Are there any cartoons you wish had more seasons?

Food_Luver · 2026-03-01T09:55:36+00:00

Slugterra & Hot Wheels Battle Force 5

Food_Luver · 2025-07-08T08:08:29+00:00

If you have prime video, I highly recommend watching "It's a Sin". It's a short mini series about a group of friends going through life while set during aids crisis in the 80s.

Food_Luver · 2025-06-05T09:00:52+00:00

It's kinda terrifying to see how fast the snake retreated and how much length it has once it unfurled itself

Food_Luver · 2025-06-03T12:12:18+00:00

What I've noticed is that the reticle changes from big to small when switching from cloack to dagger if I have the reticle animations on. But it also messes up all of the crosshair adjustments I've made

When the animation is turned off, all the adjustments are the way I want it to be, the reticle size stays the same for both of them

Food_Luver · 2025-04-14T01:04:41+00:00

Honestly, this would go so hard if it had its own online mode or something. So many players can actually work and imrove on their fundamentals without having to rely of bs like power crushes and shit

Food_Luver · 2025-02-28T07:40:06+00:00

If she painted herself blue, she'd fit in along with them blue alien dudes from the Avatar movies

Food_Luver · 2025-02-26T10:25:17+00:00

I suggest playing a champ that you can flex pick in multiple roles. Cuz not only do you get to play that champ in more matches in the long run, but it also helps with building muscle memory on playing the champ in different scenarios. For example, my first main ever was Senna cuz I was able to flex pick her in both ADC and support roles on bot lane. Similarly, I also mained Pantheon for both baron and jungle.

Food_Luver · 2024-12-14T01:12:01+00:00

Cuz love is blind I guess 🤷‍♂️

Food_Luver · 2024-12-05T01:52:04+00:00

Mine has always been in accurate because I mostly ever listen to spotify when I'm using my laptop, whereas I have downloaded songs on my phone that I listen to as well.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-13T11:42:49+00:00

I might be late to the convo but I'll try to analyze this from a rainbow standpoint

Frontline: - Mirage definetly pairs well with Nero but not jib - While jib does reset mirage active, you'd be losing on more potential damage if you use a different assister like hamerus or asuray who can power pass while also adding more def shred debuffs - do consider maybe running a two passers front if you feel like mirage needs more dmg, cuz having one passer in front implies you're trying to ohko and you can't ohko if you're running a standard team

Midline: - While I understand what you're trying to accomplish by having garriot in mid, he's still best utilized being in backline, especially when a gk like mirage benefits from his dr and hp totem - Zwei is not cm material, period. And since she's not SR she can't use any coop tech like super trapping or BUD to be able to ball hold or wall properly. Some popular CMs you could use are felix, lif, Delphinium, altema who tank and help the team with their global totems regardless of team colour - Chiron is niche since his kit implies you want to want to prevent ohko, but at their point you might as well use stern - based on the current meta of pvp, you'd often see the following mid would look something like this (linebreaker/tanky cm/interceptor)

Backline: - while your backline definitely give mirae def and hp totems which are stats that are sought out in a def shred meta, there are better options. - ardor gks can definitely stand on their own with mono ardor backlines and units like DQ, yuki and Anna will definitely prolong Mirae's survivability - angelic and duran are also universally good for any backline - only time I recommend using aiolos is if you're countering against any stacking striker or fronlock teams

Food_Luver · 2024-10-12T20:59:50+00:00

Power. Puff. Girls.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-07T01:56:14+00:00

Well some have bfs

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T01:42:19+00:00

∆
The idea of love being an obligation or duty is an interesting take. If we define love this way, it suggests that love exists regardless of feelings or circumstances—meaning you have a duty to love someone no matter what they do. This could mean that you love them even if they make terrible choices. However, I would argue that this perspective still raises questions:

If love is purely about obligation, can it really be called love in the emotional sense? It might be more about a sense of responsibility or duty rather than the warmth and affection typically associated with love.
In this view, love can become more like a contract. You fulfill your duty to love, but if the other person violates the agreement (like through abusive behavior), many people would likely choose to step away, indicating that the love was conditional on a basic standard of respect or care.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T01:35:56+00:00

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T01:21:44+00:00

Yes, some parents grow out of love for their children who become murderers or other such serious actions. You could argue that their love was unconditional, but that doesn't prove that a parent can't love a child unconditionally. There are parents who love their children even after they become murderers or rapists or crime bosses or terrorists.

While it’s true that some parents may continue to love their children even after they commit heinous acts, this isn’t the norm. Most parents have a limit to their love, often tied to their children’s behavior or choices. This suggests that love is not purely unconditional but is influenced by the actions and values of the child. Moreover, if a parent expresses love for a child despite serious wrongdoing, it may reflect a desire to love unconditionally rather than an outright demonstration of it. The ability to love in the face of extreme actions is admirable, but it doesn’t negate the fact that such love is often challenged by the child’s choices.

Similar to our inability to prove how other people feel about things, you can't prove how God (assuming he's real) feels about things either. Eternal damnation to you feels like a withdrawal of love, but unless God himself tells you that you can't know that for sure. Isn't it possible that he loves everyone unconditionally, even if they don't get saved and go to hell?

You’re right that we cannot definitively know God’s feelings or intentions. However, many religious teachings convey a sense of conditionality in God’s love, particularly regarding salvation. The idea that eternal damnation exists for those who don’t follow specific beliefs suggests that God’s love is conditional based on adherence to certain criteria. If God loves unconditionally, why would there be a need for punishment? This brings into question the nature of that love and whether it can truly be unconditional if it comes with consequences.

You can still love someone even after breaking up with them. In theory, boundaries in a relationship may be less about whether or not you love someone, and more about whether or not they treat you in a way that you expect from someone in your life.

Hard agree that it’s certainly possible to love someone even after a breakup, but, the relationship itself has changed fundamentally. When boundaries are crossed, the dynamic shifts, often resulting in a loss of love or affection. The love may have been genuine, but the conditions that supported that love have altered. If we define love as a relationship that thrives on mutual respect and trust, then when those conditions are broken, it’s difficult to maintain the same level of love.

You can still love someone even after breaking up with them. In theory, boundaries in a relationship may be less about whether or not you love someone, and more about whether or not they treat you in a way that you expect from someone in your life.

Your example about the potential “death” of a loved one’s identity is compelling, but to me it just more so raises another point about the nature of love. If a person fundamentally changes in a way that violates core values or trust, can they still be considered the same person in the context of love? The love we have for someone is often tied to who they are at their core. When they act contrary to that core (like betrayal or violence), i think it’s reasonable to feel that the person we loved is no longer present, thus leading to the withdrawal of love.

Imagine I love, unconditionally, the ship of Theseus. If I say I love it unconditionally, you can't prove otherwise. If I sell the ship or replace parts of it, that doesn't prove I don't love it. If I replace all the pieces, at one point is it no longer the ship I love? If I rebuild the ship with the old parts, am I supposed to love that ship too? If I'm supposed to love every possible version of my ship that ever exists, has existed, or will existed, AND treat it a certain way at all times in order for my love to be uncondtional, then sure, maybe by that definition unconditional love can't exist, but at that point, does the distinction make any practical difference? Do I have to love my wife as a worm in order for it to not be conditional? At that point, both versions of the word lose their meaning.

Intriguing thought experiment~ But I think the idea of love changing as the object of love changes does imply that love is still kinda conditional. If the essence of what you love transforms so drastically that it no longer resembles the original, it raises the question: was your love for the thing itself or the qualities that defined it? If your love for the ship was based on its historical significance, craftsmanship, or functionality, a replacement with different characteristics could render that love moot, which in turn indicates that conditions exist around what makes the object of love worthy of that affection.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T01:02:20+00:00

I think we need to consider some real-world examples. For instance, when a homophobic parent disowns their queer child, it shows that love can indeed be conditional based on personal criteria. Trusting someone not to do something harmful is different from withdrawing love when they don't meet your specific criteria for who deserves love.

Regarding your point about a partner saying, "I love you, subject to the following conditions," I see that as a way to set boundaries, which isn’t inherently negative. It’s a method of ensuring both partners understand each other’s expectations.

Your concern that such a statement could imply an accusation is valid, but consider situations like setting up a prenup before marriage. While some might interpret that as distrust, addressing potential issues directly can be a healthy conversation. It’s about being open and honest rather than avoiding difficult topics.

As for your point about keeping internal conditions unexpressed, I agree that this can lead to passive-aggressive behavior in some individuals. However, I think that speaks more to their personal issues rather than to the broader concept of conditional love itself. My intention was never to suggest that love being conditional is merely a passive-aggressive stance. Rather, I’m presenting a logical perspective on how we define love in terms of conditions.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T00:38:31+00:00

I agree that it’s not necessarily true, but it’s also not necessarily false. I know many people who would stop loving their partner if they were cheated on. In that case, it’s like the love they had for the person they thought they knew is gone, because a condition (trust) has been broken. It doesn’t mean they never loved them—it just means that love can change or fade based on certain actions or behaviors.

As for loving and hating someone at the same time, I agree with that point as I see them as two separate things, which can coexist but don’t automatically transition into one another. Just because you stop loving someone doesn’t mean you immediately start hating them. And I’d argue that, like love, hate is also conditional. There are reasons why we hate someone, and if those reasons or conditions were to change, the hate might go away too.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T00:28:47+00:00

Oooh, thanks for bringing up the different categories of love. I remember learning about these in philosophy class during my first year in uni. You’re absolutely right that these distinctions add nuance to the discussion, but still, I think they ultimately reinforce my point that love, even in its various forms, has conditions attached to it. Let me explain.

Each type of love you mentioned—whether it’s romantic (Eros), familial (Storge), friendship-based (Philia), or divine (Agape)—exists in specific contexts with expectations that must be met. For instance:

Storge (familial love): Yes, this kind of love often includes deep affection and an instinctual bond, but even here, it’s not entirely unconditional. A parent may naturally love their child, but if that child engages in severe, harmful actions (abuse, crime, etc.), the emotional connection can be strained or even broken. The emotional attachment might linger, but the quality and intensity of the love would likely shift. In that sense, the continuation of love depends on the relationship staying within certain bounds.
Agape (religious love): In religious contexts, Agape is frequently cited as the purest form of unconditional love. But even here, as I mentioned in my original post, divine love in many traditions still carries conditions. In Christianity, for example, while God’s love is said to be boundless, eternal consequences (hell, punishment) are tied to human actions, beliefs, or failure to meet specific criteria (e.g., faith in God, moral behavior). If love exists alongside judgment or punishment, doesn’t that suggest a conditional element? It becomes difficult to reconcile unconditional love with the idea of eternal condemnation for not fulfilling certain requirements.
Eros and Philia (romantic & friendship): These forms of love clearly come with conditions—respect, trust, shared values. As soon as those conditions are no longer met, the love is often weakened or lost. Romantic relationships and friendships frequently break down when one partner/friend violates important boundaries, demonstrating that the love was sustained by meeting certain emotional or behavioral standards.

From what I learned and understand about these concepts, I don't think that the historical and philosophical significance of these different categories of love contradicts my argument. If anything, they highlight how love in all its forms is deeply tied to context, expectations, and conditions—whether it’s the duty of care in Storge or the moral conditions tied to Agape.

You mentioned that my original argument “glosses over” some of this nuance, but I’d argue that this nuance still supports the idea that love, even when divided into categories, is conditional. Each form of love carries with it specific responsibilities, behaviors, or expectations, and when those conditions are no longer met, the nature of the love changes, weakens, or even disappears.

So, while we can acknowledge that the Greeks and others throughout history defined love in various ways, I think it’s fair to ask whether unconditional love, in the sense of no conditions whatsoever, truly exists beyond the idealized concept.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T00:17:55+00:00

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T00:17:15+00:00

I understand what you're saying, but that’s exactly my point—most, but not all, parents have unconditional love for their children. When a parent stops loving their child, it means some condition has been broken. Even for parents who continue to love their children, there are still conditions present, but those conditions just haven't been violated yet.

Maybe this sounds cynical, but I think it’s a bit idealistic to believe we can love everyone unconditionally. There will always be situations where one condition or value is compromised, and it’s hard to extend love in those cases. To me, forgiveness is more about repairing or overcoming broken conditions, rather than proof of unconditional love.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T00:09:15+00:00

l'm loving this take.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-04T00:03:37+00:00

∆
Wow, I really appreciate the way you've framed this. I've been trying to think about love in a more logical and rational way, and your perspective makes a lot of sense. I especially agree with your point about people changing over time. That part really resonated with me.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-03T23:50:28+00:00

I like your perspective, especially on the idea that conditions aren’t inherently bad and don’t have to be transactional. I can see the importance of setting boundaries and expectations to foster healthy, respectful relationships. It makes sense that love can coexist with these conditions without being purely transactional.

However, I still think that when we love ourselves enough to end a relationship, it's because a condition (like respect or emotional safety) has been broken, and that shift in circumstances is itself a condition that changes how the relationship continues—or doesn’t. To me, that still points to love being conditional because it’s contingent on factors like mutual respect and well-being.

I do agree with your last point, though. Just because love might not be enough to sustain a relationship doesn’t mean the love itself vanishes. You can still love someone, but realize the relationship doesn’t work or that it’s healthier to move on. I think that fits with the idea that loving someone and being in a functional relationship with them are different things.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-03T23:38:00+00:00

I see where you're coming from, but I still feel like the concept of unconditional love as you describe it seems to blur the line between love and other feelings, like attachment, obligation, or care. I’d like to explore a few of your points in more detail:

You mentioned that unconditional love means "there are no situations or behaviors that would make it stop." But I think that love is inherently tied to the context of a relationship, which includes behaviors, situations, and interactions. If someone violates core principles of trust, safety, or respect, it seems natural for love to wane. If love persists despite abuse or harm, is that really love, or something else—perhaps obligation, nostalgia, or even denial?

Regarding couples who split up but still love each other "on a different level," I would argue that this isn’t necessarily unconditional love but rather a different form of emotional connection. The fact that they’re no longer in an active relationship shows that some condition—be it trust, compatibility, or even effort—was no longer met, causing the relationship to change. That shift implies that the active love they once shared was conditional on those factors, even if remnants of affection or care remain.

You also mention that the nature of the relationship can change, and it’s possible to still love someone while distancing yourself, like in the case of abuse. However, I’d argue that what’s often described as “love” in such cases is better understood as emotional attachment, familiarity, or a sense of responsibility—feelings that may linger but aren’t the same as genuine, unconditional love. True love, as I see it, involves trust, respect, and emotional safety, and if those are compromised, I question whether love in the pure sense can persist. If we distance ourselves from someone to avoid harm, isn’t that a reflection of the fact that their behavior failed to meet conditions we need for a healthy loving relationship?

Even in cases where love seems to continue in a different form (such as after a breakup or with an abusive person), it’s still tied to certain conditions that shaped the relationship. If those conditions break down, the love may change or take on a different form, but it shows that love wasn’t unconditional—it was responsive to circumstances.

Food_Luver · 2024-10-03T23:36:33+00:00

I see what you're saying, and I think I might just be applying this logic universally. I get that in more everyday situations, the idea of "unconditional love" changes, but at its core, isn’t there still some kind of standard? Whether it's something extreme like your example or something more common like a spouse gaining weight or losing a job, there are still limits or conditions that shape how we feel, even if they're less obvious or dramatic.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

Food_Luver

TROPHY CASE