1
Zelda Projects / Re: The legend of zelda - Ocean legends 3D - Stuck! need help,read-->
« on: August 05, 2011, 08:06:08 pm »
Yeah, I think some proportion should be worked on. But generally, it looks pretty f*cking awesome.
2AWESOME4APOSSUM?!?!?!? When did you get here?Just yesterday. A lot's happened since I was last here ... I discovered I have OCD, I got married, and I've started trying to write for a living. (Easy way to go broke, but a lot more fun than paying your way through college by telemarketing.)
Who else can admit to that... I'm not the only one who got a boner for Possum's name showing up again did I?... oh my gosh.
Z3 is an Expo and if a developer decides to have a "book" in his booth then there shouldn't be a problem since an expo is not a competition even when there are awards... the awards are just looks what the people looking at all booths think is the best of each category, that doesn't concern the overall quality.I completely agree.
You are acting like the whole point of my message was wrapped up in criticizing a spelling mistake and you are so hinged to that because you cannot otherwise make an argument. I used it as a hook and then stated why I went there -
that does not mean that I know nothing about religion or that you can act superior over me in your knowledge of such a thing.Which I addressed. I love to study all kinds of religions. With your lack of knowledge, yes, I was asserting my knowledge was superior to yours in the subject of religions. I stand by that.
you were acting like I did not know anything about Christianity when you yourself only see Atheism as vacuous.But if you'll remember *my* argument was that to apply your sense of logic, being an atheist, to a Christian family is a fallacy. Instead of accepting that fact, you went to point out a mispelling I made to make me look illiterate and stupid.
You had to look up something on my Facebook in an attempt to downplay what I believe;Instead of just saying "well, you're an atheist, so you probably don't understand something you don't care about", I cited where I learned where you were an atheist, just in case you tried to argue *that*.
I mentioned his grammar once only after he made a bad claim against me; it's like you missed all of what else I was saying.Which wasn't much, admittedly.
Yes, let us all frame this as an attack on you, you are the one being persecuted. I only "attacked" your grammar because it highlighted your hypocrisy - claiming that I did not know about any other religion simply because I define myself as being an atheist, you probably would have criticize me if I misspelled Christianity because you thought I did not know anything about it.Well, no. When I attack someone's intelligence, I don't do it by saying, "You spelled that wrong, you're obviously an idiot." I explain to them why I think they're an idiot... it's possible I'd use the spelling as an afterthought... but I've responded to everything you've said, and the main point seems to be trying to make me look stupid with stuff that really has nothing to do with our argument at all.
Everyone is born an atheist,What about the "God gene"? (The one that scientists say makes one desire religion?) I haven't seen really enough evidence for it, but I wouldn't be surprised at all, if it actually *did* exist. Despite it being a pointless argument made by some atheists (not meaning to generalize here, since I have to phrase everything in a politically correct way).
and if I am wrong when I die and if it turns out that there is a god, his or her denial of me based on my earthly knowledge would make me sympathize with the devil. The devil probably does things because he knows that all Christians will do is sing, dance, and pray about it rather than do anything substantial; I bet he does it for shits and giggles.At least my sect of Christianity believes God will put you where you're most comfortable. If you don't want to be with Him, he won't put you with Him. He'll let you be in a place with others like you. It's an interesting thought, I don't think you've considered before that I thought you might find interesting.
In logic, it is said that you cannot prove non-existence, but also that the burden of proof lies on those trying to prove something.Religion doesn't have the burden of trying to make itself a scientific theory. Who cares if there's no disprovability?
With that last statement, one would wonder why I am an atheist if I could not prove that gods didn't exist - well even if they did, they wouldn't be having an impact on my life so they would be as good as gone and the Bible contradicts itself enough to make it unreasonable.The Bible that was written, translated and handed down for generations by... humans? The not-supernatural kind?
As for my quote, if you know so much to deny all other gods and just believe in one, what would you think if you were wrong and Ra or whoever was pissed at you. Wouldn't that be unfair?I think so, but I don't believe in Ra. I believe in a God who wouldn't be missed off if you had geniune misinformation in your life.
As for the Republican Convention, I am just happy that Bush is speaking as his presence to the party reinvigorates my side.You'll notice a major focus was put on differences between him and McCain. I don't think it was counterproductive by much. cakefarts's trying to frame him as just another Bushy, and the entire point of last night (and Lieberman's excellent speech) was that McCain is an independent man. Obviously the theme was that he "puts his country before party" and knows how bipartisanship works. I think that if geniune undecideds matter (although they're probably negligable), that this would have worked as a really strong argument in favor of McCain/Palin.
Language is a fickle !@#$% at best.Well the exact defining of what atheism was, is your argument. Let me quote your first post (what I've been reacting to):
I just have to say this, possum, because of a comment of yours about respecting Atheist 'beliefs': Atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods or divine powers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, absence of belief and belief in an absence are two separate things.Well, I don't respect the belief that there "is no God (or "a god" or "supreme being", etc.)".
You're an atheist too you know, you just believe in one more god than I do. Anyway, most of the talk on the television seems to be getting away from Bristol Palin and back to covering the Republican convention, other storms going on, etc.Some of the definitions above refer to "God" (I can assume to mean what Christianity believes in), others "a god" or "supreme being(s)". Yes, Christianity differs from Buddhism, Islam and so forth, but in the end, we all believe in some kind of supreme being(s). Atheism denies this belief generally (with one exception in the above definitions that makes it specific to denying Christianity, in which case I *still* wouldn't be an atheist). At least, according to the definitions I pulled off the intarweb.
I just have to say this, possum, because of a comment of yours about respecting Atheist 'beliefs': Atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods or divine powers. I've said it before and I'll say it again, absence of belief and belief in an absence are two separate things.As far as I'm aware, that's not how society uses it. Someone who has a 'lack of belief' is called 'agnostic' (basically someone who probably *does* know, but they just want to act noncommital). Someone who has the audacity to say that there is no God, and that they know this for a fact is an 'atheist'.
Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)
Adj. 1. atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistical, atheistic
The problem that I have with aspects of Christianity is that there are those who think that it makes them good just to follow it and there are those who see others who follow it as inherently good.Sometimes the reason religious people follow things based on "faith", is because religion gives us guidelines where we won't have to learn by trial and error, but we base our own judgement on the trials and errors of others. Religion doesn't make one a good person. Someone doing something simply because of their religion isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't necessarily do them good either. You know?
And don't act like you respect atheism, it's quite obvious you like to tout that you can understand atheism because it's below you, but obviously an atheist could never understand any sort of religion.I didn't even imply that in the subtext! By saying that 4Sword didn't grasp a religious person's mind, I never said I knew what an atheist's logic would consist of. Just saying it wouldn't work when applied to a believer of Christianity. Athiests can understand religion if they explore them fully.
If this were a personal situation like you say, what repercussions would you expect if she got an abortion and didn't get married?None in America. Or if you're talking about the election, there might be one person who switches their vote (not exaggerating by much).
Who has she wronged?Respect for herself, the child inside her and her creator, sure... so I'd say possibly the first two on your list. Especially when she's still a dependent... (not 18)
God, her mother, or the republican party?
Your spelling is not making you look bad as much as your insistence on arguing nuances for the sake of arguing makes you look stubborn.What nuances are you reffering to?
Besides, DICK Cheney's daughter ended up being a lesbian but he got used to it.That's fine.
As for the nine-page paper you are referring to on Kate Chopin that you let me use that one time, I am not happy that I resorted to doing that, but then again I cannot change it; if I remember right though, that happened around the time I was suspended from school for making death threats. I could have written the paper myself, it wasn't because I was lazy it was just that I was going through a lot then.That doesn't make it right for me to have done it. You know? It was wrong, and could I do it over differently, I would. I *still* feel guilty about it, because I was dishonest. Forget my soul (and the whole religion aspect), it diminishes the person I *am*.
And from my standpoint, marriage for the sake of convenience as a means to correct a mistake is a little laughable - I only believe that people who love each other should be married. If she loves the guy, then I am alright with that, but at her age she might not know what love is anyway.Well, quite obviously there are situations in which one should not get married when they have been impregnated. It's a personal decision, clearly.
Quit it with the atheist bashing possum, it isn't easy points like you think.When did I bash atheists?
I just don't get why she has to keep the baby and get married, those are two huge decisions that should require years of decision and not used in an effort to clean up what is a stupid teenage mess.The marriage is a personal thing, and if she was giving the kid up for adoption, I doubt conservatives would have a hard time, either.
Oh, and Palin once said that Hillary Clinton was a whiner. As for what she has done in Alaska, it was only two years in an executive position.So now she was never a mayor? I'll have to remind you that it was first the pro-cakefarts groups who simply reffered to her as a "mayor of a city of less than 9,000" or something like that... (can't remember the exact quote).
I am willing to bet that Alaska will go blue this season.. it wont be very significant to who gets those votes, but no one will vote for that ticket... from Alaska.Have you seen just the raw numbers of her popularity? I've only talked to two people from Alaska about this personally, but everything I've seen points toward Alaska loving her.
I do not personally feel that Palin can do that, her 1 year and nine months as an executive of one of the Nation's smallest (in population) States does not give her that much executive experience.Again, she was a mayor. Why do people not count this towards having executive experience?
Not because she is a woman, this has nothing to do with her being a woman at all, really, it has to do with 'wait... who?'.Normally people are unfamiliar with the Vice Presidential picks nationwide. DICK Cheney, typical example, although known well within the world of oil. Dan Quayle perhaps. Shouldst I make a list?
She came in to 'clean up the government', she's under investigation by her own legislature for firing the guy who refused to fire her ex-brother in law.Which really has no comparison to Rezko and Bill Ayers... and people outrageously forgave cakefarts for that and forgot about them completely. (Although it really helped that no one really talked about that after the primaries were actually started.)
Oh, and Palin once said that Hillary Clinton was a whiner.She is... a whiner I like, but a whiner all the same. McCain's a whiner too. And cakefarts is.
If I or anyone was elected governor of some state, in two years they or I will have done a few things which could count as "experience".As opposed to... what? Two years being a governor is enough to screw it up... it's also enough to do some good things. Cutting taxes, being commander in chief over a state that HAS to have good foreign relations, because it's right next to two other countries. Shall I make a list?
As for senatorial experience, if you are going to add the executive experience of Palin into your equations for the ticket, then consider that Biden has a lot of Senate experience too.Then let's also factor in Palin's OTHER executive experience, shall we?
What has she done? She joined the people shes trying to clean up, the neoconservatives. she abandoned the people who voted her in, the people who entrusted themselves to her.I have to be honest here: what are you talking about? I'm trying to understand so hard... but I see no evidence of what you're trying to say.
There goes McCain's Religious Right Wing vote....ROFL! Because of the potential VP's *daughter*? No one cares about this except the dems.
Yet another teenage mother, this is new and exciting news.Not only a teenage mother, but a pregnant daughter of a public figure! This has never happened before!
I bet if Sarah Palin wasn't an overly religious, right-wing person though who educated her daughter about birth control that this wouldn't have happened - but really, her mom telling her not to !@#$% around when her mom has five kids is just setting a bad example.There's a huge gap in your logic there... then again, your facebook does say "athiest"... so I suppose you can't be expected to understand something you don't care about.
Oddly religious right wingers are happy that the girl is not going to abort the baby and that she is getting married, so they could care less that she is underage.It's what we religious folks call "repentence". Fixing a mistake. Getting married and taking responsibility for what you've done.
You're not talking about Palin are you? She's a governor. Not someone who can vote with Bush. And if you're reffering to McCain, even Chris Matthews knows that isn't true. Either way, I'm thoroughly embarrassed for you.QuoteSo you're saying a brand-new senator has better credentials for an executive office than someone who's headed an executive office?
I think that it's better to vote for someone who doesn't vote with Bush 100% of the time.
Executive experience in Alaska must be really challenging considering that for the most part areas are independent of other areas and the population is not that big.Do your research before judging (like me!). She's a reformer. She was a virtual unknown and brought in to clean up Alaska's political situation. And the people absolutely love what she's done. And she has done an amazing job.
cakefarts was a state senator for a significant number of years and to ignore this is just to be an ass.To be a state senator is not to have executive experience. If you'll remember, as much as I liked Hillary, my big problem with her was that she never really got elected into an executive office. This is why my original candidate was Rudy Giuliani, and why I ended up voting for a governor in the primary (Romney... didn't like him, but he had executive experience and ideas that surpassed those who were still left).
McCain has no executive experience, Palin has a few years, cakefarts has no executive experience, Biden doesn't have executive experience per say but his other experience trumps these concerns.Such as?
I watched prolly 90% of the DNC and the only mention of American whining when cakefarts was quoting a surrogate of the McCain Campaign who first said that America was full of whiners then said how wrong it was for the republican campaign to call the American public that.First of all, not to be a jerk on technicalities, but most of the convention wasn't even broadcasted on major news networks (c-span maybe, but I don't know). Second, I watched every major speech (Bill Clinton's actually being my favorite... surprisingly) and they were all being whiners... which isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but it sure is a drastic change from "hope" and "change".
really cakefarts has a little more accumulated service.So you're saying a brand-new senator has better credentials for an executive office than someone who's headed an executive office?
Also, you said Democrats call people whiners, that is funny because Repubicans said that directly about the American people whining.I was reffering to the DNC convention... we can compare once the GOP one starts.