not sure how much this community can handle but I am sure everyone has a lot to unload on the subject.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I'm not sure I want us to have deep discussions... or anything else deep.... here.......

Just a tip
You should detail how deep we should go. I am not sure how much this community can handle but I am sure everyone has a lot to unload on the subject.

It is not a bad breakdown of our conversation and is very concise. Oberon seems to have argued a difference between determinism in thought with some connection to computational thought that I don't understand but outside of that its a good summary imo.

It is not a bad breakdown of our conversation and is very concise. Oberon seems to have argued a difference between determinism in thought with some connection to computational thought that I don't understand but outside of that its a good summary imo.

Was talking with some leadership from another community about a thing and this topic got brought up as an infraction.

100% worth a necro and I think we need to have deep discussions about the subject.

Was talking with some leadership from another community about a thing and this topic got brought up as an infraction.

100% worth a necro and I think we need to have deep discussions about the subject.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;967175]This brings the question: is a badass better than a goodass?[/QUOTE]

Valid question.

I endorse anything that has ass in it. An assless world would make everyone full of shit so supporting asses keeps it real.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

This brings the question: is a badass better than a goodass?

Valid question.

I endorse anything that has ass in it. An assless world would make everyone full of shit so supporting asses keeps it real.

[QUOTE=aamirus;967069]it's kind of ugly but i added an iso list to the top of threads[/QUOTE]

You are a badass

Dont downplay the badassery you do : )

Originally Posted by aamirus

it's kind of ugly but i added an iso list to the top of threads

You are a badass

Dont downplay the badassery you do : )

[QUOTE=OzyWho;967163]Yah I myself have left SC2Mafia and Skwirl discords and not really joining any games anymore.
Similarly, I came to FM from the mod for MM, Oberon came here for Distorted, lots of older players came for SuperJack.

After years and years of pondering on this question, your comment shines the truest of them all.[/QUOTE]
I feel like there is a lot of the 'old guard' who could snap their fingers and get 10 or 20 people to sign for a game.

But understanding what it is that makes people want to do that and what creates a brand of fun that keeps players coming back may be worth a conversation. MU does have a player draw for its people but that started with the games it hosted and the experiences it created. Things like turbos were even popular although their site was terrible for hosting them with issues like refreshing pages jumping post, just because the player base was there.
Regular community melt downs over staff abuses were common yet they had a popular enough platform that their users accepted such bad moderation to the point the last one I saw was excused as 'Its been a while sense the last meltdown so staff are doing better.'

Honestly replicating what they created would not be hard. It could be as simple as making something cool and inviting a bunch of communities to play it. If I was going to try to do it I would start by hosting a series of external cross community games on other peoples sites but then inviting those sites to some event. Unless someone wanted to replicate the 'place to be' trendy sort of attitude and they would probably quickly find a lot of people walking away. Even before I ever had issues with MU that kept me on the edges of that community despite creating a lot of things I held in very high regard.

Reach out to Superjack if you want to hear about how the planned '3 game' cross community interaction went back in the day. He also had some cool stuff for voice/video mafia games that I would like to see become a thing again. The Liers Club has some badass people and a super cool platform if we could create a player draw and coordinate with them..

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Yah I myself have left SC2Mafia and Skwirl discords and not really joining any games anymore.
Similarly, I came to FM from the mod for MM, Oberon came here for Distorted, lots of older players came for SuperJack.

After years and years of pondering on this question, your comment shines the truest of them all.

I feel like there is a lot of the 'old guard' who could snap their fingers and get 10 or 20 people to sign for a game.

But understanding what it is that makes people want to do that and what creates a brand of fun that keeps players coming back may be worth a conversation. MU does have a player draw for its people but that started with the games it hosted and the experiences it created. Things like turbos were even popular although their site was terrible for hosting them with issues like refreshing pages jumping post, just because the player base was there.
Regular community melt downs over staff abuses were common yet they had a popular enough platform that their users accepted such bad moderation to the point the last one I saw was excused as 'Its been a while sense the last meltdown so staff are doing better.'

Honestly replicating what they created would not be hard. It could be as simple as making something cool and inviting a bunch of communities to play it. If I was going to try to do it I would start by hosting a series of external cross community games on other peoples sites but then inviting those sites to some event. Unless someone wanted to replicate the 'place to be' trendy sort of attitude and they would probably quickly find a lot of people walking away. Even before I ever had issues with MU that kept me on the edges of that community despite creating a lot of things I held in very high regard.

Reach out to Superjack if you want to hear about how the planned '3 game' cross community interaction went back in the day. He also had some cool stuff for voice/video mafia games that I would like to see become a thing again. The Liers Club has some badass people and a super cool platform if we could create a player draw and coordinate with them..

[QUOTE=Oberon;967138]Do we want more people coming here? Perhaps, perhaps not. More is not necessarily better if it makes games less fun, but it is also true I hardly see having only 24/7 chats from now on as being detrimental in and of itself.[/QUOTE]

I would say more people would be a good thing. I think the leadership could handle growth without it becoming about them instead of the players as I have seen in other communities but the idea of sharing knowledge in how to play the game as well as creating fun experiences for people to enjoy is a beautiful thing.

This community has struggled in having good relationships with other communities. We basically gave birth to Town of Salem but alienated them at every turn under some of the older leadership. We tried to do some cross community work with MU but they were only interested in us playing games there and never held up their end. Maybe moving forward things will be different.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Do we want more people coming here? Perhaps, perhaps not. More is not necessarily better if it makes games less fun, but it is also true I hardly see having only 24/7 chats from now on as being detrimental in and of itself.

I would say more people would be a good thing. I think the leadership could handle growth without it becoming about them instead of the players as I have seen in other communities but the idea of sharing knowledge in how to play the game as well as creating fun experiences for people to enjoy is a beautiful thing.

This community has struggled in having good relationships with other communities. We basically gave birth to Town of Salem but alienated them at every turn under some of the older leadership. We tried to do some cross community work with MU but they were only interested in us playing games there and never held up their end. Maybe moving forward things will be different.

[QUOTE=Oberon;967119]I THINK the idea is that it would attract more people from other sites, since apparently on these 'other sites' 24/7 chats are the norm.[/QUOTE]
On the most basic level playing games is about having fun. Its usually more fun for a wolf team to have 24/7 on multiple levels but balance is also a big requirement.

If the goal is to bring people here I think a separate conversation should be held about what people consider fun and what this sites 'brand' of fun is.
I like complexity on the mechanical side that enables and drives conversation while allowing for lies, gambits, deception, and analysis.
I dislike functions that remove analysis, games that do not have enough action to maintain interest/conversation or mechanics that can not be countered by play.

At its core I believe the main thing that makes games fun is people being able to influence how they do. At some point I made a bunch of ramblings on some core concepts for setup designing I might try to dig up but thats a bit of it off the top of my head. Also why someday I would like to make something that quantifys a sort of point value for individual measurement removing the social loafing issue that drags some games down.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I THINK the idea is that it would attract more people from other sites, since apparently on these 'other sites' 24/7 chats are the norm.

On the most basic level playing games is about having fun. Its usually more fun for a wolf team to have 24/7 on multiple levels but balance is also a big requirement.

If the goal is to bring people here I think a separate conversation should be held about what people consider fun and what this sites 'brand' of fun is.
I like complexity on the mechanical side that enables and drives conversation while allowing for lies, gambits, deception, and analysis.
I dislike functions that remove analysis, games that do not have enough action to maintain interest/conversation or mechanics that can not be countered by play.

At its core I believe the main thing that makes games fun is people being able to influence how they do. At some point I made a bunch of ramblings on some core concepts for setup designing I might try to dig up but thats a bit of it off the top of my head. Also why someday I would like to make something that quantifys a sort of point value for individual measurement removing the social loafing issue that drags some games down.

I don't really understand the point of having a 'default.'

The aspects of 24/7 I do not believe were pointed out is how it allows for stronger puppet shows/coaching upping the overall wolf IQ for the new players. I really like this because wolfing with good wolves really improves newer wolves ability and helps spread strategy.

It also helps prevent the frustration that is inherent to wolfing. When you have a team mate overly bussing, supporting you, or even just making a play you see as bad its not fun. Being able to talk to them about it removes a lot of that frustration.

I think consideration should also be given to the abnormal level of complexity this site hosts. Other sites have grown to accept complicated setups but SC2 still is pretty out there and has some unique day game mechanics that matter when considering 24/7 vs day/night.

As I said in the beginning, I don't see a reason to declare a default at all and it makes more sense to leave it as a balance function. For a parallel it would be like declaring a default night cycle and requiring reasoning to do anything else. I just do not see what that accomplishes.

I don't really understand the point of having a 'default.'

The aspects of 24/7 I do not believe were pointed out is how it allows for stronger puppet shows/coaching upping the overall wolf IQ for the new players. I really like this because wolfing with good wolves really improves newer wolves ability and helps spread strategy.

It also helps prevent the frustration that is inherent to wolfing. When you have a team mate overly bussing, supporting you, or even just making a play you see as bad its not fun. Being able to talk to them about it removes a lot of that frustration.

I think consideration should also be given to the abnormal level of complexity this site hosts. Other sites have grown to accept complicated setups but SC2 still is pretty out there and has some unique day game mechanics that matter when considering 24/7 vs day/night.

As I said in the beginning, I don't see a reason to declare a default at all and it makes more sense to leave it as a balance function. For a parallel it would be like declaring a default night cycle and requiring reasoning to do anything else. I just do not see what that accomplishes.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;966844]I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) Jordan Peterson. I'm so against him being on the list. Lots of his advice is just common sense in psychological “You get motivated by action.” Duh. But beyond that there's countless examples of him pulling shit like [URL="https://youtu.be/zmrv9NSKKYE?t=134"]this[/URL]. There's some admirable qualities of his or things he's done: like his ability in having open and honest debates or his analysis of Hitler, or him pointing out basics things like the reverse racism of saying things like "all white men are oppressors". But I fail to see him being worthy of being on such a list tbh.

2) Just like the human mind can't imagine/generate a color it has never seen, so too it can't generate anything else - every thought, reasoning, idea, shape, sound comes from a combination of previous inputs. Which is why I think it can't be understated how highly we should value and appreciate the "fathers" of things. Father's of physics, philosophy, math, science, engineering, etc., - if we could name them, they deserve to be on such a list.
I don't agree that the complexity of an idea is indicative of how difficult it was to think of. For example, I'd value - people figuring out that the earth is round thousands of years ago from just the shadows of lunar eclipses - as more difficult than todays satellites built. I'd value the pythagorean cup as more complex than a tomorrows skyscraper. For that reason I think there should be a very few names listed from the last few centuries. Newton, Tesla, Einstein - I think it's theories and discoveries like that which should be worthy on the list, when it comes to more modern names.[/QUOTE]

I like Jordan Peterson for how free thinking he is and how willing he is to take the 'not popular view' on subjects although I do not like how he goes about arguing things. We all have our bias and inability to understand how very ignorant we are in some ways but I think some parts of how he argues represents something I do not like in myself about how I argue which makes me avoid listening to him although I find myself agreeing with a number of positions he takes when I do.

I really like your second point. I often having half joking conversations about 'who was the first person to do X' and how absurd it must have been in context to decide to smoke or eat a plant, use it for medicine or think of creating a boat. Sure some level of intellectual Darwinism had to have happened but every once in a while people come up with an idea that breaks free of our understanding and is the radical idea that pushes us forward as a species.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) Jordan Peterson. I'm so against him being on the list. Lots of his advice is just common sense in psychological “You get motivated by action.” Duh. But beyond that there's countless examples of him pulling shit like this. There's some admirable qualities of his or things he's done: like his ability in having open and honest debates or his analysis of Hitler, or him pointing out basics things like the reverse racism of saying things like "all white men are oppressors". But I fail to see him being worthy of being on such a list tbh.

2) Just like the human mind can't imagine/generate a color it has never seen, so too it can't generate anything else - every thought, reasoning, idea, shape, sound comes from a combination of previous inputs. Which is why I think it can't be understated how highly we should value and appreciate the "fathers" of things. Father's of physics, philosophy, math, science, engineering, etc., - if we could name them, they deserve to be on such a list.
I don't agree that the complexity of an idea is indicative of how difficult it was to think of. For example, I'd value - people figuring out that the earth is round thousands of years ago from just the shadows of lunar eclipses - as more difficult than todays satellites built. I'd value the pythagorean cup as more complex than a tomorrows skyscraper. For that reason I think there should be a very few names listed from the last few centuries. Newton, Tesla, Einstein - I think it's theories and discoveries like that which should be worthy on the list, when it comes to more modern names.

I like Jordan Peterson for how free thinking he is and how willing he is to take the 'not popular view' on subjects although I do not like how he goes about arguing things. We all have our bias and inability to understand how very ignorant we are in some ways but I think some parts of how he argues represents something I do not like in myself about how I argue which makes me avoid listening to him although I find myself agreeing with a number of positions he takes when I do.

I really like your second point. I often having half joking conversations about 'who was the first person to do X' and how absurd it must have been in context to decide to smoke or eat a plant, use it for medicine or think of creating a boat. Sure some level of intellectual Darwinism had to have happened but every once in a while people come up with an idea that breaks free of our understanding and is the radical idea that pushes us forward as a species.

(in no particular order)

Da Vinci - Might be the smartest ever. From what we know his mind worked in astonishing ways to the extent books were written on it. Small things like being able to write with both hands at once from both directions show he had a very different kind of intelligence that likely had to do with using both sides of his brain together in complicated ways. Some of the most intelligent people I interacted with have similar patterns and its something I wish I had understood earlier in life.

Max Weber - Created a lot of the thinking that framed the modern world we live in. I do not know if I really agree with the application of a lot of his views but he pioneered some very original works that were built upon to create a lot of good stuff.

Elon Musk - Easy fit on the list with what he is accomplishing. The amount of innovation and coordination he is able to do is pretty badass showing he is both intelligent enough on his own but also has that certain 'social intelligence' to create systems of people that accomplish incredible things that are literally pushing the limits of our species in ways we have not seen sense Mervin Kelly. If we measure intelligence pragmatically he is easily in the top 10 living if not ever.

Edward De Bono - I am certainly biased here but this guys work in understanding how the brain functions and how to create intelligence is a force multiplier for brainpower. As far as education goes this guy is nothing less than a god in that field accomplishing actual cognitive improvement in an age where education is watered down to regurgitation of information.

Jeremy Bentham - The guy studied Latin when he was just 3 years old and naturally spoke on a level people had to spend time unpacking his words. Yet he structured social science concepts like utilitarianism and pushed social reform effectively in line with ethical considerations in a political climate that had many driving factors against such fair treatment of people and animals. For me him being on this list is not only because he was an absurd level of genius but because he dedicated that brain power to ensuring others got fair treatment.

Claude Shannon - This guy was so smart he offhand created the structure of information theory without reason. Bell labs arguably changed the face of the world in massive ways and was packed with geniuses but he was so far out there he got to write his own ticket to the point he would spend months on whatever struck his fancy without reason. Many aspects of him may have been similar to Da Vinci as he seemed as much an artist as a scientist riding a unicycle up and down hallways. For hobbies he did stuff like creating devices that could play chess or solve rubik's cubes; even made a mechanical mouse that could navigate mazes and learn accidently creating the first form of AI that self learned.

Albert Einstein - I have a lot of love for how he could break down social concepts into mathematical relations of geometry. He was brilliant in both thinking as well as gifted in speech which is very rare. Any top 10 list should have him on it just because he was smart enough for his name to become a term to discuss intelligence.

David Hilbert - Not one most non-math nerds will probably recognize but almost beat Einstein to relativity (with some saying he actually did.) He did lots of cool stuff but I particularly enjoyed some of his toying with concepts of infinity and the theory's of how they could actually relate from theoretical math to reality.

Hedy Lamarr - Not sure if she is one of the greatest but her story really meant something to me. Society only really valued her for beauty through her life but even just being an actress and model she explored concepts of science and created the foundation for things like WIFI that were discovered in her journals after death. I feel like she should be mentioned as the cautionary tale of what society can do to a person when such a great mind is largely known for depicting the first on screen female orgasm while people like Amelia Earhart or Rosa Parks (disingenuously in some respects) get the marketed as icons in women's rights movements.

Vignesh Karunanidhi - Kind of a cool life story that I associate with. The guy started out figuring out technology and social structures but innovated in some pretty cool ways that made him a billionaire in the end. He felt like one of the few heavy hitting hackers that found a way back into society and fights for ethical considerations while accomplishing that without the crutches of having a great education. I kind of wonder who he could have been given a real education and opportunity; or if it was the adversity that drove him to become what he did.


Anyways; I guess a lot of anyones top 10 list would depend on what they value, what they consider intelligence, and what they have been exposed to but these are some I would consider off the top of my head.

(in no particular order)

Da Vinci - Might be the smartest ever. From what we know his mind worked in astonishing ways to the extent books were written on it. Small things like being able to write with both hands at once from both directions show he had a very different kind of intelligence that likely had to do with using both sides of his brain together in complicated ways. Some of the most intelligent people I interacted with have similar patterns and its something I wish I had understood earlier in life.

Max Weber - Created a lot of the thinking that framed the modern world we live in. I do not know if I really agree with the application of a lot of his views but he pioneered some very original works that were built upon to create a lot of good stuff.

Elon Musk - Easy fit on the list with what he is accomplishing. The amount of innovation and coordination he is able to do is pretty badass showing he is both intelligent enough on his own but also has that certain 'social intelligence' to create systems of people that accomplish incredible things that are literally pushing the limits of our species in ways we have not seen sense Mervin Kelly. If we measure intelligence pragmatically he is easily in the top 10 living if not ever.

Edward De Bono - I am certainly biased here but this guys work in understanding how the brain functions and how to create intelligence is a force multiplier for brainpower. As far as education goes this guy is nothing less than a god in that field accomplishing actual cognitive improvement in an age where education is watered down to regurgitation of information.

Jeremy Bentham - The guy studied Latin when he was just 3 years old and naturally spoke on a level people had to spend time unpacking his words. Yet he structured social science concepts like utilitarianism and pushed social reform effectively in line with ethical considerations in a political climate that had many driving factors against such fair treatment of people and animals. For me him being on this list is not only because he was an absurd level of genius but because he dedicated that brain power to ensuring others got fair treatment.

Claude Shannon - This guy was so smart he offhand created the structure of information theory without reason. Bell labs arguably changed the face of the world in massive ways and was packed with geniuses but he was so far out there he got to write his own ticket to the point he would spend months on whatever struck his fancy without reason. Many aspects of him may have been similar to Da Vinci as he seemed as much an artist as a scientist riding a unicycle up and down hallways. For hobbies he did stuff like creating devices that could play chess or solve rubik's cubes; even made a mechanical mouse that could navigate mazes and learn accidently creating the first form of AI that self learned.

Albert Einstein - I have a lot of love for how he could break down social concepts into mathematical relations of geometry. He was brilliant in both thinking as well as gifted in speech which is very rare. Any top 10 list should have him on it just because he was smart enough for his name to become a term to discuss intelligence.

David Hilbert - Not one most non-math nerds will probably recognize but almost beat Einstein to relativity (with some saying he actually did.) He did lots of cool stuff but I particularly enjoyed some of his toying with concepts of infinity and the theory's of how they could actually relate from theoretical math to reality.

Hedy Lamarr - Not sure if she is one of the greatest but her story really meant something to me. Society only really valued her for beauty through her life but even just being an actress and model she explored concepts of science and created the foundation for things like WIFI that were discovered in her journals after death. I feel like she should be mentioned as the cautionary tale of what society can do to a person when such a great mind is largely known for depicting the first on screen female orgasm while people like Amelia Earhart or Rosa Parks (disingenuously in some respects) get the marketed as icons in women's rights movements.

Vignesh Karunanidhi - Kind of a cool life story that I associate with. The guy started out figuring out technology and social structures but innovated in some pretty cool ways that made him a billionaire in the end. He felt like one of the few heavy hitting hackers that found a way back into society and fights for ethical considerations while accomplishing that without the crutches of having a great education. I kind of wonder who he could have been given a real education and opportunity; or if it was the adversity that drove him to become what he did.


Anyways; I guess a lot of anyones top 10 list would depend on what they value, what they consider intelligence, and what they have been exposed to but these are some I would consider off the top of my head.

[QUOTE=Helz;966908]I question the source of this and I would ask a simple question.

Last year food went up 2.2, now it went up 7.9. Is anyone only paying 10.1% more on their grocery bill? How much have your average groceries gone up?[/QUOTE]

Not to say I do not think you have one. Just saying I do not believe the data and would ask this forum to provide something of a dataset through feedback. I live in Texas and recently had a conversation with a Mexican restaurant owner over how they plan on shifting around dish portions and changing pricing because of the rapidly changing pricing of raw foods.

Originally Posted by Helz

I question the source of this and I would ask a simple question.

Last year food went up 2.2, now it went up 7.9. Is anyone only paying 10.1% more on their grocery bill? How much have your average groceries gone up?

Not to say I do not think you have one. Just saying I do not believe the data and would ask this forum to provide something of a dataset through feedback. I live in Texas and recently had a conversation with a Mexican restaurant owner over how they plan on shifting around dish portions and changing pricing because of the rapidly changing pricing of raw foods.

[QUOTE=Lag;966843][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/0PAHbiV.png[/IMG]

On the topic of inflation itself rather than the accuracy of inflation metrics -

Some interesting data points here.

Meat prices up 13.0%
Fuel up 43.6% (although this is arguably more due to geopolitics than it is inflation)
[B]Used Cars and Trucks up 41.2%[/B]
Airline fare up 12.7%

Even something like rent being up 4.2% can have a major impact on people that live paycheck to paycheck.

An illustrated example:
A worker makes $2500/month and takes home $2000/mo after taxes in disposable income.
The worker's living expenses are $1800/mo. Giving them $200/mo in discretionary income. (Note the difference between disposable and discretionary - disposable is after taxes but before bills are paid, discretionary is after taxes AND bills are paid)

If prices go up even just 5% without the worker's wages increasing, then their living expenses increase to $1890/mo, and their discretionary income drops from $200/mo to $110/mo - that's a [B]55% drop in discretionary income[/B].
With the current 8.6% inflation rate, said worker's [B]discretionary income drops by 77.4%[/B][/QUOTE]

I question the source of this and I would ask a simple question.

Last year food went up 2.2, now it went up 7.9. Is anyone only paying 10.1% more on their grocery bill? How much have your average groceries gone up?

Originally Posted by Lag

On the topic of inflation itself rather than the accuracy of inflation metrics -

Some interesting data points here.

Meat prices up 13.0%
Fuel up 43.6% (although this is arguably more due to geopolitics than it is inflation)
Used Cars and Trucks up 41.2%
Airline fare up 12.7%

Even something like rent being up 4.2% can have a major impact on people that live paycheck to paycheck.

An illustrated example:
A worker makes $2500/month and takes home $2000/mo after taxes in disposable income.
The worker's living expenses are $1800/mo. Giving them $200/mo in discretionary income. (Note the difference between disposable and discretionary - disposable is after taxes but before bills are paid, discretionary is after taxes AND bills are paid)

If prices go up even just 5% without the worker's wages increasing, then their living expenses increase to $1890/mo, and their discretionary income drops from $200/mo to $110/mo - that's a 55% drop in discretionary income.
With the current 8.6% inflation rate, said worker's discretionary income drops by 77.4%

I question the source of this and I would ask a simple question.

Last year food went up 2.2, now it went up 7.9. Is anyone only paying 10.1% more on their grocery bill? How much have your average groceries gone up?

So simple, yet so badass : )

So simple, yet so badass : )

I am curious if people still see things the same. Stuff has gotten worse and worse to the point contractors are now refusing to give quotes that last more than a week or so. The price of many foods has tripled while companies are reporting record profits although this suggests the raised prices are not due to raised costs or a currency change.

I am curious if people still see things the same. Stuff has gotten worse and worse to the point contractors are now refusing to give quotes that last more than a week or so. The price of many foods has tripled while companies are reporting record profits although this suggests the raised prices are not due to raised costs or a currency change.

The evolution of the crime structure came from an offhand comment I made to Rev years back.

The core idea was something along the lines of not having detectable roles if no action was taken leaving roles the option to take no action and increasing depth of gameplay.

It built upon the old invest concept of pools. With that you would need the racer to have some town/non-town/evil parallels in crimes to balance as the game existed. Otherwise you make a self-confirmable role which is really bad for gameplay.

I am not saying it should not be a thing but I do feel more needs to go into it than 'make a crime for this role' from a balance standpoint.

The evolution of the crime structure came from an offhand comment I made to Rev years back.

The core idea was something along the lines of not having detectable roles if no action was taken leaving roles the option to take no action and increasing depth of gameplay.

It built upon the old invest concept of pools. With that you would need the racer to have some town/non-town/evil parallels in crimes to balance as the game existed. Otherwise you make a self-confirmable role which is really bad for gameplay.

I am not saying it should not be a thing but I do feel more needs to go into it than 'make a crime for this role' from a balance standpoint.