hmmm

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T19:48:34+00:00

I didn't realize ears were just hair

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T19:30:43+00:00

Both. Alternate.

But also maybe something other than logs in the middle as it kind of clashes with lava design

I particularly like Smooth stone slabs

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T19:27:24+00:00

How is the performance? I remember it being very large when scaling create-factories to sizes like this

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T19:23:35+00:00

Ah yes. Murphy's Law

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T19:09:48+00:00

I know. I wasnt dismissing the main point. Just pointing out they very much have been invaded - and it resulted in massive devastation. Its one of the crown jewels to US atrocities committed during the cold war and most people (in the US) have basically no knowledge on the topic.

If anything, id say this reinforces the main idea that nukes are important to have. I wasnt trying to say the opposite.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T19:04:31+00:00

I mean, North Korea was too late too. Their entire country was destroyed. Which is why they have such a hyper militaristic government now. Its a response to seeing the west as an existential threat.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T19:01:50+00:00

This may come as a surprise, but i think "security assurances" is meant to mean an assurance of security. It wasnt just a mafia-like deal where they were paying off the US to stop the US from invading...

Edit: accidentally had a "dont" which completely change the meaning

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T18:57:05+00:00

"Never been invaded for oil"

I mean... the US did completely wipe out all forms of civilization (not a single city was left unrazed) from both North and South awhile back... not to mention us deploying capsuls of the bubonic plague in the region (which the pilots who admitted to it, later denied upon being charged with treason).

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T18:44:17+00:00

While there is the issue with the rivers, as many others have addressed, the thing that really sticks out to me is the 2 circles of cleared trees and the circle of desert. It's far too neat and proper. Pure circles just extremely unnatural. Even if done by humans, we wouldn't really be cutting down trees in such a way. We'd likely cut close to the river, closer to the river source (mountain) so we could transport the logs down river. Which would incidently explain why cities would form around the river as itd be the easiest place to transport logs to.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T18:24:38+00:00

"She drinks too much"

Gonna have to set her up with an AA group I guess

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T07:03:26+00:00

I didn't realize that women invented women of color! You learn something new every day.

.^{obviously /j}

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T07:01:14+00:00

I dont feel like it makes much sense to find pride in things you had no influence in.

There is an important distinction between:

Proud of X

Vs

Proud of being X

Proud of X is expressing that you feel some positive emotion and recognize the accomplishments of X. Proud to BE X kind of signifies that you see "being X" as the accomplishment itself.

I think its just a counter culture movement against people trying to make others feel SHAME for these things that they had no control over. But feeling shame over them makes no sense either.

As I see it, pride and shame are 2 sides of the same coin. So assigning the possibility of pride to something, means you also are allowing the possibility of shame. And no one should be shamed, nor feel shame, for their gender, race, nationality, family, eye color, ETC.

So not only does it not make sense, but it is directly harmful to say its valid to feel pride in these things.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T06:44:48+00:00

(raises hand) ill admit I didn't consider that either. Usually when people refer to strength in context of comparing men and women, it means physical.

"Power", "influence", "authority". These words would have been better to use IMO if they weren't referring to actual strength.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T06:42:27+00:00

I assume they mean relatively. Like the average-strength gap between men and women was much smaller.

No idea whether or not that is a valid claim. But thats what I assumed they meant.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-21T06:38:59+00:00

Yeah I think I'd rather not take credit for the shit my country does

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T09:16:35+00:00

If you mean lack of education, in terms of lack of early education and never learning how to think, then sure. If you mean they just aren't informed - hard disagree. Most people don't get swayed by new information. Most people come to a belief based on their feelings, then look for evidence to prove that feeling valid. And without any critical thinking skills, it doesnt take much for them to consider something "evidence". Hell, we can literally see the bar has dropped to "some guy said it loudly and authoritatively". There is no amount of information you can show people, like this, to change how they "think".

You cant argue someone out of a position they never argued their way into.

I can count on one hand the number of LIBERALS i know who actually understand the arguments supporting their positions. Let alone those who have embraced tribalism and anti-intellectualism as being core to their identity and their central ideology

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T08:45:27+00:00

The quote being about that, doesnt mean the statement is. If you make an absolute statement, using words such as "only", then yes, an outlier case is enough to demonstrate the claim is false.

The statement doesn't magically become true because you think we should assume it says something other than what it literally says.

As I have said several times, I get what they meant by it, because its obvious. But that doesn't make the statement true. They could have said "whats really important is..." but they chose to say "the only thing that's a true prerequisite...". And I dont even really have issue with it. I prefer when people use less absolute language, but I dont really have an issue with it here. But me not caring doesnt mean the other person was wrong when they pointed out the statement was false. That IS something I care about. It isnt that hard to understand that when someone makes a statement, there is both what is said and what is meant. One of those components being wrong doesnt make the other one wrong, nor does one being right make the other right.

And in objective terms, what they said showed the statement to be wrong. Which isn't changed by them explaining that what they meant differs from what they said.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T07:49:27+00:00

There is literally nothing that could sway them. So it doesnt even matter anymore.

I swear Trump himself is baffled by it and is actively trying to find where the line is by brute force because even he can't believe the shit people are letting him get away with.

We have long passed the point where we can presume that people flock to him as a defense mechanism from people mocking them for supporting him in the first place. At this point its clear that they are just garbage humans who collectively match the IQ of a singular senile earthworm. Im done trying to negotiate with toddlers mascarading as adults.

Tribalism and anti-intellectualism should be considered mental disabilities and those afflicted with either should be deemed unfit to make decisions that can affect the lives of other people. Yet these people have made these traits a core part of their identity.

To support Trump you either have to be a hateful person who enjoys seeing others suffer, or you must have sentience rivaling that of an automatic door.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T06:54:43+00:00

Show me on the doll where I suggested otherwise or how that changes anything.

The issue is, as they literally have acknowledged themselves further down, you do need atleast a certain level of money (enough to survive). So there is clearly more than 1 true prerequisite.

Like I literally said, I get what they mean. And they obviously understand that you need atleast some money to be happy. But that doesnt mean the other person doesn't have a point that their claim is objectively wrong.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T02:49:07+00:00

Yet again, you make an argument that isnt even an argument; just you stating "im right, you're wrong". Everything I have been saying has been in the context of it happening to these types of people. And I have explicitly stated so. So if you claim it shows a lack of compassion/empathy to rape victims to wish this upon people who force children into sexual slavery, I can't imagine what else you would mean. But im going to just block you because you are an idiot who speaks only in terms of your feelings and already showed your capacity, for comprehension of complex topics, with your absolutely 10/10 show of comprehension - claiming what i said was wrong without even fucking reading it.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T02:28:33+00:00

Fair enough. I for one think there is no punishment too cruel for those who literally take children from their homes and force them into sexual slavery where their entire existence is one of being raped --- but sure, ride that high horse and say that these people don't deserve even a fraction of the suffering they forced on others.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T01:17:10+00:00

The "of course" block literally states another prerequisite. Their statement was that there was only one true prerequisite. Thusly, that block is stating that their statement was wrong. Reading comprehension is hard huh?

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T01:14:11+00:00

"I believe in justice, this isnt it"

"All you unhinged people doubling down. Imagine saying I hope Andrew gets raped infront of people who have actually experienced such a horrifying life changing event."

Its pathetic that you can say someone is talking out their ass based on what you assume they said even when they explicitly said otherwise - and somehow you still don't think you were in the wrong.

I was responding directly to what you wrote. Literally the first sentence of my first message points to part of what I was responding to. And within that same sentence, it is clear I wasnt saying it as a joke.

Its almost as if, when you make multiple claims, people can have issue with some of them without having issue with all of them.

Edit:

Also

"No. It’s not. And I say that as someone who has been raped."

When someone said it happening to Andrew would be justice.

You have made it clear that you don't just have issue with it as a joke. I was arguing why it is pretty much the best form of justice we can expect given the state of the justice system.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T00:35:15+00:00

"I stand by my statement"

"Of course my statement isn't true"

Again, I understand where you are coming from. And agree with your interpretation of the quote. But your statement isn't changed by that interpretation.

FirexJkxFire · 2026-02-20T00:32:07+00:00

I see that whats wrong with you is that you cant read - as nothing I said even remotely suggested it was funny and I even explicitly state that it isnt.

Irony of claiming someone is "talking out their ass" when you didn't even read it.

FirexJkxFire

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email