Super Smash Bros 4 (Wii U/3DS) Topic

[mimgrim]

What is a thirst trap? I don't even know why I am asking you, I will just google it.

Keep in mind I was joking when I said that after you Google it.

 

[Morbi]

Keep in mind I was joking when I said that after you Google it.

Yes, I get the picture, although every time you spam like someone's statuses; you are bound to get attention.

It actually almost got me banned from my last site because someone didn't like the inbox over-flooding.

 

[Jaedrik]

First off, I'll say: Best of luck to you on your vocal finals.

Spoiler

Second, I understand where your coming from. The having respect for another's dignity part, I can understand. At this point all you can do is ask.
Also, I don't really consider it an act of lust. What about models? Yeah, i'm sure there are those that lust after super models in the way you are referring to, but you can admire someones looks with being a creeper.

Like I said before, when looking at issues such as this I like to look at it from all angles not just strictly a religious view point. Of course, if i look at it through those goggles, my answer is for the most part, will be the same as yours. But, what happens when you take divine law out of the equation for a second? Things can be quite different.

While pornography would still be a to some extent (Depending on where you live) morally destructive. It is now seen just as any other job. I know in the US for example porn is just another job, granted it is looked down upon by quite a few people.

Lastly, I've seen a LOT of animal documentaries of various animals, and while I agree animals don't rationalize things to the same extent humans do, that doesn't mean to say they don't at all.

I-well-you-but-oh, well, that does make sense. I feel like I'm obligated to disagree with you, but when you put it that way (different perspective) I can't. Thanks homie!

Sorry, Monk, I can't back up your big brain when you lockstep into the divine.

Smooth Criminal

I reject Humean Skepticism, Kantian Critical Transcendentalism, Wolff's Modified Dogmatic Rationalism, John Locke's Empiricism, Marxian Dialectic Materialism and so on and so forth
I'm learning, college is the most fun I've had with education in some time. While I wish I was going to some Catholic Shmatholic university to learn philosophy and theology, it's just as well here, I somehow found all the resources I need. But it's still not enough, I'm still never smart enough, I gotta keep on learning!

Can you tell me whose rights are being violated in pornography without referring to arbitrary religious doctrine? You claim that humanity is bound by moral law, and this is true. However, this morality is an objective morality based on human life, not mysticism. Pornography is a legitimate business because it's entirely voluntary, regardless of how distasteful anyone thinks it is. You say you are a student of Austrian economics, yet you believe that man should be chained by the wishes of a supernatural being in lieu of the government? That seems incredibly counter-productive to me.

Moonmonkey's point about football is actually apt. In fact, football is far more destructive to the players than pornography is to the actors (as long as they are using the proper protection and precautions to prevent the spread of STD's, which the porn industry does). It can take many years off their lives, which is an actual harm that is far more tangible than violating "divine law." Is the health of football players less important than the "dignity" of porn actresses that you believe they should have?

However, both of these professions are entirely voluntary. No one is being forced into football or pornography. The people who get into such professions are taking all of the risks that come with the job and it is their right to do so.

I completely agree that morality is objective and based on human life, but I fail to see where my analysis (however imperfect and incomplete) falls into Mysticism. Since the existence of the God is eminent, I see no need to refer to any other viewpoint to escape an agnostic and arbitrary rule of 'duties' or 'common good' as our moral standard to keep some semblance of rationality. My argument was that the act of pornography is intrinsically harmful, and violates the Natural Law, evidence of the consequences can be found easily in a vast array of psychological journals (though I'm sure the opposite can be found, the question then becomes whose research has no confounding variables, and uses the proper methodologies? So far, the anti-porn stuff I've seen is far more convincing in that regard; I do not bow to an authority at their word, but at proof of their word).

You absolutely must keep in mind that economics, like morality, is an objective and true science, but economics and praxeology imposes no value judgements, it is merely the analysis of what happens when, it is a causal science. For example, we may know that banning a certain thing is bad for the economy (in fact, banning anything is bad for a rationally ordered economy), but we may still ban it on moral grounds. But I cannot maintain, the football point, it is an entirely different framing of the issue, but as I have said, it is a Hedonism that I cannot abide by; physical harm is not indicative of wrong or evil, it can be and often is an indication of the natural consequences of evil, do not doctors have to put some patients through pain to relieve them of long-standing issues sometimes? Nor does consent indicate the morality of an act, does not the murderer and the laborer both consent to their acts?

 

[Morbi]

I-well-you-but-oh, well, that does make sense. I feel like I'm obligated to disagree with you, but when you put it that way (different perspective) I can't. Thanks homie!


I reject Humean Skepticism, Kantian Critical Transcendentalism, Wolff's Modified Dogmatic Rationalism, John Locke's Empiricism, Marxian Dialectic Materialism and so on and so forth
I'm learning, college is the most fun I've had with education in some time. While I wish I was going to some Catholic Shmatholic university to learn philosophy and theology, it's just as well here, I somehow found all the resources I need. But it's still not enough, I'm still never smart enough, I gotta keep on learning!


I completely agree that morality is objective and based on human life, but I fail to see where my analysis (however imperfect and incomplete) falls into Mysticism. Since the existence of the divine is eminent, I see no need to refer to any other viewpoint to escape an agnostic and arbitrary rule of 'duties' or 'common good' as our moral standard to keep some semblance of rationality. My argument was that the act of pornography is intrinsically harmful, and violates the Natural Law, evidence of the consequences can be found easily in a vast array of psychological journals (though I'm sure the opposite can be found, the question then becomes whose research has no confounding variables, and uses the proper methodologies? So far, the anti-porn stuff I've seen is far more convincing in that regard; I do not bow to an authority at their word, but at proof of their word). You absolutely must keep in mind that economics, like morality, is an objective and true science, but economics and praxeology imposes no value judgements, it is merely the analysis of what happens when, it is a causal science. For example, we may know that banning a certain thing is bad for the economy (in fact, banning anything is bad for a rationally ordered economy), but we may still ban it on moral grounds. But I cannot maintain, the football point, it is an entirely different framing of the issue, but as I have said, it is a Hedonism that I cannot abide by; physical harm is not indicative of wrong or evil, it can be and often is an indication of the natural consequences of evil, do not doctors have to put some patients through pain to relieve them of long-standing issues sometimes? Nor does consent indicate the morality of an act, does not the murderer and the laborer both consent to their acts?

Hey, whats up. Do you like my new avatar? I think it is pretty cool.

 

[Rebellious Treecko]

Scallops have pretty eyes.

Morbid changed her avatar. We're dooomed.

Place bets on when we'll see the next character reveal.
Tomorrow?
Monday?
Next week in general?
Week after that?

-----

 

[TheFirstPoppyBro]

does not the murderer and the laborer both consent to their acts?

I don't remember any murderers asking to kill their victim.

If a woman makes a career in pornography, it's obviously by her consent, otherwise, she wouldn't be getting a job in pornography.

Murderers don't ask consent from victims. If they did, there would be fewer murders, because a sensible person would say no. Comparing a murderer to an actress in a porno is really kinda ignorant, to say the least.

 

[Jaedrik]

I don't remember any murderers asking to kill their victim.
If a woman makes a career in pornography, it's obviously by her consent, otherwise, she wouldn't be getting a job in pornography.
Murderers don't ask consent from victims. If they did, there would be fewer murders, because a sensible person would say no. Comparing a murderer to an actress in a porno is really kinda ignorant, to say the least.

Hmm? You misunderstand me D:
I mean, does the murderer, when he murders, consent, as in, does he act? Does he choose to murder?

morbid pls BibleThump

 

[KingofPhantoms]

Yes, didn't you do Oogie Boogie? In any event, I think it would be creepy to role-play as Vin.

I did Oogie in Halloween, and after that I roleplayed as a Charmander. (sort of)

 

[BluePikmin11]

Scallops have pretty eyes.

Morbid changed her avatar. We're dooomed.

Place bets on when we'll see the next character reveal.
Tomorrow?
Monday?
Next week in general?
Week after that?

-----

Now I have to see cleavage every time I see my alerts. ;-;

 

[Morbi]

I don't remember any murderers asking to kill their victim.

If a woman makes a career in pornography, it's obviously by her consent, otherwise, she wouldn't be getting a job in pornography.

Murderers don't ask consent from victims. If they did, there would be fewer murders, because a sensible person would say no. Comparing a murderer to an actress in a porno is really kinda ignorant, to say the least.

"Consent to their acts" doesn't mean that the murderer asks permission to kill the victim. It means that they are content with doing it, aware of their actions.

 

[Morbi]

Hmm? You misunderstand me D:
I mean, does the murderer, when he murders, consent, as in, does he act? Does he choose to murder?

morbid pls BibleThump

What is inherently pernicious about objectifying women? One must perceive the aesthetic beauty of this women, sure it conceives an emotional detriment. However, it is always better than stoning her.

 

[TheFirstPoppyBro]

Hmm? You misunderstand me D:
I mean, does the murderer, when he murders, consent, as in, does he act? Does he choose to murder?

That depends on the murderer's mental health, I believe.

And comparing an actress who's making honest money to a psychopath who's slaughtering other human beings still makes no sense.

 

[Morbi]

That depends on the murderer's mental health, I believe.

And comparing an actress who's making honest money to a psychopath who's slaughtering other human beings still makes no sense.

Not all murderers are psychopathic, that might entail the hasty generalization fallacy. However, comparing the two is relevant in a religious context which is what we are alluding to. In any event, even the criminally insane acknowledge the act itself, there is the notion of free-will that negates most mental deficiencies in my opinion.

 

[Jaedrik]

What is inherently pernicious about objectifying women? One must perceive the aesthetic beauty of this women, sure it conceives an emotional detriment. However, it is always better than stoning her.

but but but

muh jesus

Place bets on when we'll see the next character reveal.
Tomorrow?
Monday?
Next week in general?
Week after that?

-----

THE UH THE TIME WHEN NOBODY WILL EXPECT.

That depends on the murderer's mental health, I believe. And comparing an actress who's making honest money to a psychopath who's slaughtering other human beings still makes no sense.

I agree that it does depend on the mental state of the individual, however it can be reasonably inferred that my hypothetical murderer was in full command of his mental faculties. You know, one of those whatchamacallits, rhetorical questions?
Please read the rest of what I said, and my posts on the previous page
Apparently, it's not honest money to me.
Edit: Wait, honest money. . . ? From a moral or economic standpoint?

 

[Morbi]

but but but

muh jesus

THE UH THE TIME WHEN NOBODY WILL EXPECT.
I agree that it does depend on the mental state of the individual, however it can be reasonably inferred that my hypothetical murderer was in full command of his mental faculties. You know, one of those whatchamacallits, rhetorical questions?
Please read the rest of what I said, and my posts on the previous page
Apparently, it's not honest money to me.

Pornography is honest money, do you know how "hard" that job is?

 

[The Real Gamer]

What is inherently pernicious about objectifying women? One must perceive the aesthetic beauty of this women, sure it conceives an emotional detriment. However, it is always better than stoning her.

I personally don't understand the double standard when it comes to objectifying women considering women do it to men all of the time. How many times have we seen men being shirtless in movies just for the sake of being shirtless? Twilight, anyone?

 

[Frostwraith]

Morbid has to be trolling with liking every post and having that avatar after what transpired in this thread...

 

[Morbi]

I personally don't understand the double standard when it comes to objectifying women considering women do it to men all of the time. How many times have we seen men being shirtless in movies just for the sake of being shirtless? Twilight, anyone?

I am team Jacob. Just throwing that out there. I will objectify anyone regardless of their gender, like poor Vin.

 

[BluePikmin11]

Morbid has to be trolling with liking every post and having that avatar after what transpired in this thread...

Oh well we'll have to live with it. ;-;

 

[CroonerMike]

I am team Bella.

 

[The Real Gamer]

I am team Jacob. Just throwing that out there. I will objectify anyone regardless of their gender, like poor Vin.

I'm straight as an arrow and even I can admit the dude has a nice ass bod... Makes me wanna hit the gym.

 

[CroonerMike]

Double post

 

[KingofPhantoms]

I'm Team Froakie.

 

[Banjodorf]

Reading the last few pages:

MY GOD! You guys sure like to push your belief systems on others. Cab we live Prince Komic alone and talk about Smash again?

Why not keep deep discussions about individual conceptions of "morality" in the off-topic forum where they belong?

 

[BluePikmin11]

Reading the last few pages:

MY GOD! You guys sure like to push your belief systems on others. Cab we live Prince Komic alone and talk about Smash again?

Why not keep deep discussions about individual conceptions of "morality" in the off-topic forum where they belong?

Yeah it's called Smashboards for a reason.

 

[The Real Gamer]

MY GOD! You guys sure like to push your belief systems on others. Cab we live Prince Komic alone and talk about Smash again?

Why not keep deep discussions about individual conceptions of "morality" in the off-topic forum where they belong?

 

[KingofPhantoms]

Reading the last few pages:

MY GOD! You guys sure like to push your belief systems on others. Cab we live Prince Komic alone and talk about Smash again?

Why not keep deep discussions about individual conceptions of "morality" in the off-topic forum where they belong?

THANK YOU!

I was going to post something about this discussion myself, but you beat me to it.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, can you please take it to PMs or the correct sub-forum? This is not the thread for discussing topics like this anyway, it's gone on long enough.

 

[mimgrim]

Reading the last few pages:

MY GOD! You guys sure like to push your belief systems on others. Cab we live Prince Komic alone and talk about Smash again?

Why not keep deep discussions about individual conceptions of "morality" in the off-topic forum where they belong?

You want to talk about Smash on a site called Smash Boards that is all about Smash? What are you crazy?

 

[CroonerMike]

Back on topic now. Smash Brothers Wii U/3DS should be just like Brawl, just with some tweaks.

 

[mimgrim]

Back on topic now. Smash Brothers Wii U/3DS should be just like Brawl, just with some tweaks.

No. The game should be exactly like Melee with no tweaks at all.

 

[Morbi]

THANK YOU!

I was going to post something about this discussion myself, but you beat me to it.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, can you please take it to PMs or the correct sub-forum? This is not the thread for discussing topics like this anyway, it's gone on long enough.

This thread is hardly ever on topic, I thought this was the general discussion thread for the longest time.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

No. The game should be exactly like Melee with no tweaks at all.

The game should be cancelled and be turned into an HD remake of Smash 64, with no changes aside from improved framerate and graphics.

 

[Morbi]

The game should be cancelled and be turned into an HD remake of Smash 64, with no changes aside from improved framerate and graphics.

With the Original 12 only? Or... with everyone from Brawl + what has been revealed?

 

[Jaedrik]

Reading the last few pages:
MY GOD! You guys sure like to push your belief systems on others. Cab we live Prince Komic alone and talk about Smash again?
Why not keep deep discussions about individual conceptions of "morality" in the off-topic forum where they belong?

I saw it mang, and I had to say something! I just can't not say something!
I'm morally obligated, you see? I plugged my reason into the categorical imperative and got a 'yes' and had to do it man.
Besides, who's pushing anything about belief? I don't force people, nor do I believe :D
Prince Komic has been left alone in our talk for a while, and now I have to deal with Morbid
Also, isn't this the "Social" thread? Yes, I admit that it was outside the scope of even the social thread, but I beg the mods to forgive our discussion.

Truth be told, I really don't know what to talk about related to Smash these days, I'm just waiting and building my hype-o-meter.

 

[CroonerMike]

With the Original 12 only? Or... with everyone from Brawl + what has been revealed?

Only the original 12, except with one edition. Doctor Mario.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

With the Original 12 only?

 

[Morbi]

I saw it mang, and I had to say something! I just can't not say something!
I'm morally obligated, you see? I plugged my reason into the categorical imperative and got a 'yes' and had to do it man.
Besides, who's pushing anything about belief? I don't force people, nor do I believe :D
Prince Komic has been left alone in our talk for a while, and now I have to deal with Morbid
Also, isn't this the "Social" thread? Yes, I admit that it was outside the scope of even the social thread, but I beg the mods to forgive our discussion.

Truth be told, I really don't know what to talk about related to Smash these days, I'm just waiting and building my hype-o-meter.

Are you going to replicate Jesus in Mii form if Miis are in the game?

 

[Jaedrik]

Dude, watching Isai's stream on Clash Tournaments is awesome. He's the best 64 player in the world, online playing!

Edit:

Are you going to replicate Jesus in Mii form if Miis are in the game?

Nah.

 

[Hoots]

I completely agree that morality is objective and based on human life, but I fail to see where my analysis (however imperfect and incomplete) falls into Mysticism. Since the existence of the God is eminent, I see no need to refer to any other viewpoint to escape an agnostic and arbitrary rule of 'duties' or 'common good' as our moral standard to keep some semblance of rationality. My argument was that the act of pornography is intrinsically harmful, and violates the Natural Law, evidence of the consequences can be found easily in a vast array of psychological journals (though I'm sure the opposite can be found, the question then becomes whose research has no confounding variables, and uses the proper methodologies? So far, the anti-porn stuff I've seen is far more convincing in that regard; I do not bow to an authority at their word, but at proof of their word).

You absolutely must keep in mind that economics, like morality, is an objective and true science, but economics and praxeology imposes no value judgements, it is merely the analysis of what happens when, it is a causal science. For example, we may know that banning a certain thing is bad for the economy (in fact, banning anything is bad for a rationally ordered economy), but we may still ban it on moral grounds. But I cannot maintain, the football point, it is an entirely different framing of the issue, but as I have said, it is a Hedonism that I cannot abide by; physical harm is not indicative of wrong or evil, it can be and often is an indication of the natural consequences of evil, do not doctors have to put some patients through pain to relieve them of long-standing issues sometimes? Nor does consent indicate the morality of an act, does not the murderer and the laborer both consent to their acts?

How is the existence of the divine eminent? For those that believe in the unknowable, the burden of proof lies on them. You cannot simply say "Well of course God exists" to make your 'source' legitimate. The reason why your argument is mystic is because your source is Catholic doctrine, which is inherently mystical. There is no observable evidence for any of these claims. And don't assume that the only alternative to a mystic source of morality is a morality based on duties or common good. All of these principles are inherently irrational.

Also, it is entirely irrelevant how harmful pornography is on the actresses who are in the industry. The point is that it is entirely voluntary. There is no coercion, and no porn star is forced into the business. Therefore, the immoral thing to do would be to ban it, simply because you believe your God wouldn't approve of it. Cigarettes are incredibly harmful to humans. Shall we ban that, too? Alcohol? Even things as simple as wheat, soy, and corn products are incredibly harmful to human health. All of these things can be tied to hedonism. Do you believe all of it should be banned?

The fact of the matter is, regardless of how immoral or harmful you think something is, it is not the government's role to protect its citizens from themselves. It's only function is to protect the individual rights from external force. You and I have every right to destroy ourselves if we so choose, as long as we do not harm others.

Consent has a profound effect on the morality of an act. Consent separates a lover from a rapist.

 

[Curious Villager]

Oh goody, religion talk. Better get outta here quietly without anyone noticing....