Chase

c'mon Dan - your teammate here doesn't need these backhanded compliments. Let your boy celebrate a clean win. ......Congrats, Quackers , and you as well Alex. Lead us well.

Alright, Ame, I can't let you escape without giving younger Ame a challenge based on that post-............and giving her a break in another area. Firstly, if younger Ame was/still is going to assert that male characters are a common facet in the gaming industry (not contesting that, they certainly are) - then one would think that writing male characters wouldn't be too hard. Especially because men are genuinely treated like white knights/gods/war heroes/etc in most of the gaming industry, in comparison to dainty, damsel-esque, often-relegated-to-sidekick females. I can certainly see that writing men without flaws is hardly entertaining because of this - but it's not like it should be really difficult for any developer, misandrist, otherwise, or even potentially full-blown femi-Nazi, to find source material. This leads me to believe the "positivity" of a male character in Reborn is hardly the problem, and that the community "joking" about it is a little off base (even though knowing you it probably would cause a chuckle). CAL for example, is one of my favorite characters in Reborn because of his tragic epic hero turnabout - while Fern is actually a surprisingly welcome call-back to a certain Pokémon professor's grandson we had a budding rivalry with when we first started playing and thus atones for his negative presence by "feeling" like a proper rival character. Zero is a FANTASTIC character (@Ama where you at idk what your forum name is now :CCC) Long story short there - there is and always has been plenty of games with great gentlemen for you to draw inspiration from - if even actual dude-bros in real life are actually garbage. However, this didn't actually cause you to write all of your male characters in Reborn poorly. Except making most of your male antagonists not only mere antagonists but subservient to a female crime boss so they can take TWO "L"s. Maybe that counts. The "real" problem Reborn "might" have is merely the disparity in numbers. The creepy old guy outside of Celadon Gym back in Kanto would love Reborn because - as he so aptly puts it - "It's full of women!". I miss arguing with you, sometimes. Edit: changed a certain homosexual always-game-and-cheerful rival into a purposely misunderstood male character who is better than Victoria hoped to deserve anyway. Shots fired. Edit: Misidentified a city in Kanto.

Wow. Senator John McCain was solely responsible for the last-ditch effort to pass the "Skinny" ACA repeal to the House for bicameral conference, delivering the third and fatal nay vote. The Affordable Care Act lives on. As someone who would have been extremely tempted to vote "Yes" if I were in McCain's shoes simply because the things that WERE in the bill were issues I had with the ACA - I can respect the Arizonan's reasoning. He killed the bill solely on the reasoning that Republicans had repeated the mistake of their Democratic colleagues and excluded the minority party in deliberating the tenants of a major healthcare bill for all Americans - and believes that all people have a say in what kind of healthcare they receive. As someone who wants to see Republicans and Democrats not loathe each other and be willing to get things done - I am impressed. --- Here's why the bill ultimately failed. The White House did very little to help Congress with direction. President Obama had his vision already mapped out - and having been a senator prior he knew how to draft his bill and present it to Congress. Democratic majorities back then had the utmost support of their allied president and were willing to share his vision, even if many Democrats took exception to some of Obamacare's nuances. Passing the Affordable Care Act ultimately took all three branches of government (the Judiciary took cases from conservative challenges and delivered two 5-4 rulings in favor of the ACA.) to pass - but the executive was knowledgeable and willing to roll up his sleeves along with the legislators. President Trump's administration has yet to pass on his own draft of the replacement plan to Congress. During the campaign, we heard Candidate Trump promise to replace Obamacare with "something great" and that he wouldn't "let people die in the streets" - but his plan seemed ripped from his Republican opponents. When he got to the White House - he abandoned his own plan and allowed the House of Representatives to try and pass their own legislation, while spending his time attacking the character of non-rank-and-file Republicans on both the far right and the center. When the bill got to the Senate, Trump seemed to be most visible cheerleading from the Twittersphere - while his VP wasn't much more involved holding pressers and casting tie breaking votes simply to WRITE a bill. Moderates are done being pushed around. In most circumstances, centrist legislators are the leadership's "teachers pets". They don't hold too many controversial opinions, and they usually opt to do what makes government work over rocking the boat. Moderates have been forced to take tough votes in the House of Representatives because the far-right wing of the party pulls out all the stops to ensure conservatism bleeds out of every measure they take. It was centrists however, that ultimately killed the bill in the House by pulling those same stops the first time the House tried to pass healthcare reform. In the Senate, the repeat offenders of slowing Republican progress were Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins - women who held reservations about the hyper conservative notion of spending cuts, particularly to Medicaid and Planned Parenthood. These women -too- had to take tough votes for the will of the party, endangering their standing back home. All of that however, evaporated throughout all of last week. The women voted "No" on the motion to debate the bill - contributing to Mike Pence having to tiebreak, and voted "No" on passing the skinny repeal to conference along with McCain.

Man, if little 'ole -ME- knew the Dems weren't going to take that bait - they H A D to know that was a setup. All "Present" works too. Game respects game - but I didn't know deciding the future of healthcare for this country was something of a game of gotcha.... --- Very well written article. My first concern with single payer personally is that health insurance costs don't evaporate under the system. This article plays rather coyly with the subject, as the eighth pro proclaims costs disappear - yet the seventh con states that the costs may not. My second concern is a huge one - and this article states this one plainly as a con. Innovation is desperately needed in medicine if we are ever going to solve some of the largest killer maladies humanity struggles with. If people are in a system where innovation is discouraged, that makes finding those cures a longer shot than a system where people get fair compensation for their breakthroughs. The other cons are valid points, but I feel a working single payer system can address those no issue - or the con doesn't stem from a healthcare perspective (such as taxation or bigger government.) --- For what it's worth, single payer care would be more effective than the Affordable Care Act at covering everyone if it were instated properly - and if that's the case the argument that it's a bad system because it doesn't do what it set out to do is gone - and there's merit in having bigger spending leverage. I still have my issues with the idea for now though.

I'll be the counter-point and argue that Conquest is the better purchase to make than Awakening (though I might be a bit late.) Ryoma isn't a playable character in Conquest unless you purchase an Einherjar Ryoma in game, so his breaking the game is a moot point. Conquest's map design is much more compelling than Awakening's, and genuinely adds to the challenge aspect of the game. Awakening is harder to obtain than Fates currently - and is more expensive if buying a hard copy from GameStop (55 dollars there...) Awakening would force you to buy Apotheosis for a real "challenge" keeping in mind Second Seals and Child units, which makes Awakening even more expensive. EVERY character is broken due to Second Seals, whearas a select few -can- be in Conquest.

I've got a trump rant...but I'm going to save that for another thread because I want to use this one to talk about healthcare. Today, Republican senators are engaging in a "Vote-a-rama" - or forcing a gazillion interest check votes to see what measures would be viewed as 'Passsable" in a replacement bill. On the other side of hall, Democratic senators are pledging they will not participate in the amendment process UNTIL the GOP leaders release a bill for them to amend. What this tells me - is that Republican leadership doesn't have a replacement plan and is looking for the bare minimum repeal bill they can send to the House of Representatives for conference. If a bill gets sent to conference, that becomes the new "closest" thing to the ACA getting destroyed, because the bicameral bill (which is likely to be fleshed out during conference) would get sent to an all eager president who is willing to sign a repeal and replace into law. The issue here though - is that the GOP better have someone taking notes if they expect any Democratic support at the end of it all when they unveil a bill. If they are trying to pass a replacement bill by party line - they need to send a copy of said bill to the Congressional Budget Office -and- meet a savings threshold. The CBO has been the bearer of bad news for the GOP, telling the world the large numbers of lost insured Americans after each and every draft they've been sent and making centrist senators skittish. --- The first issue they are likely to vote on is a strange one for a GOP-led Senate - the interest in Congress to move to a single payer healthcare system. Single payer is the liberal's healthcare DREAM situation, so many Democrats will actually vote YEA on this measure. If the Democrats avoid making the smart political play and decide to vote truthfully however, there -ideally- will be a few NAY votes from center-leaning Democrats, giving the Republican leadership more potential votes to target when they have a bill in place. If Democrats want to avoid contributing to the amendment process as they have said - it would be smart for the entire Democratic conference to bite the bullet and vote YEA on this measure to deny Republicans targets. This will assuredly not pass in Congress, because no Republicans want anything to do with single payer healthcare - and they hold the Senate majority. If Dems squad up, expect a 48-52 vote in favor of nay. If they don't, the Nays will win by a larger margin.

First things first - I don't think talking to the person -or- not talking to the person is the issue here. There are certainly circumstances that hinder your chances of actually making something come to fruition outside of letting the monkey off your back (distance, time elapsed, you already listed a few in your litany of self-destruction so you get the drill.) The issue is that you seem ashamed that you have feelings for this person -because- of those circumstances and perhaps a little bit because you are simply ashamed of yourself in general. Whatever the case there is - it's a boat the both of us can learn from.. --- Recently I played a game in which there was a character whose major trope was that he was a homosexual male who was fixated on a particular man. This man he loved is straight and lost his family to pirates not too long before the events of the game. In the first two conversations you can unlock between the two characters, the straight man comments on the gay one's handsomeness and says he could have a flock of women following him - which disgusts the gay man and causes him to offer that he was "just fine" with this current situation of working with his fixation, followed by the straight man's losses and how he copes with them. This causes the third conversation to give us a bit of the way the gay man copes with -his- issues. Leon: ...... Valbar: You're awful quiet there, Leon. Something on your mind? Leon: Just realizing I've been a fool for feeling sorry for myself. Compared to what you've gone through, my worries are nothing. Valbar: Worries, eh? I didn't think you were the type for all that. Leon: Uh, hi? Rude? I've my share of concern, the same as anyone else. Such as a not-insignificant case of unrequited love. Valbar: ...Oh. That. Leon: Heh heh. But it's fine. Emotions come in many forms, and as you say, there's no point in hanging on. I'm still glad I have these feelings, and nothing will change that. --- The only time you should worry about how you feel about someone is if you are prone to harm them because you can't control your actions. If you are stable enough to rationally talk with others about it (as you have displayed) - consider OWNING your love for that person, even if unrequited. After all, who we like is a small part of who we are. Don't continue to look at your feelings as negative ones to hold simply because they aren't being met half way by the other person.

Today, the United States Senate got the closest the Republican Party has come to demolishing President Obama's crowning achievement - the Affordable Care Act. In actuality, they were BARELY able to pass a vote in order to debate the measures of the Affordable Care Act, which means the Republicans - as of right now - are set to try and do as much damage from -inside- the bill as possible. This comes after "x" vote on "repealing and replacing" the legislation tanked unceremoniously hours after Vice-President Pence broke a 50-50 tie to open debate - forced by two Republican Senators (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) defecting and voting Nay with the entirety of the Democratic conference. Senator John McCain had to venture back to Washington shortly after being diagnosed with brain cancer for the Republicans to even get the tie needed to summon the VP. Shortly after that - the so-called "Cruz Amendment" (that would have enabled cheaper, non-ACA-regulated healthcare plans to be sold alongside the ACA plans) was struck down unanimously. --- Why this is BETTER than the Trump endorsement of "Let Obamacare blow up." for the Republicans - AND for the American people. If one were to have a baby, keep it, but subsequently not raise it - that would bring certain negligence charges against the parents at best. By winning the levers of power through the electoral process - Trump and the Republican Congress effectively "adopted" the Affordable Care Act's responsibilities - such as enforcing the individual mandate and working with the insurers to insure the market is stable and appealing enough for them to stick around. Trump's suggestion of "letting it blow up" would indicate that the government would very loosely -if at all- enforce the individual mandate, which would actively CONTRIBUTE to the already high rising premium costs of insurance and would make the market unstable, causing insurers to bail on coverage at all. This is bad for Americans, because the supply of health insurance goes away, while the demand remains 100% merely because the government isn't regulating the insurance at all, while the market still has to follow the already established regulations in order to exist. It would threaten the end of health insurance for many more Americans than even Republican-friendly alternatives to the ACA. While "moving" on Healthcare is a dangerous political game - the GOP dodged a bullet by moving - they promised their constituents from the start they would act. They also avoid neglecting the ENTIRETY of the American people who need healthcare - simply in an effort to guilt trip Democrats into supporting a repeal and replace plan (or just a repeal!) that they want no part of. Trump effectively was saying "screw the people we represent, my campaign promises are more important" by offering such bluster - and it's those statements that reaffirm my not voting for him - as a Republican. -- Why the GOP is troubling me... DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVELY BARRED FROM DISCOURSE in a manner that can only be viewed as retaliation for being held away from Obamacare discussion and decision when they were the minority, the Senate Republican leadership has worked -around- the Democratic conference in order to make this "initial" healthcare bill one where only close Republican allies have input. The Democrats haven't had any work to do - because their colleagues are not allowing them to work. As someone who hated seeing Majority Leader Schumer pull this - it is no less awful when done by Majority Leader McConnell. RED STATE SENATORS ARE BEING OBNOXIOUSLY AGGRESSIVE Looking at you, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and my very own Senator Ted Cruz. Areas where movement conservativism is a popular practice have given folks like these the brazen authority to show their deep red. Rand Paul - who eventually did vote yes to open debate on the ACA - only did so in order to secure a vote for a repeal (the same one that failed hours later.) Mike Lee failed to endorse the last coherent replacement plan McConnell presented on the floor even after his buddy Cruz threw in his amendment. That same amendment would be voted on again when applied to the ACA itself - and again would fizzle out. Like in the House of Representatives, conservatives are being mighty bullish on the wording "replace" - and they want to swing their axe at as much of the legislation as possible. BLUE STATE REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY KINDA LIKE OBAMACARE - SOMEWHAT. Collins, Murkowski, Shelly Anne Capito, and Dean Heller are characters that represent the centrist wing of the GOP - who have been repeat "no" votes largely because of the details of the healthcare bills that died prior. Previous attempts at the replacing of the ACA featured significant cuts to Medicaid, and were brazen enough to "defund" Planned Parenthood outright - turning these folks along with all of the Democrats off. While these are surface issues - it's undeniable the constituents in these states are more centrist than even some of the senators on this list. Nevada is actually a fairly liberal state - and one that Heller is clinging on to for a year and a half. West Virginia was a swing state not long ago. Missouri is volatile. Many of the Affordable Care Act's provisions protect sizeable amounts of those constituents - even those that voted for Trump. Capito put her opposition to Republican efforts succinctly and tellingly - "I didn't come to Washington to hurt people." THE MOST CERTAIN THING THAT WILL HAPPEN IS NOTHING. With the speed of this Congress to achieve any of their goals being next to none - this debate process will run dry unless McConnell is a wizard. It would be another "win" (in actuality near-miss) for the Democrats and their floundering healthcare legislation, but it won't put the ACA back in the ocean so it can breathe. If the ACA is left as is, Republicans will likely take President Trump's advice and let the bill kill itself - dragging down the Republicans who failed to get rid of it and absolutely didn't care enough to make it work rather than harm Americans. How many people get denied life saving treatment then? --- How to fix the Affordable Care Act 1. Drop the repeal and replace ball gracefully. 2. Allow Democrats to sit at the table and play. 3. Flex your majority muscles where you can -and- where it doesn't scare Democrats -AWAY- from said table. 4. Media coverage the whole thing so Democrats that -are- only in it for the obstruction game are spotlighted as denying Republican olive branches. 5. Don't defund Planned Parenthood (yet.) 6. Make sure to put your foot down on the worst parts of the legislation (the individual mandate is a good example of this.) 7. Porkbelly, Porkbelly, Porkbelly with any waffling votes in the GOP conference you need to keep. 8. Pick a god and pray.

I can tell you what -isn't- a friend. A friend isn't a friend if they have no problems using you for their personal gain, but absolutely take exception when you need to lean on them. A friend isn't a friend if they openly disrespect you to others, -or- do so without your knowledge of it. A friend isn't a friend if they don't stick their neck out for your wellbeing - or at least check on said wellbeing. Things like distance can be overcome. Things like time lapsing isn't a friendship-killer if the person you are referring to really is your friend. A friendship is a reliable bond. As someone who used to make most of his friends by waiting for them to come to me - I understand where you come from in terms of not having many.

Corrin going off to war in either of the two box routes results in Lilith getting killed. Corrin going off to war in Birthright results in Elise getting killed by Xander and Xander forcing Corrin to kill him. Corrin going off to war in Conquest results in Takumi, Ryoma, and their retinues getting killed. The people that are Corrin's adoptive/blood family. That's quite a consequence for picking up the Yato and leading an army. That's not even mentioning failing to get Corrin's support with Kaze to A before a certain chapter in Birthright, Flora in Birthright, or Scarlet in Conquest and Revelation (the latter for no good reason whatsoever.) On top of that, Corrin merely existing causes the death of Queen Mikoto, random captive samurai in Castle Krakenberg, and much of the residents in Shirasagi Castle Town. I wouldn't disagree with Corrin being coddled by the cast of the game - but the story (as POORLY as it was presented) wasn't totally forgiving to the Avatar at all. As shocking and "WHY?" as the story handed some consequence to us, the Avatar had to suffer in all three routes. I -do- think that other games in the series have done a better job of worldbuilding - and had the political scope of Fateslandia (seriously, why is there not a name for this continent...) been presented in both kingdoms - Corrin's perception would have changed. Corrin has done as much wrong as Celica, Michaiah, and Eirika have - but the other ladies' games did a better job of supporting their lead. --- For funsies - I'll be weeb... 10 waifu4laifu... Mitama F8s ....I'm just gonna pretend those police sirens outside don't actually exist. 9 Selevera?? F8swakening ....Men being attracted to mean girls is probably proof women are smarter than we are - but at least Fates -DOES- make Severa a better person. 8 Louise (that one game...) Pent has good taste. I would want a lady who's dowry is literally being a badass. 7 Silque GUYDEN....(den...) (den....) Seriously, the voice actress for this chick sings the final credits theme in Echoes - and I cried. Also, a holy woman. That fetish is too easy. 6 lyn (Sacred Swo-...just kidding.) Lyn is one of the few reasons I could accept being a country bumpkin. GOOD LORD- 5 Azura Lost in Fates All Alone except not really because she's with some schmuck from Texas- WHO CARES IF SHES A PLOT DEVICE. SHE'S A PRETTY PLOT DEVICE AND SHE CAN SING THE SAME SONG TO ME AS MANY TIMES AS SHE WANTS. (best first fe wife) 4 Shade (CIPHER???) Isn't that song 'Hot For Teacher' by Van Halen? That explains the best cleric on Celica's route if you're a dirty cheater like I am. 3 Effie/Kjelle AwakeFates It's not a waifu list if you aren't trying to break the rules and put two girls in one spot. These two are essentially the same class. It's okay if I don't have a shot with Kjelle because she's a closet lesbian for Severa. 2 Charlotte FAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaates I still like her Tom. #CharlotteDoesEverythingRight 1 ANNA. (FROM EVERY GAME EVER. MAYBE.)

@Commander I won't speak for Elincia because I -woefully- haven't played the Tellius games yet - but specifically in Cq!Corrin's position, she has technically next to little station - and her quest for peace has one specific actual death in mind - that of King Garon, just like Br!Corrin's quest. The issue however, is that while Corrin takes charge of the army with absolutely rebuttal from Hoshido in Birthright, the Nohrians under Corrin's command would absolutely object to internal regicide - ESPECIALLY Xander, Camilla, and Leo - who hold varying degrees of stubbornness on the topic. Corrin has to literally swallow the bullet of having to put her Hoshidan siblings down on the way, but even then tries everything she can to conquer Hoshido with no fatalities. Takumi -and- Ryoma both killed themselves, while the women survived either by being taken prisoner or by being released without the watchful eye of Garon and his retainers. The bottom line, Corrin didn't have any ability to take another route because she was essentially a puppet general who would be the first disposed of by Garon when his goals were met. Elincia, I would presume from what you said, is actually royalty to the country she fights for. Honorable mentions: Silas - FE: Fates Best cav. Lukas - FE: Echoes: SoV Best soldier/spear fighter. Python - FE: Echoes: SoV Best archer due to his personality and dynamic with his buddy Forsyth. Clive - FE: Echoes: SoV Witch bait - but extremely developed in the remake as a character and doesn't treat Alm like Fates treats Corrin. If he didn't cause me pain - he might have made the top 10. Kjelle, Sophie, and Owain - Fateswakening Best child units on the 3DS games. Leif - Thracia??? Brown haired Lord. Screw you, Anime.

There was a thread like this around the time Fire Emblem Fates was kicking, but since then, the franchise has done many things to explode onto the scene. Fire Emblem Heroes was released, giving anybody who owns a mobile phone access to most Fire Emblem characters ever introduced, while being updated fairly often with those they may have missed at launch. Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia was released for the Nintendo 3DS - as a faithful remake to the second installment of Fire Emblem, Fire Emblem Gaiden with an exceptionally expanded story, fleshed out environments, and extra characters to bring the whole conflict between the divine sibling dragon gods Mila and Duma to a climactic close. The beat-em-up franchise Dynasty Warriors got in on the Fire Emblem action, and is set to release a game known as Fire Emblem Warriors. If you remember Hyrule Warriors from the Legend of Zelda being a thing, it's a cool illustration of how far Fire Emblem has come. The game is set to feature characters from Awakening, Fates, and Shadow Dragon, with potentially extras from other games as DLC. Eventually next year, Fire Emblem will be moving on from the 3DS to the Nintendo Switch. The game is currently titled "Fire Emblem Switch." The last time Fire Emblem was played on a console was Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn. Be it just joining the Heroes train with the rest of the Emblemiers on Reborn - or actually picking up Echoes (DO IT, oh my goodness-) - your list may have changed from back then. Mine certainly did. --- 10. Conquest!Corrin - Fire Emblem Fates For reference - I mean Female Corrin - who is portrayed on the box art for Conquest, which has led people to believe the Corrin that picks Nohr is canonically female. Corrin is at the bottom of the top for me because ?? as a character had to work their way up. Birthright!Corrin is a fine example of an average Fire Emblem lord, who picks Hoshido over Nohr due to the injustice of what appears to be a distraction attack on the Hoshidan capital in order for Nohr's armies to break Mikoto's barrior and conquer the suddenly leaderless country. Revelation!Corrin - whatever gender - is genuinely a character that doesn't warrant BOTH kingdoms throwing their support behind him/her. But Conquest!Corrin is someone who makes her choice from her heart - which while possibly selfish and in the face of an apparent atrocity caused by the benefactors of her decision - is human considering the Nohrian royal family more or less raised her. She takes her abuse a bit unfairly, because Conquest's narrative itself was poorly written. Characters like Azura, who becomes a sudden exposition dump in Conquest that throws out a highly costly method to convince the rest of the Nohrian family of Garon's madness and true character, and Xander who can't decide if he's a flexible scion of Nohr who is willing to oppose the wishes of his father or if he's an extension of the King's ambition in totality depending on the route you are playing, provide narrative dings that harm Corrin's positive role in this route. Corrin herself best exemplifies the reform she is trying to put Nohr through. She has her army spare as many lives as possible on the battlefield, even against the more destructive whims of Niles, Odin, and Camilla. She trusts people - which is any Corrin's signature trait - and she does it the best in Conquest when she takes Azura's harrowing advice in order to illuminate the truth to her siblings. She even trusts Garon in the beginning of the game - which at first glance - is dumb because Garon is a typical comic book villain, but really drives the point home on this particular lord's best quality. She believes in others. Like Eirika and Celica, Female Corrin is lumped in with female lords who are inferior due to their approach to situations. And all three of those ladies deserve more credit than they are given. 9. Eliwood - Blazing Blade/Fire Emblem GBA You mean that guy that isn't H O T L E G S Lyn or a beast like Hector? Yeah. Eliwood is the literal "Mr. Medium" lord of his game. He's the poster unit of the mid-range route in Blazing Blade, but his story is extraordinarily touching. As the father of Roy, he's a character that is speculated to choose between two fantastic women - such as co-star Lyndis or Dragon Dancer Ninian - by the fanbase. I like him because he doesn't seem as troped as his friends. Hector is a fiery unit that lives for the thrill of battle, while Lyn is the woman's touch character who is also worthy of a list like this. Eliwood takes some serious development to reach the level his friends start at. He isn't generic - and I think the game does a better job of fleshing him out than the fanbase gives him credit for. I guess inferior lord characters are a theme for my list, so far. 8. Tobin - Fire Emblem Gaiden/Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia Speaking of inferior - this member of the #ZofianBoys is essentially this games version of Takumi, minus the "I am betrayal" thing. He starts as one of the Ram Villagers that accompanies Alm and the Deliverance on their journey. He is often seen as the worried, sensible partner to his friend Grey, who is the brash one. As a unit, Tobin's best class is either Archer - his canon class - or Mage - where he can pick up Physic, which is an invaluable healing skill, as well as a very early access to Excalibur, a high crit spell. He's.....hot garbage in Heroes, but he's a free unit, so it's ...fine?...(damn it, Intsys...) What's great about Tobin - and a lot of the Echoes cast - is his 100% realness. The Fire Emblem franchise is known for tropey characters with memorable - albeit one-note - personalities. Tobin isn't memorable, but when you see him, you really think that he's got his head on straight and feel bad when he gets bested by another character. Never count Tobin out! Also, I don't have to put Pineapple Head on this list now, so thank you. 7. Ike - Path of Radiance/Radiant Dawn Ike is my dude. He may not be my main in Smash, but I really like everything about this guy. He isn't a stuffy noble and takes over his old man's mercenary group. That sounds 100 times better than taking over the family law firm. 6. Lucina - Fire Emblem Awakening Lucina saved the series. Denial? I don't care. Think she's bland? Read her supports. Lucina actually -is- my main in Smash. The reason she isn't in the top 5? 5. Chrom - Fire Emblem Awakening Today, my friend TODAY. You will have your day. Chrom and his Shepherds are the sole reason Awakening had such a strong starting narrative. His relationship with Robin is a central theme in the story, as Robin harbors the very being that would destroy him in the future. His relationship to Lucina is also important, not only in the blood sense. Chrom is the man she seeks to save her future. Chrom's sword is the instrument of Emmeryn's peace. He's the inheritor of the First Exalt's brashness, and he is the descendant of the Hero King Marth that best embodies the better lord in the game. 4. Sonya - Fire Emblem Gaiden/Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia Sonya is a Rigelian mercenary mage under the employ of the Zofian bandit ringleader Grieth. She is extraordinarily proud of her abilities and her femme fatale personality (which is a trait I am a sucker for - HOLY) In order to recruit her with Celica, you have to take to the northern desert route and encounter Deen and his mercs instead of her and her team of witches on the southern route. In Gaiden, she's far and away better than Deen in that her growths and bases were absurd and she learned basically everything but Ragnarok. In Echoes, she's actually worse then Deen because she's nerfed quite a bit in order to make him a more viable option, and has trouble with movement while her co-worker is in the Merc class line, the best class in the game. Sonya however has much more story relevance in the Valentian tale. She is the daughter of Jedah, the high priest of Duma who serves as one of the game's final bosses. Sonya resents her father for placing her in a priory when she was a young child - and for executing her sisters to gain more power from Duma. She has the only special dialogue in Echoes with Jedah because of this, and it's endearing. 3. Camus - Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon I mean! Zeke!....or....Sirius....or....look, I don't care anymore. This dude is awesome okay? Gradivus ftw. And people give the Awakening returnees crap for being in so many games. This guy is in everything. 2. L'Arachel - Fire Emblem Sacred Stones Haven't played SS, but I know I like this girl. Her support with Ephraim is one of the funniest things I've ever read. 1. Alm - Fire Emblem Gaiden/Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia

@Commander - It makes me happy that Delthea is a monster. Giving her the Mage Ring in Echoes made all of her smack talk well warranted. Shame about Mathilda though - still, I'd want that Ridersbane+. There's currently not a beastkiller like weapon save for that in the lance category.. Continuing the theme of pulling non focus 5* units - I am now the slightly confused owner of a 5* Caeda, from Shadow Dragon - I think she like...weds Marth right? Also...is it Kay-da or She-da or...how do you even pronounce this girls name.... She seems pretty good for Flier emblem, but Armorslayer isn't a very exciting weapon and without flier boosts she seems weak and fragile. Is she good? I do know that Cherami Leigh is a great voice actress though.

-God- it has been forever since I have updated this. So. 5* units I've pulled Ylissean Summer F!Robin. You know, when you're on a mission trip and you're supposed to be focused on being as pious as possible, Satan throws you tasteful vices on your very first mindless pull. F!Robin is a super good unit outside of her very nice TNA. Lance valor is wonderful for units I've been working on (Hinoka, Lukas, Effie) who have a harder time getting some SP. Like I said, nothing more encouraging than your tactician employing distraction tactics that also serve as a moral-booster. Robinne is a genius. -- Y!Tiki. I think - at least a while ago - Y!Tiki was considered "good"?... She's not Nowi and merely draws even with Falchion users while attacking from the same range, so I'm weary about her. All things consider, Y!Tiki did give me my fourth summoning cutscene behind Camilla's, M!Robin's, and Roy's...so that's cool I guess. -- Titania! I just got this madwoman pulling on Celica's army's new banner.. As someone who really wants to get Pony Emblem going - I didn't have a great green unit option - and she's automatically the best option now. If's she's not useable, someone gets an E-axe+ now. 5* units I've upgraded Tharja was my first powerhouse unit in Heroes. She's had this one coming a long time- and she just recently found a new friend! New lower star pulls EIRIKA. She's only a 4* unit at the moment, but that gives her time to get some SP built up and prepare to help the heck out of Tharja. Gotta get that Sieglinde. --- In the two new banners... ECHOES AGAIN. I can safely say this game is my favorite played FE. Hands down. From Alm's army, the most interesting unit for me is Mathilda - who is an anti-Pony Pony with the Ridersbane+...the only problem with Mathilda is that she comes with Affinity Cancel, which used on say....a Reinhardt.... would only make him that much more of a pain in the ass. Gray has infantry anti-Pony sword and Sword Valor for helping getting your Lord pulls decked out which makes him good, and Delthea - if she mirrors SoV!Delthea - should be a glass cannon mage that can SI into a potentially scary unit. Celica's new picks are fan favorites. Leon is the incredibly loyal flamboyant gay ranger who seems to have a focus on defense -and- special proc with his buffed Killer Bow, and Saber is Daddy Mercenary with the same idea. Sonya is a green infantry mage that challenges Julia in that her base kit features "Wo Dao for Mages", Moonbow, and Death+Warding Blow - THIS Sonya in Echoes would be WORTH killing Deen for.

If you have ever asked the questions like "why is Pokémon getting easier these days" or "why can't Pokémon have a mature story like several of the various fan games we know and love?" - this thread is one of awareness to you guys. Let me first prepare you - some of these revelations may not make you very comfortable with the direction our beloved Pokémon franchise is going - and they may even cause some minor sorrow. First though, I'm going to make all of us feel really old. Despite all the shade folks older than us throw at us "millennials" - we are no longer "the next generation." - at least when it comes to Pocket Monsters. --- The Millennial March --- One of the things us 20 somethings -DO- have going for us is that Pokémon remains a strong following for people our age as it did in the past - you know, when Ash was going around Kanto and the Orange Islands and we all had Gameboy Colors and were getting our trading cards at Burger King. If there was a trend in polling - it would show that millennials are the most eager to follow the franchise. Thanks to Generation Y, Competitive battling has become a premise in every Pokémon game to be improved upon - and some would argue that among our age group THAT is the reason you buy a new Pokémon game these days. In terms of successful endeavors by Game Freak to cater to millennials - this one counts in a big way. The millennial can also be joint-credited with the next generation in making Pokémon Go! a success. Truth be told - millennials have done some growing, and they like their sophistication in their Pokémon games. They care about abilities, EVs and IVs and how to raise them, and they will be unafraid to spit on a certain forever-10-year-old anime protagonist. This is the background of the Gen Y demand for Game Freak. --- POKEMON Z-...er....Generation Z --- Unfortunately, polling elementary and middle school kids (and some current high schoolers - sorry guys.) isn't extraordinarily reliable. Middle School becomes a messy experience when any trend - even one as battle tested as Pokémon - is tossed to the wayside or picked up. Elementary school kids however - MIGHT just love Pokémon like we used to. If not more. (If you are a teacher or a recreation leader like I am - you know what I am talking about.) The typical Generation Z'er - or "the Boomlet" - is estimated to have an attention span of 8 seconds - largely due to the massive amounts of imagery they will be exposed to via screens of some sort when growing up. How does this relate to the popularity of Pokémon in this generation? The Trading Card game is MUCH more popular with this generation than the main series video games - despite NOT having a screen. The reason being (if sticking to the attention span thing) is because trading cards are static and can be put aside at will, where a good game grips some for far longer than eight seconds. This also means the current anime is STILL a huge hit - albeit probably more so with Boomlets than with Millennials. The difference between the two of course, is that Boomlets hold a lot of respect for Ash - kind of like the hope we used to have in him before seeing him fail multiple times. The games focus more on the player's own experience and MUCH less on the narrative of the plot. In order to teach the boomlet how to play, Game Freak makes tutorials hand-holdy and rewarding while mixing in rewards to hold interest. The story never really seems out of reach in order to prevent the boomlet from getting lost, and it's kept vanilla in themes for understanding. Remember when beating Blue and becoming champion was the pinnacle of the game? Beating Professor Kukui - to a boomlet - is the pinnacle of the game for these folks - but they need to be reminded of that fact more than we did. --- This is the "fortunate" problem Game Freak has. It has two massive generations that are willing and able clients for their product - but both generations have different needs and demands. I like to call this "the Star Wars effect" - referring to the massive amount of money George Lucas made merchandising his Star Wars franchise despite the prequel trilogy being horrible for previous fans. In fact, that's just a shift from where we are with Pokémon. Star Wars was the rage with Generation X, and Millennials - as much as we may want to discard the notion now - LIKED the fast-paced podracing and Obi-Wan Kenobi's dry one-liners. You could say that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 just sucked and be correct - but you could make a very tangible argument that there was a generation gap that made it suck for the older - and thus more respected - generation at the time.

Hmm. This comes on the heels of apparently getting made fun of by some of you jokers on Discord - so in lieu of not being able to be a jerk to people around here like that's going to stop me I'll send a few shout-outs. @Jericho - Mike, you're probably deader than I am these days. Congratulations on the job and what not - and keep working hard. This place was lucky to have you. #Team@ @Rosesong - For some reason these clowns forgot you a lot more than I expected. Thanks for still being someone I can talk to and for laughing at my jokes. If I'm not funny, I don't got nothin! @Maelstrom - Can we actually talk about something OTHER than President Trump for once? You're a cool guy - and probably better at video games than I am. Thank you for serving our country and for being man enough to make me think long and hard. Truth be told, I needed your tough talk more than you know. @Lost Lore - I don't know if this lady is still around, but she's easily the funniest person in this community. Whenever I would feel guilty about laughing about something, she would back me up and laugh too. @Ikaru - (someone start telling these people they got shoutouts) - Thanks for the Bond Units, for having an excellent taste in music, and for going out of your way to talk with me. @Sheep - Tom, my brother, from down under. Camilla is just as good as Haar. Seriously. They can both be badasses together. It's not a big deal. @President Felix - I like the way you respond. It's earnest, and down to earth. @Eviora - ......thank you....for making my brain hurt and making me question why I like arguing so much. Being challenged is healthy. Make sure you pick up Fire Emblem: Echoes so we can talk about something other than the same old Shoutouts to the Fire Emblem: Heroes squad for being my friends. I'd fight for you guys. Forum mods, pat yourselves on the back for doing the forum policing I used to like but then didn't. Server/Discord mods, ......uh........Go TEAM? Devs...... WHEN IS EPISODE COMIN- *shot*

Things that IntSys needs to keep. 1. Weight. People should WANT to forge up to insane weaponry. Weight is a good trade off. 2. Full VA. Literally saved the support system in my eyes. 3. Mila's Turnwheel. As a player that plays FE on the hardest difficulty these days but was made to restart to save everyone by Ame when she taught me how to play - Restarting or losing a unit to bad RNG is a pain. It's a safety net and not bumpers at the local bowling lane. 4. Dungeons and Villages. From the Smithy to treasure diving this exploration feature is so good you don't feel like grinding. 5. The Deen/Sonya situation. Hey, this adds replay value. 6. Villagers in droves. This is a cool way to customize some of your armies. And again. Replay value. 7. Boat Maps. Repetitive? Yes. Sensible in relation to plot? Yes. Meme-worthy? Yes. 8. Side quests. 9. Tasteful retcons. (The point - Commander - is that Thabes was the laboratory where a certain antagonist was born. It gave that character backstory and was a bone to newer players lorewise in a game that offered little to whet their modern fire emblem pallettes elsewhere. 10. Bonus XP. --- Kill it with fire. 1. Aggressive roaming enemy spawns on the overworld map. Grinding should be optional - not forced in your face. Alms army getting rushed by Witches when trying to do all of the Celica side quests was annoying. Sensible in war. But annoying. 2. Genderlocked classes. 3. Supporting only a handful of the most obvious Units and that's it. Base conversations don't salvage characters like Faye - who talk to Alm already in one of only two supports. Branching out builds characters. If anything made it forgivable - it was ALL VA'd. 4. Opening cutscene is the plot twist of whole game cliche. Damn it, Awakening. 5. The Loop being limited to Dread Fighter alone. Either give all classes loop to Villager or don't have a loop at all. (Rip Females) 6. No Weapon Triangle. Terrain or pray gets pretty stale after awhile. 7. Paywall for support conversations. Fuck the Rise of the Deliverance pack. 8. Witches. RNG sucks. 9. Lack of Res growths. 10. Battle music lacking Ablaze versions. The map music was godly and A Dauntless Blade is a very stale piece by now. Most of my complaints are attributed to Gaiden faithfulness - but so are a lot of the positives. HM. CLERICS ARE GODLY.

1. I guess if I were to specify, the goal I have as an apologist is to make the belief in a higher power - a being that as of right now in it of itself is difficult to predict, measure up, and decipher - into something that people reading along can view as sensible and not something a lunatic would espouse. In my opinion - a "reasonable" faith is one that is backed by logical conclusions about the potential existence of God rather than blindly regurgitating what a pastor said or what they read in a Christian Living book. I said previously that my experience is the "Why" I believe in God - but - as I hope you come to see - my doubts would be much stronger if there were not logical conclusions that could be made about having such a faith. And YES - I do have doubts. I don't wake up every morning hoping to be the greatest member of the faith - and many mornings I hardly come close. I also don't engage in discourse with skeptics hoping to get them to drop their unbelief in the trash can on their way out. Maybe I did in the past - and that I ...am sorry for. Strongarming or guilting anyone for exploring the faith of others and doing so with a closed mind isn't better either. It's not my place to make you believe. So - Since I got off on a tangent there - I deem logical thinking to simply applying all arguments that can be testable to decipher if something makes sense. I respectfully don't think consistency is the end-all be-all criterion as you do - but I will give you that it's a significant boon in many areas, and I do find it of value. --- 2. I'm really glad you said you were interested in hearing me out here. It would be remiss of me to withhold my testimony when it's asked for - especially because it's so personal. I don't employ my testimony to prove anything anyway. (I can IMAGINE the arrogance I'd have to fight off if telling someone MY testimony about meeting Christ was alone enough to bring someone else to Christ!) I do it because it's a part of who I am. It wouldn't be fun if I wasn't trying to be as honest as possible yeah? As for the sense of direction - you're probably absolutely right. I especially wondered if my new "purpose" was just the effects of experiencing a spiritual "high" and was nothing more than that. I didn't become who I am today overnight. Since then I've seen God move people who seemed unlikely candidates for Christ to tears. I seen the moment of salvation of others with my own eyes. I've gotten many experiences to minister personally and every single time, succeed or fail, I have been within the walls of belonging. Am I doubtless here? Moreso than most other areas at the very least. Stop calling yourself names though, yeah? Here I thought you were here to put me through the grinder, and you're here being self-deprecating. For what it's worth, Evi, I like to think of you as a friend and an interesting person. I don't think faith has much to do with that - personally anyway. --- 3. From what I remember - and I may be remiss here - but in Cool Girl's thread you addressed this "deity" as hypothetical in nature - yet in your last response you seem to be targeting a specific deity here. From my understanding - God hasn't commanded Hunter in 2017 to kill anyone, and he certainly didn't do so in 1994 when I was born either. You may be referring to the stoning passages in the Old Testament, but if my refusal to pick up a stone is something that would anger God - I guess that makes me just as bad as Christ was when he refused to stone the adulteress. I don't mean to bring up shifting covenants with God as an excuse to explain away the more controversial laws in the Torah in present-day. However, it does matter because the way Christians have operated and have differentiated from the Pharisees of the Jewish faith at the time is influenced by the Lord's new agreement with Jesus, who himself was sinless - even though he the Pharisees witnessed him not being the greatest observer of these laws. It also explains the church's purpose today. I assure you - I wouldn't be able to kill another human being, especially if a deity asked me to. Even if it were Christ himself, he would cease to be the Messiah at that point. --- 4. AHH, the Wool and Linen verse. We actually talked about that one in Biblical Backgrounds last semester. A lot of laws that are like that - are hardly a preference issue - even if they look like it at first glance. The first type of understanding that is to be drawn by an ancient Hebrew (and it goes unsaid often due to what ancient Hebrews are expected to know - making it VERY hard for a guy in 2017 to say something previously without the help of his college professor.) is that a law could have two types of meanings. 1. It could have a FUNCTIONAL meaning - essentially that there is a common sense element to the law in that time period. 2. It could have a THEOLOGICAL meaning, regarding the divine and knowledge of the divine by the Hebrew people, which also tends to go unsaid. Wool and Linen being mixed together was traditionally donned by high priests. Because of this, normal Hebrews were not permitted to wear both fabrics together because only men with holistic functions were to do so.

Everyone -ought- to be fussing about the Alt-Right. These are the same people that cry foul when they see Kathy Griffin holding up a bloodied Trump head, but were guilty of hanging an effigy of Obama to a tree. The only thing Alt-Right people want is blood - not to be represented at the intellectual table. They want to spend every hour of their day making the left's lives worse - and aren't afraid of shaming more sensible conservatives in their crusade against contemporary political discourse. They are actually stupid enough to alienate vast swathes of voters because the only "targeted group" is the straight white male. It's these kind of people that make being a conservative harder than it should be. --- I wouldn't say it's just Baptists - although all "older" denominational churches have their blue-hairs who hold on to their manners and etiquette above all else - even spreading the gospel. --- I mean - self reflection is the name of the game. Thanks for tuning in, Miss.

@Eviora 1. In my mind, something being called logical is about being reasonable. I don't think that - for example - people who are moral relativists are being unreasonable by fighting for social justice. It's absolutely something that appears to be inconsistent with the notion of being moral relativists, but as someone who believes fighting for social justice an objectionably reasonable pursuit I don't have the grounds to say they are being unreasonable. This is where I have to say that my believing God exists is a faith claim based on personal experience (which I will share a bit of!) and the fact that Jesus was indeed killed on a cross around year 33 in the first century and the body disappeared. When I defend the existence of God, I don't want to do it in a way people assume I am telling the end-all, be-all truth. That is for the individual to determine for themselves. I want to do it in a sense that God existing is merely reasonable. I cannot force people into an auditorium and beat an atheist in a debate to win people to Jesus. The Lord and the recipient are the ones dealing with any potential actual conversion. As for the objectional truth regarding God's existence, I don't think public opinion of the matter has given any indication of truth and false. I don't think either side has produced evidence that was as clear as Nixon being involved with Watergate was. When I mentioned God being beyond logic - I was aiming specifically to ensure scientific constructs didn't hold God in a box. He isn't a testable being for our convenience one way or the other. --- 2. As for me though - I wasn't an "edgelord" - but my mood was always sour during the duration of skepticism. I walked around and threw insults and picked fights with people whom I felt were uneducated and generally was a pain in the neck to anyone who tried to get close to me. Family life was defined by trying to do the best I could in school - and that being the only thing we ever talked about at the dinner table, usually in questions and taciturn, one-word answers and grunts in response. I was a nerdy kid and girls didn't go for the smart kids in middle school - unless they were trying to say mean things about you. Church life was a joke. There was this new chick who had just graduated out of college and had been hired to be our first "youth minister" in years. She seemed at the time to be really nosey and she's one of those athlete types who - while not an extrovert - was much more of one than I was. She noticed that I was exceptionally witty, yet that I was hard to reach because I preferred to be alone. She asked me what I felt about the Lord and - because I was a captive audience member - I was blunt. I felt he was some kind of story that made the older church congregation feel better about being left behind by a world they used to run. I told her the science courses I took in school seemed to offer various alternative theories to the Christian worldview and that they were certainly less pie in the sky. I told her I had issues with the way Christians act (AND I STILL DO - BUT HEY - CAN'T FIX EVERYTHING IN A DAY.) and that pain and suffering in a world with an all benevolent God seemed too good to be true. In short, I was a cynical smartass that was either talking shit, or not talking at all. Taylor believed she had someone she could reach with me though. She told me about a volunteering opportunity for a summer camp she worked out her whole life that she felt would be great for me. As a skeptic, this seemed like a miserable idea - although I do have a weakness for enjoying camp life from previous church camp experiences along with previously being a Boy Scout - so I let her pay my way in. The night before I left however, I was wrecked. As I was packing for the trip, I started mumbling to myself about how much this week was going to be awful. I was the only one going from my church - meaning I was going to be stuck in the woods with a bunch of Kum-bah-yah people I didn't know. I then began talking at a normal voice level to myself. Then I was shouting and making animal noises - and then... Someone started responding. It wasn't my family, or someone physically in my house - but some invisible being was holding me accountable for how I was carrying myself. I thought I was losing my mind - before the voice encouraged me that the trip I was going on was going to be life changing. A couple years later, I worked most of a summer there as a Camp Counselor and was more of the Hunter you are talking to now. That voice was right. I met some of my closest friends that week and by the end of it all - after sharing my pain with total strangers - God began to be totally reasonable. And active in my life. --- 3. Knowing me - I'd severely question rather a God that was telling me to kill was a perfect God. It's not just about killing though. A perfect God doesn't ask for rituals in my eyes. He asks for a relationship. If it were not for Christianity, I wouldn't be a believer in a deity at all - even if they called to me and showed me their splendor - because I take exception to a God that wants to use me as a tool and not as an associate. I also have a personal inability to actually want to kill other people. I say as such if you get me angry enough, but unless it's a matter of self defense - I'm a patsy there. --- 4. Unlike his followers (who have TOO MANY opinions) - I don't see God as an entity that operates by sharing his feelings on things. I see God disapprove of things that are functionally incorrect and act accordingly - but I don't see "whimsical" behavior from him outside of creating things - and even then there's still a purpose behind his creations. To use your XBox/PS4 console war model, I think God would dislike a console that doesn't work, and wouldn't have a preference about if he thought Microsoft or Sony had the better console. That's something I'm going to ask him when I get there though. I kinda want to know which console holds favor with the divine. I just haven't seen him act in a manner that suggest he's into ranking things by personal preference.

Both are very important if God is something you put your faith in - and I don't want to say having faith in ourselves is unimportant, so I'll start by expounding on it. Big G God seems to place a ton of importance and faith on us. His reasoning for creating us was to have companions to abide with, and for relationships to be built - and he trusted us - humanity - to make the decision to enter into a relationship with him ourselves. So much so that several skeptics have pointed out that humans having the ability to choose alternatives to him looks quite erroneous on his part. "Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand." - Isaiah 41:10 (ESV) To me, it's important for the believer to understand that God holds us in high regard personally, so that lends to the notion even though we have faith in the Lord - it's also important to have faith in ourselves. God invested himself for our sake, after all. On top of that, not having faith in yourself is destructive and leads to defeatism and general disappointment. ESPECIALLY for the nonbeliever, who can't place their faith in the Lord in their stead. --- That being said, I would argue that having faith in the Lord - particularly in Jesus and the Resurrection - is the most important faith a believer can have. Without Jesus, humanity does wield a rap sheet of transgressions of which they themselves would have to pay the price for. The lack of salvation turns humanity from favored sons and daughters to men and women who are lacking an adequate atonement for their crimes. If you don't believe in Jesus, believing in yourself isn't going to get you to the promised land and will be a limited, blinding run of life that is finite at best. At worst, you struggle with your faith in yourself the whole time meeting with an unsatisfactory end. Luckily for us, that is a choice we are in control of - just like choosing to be faithful in our own abilities. It's also a choice you can review arguments and evidences for, and it's also one that you can make on your own time. I truly believe that God works in this life too - so while one trusts him, there will be moments where his trust in you is visible.

@Eviora 1. Is there a particular supernatural entity you have in mind? I ask only because several such entities are worshiped as higher beings and I would like to have an easier comparison/contrast session. I -CAN- tell you what I feel makes God, God however. I believe God is an interpersonal being who isn't constrained by concepts such as time, space, and logic, and also is all-knowing, all-present, and all-good. Lacking interpersonal will or benevolence in totality renders the supernatural being as one who is MOST definitely not an ally of mine seeking me out to abide with it. Humans are constrained by such concepts and if God isn't then there is a problem with arguing we have a "need" of him. There isn't an established rule that God need to be boxed into a perfectly shaped logic sphere crafted by humans - and if he were to fit in that sphere cleanly then it's easy to dismiss him as a product of human creation. Entities that require a human to follow a rule set or climb a latter are not interpersonal. Entities that are not all-benevolent are likely worse to believe in than not believing in such an entity at all. Entities that are merely conjured by the human mind and don't have reasonable arguments in abundance to support (which, when dealing with a God larger than human logic CERTAINLY doesn't mean validate!) their existence are standing on shakier sand than a God would - because we're merely looking into a myth at that point. --- 2. I personally believe in God because I believe I have experienced Him. My buying in happened after hearing what I truly believe was his voice and seeing the dividends of it make my life better. To not believe in God at this point is to reject experiences in my life as falsehoods - and I would be risking quality of life in turning my back on him. --- 3. I reconcile the Wrath of God by looking to Jesus. Yes, I'm aware it's a Sunday School answer - but Jesus - as God "with" Us - took on the justice for Humanity's err himself - as a human. Dying in what was essentially the worst possible way during the time period is an indication that God isn't above his own wrath. Finally, He made that sacrifice so that we as humans can freely choose him, as he intended from the beginning, despite transgressing against him before. It's this action that highlights his selling points as something to believe in for me, while also being an answer to the problem of suffering (meaning, God wasn't above truly being with us in that he suffered as well.) Jesus does an ample job of explaining the law's importance, but also bucks laws that were crafted only because Humanity needed such structures BECAUSE they were depraved as it were. He was a revolutionary figure despite not being so for a human cause (such as driving the Romans out of Israel as the Hebrews of the time hoped would happen.) - and without Jesus, the whole wrath of God thing would leave him as this terrifying figure - and would certainly make it harder for me to get behind him. I don't intend to knock Judaism here, but without a Messiah, the Law is all they have - and if you had asked me that question if I were a Jew, it would have shaken me to my core. With Christ - I can own God's commandments and point out why Jesus (God in the flesh) challenged them - making it safe to challenge them today. Without Christ I would be forced to wear such laws as an albatross. --- 4. I'm not sure I follow this one well enough - but if I am tracking with you - the reason the creator's views are objective is that no other being knows the thing it created better than it. It's the same as if I were to make meatballs for everyone in Reborn in secret. People may guess as to what ingredients I used, but I am the only know who objectively knows because I made the meatballs. Saying something is what it isn't is just outright wrong. --- @Sheep I will gladly accept that not everyone is wearing the same pair of Nike tennis shoes I am. The reason relativism is so easily acceptable in my eyes is because people are not all in the same situation. Everyone being different in one way or another is what makes them unique. It gives people an identity, and then people take it a step further and likely use a relativistic viewpoint to defend said uniqueness and identity. I just see too many "Murder is wrong" scenarios in the world to say that it's the correct way to go about morality - and that's my hang-up. It troubles me that other objective truth holders aren't as passionate about social justice as those who would be more inclined to argue for murder being acceptable. Even though that seems to be an objective truth those people do accept (Justice is important) - it's a reflective inconsistency that is more dangerous for objectivists because it lends the notion that they are uncaring about people - whereas being inconsistent on behalf of the relativist actually is a boon for them in this scenario. You're a real pal, friend. I appreciate you taking the time to know who I am prior to this topic. --- So - the problem of Suffering. If God is good, why is there evil and suffering the world? What kind of good god would allow for that? Prayer is Everything Keller brings up two main arguments that bolster God in this area. The first I mentioned in my response to Evi - that God is no stranger to the kind of suffering we endure through Jesus' duration on the Earth - as well as that suffering is actually in many cases a harbinger of stronger faith. At my home church however, I didn't have the Timothy Kellers of the world to invest into me until I was in High School and was getting poured into by a mentor who wasn't associated with it alongside a new youth minister. The folks in church like to throw around the word "Prayer" as if it's like putting a coin into a slot machine (Blue Like Jazz is where that reference comes from, another good book.) The elders were quick to emphasize that prayer was the solvent for all of the world's problem. They pointed to the minister praying over people who were in the hospital every Sunday as how I should go about daily life. What they didn't tell me is that God has a will separate from mine. I'd pray to see a loved one who had long since left this earth. I'd pray to cure a cancer that had long since won it's battle over the host. I'd pray for answers as to why my friends were hurting when they wouldn't talk to me. I'd pray for my mother and father to renew a marriage that had long since died. I was often just praying under the assumption that prayer was the cure-all. And I was disappointed. Often. Eventually, my life became the hardest it had ever been to that point in middle school (Yes, this is the middle-school-is-the-worst-cliche) and I had fallen out of faith. I was tired of the same old platitudes and being on the other line to static. I didn't have time to trust in a God that had motives apart from my own. I returned before my mental health spiraled beyond salvaging - but prayer remains one of the hardest concepts to embrace for me today. I often find myself arguing that the Lord bestowed us with hearts of our own to go and fix issues. I talk about how Doctors often believe in God and that God uses whatever He wants to heal people. I argue that people have money in their wallets. - and I have a bad tendency to say that praying is only justifiable in times where you truly are incapable of satisfying the need yourself. This makes reliance on God seem situated without explaining that all good comes from God - and talking to skeptics about the problem is suffering isn't nearly as fun as talking about Morality or Intelligent Design because we're not just dealing with intellectual discourse. We're talking about hearts that have dealt with much strife and are chafed by the idea of a God in a world that has a tendency to utterly suck. I find myself at a crossroads. I find that prayer is important to communicate with God and invite Him into your daily life - but I am a much weaker prayer warrior because I too often see where humans could act on the problem at hand instead of sitting on the sideline. I struggle with accepting that some things are God's intent at times. If it weren't for Jesus, this would be one of the strongest evidences Athiest Hunter would point to.

@Alphagar I like to think that ANYONE being a follower and not using their brain to work through issues is a problem - Conservative straight republican white guy to Liberal genderfluid person of a non-white ethnicity. Regardless of if you are a disciple of a theistic teacher or an atheist one, ignorance leads to the very manipulation you allude to. If you don't challenge your beliefs - whatever they may be - your beliefs will be easily shaped by others. This isn't a Left or Right, Theistic problem. As for online dating - I have tried it. My experience was mostly positive, but it didn't work out - and I'm looking to avoid making the same mistakes as last time, meaning that it's not a totally attractive avenue at the moment. May give it a whirl again if/when the feeling returns. Guild Wars 2 sounds like a hot date. --- @Peanuts I actually voted for Gary Johnson in the election - knowing full well he wasn't going to win. I was as shocked as everyone else when Republicans stormed the night across the country, but was happier for maintaining the congressional majorities than bringing Trump to 1600 Pennsylvania. There was enough about both major party candidates that made them both not fit for office in my opinion. I believe Trump is deserving for criticism in the same fairness that Obama was. It's truly a taller ask to be President than it is to be a member of the Senate or House of Representatives - and the Executive will always have his hands in SOMEONE's cookie jar. As for his performance, while many of his decisions were some I can appreciate, his manner of day-to-day operations is chaotic and seems to favor himself and his band of insiders than it does the national media and the viewers that depend on it to hear about what the president is doing. If there is something noteworthy regarding Russia - he should be held responsible for it and a move to impeach him wouldn't be unreasonable in the slightest - especially if he were to lie under oath. After all, a man having a affair can cost you the job if you lie about it. I do understand why he resorts to Twitter (as the national media writ large have been WILLING to play oppositional to the White House and his Twitter feed is about the only way he can share his side of the story to his followers without getting criticized for it.) - but like Alphagar, I do believe his social media usage is too often and too unrestricted. The Republican Party dig themselves potholes to trip themselves in often - and just as often are unfairly criticized for being a unanimous cult-like party that bands together under a banner of hatred. I reconcile my being a Republican by being unafraid to break with the party and own my personal convictions where I truly don't agree with the majority. There are Republicans (myself not an example even) that LIKE the Affordable Care Act. There are also Democrats who don't play by the liberal rules either - especially in states where being a true liberal is a liability in winning office. Things like gun restrictions are thrown out the window in order to appeal to the generally more conservative voter bloc. The GOP makes mistakes. Often. That doesn't mean I have to be one where I don't agree with them - and it doesn't mean they are the only political party in America to do so. --- @Candy On the topic of objective truth - saying that there is no ability for a human to make an objective truth claim is in it of itself - an objective truth claim! 1. I assume that you are a human yourself. 2. You speak of inability, yet you make your statement as if it's a definitive rebuttal of a falsehood (in this case, the falsehood of objectivism or absolutism.) On top of that, I presented you with a simple mathematics equation as an example in my first post to help describe the concept of absolutism. Does 1+1 NOT equal 2? And if it's only a relative truth, how is it not so for other people without being a falsehood? This is where it's very interesting. Even relativists have to make a hidden leap of faith with their claims. If it's not empirical, a claim is based on faith. In order for a claim to be based on data, the claim must be testable. My friend, is it possible to test which of us has it right? Can humanity determine absolute truth? If neither of us can prove our claims - both of us are making faith claims. If one of us can actually test what we are making a claim about - THEN it's an empirical claim. As a Christian, making faith claims doesn't bother me. --- Tomorrow, I plan on talking about the Problem of Suffering, because it's the area of doubt I struggled with very often when I was younger - on a philosophical AND a personal level.

Recently, on another thread, another user charged that I wasn't my own person - and essentially equated me as another one of the ignorant cultists ascribing to the Christian Church and the Republican Party. I -am- a registered Republican, as well as a practicing and outward Christian - but the charge made me wonder... "Where on earth did this charge come from? I'm OBVIOUSLY my own person - or there would be a ton of other Hunters running around Reborn defending the Christian faith and owning up conservative values. The fact that it's literally just me most of the time arguing on behalf of Jesus when I am not the only Christian here is nothing BUT a testament to my originality! Right?" Then I started bashing myself. I began to wonder if I really was just running in the traditional right-wing circles and that I wasn't doing it to win people to a saving relationship with the Lord. I began to remember leaving topics hanging in suspense due to a moderator feeling the thread had begun to run too hot without much substance or running into an impasse with whoever I was talking to and just wanting to pull my hair out because they completely understood the angle I was getting at - but didn't care enough to engage with the angle. Then I started kicking myself for allowing my individual soul to lash out at being attacked as nonexistent. Was there anything wrong with belonging to the Lord? It convicted me enough to go to the bookstore and pick up Timothy Keller's The Reason For God. Mr. Keller is a pastor at the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. As a suburban kid who wants nothing more than to do ministry in the big city as a lifelong dream, this guy is my spirit animal - or at least a hero of mine. Fellow believers - if you're out there - I encourage you to find the book and read along. For you, as well as I, it should cause us to question WHY it is that we hold a Christian worldview and hopefully highlight a few issues the church has that we can strive to fix. The church today is indeed broken in many aspects, and as the person who confronted me in the other thread indicated, these problems going unchecked disenfranchise people and cause them to turn their back on God. Skeptics, if you want, go ahead and pick it up. Why is it you hold certain positions when it comes to a god existing or not? Keller will certainly open a healthy can of worms with regards to intellectual thought from an opposing viewpoint. It also will allow you to address points here with your own perspective. Getting the book isn't necessary, but it helps for reference. It is indeed perfectly fine to just question me if you like. --- Exclusivity of "The Truth" The first issue Keller brings up is the one where theists and nones alike have a sense of "superiority" when it comes to knowing what the truth of the world actually is. The popular opinion seems to be along the lines of a few treatises such as these. "One religion can't know the whole truth.", "It's incredibly arrogant of adherents of one religion to claim theirs is superior.", "The god of all religions is one and the same." I'll touch on why the skeptic that makes such claims is errant later (after some of you have given some input) - but these claims all add up to the claim that "The world will never know peace so long as people are claiming they are the only "truthful" religion and others must follow them!" Keller - and myself - AGREE with this claim. There is no denying the wars and conflicts that have taken place because of religious motives. --- Hunter, Texas, Conservatives, and Personal Doubt #1 There was a time in American History where Western Christendom was the rage. People who didn't even go to church or knew nothing of the gospel identified in surveys as Christians because the people of the Cross were the "in crowd." It was a great time for spiritual awakening, and yet one, like many Awakenings prior, that wouldn't last. Today, we see a weird trend in America specifically that indicates mega churches getting larger, but church giving and local church attendance across the board going down. The people of the Western Christendom? They are the older folks in the pews today. They reminisce about the good old days. They complain about the raging liberalism younger generations have prioritized and are the most likely folks to have a Jesus fish and a Trump bumper sticker on their vehicles where I'm from. As a youth growing up in this traditional American church setting - you ARE told to abandon your individual merits in favor of respecting your parents and elders. You are told that hymns are better than contemporary worship songs. You are told quite abrasively that you shouldn't bring your cup of coffee into the sanctuary because it distracts people from worshiping. You are told that birth control is worthless and that legal abortion is a genocide far greater than anything Adolf Hitler could have thought of and that there is a war on Christians being waged from Washington D.C. and Austin, Texas by soulless Democrats. It's not really a surprise why my home church is a horrible place when it comes to looking for friends, let alone women my age. Keller points out that he's noticed a disturbing trend. In his experience, the people that hold that truth is "relative" (I.e. what is true for Person A may not be true for Person X) are the people that fight the hardest for social justice, while the people that claim truth is objective (1+1=2 for everyone) are the ones who are least likely to be spotted fighting for social justice. Relativists shouldn't have a strong cause to fight for social justice if truth is relative. Is something being wrong only "relatively" wrong to that person in the first place? Maybe Hitler believes gassing whomever he pleases completely within the confines of righteousness, so why can't we respect Hitler's viewpoint and be done with it? Objectivists on the other hand should recognize real wrong in the world and be the one's fighting the hardest. Everyone has a right to enter our country, because this is America! How DARE President Trump impose a travel ban on people before finding their innocence or guilt!? Having been a member of Reborn for a while now. OH GOODNESS is Keller spot on. The ones who argue for moral relativity are the same ones who are quick to denounce President Trump as inherently evil and those who voted for him similarly because of his injustices against others. The ones who believe in objective truth, are the ones who are the most okay with Trump's follies and tend to be seen teetering on the brink of earning a few warning points by acting like alt-right trolls in defense of Trump. As a Christian, it should be pretty clear that our salvation doesn't make us BETTER than those around us for this very reason. If you were superior to everyone else, why is it you need a savior in the first place? And yet, my biggest pet peeve is a too common sight - Christians who operate as if they hold the truth and everyone else needs to drink the same Kool-Aid we are or they are utterly lost.

Obviously without Skill Inheritance Takumi is better out of the box - and yes, Takumi with SI isn't searching for much - but in a vacuum he just loses more matches than Bride!Cordelia running quad. Takumi is arguably a comparable unit due to Cordelia being a promotional unit and thus he'll be more widely available. Build her though - and then the game is changed.