Bay 12 Games Forum

I think it's called "mugging", right?
You hit people and money pops out? _{Along with screams and pleas for mercy, but those are rather less valuable if it's not being filmed...}

Quote from: kaijyuu on July 25, 2012, 06:04:44 pm

Well there has to be a limit as to what that applies to. Otherwise dogs couldn't be locked up for barking; they're just practicing their freedom of speech. As far as I know, everyone draws that line at "people." (EDIT: Well, "citizens" would probably be more accurate now that I think about it. And of course organizations aren't citizens.)

Dogs won't sue you if they are locked up for practicing their freedom of speech, nor will their lawyers go after you if you don't read them their Miranda Rights before sending them to the pound.

... a corporation has no ears to be read the Miranda rights to. It has no eyes to read an indiction. It has no voice to speak to lawyers, nor hands to write orders to them. It has no physical presence. A corporation is an organizational trick we use to make it easier for us to deal with the actions of individuals in aggregate. It's not a thing. It doesn't actually exist, at all, outside of peoples' minds. A corporation is no more a person or a citizen than an imaginary country in a madman's head is a geopolitical entity. This is true of all organizations. They're not things. They're organizational tools, that help other individuals address and work with groups acting in congregate. To date, outside of Citizen's United, tools and cognitive shortcuts have not been allowed the legal protection of free speech, only the individuals that use those tools and shortcuts. That we have given a imaginary entity non-imaginary rights that actively infringe on the rights of non-imaginary entities is entirely mind boggling.

Corps neither speak nor write. They can't communicate in any method whatsoever. It makes no bloody sense to give free speech protections to something that cannot practice free speech. As we see with terribly clarity, doing so allows individuals to do some frankly terribly shit by hiding behind their imaginary shield.

We should have laws protecting how we deal with people who are working in aggregate toward a particular goal or goals, yes, of course, but calling that group an individual and treating it as an individual citizen is not how you do it by any sane measure.

I felt that if i met such thing in real life id get a heart attack.
Good that we have no such big insects in Poland

... sudden terrifying urge to find some invasive species of large bugs and smuggle them into poland.

It would be an absolutely terrible thing to do, but... the urge. The temptation.

Not just poland, really. Everywhere that doesn't already have some. To spread the love.

The softer skepticism, anyway. The primary issue with skepticism is that, well, it's internally inconsistent, iirc. It does -- well requires, anyway, exactly what you mention, that you reject others' unsupported ideas while maintaining that your own shouldn't be rejected. Certain axioms are held inviolate even while possessing the same sort of lack of justification skepticism targets, and usually about the only "reason" for it is that it'd be batshit crazy to not hold them (i.e. a functioning, by any particular standard, human can not hold them to be false) or they make some other part of the system make sense (speculative science does something similar, I do believe), and neither of those are held to be sufficient justification in a number of other situations. You have to special case certain things in order for skepticism to work, and that's an issue. An issue that's usually -- and somewhat easily -- dismissed (and I generally would recommend exactly that, because the only actual solution that I know of to skeptic'ing yourself into uselessness is faith, i.e. unjustifiable axioms.), but that doesn't actually make the issue go away, heh.

Or, to put it another way, skepticism requires that you are skeptical of the unsupported axioms of skepticism, and most skeptics just... aren't. I mean, I can't blame them, because some of those axioms are stuff like existence and crap, but it's still true of the project of skepticism. Basically, it beats itself, which is somewhat of an issue. Most (quite easily arguably all) people just accept somewhat inconsistently applied skeptical methodology and go on with whatever they're doing.

Comedy, comedy... y'know, the only one I can remember standing out in my mind right now is Arsenic and Old Lace? I liked that one.

Kids have nightmares all the time though, right? Please tell me that wasn't just my apparently tortured subconscious again, it was crazy enough hearing that most people my age get nightmares only very rarely.

I had pretty regular nightmares when I was younger, yeah, if not really anymore. Rarely induced by media, though. Only movie I really remember doing that to me was disney's Fantasia (which scared the ever-loving fuck out of my younger self and gave me nightmares for something like a week. Watching bits years later, I could see why.) and one (both?) of the never-ending stories.

What in th'name of all that's holy is a parent doing showing a young child something like the Exorcist (I guess?), anyway? I'm not saying shelter the children or stupid shit like that, but major horror/violence flicks probably isn't the best of things to inflict on a young'un.

But yeah, systemically inflicting disturbing media on a child is... well, there's more forms of abuse than physical (though they're not nearly as regularly prosecuted ). If it's something that leaves a kid distressed for a long period, that's a pretty shitty thing to be doing to 'em. Hell, it's a shitty thing to do to anyone, really, in most cases.

So, trying to make up for the (seemingly) comparatively anemic physdam on Mundo (via atmas, masochism) is a good idea? I'm wondering mostly because, again, the vast majority of my damage (just with sorc boots for mpen and maybe zeke's, if I get that far, and to the tune of about a 3-5:1 ratio) is coming from magic damage... it seems, if I was trying to bump damage output, I'd be going for that? Maybe the numbers from eating creep waves it throwing it off? I still, usually, don't spend much time in actual auto-attack range, though... which I guess is what building some ms is for, hrm.

What I'm seeing/theorycrafting is that he can do a good chunk of physdam*, if he builds for it, but he gets more from building to support the spinnies and cleaver.

I guess the game changes considerably, numbers wise, once you actually start getting to the point people have full masteries and rune pages, heh.

*I guess, heh... I haven't actually built a physdam leaning Mundo yet. Probably should try, I suppose. I'm thinking... what, d.shield -> lucid or swift boots**, warmogs, then frozen-> Atma -- maybe stick a zeke in between, I like that thing so far -- and go from there?
**Merc treads seem kinda' redundant on Mundo -- you've already got a pair in the lvl5 spinnies, at least as far as tenacity goes.

I'll just... keep playing mundo for a bit, I think. 4v5 in their favor just went 44/17 in ours, 12/2/12 for me. That said, only one of them (ashe) had ignite, though trist was on their team, too (didn't seem to do much vs. mundo, this time). For the time being, I think I'll just roll with mundo and keep an eye on the enemy summoner spells, build sash when more than one of them have ignite

I'm digging shield-> sorc boots -> warmog -> Zeke's herald -> FoN (swap with sash if many ignites/healing reducers), though. Have rylai and guise queued up for after that, but haven't managed to get that far yet

I seem to be building sort of... what is the term, offtank/support? Something like that? I really like how it's ending out, so far, though I've been facerolling more than my actual intent (and that 4v5 game had a number of not-exactly intentional killsteals. My burning need to throw more cleavers does that sometimes...). Need more attempts, to see how a losing game plays out, and some where ignite/healing reduction is more ubiquitous.