Kurotsune

Probably a lot! 's k, it sorta remids me of pink floyd for some reason i didn't like the redesign because i'm a bonehead and hate change I do like the new looks. And that status updates are better now. I'll go a step further and show you what my team would be: < because cool-looking < because cyoot < also because cyoot < because adorablu < Because there are no other good choices left and these are the least ugly ones It did! Iunno why. It's inside our hearts. Like, literally. I live inside your heart. Piss me off and I'll stop it. She's a cool lady from what I've heard about her I have it on good authority both she and amethyst are bad at makeup, though It's been decent. I prefer a decent balance between both. I'll just lay this out in the open here - I was planning for two weeks, with fair secrecy, a thing where the foxes were going to "hack Reborn" and re-enable the Mess With Others! items for the last day of the old site and create a sort of trollfest. And then Amethyst literally forgot about it before starting the update. C'est la vie. Other than that, the foxes have their own schedules and I'd be surprised if they did show, but if they want to, I won't stop them. My honest opinion is that Trump played a game and won. I feel like he was mostly lying his ass off to get elected and doesn't really care for or stand behind a lot of what he has said - but he is still going to be divisive and a potential diplomatic issue. Ultimately, though, Trump's career as president will more likely than not be four years of nothing followed by no re-election. I could end up surprised, though. Winter. God I hate summer. None. Answer these questions since you asked me that yesterday. Also work. And that's about it. I don't think so. I had what, three? I'm sure someone has had more than that. I figured this collapse had happened years ago. This society is downhill as-is. No. I believe gender/race/sexuality should play no role in someone's rights - Everyone should have the same rights and duties. I do not, however, believe that everyone should be equal in any other aspect besides this. People have to work for things, not simply be given them. Equality is great in politics, and a crutch everywhere else.

Why does everyone act like AMAs are bad or a chore when we all like them/do them anyway?

Why I seem to like their music: Cool lyrics and cool beats. When I started listening to their music: When I Write Sins Not Tragedies came out. As if I'd ever need help. Specially with puns.

Eh, maybe. We'll see. Right this second, I'm listening to: My favorite song of all time is: Why: Because it's a song about his mother dying. The lyrics are amazing and the delivery is really strong specially at the end - "Now Cinderella don't you go to sleep ~ It's such a bitter form of refuge ~ Now don't you know the kingdom's under siege ~ And everybody needs you? ~ " It does a great job at reflecting the hopelessness of wanting to help someone you love but being unable to. Just watching them fade away while pleading for them not to.

Yes. The reason is mostly bias. I was referred to Nietzsche by a friend after being told both he and I employ extremely similar methods in our analysis of the psyche and how we approach to studying people. Ultimately, I've grown to agree with his views of the Übermensch and the goal of constant self-improvement. All in all, I like his ideas and I think a lot of what he says makes sense. Even if it was misinterpreted and used to create one of the worst dictatorships in history oops That depends. Do you believe that's a creative question? i don't know dude i just wanted to do something i need the upvotes man they're my drug y'know aside from my other drugs

...But AMA try to anyway Welp, not really much to add other than this. Figured I'd hop into the bandwagon early this time. Y'all know the drill, make it some interesting ones. Incidentally, as of today, I've been in Reborn for two years, so yay.

Told you it'd be more fun to do that

I see you bit that bullet! I'm glad.

Just dropping by to enjoy the fact these questions aren't directed at me anymore Toodles

It's not like we all don't know the answer already, but go ahead.

You didn't call the argument into question. You basically employed the following fallacy: "Humans share DNA with bananas." "Humans share DNA with animals." "Humans are not bananas." "Thus, humans are not animals." You're using two disconnected premises to reach a conclusion. That's a fallacy. That calls nothing into question but the argument itself. Even the most sound of the ones trying to play the "anti animals" card are having trouble finding ways to say we aren't animals; For one, looking at chase's points: While it is absolutely true that there are other animals other than humans that do this, giving off homosexual tendencies serves no purpose in prolonging humankind. Yet humanity is the only species I know that works tirelessly to legitimize it as a normal occurrence despite serving a negative effect on reproduction rate True enough. There has never in recorded history, in fact, been a singular instance of a dog approaching congress to legitimize same sex canine relationships. Nor has any other animal. Doesn't stop over 1,500 species from engaging in such behavior however. And before you say that "I said there are other animals that do this" you're playing this off as if other animals don't normally engage in homosexual behavior when most animals do so frequently. Most mammals are bisexual in terms of sexual attraction and that serves a survival factor because it's, among other things, how most of them display dominance. Freud even explored the concept of innate bisexuality - That all human beings are (or were at some point) born bisexual and homosexuality/heterosexuality came later. Humans also are one of the few species to have personal attachment to things like democracy and fairness - whereas you see other members of the animal kingdom run under structures of "alpha males" or "queen bees." Democracy in animals: the evolution of shared group decisions. (2007, Roper, T. J.) Man also benefits from being extremely broad with dietary ability. We are able to decide what we want to consume on the fly, and prepare it beyond survival necessity into a dish that is not only nutrient providing, but pleasurable to consume. Many animals have a broad dietary ability as you put it, being omnivore is not exclusive to humans. Remove all of our three main sources of meat (poultry, bovine and swine meat) and let's se if we aren't going to struggle too. Also, we can only do that because we're the apex predator. We're given the luxury of choice because nothing else can kill us. In fact, being a picky eater is more cause for extinction more than anything else. Push comes to shove, a dog will eat shit to survive. Some humans will starve. The dog will go on to reproduce. The humans won't. But ultimately all these points apply to several animals and not a single one of them is unique to humans. How does that differentiates us instead of classifying us, then? Or are all those animals humans too? Or non-animals? I get you're not arguing that humans aren't animals but since your points were sort-of to mention the ways we are different than them, that's my contesting of them nonetheless. Because if anything, it just shows we're similar. Also we're more adapted because again apex predator so naturally we're better at surviving, yes. Thing is ten years from now some wasp might mutate into a super wasp and we can't kill it ever and starts killing and eating us and suddenly that's the new apex predator without it being smart of anything like that. This is a remarkably pointless argumentation and I'm surprised that it got this far. I find it equal parts amusing and apalling - moreso over the fact that we've people straight up saying we should throw facts out of the window and discuss on whimsy and pseudo-scientific opinion. If we're going to discuss that, we may as well start arguing whether or not Obama is secretly a lizard.

Are people actually entertaining the idea that human beings are animals is this a thing that's happening right now am I asleep Humans are not just biologically similar to animals - Given we share 98.8% of our dna with chimpanzees, 98.4% with gorillas, 93% with monkeys, 90% with mice. 84% with dogs and even freaking 65% with chicken. Yes we clearly aren't animals it's not like we share over half our dna with a goddamn flightless bird that lays eggs. And while the protein part that Tartar has mentioned is correct, that ultimately doesn't change the fact that if we were so distinct a species we wouldn't share over 98% of our DNA with with at least two species of primates. ...And we're also animals from a psychological perspective. Humans still work guided mostly by pack instinct and we still form bands and packs out of survival needs to a point where social exclusion can harm your psyche. Males' senses of attraction are generally within the realm of physical sexual fantasy so they are encouraged to mate with as many partners as possible to better spread their DNA into the pool. Females' senses of attraction are generally within the realm of psychological romantic fantasy so they are encouraged to find the best mate so natural selection guarantees the best DNA is spread into the pool. We're an animal that is better adapted to the enviroment. We're not the only animal that alters the environment for their own sake by a long shot - Beavers and birds and plenty of other animals have been doing that when we were still nomads - and there's hardly anything besides increased intelligence that even sets us apart from animals. Just straight up google "Hairless chimpanzee" and tell me you see absolutely no physical resemblance. You could literally photoshop people's faces into the freaking things and I'm sure there'd be people who wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Sounds like a neat art project, even. What baffles me is the idea that this could be considered "opinion". "Animal" is the nomenclature for all species of creatures inside the "animalia" kingdom. Literally all information I've just said aside, we're creatures in the "animalia" kingdom so we're animals. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Lastly saying that a field that has more or less been studied ever since human beings can record information in any way - The study of animals and biology, that is - is a "simple scientific definition" is to afford no merit to the people in this field. It's a pretty complex scientific definition backed up by years upon years of research. Not only that, it's basically saying "Yeah I get all this proof you're throwing my way but let's throw all evidence out of the window and now prove to me we're animals" If you want to discuss how "human rationality" is different to "beast irrationality" the answer is also pretty simple. Humans can interpret the world subjectively and animals can't. i.e. You can look at yourself in the mirror and see a hero, a villain, a fraud, a success, a jokester, a downer, whatever. Your dog looks at itself in the mirror and sees a fucking dog. And then wonder where the fuck that dog came from.

It's k we're k Thanks for all the suggestions though

Just admitting you're unqualified to give any real assistance is already a greater display of maturity than anything else. Seek therapy. No one here can treat you, we can only listen. Advice is great and everyone can empathize to feeling backed against a wall or that there's no way out - And you'll find one or one thousand people willing to listen to you vent about that. That ultimately does not, however, replace actual therapy. If you can't undergo therapy at the current moment for any reason, the website "7 cups of tea" can greatly assist by providing free therapy online. This website has actual trained individuals whose job is to understand and help with any life issues and are more qualified to comment on this than the great majority of this community will ever be. I'm sorry if I seem too cynical in my statements, but I've found that these happen way too often, and way too often misinformation is given instead of actually encouraging the person to seek help. While this is still not the case and this community is generally being as cool and understanding as it usually is, I figure I'd drop this early on in this thread before they show up. Take care of yourself.

I still neeeedddd iiitttt

This thread has been dead for over a year - I'd suggest creating a new one or seeking out a more active thread with a similar premise.

Step A) Have any pokémon with spore Step B­) Marry gardevoir Step C) Put gardevoir into pokéball while it is asleep Step D) Put gardevoir into PC so it can never escape Step E) Enjoy your one million dollars There's literally none of these "would you x for y???" that posit actual dillema because the answer will always be yes (unless the advantages are waaaaaaaaaaay below the disadvantages - i.e. "would you lose an arm for free ice cream??/////") Because there's always going to be a way to weasel out of it. Even if you say something like "The Gardevoir has to be at your side at all times and can't ever be put into a pokéball" or whatever, sure, that doesn't mean you still can't get it to go to therapy, or convince it to start taking medication to dial down the psycho. The only way to make these not work is if you go out of the way to deliberately make the challenge impossible to say yes to (as the example above) but that's only because at that point it becomes way too shitty to do it.

Since I make it a point not to repeat avatars I need a new one again oops

While I'm no longer part of the dev team, I'd like to assume I've enough of a part in the making of the game to reply to this thread. I've struggled with depression for a long time now - And while I can't personally say I've had therapeutic experiences with Reborn, I'm always happy to know someone has. It's always a positive surprise to learn the impact a video game can have on someone. It's even better to know, with admittedly a tinge of pride, that I've my hand in that impact. Reborn may not have been made to help people with their issues (even if it does) but it doesn't mean we ourselves are unwilling to offer assistance. If you ever feel like discussing your condition, feel free to approach me - Or, if you want to learn about my experience with mine, I've written a short exposé on my own life a while ago, for my birthday. Thank you for playing the game, and I'm glad it has helped.

For your birthday gift, name one person. I'll kill them for you.

Oh, I'm 100% sure he wasn't prepared nor expected to even get that far. In fact, I don't think anyone thought Hillary could possibly win based solely on how the press presented her and Trump. The fact that in recent interviews Trump has sobered up significantly and has even claimed that he was "playing a character" during the election more or less shows that. I don't think he was downright lying about his opinions, no, but that he was voluntarily speaking without filter because he just thought it wasn't going to get anymore anyway. And now it has - And suddenly what even he might've seen as the long-running "president trump" joke has become a reality, one way or another. Trump was a right up until the end of the election - And a great video on this is from a youtuber called ShoeOnHead who, while focusing mostly on anti-feminism, has also made a video about Trump, linked below: Keep in mind this person employs sarcasm and dry humor to deliver her punchlines and will likely come across as brash/aggressive/bitchy to some. Either way I am, while admittedly without much interest, watching the USA's politics from this election forwards to see how it develops.

The below is not related to the thread and with no attempts of mine to play nice. Now onto the thread itself. I think the first think to analyze when discussing the United States' current political scenario and how its most likely to progress stems from the initial question of "Why did Trump win?" and, as it turns out, it's more than likely not because america shelters a majority of closet homophobics/transphobics/xenophobics/racists. In fact, it's not even related to Trump at all. The issue has been how the Democratic party has elected (pun intended) to act during this campaign, and how it has undermined their own chances. Ultimately, it boils down to the choice of candidate. The website "InsideGov" allows one to view government data through a series of automatized research algorithms. It also, more pertaining to this discussion, it allows users to review and discuss politicians. When one compares Bernie Sanders to candidate Hillary Clinton, we can spot a few interesting comparisons. The first is how much more popular Sanders is compared to candidate Clinton - With a rating of 4.4 out of 5 (from 544 reviews) opposed to Clinton's 3.2 out of 5 (from 632 reviews). This already gives insight into one of the reasons the democrats lost the election - Hillary wasn't a popular candidate to begin with. This becomes even more interesting if we add Donald Trump into the equation since, even though all three candidates have a similar enough amount of reviews, Trump beats Hillary but is still far below Sanders with a 3.6 to his aforementioned 4.4. Things get more interesting as we progress down the page and start comparing our three politician's opinions on several matters pertaining to individual rights, domestic issues, economic issues and defense issues. A glance at the graphs already belies that Hillary's political spectrum, while lying far closer to Sanders' than to Trump's, is still fairly less liberal than the Senator's, with her views on several issues - specially defense issues - more or less contradicting the more traditional liberal views. Finally, upon getting to PredictWise's prediction on which candidate would be nominated we see a staggering 96% for Hillary Clinton to Bernie's 4%. This will be no news to anyone, but ultimately it boils down to this - if Bernie Sanders was the candidate, it's very likely he'd have won the election. But he wasn't. Despite being more popular and more in-line with the Democratic Party's viewpoints, he was still nonetheless not elected to become the Democratic Party's candidate. Why? The answer is actually fairly simple - Trump was underestimated and was a considered non-threat and, thus, the Democratic Party felt more comfortable trying to ride on Clinton's popularity as former first-lady and bank on the ideal of her as the "first woman president". As it turns out, Trump's bid for the "First Annoying Orange President" had more appeal! Little political joke for anyone who's stuck with me so far there. Good form, chap. Carrying on. Ultimately, and I'm terribly sorry about this, but Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate. This is ultimately between what is the biggest difference between her and Trump - While Trump "says it like it is", Hillary Clinton has outright lied to attempt to gain votes, as can be witnessed in the below graph that displays Hillary's changing stances on several different topics and how they changed, conveniently as the election approached - from conservative opinions which clearly contradict her party's core views to more traditional liberal opinions. At the end of the day, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders stood for one similar concept - Change. For better or worse and in their own ways, both candidates recognized that the United States desperately needs a change of pace in management, whereas Hillary Clinton represents more of the same - In the form of a flip-flopping woman with desperate moves for attention (which ultimately failed miserably (resulting in the lowest turnout count in the history of American's politics, with a staggering 43% of the population not voting at all) - And thus, most people didn't want to support her. Hillary represented the worst of the Democratic Party - The corruption within its ranks and the populist tactics it employed to gain attention and supporters. And because of those things, people saw no reason to support her as a candidate. And so Donald Trump wins. What next? At one point, in Chase's For the Republic: All Entailed thread, I made the following statement in regards to Trump's statements in his path to power: And while I stand by this statement in my personal opinion, I will provide a counter-argument to it for the sake of debate: This is not the first nor the last time a politician has said something to gain votes and get elected. So to answer what next - What next is "possibility." It's pretty hard to say what Trump is going to do, but he's likely not going to do anything he has claimed. In fact, his acceptance speech was fairly tame for his standards and showed a willingness to listen to his advisers that Trump had not done up to this point. It sets a nice precedent - One where, for better or worse, Trump is still worried about not royally fucking up his image as President, and is willing to listen to others to make sure of this. At thus to answer the thread's namesake question - What now? As it happens, not much. Truth be told, there's not a lot Trump can do even if he wants to set about his more nefarious promises - The republicans are well aware such moves would be effectively popular suicide - and his government will at worst see some slight negative changes and, at best, see some slightly positive ones. What's important to take from all this, though, is that politics are mutable and they're better off that way. Any man-made politic system is doomed to failure because any of them are effectively flawed - There is no such thing as one perfect governmental system otherwise we'd already be using it. All systems have their ups and downs and, ultimately, it's better for a system to see change. It's a good breath of fresh air. Democratic and Republican viewpoints both work under different circumstances and the change of pace electing the Republican Party brings will be healthy to the american government, even if Trump isn't. Ultimately, it's better to have some semblance of change on occasion to make sure that the bigger picture isn't lost, and that the ones who have been in power don't grow corrupt. Ask anyone - myself included - who has lived under a country who's been in control of the same party for over 15 years - It gets stagnant, it gets riddled with corruption and it gets worse. Although not all change is for the better, some change is still better than no change at all. And sometimes, we just have to tough things out for a term or two. This too shall pass. PSA: This is only my opinion and as a left-wing extremist myself I'm fairly saddened to have to write a piece effectively singing the praises of the right, but ultimately facts are facts and are only to be understood, studied and accepted - Unless other facts prove them wrong. And to those saying they'll "quit the country" or ask for a "do over" or go as far as call Trump being elected "fascism" - That's democracy. You're the democratic party, for crying out loud. Take your President's lead and accept victory with some grace. And quite honestly, if you're unwilling to read a fairly medium size piece on politics you're probably not into politics and shouldn't even be visiting threads like these to begin with. I'm sorry if I come across as aggressive, but consider my statement.