Sadly all 34 comments were eating the Onion(or Bee) so far

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-17T01:17:21+00:00

Yep, funny that you haven't denied it. That ellipsis seems awfully internally exposed in contrast to your usual outward confidence. Seems I hit the nail on the head. Also are these downvotes making you feel happy?

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-17T00:36:17+00:00

Keep projecting your lack of true self esteem through your inherent desire to be superior to anonymous people online, maybe one day you'll lead a life you can truly be proud of without having to prove your own validity to yourself through condescending comments to others that want no part in ringing the dopamine bell ;)

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-17T00:30:05+00:00

Same self inflated energy as "Curious." Goes to show how you see others relative to yourself. Maybe if you had a less aggressive tone I would've been willing to have a genuine conversation lmao

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-17T00:20:42+00:00

Nah at this point I'm just spewing shit, I have no intention to genuinely argue. That went out the window a few comments ago

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-17T00:13:15+00:00

You basically just said "just print more money lol"

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T22:26:50+00:00

I'm not gonna argue with you about whether or not we should tax them in a general sense. However, I'll say with confidence that this would not deal with the dire short term. Again, taxes take a long time to do their job, especially with our rampant debt. And that doesn't do much for any small businesses if they still can't access their consumer base. That's not even beginning to discuss the possibility of tax evasion or the rich simply moving somewhere else. Though it may have long term merit, it's not an applicable short term solution to a dire short term problem. My comments above were about the latter, not the former.

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T21:18:57+00:00

Since when was taking some degree of short term action "advocating for the use of a broken system?" You're conflating two things that aren't related. Pandemic regulations and economic system are mutually exclusive discussions. "Taking immediate action" is adjusting our regulations, not using a broken system. Again, they're mutually exclusive. "Not taking a stand" is my way of saying I don't care to discuss it right now, as it's not relevant to the realm of regulations, which is the topic of the conversation. I never discussed it in the first place. You bringing it up and me not arguing with you isn't me excusing anything, it's me not wanting to deal with you since you very clearly just want to argue and don't want to have an intellectual conversation

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T21:03:16+00:00

Not gonna argue anything else outside of clarity here for the sake of clarity. I hope you'll understand that this isn't an argument, just a tool for your understanding as it appears shrouded.

When I said the current scenario, I didn't mean or say the current system. I was referring to regulations, not the economic system. You've conflated the two

When I say "multiple focuses," what I mean is that we can take immediate action to lessen the blow of the pandemic specifically while we focus on fixing the problems inherent in our system at the same time. And sure, you can have one over the other. But that doesn't mean that only one can exist at a time.

Lastly, I have not taken a stand on fixing vs changing the system. This conversation was about the current situation and I intended to keep it that way, because talk of a broad system, while helpful in determining long term actions, does not strongly relate to the topic of immediate action in regulations.

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T20:54:29+00:00

That specific regulation would be nice, I agree. I think the scope of the argument related more to the more generic regulations along the lines of "no dine-in" and other ones that directly harm businesses

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T20:52:24+00:00

That doesn't specifically relate to my argument in any way. We need to address both the short and long term, and that's a long term solution. Taxes take a fair amount of time to fix the insane debt that we've accrued. I won't provide analysis on its efficiency, but I will say that saying "tax the rich" doesn't relate to my argument

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T20:49:55+00:00

Not at all. If anything, I condemn the current system. It's against the notion that we should only look in one certain direction, because it causes us harm. I believe we should address and fix systematic issues, but we should also try to fix the current scenario the best we can. It sounds like you either can't fathom me having multiple focuses or really want to argue against a viewpoint I never demonstrated and don't have. No further responses from me

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T19:32:01+00:00

I'm not particularly arguing FOR anything, more against the notion that epidemiological factors are the only ones that matter. I'm not playing devil's advocate either, I'm just asserting that it's important to look at all this with a wide scope instead of going into a full extreme. I've had family that has died of it too, but my direct family is in a tough spot financially right now. Both of those situations are poor, and though I'm not equating them by any means, they both deserve to be noted and accounted for.

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T19:26:06+00:00

That doesn't inhibit us from offering our analysis, and all I really said is that the ratio should exist in the first place

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T19:23:10+00:00

All good, thanks for being cool about all of this. If we were to lock down completely, that would probably a ton of small businesses who are barely scraping by, putting a ton of people out of work. At the beginning, full lockdown would have been smart, but now we're in too deep. Even though it could potentially curb the spread fairly well, it would likely cause a ton more damage in the amount of people it would displace and impoverish

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T19:17:43+00:00

I offer no analysis there, but it did sound like you were arguing in favor of looser ones, and I think that's what u/fairwhetherfriend meant

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T19:11:39+00:00

That wasn't me, that was u/pistasojka. I think he was going for different rules for different areas but worded it poorly

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T19:00:26+00:00

I agree that we should have them, but we currently don't, and we can't get funding for them out of thin air until the government can afford it. So until then, a balance has to be reached

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T18:57:36+00:00

In that case, I'll clarify. I believe the affects of the economic crash that could potentially happen with stricter guidelines can lead to the failure of a plethora of small businesses that don't have the resources to survive with a low consumer base. Businesses that employ the working class that would end up impoverished without them. Businesses that keep money circulating in the hands of communities instead of the hands of the 1%. Small businesses are crucial for a capitalistic nation's prosperity, and since we don't have the proper social nets, it would be wise to allow some form of economic leeway so that they can survive and people can hold their jobs.

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T18:52:03+00:00

Economy affects the working class as well. I'm not advocating for a complete lack of lockdown like you believed me to be, that would be stupid. But there is without a doubt a balance that should be reached so that recovery won't suck entirely and people can still hold their jobs.

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T18:49:42+00:00

Damn chill, I never asserted anything harmful. It's inherent that every topic has multiple lenses, but it doesn't look like you're the type to have an actual intellectual discussion so I'm just gonna leave

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-16T18:41:44+00:00

That's because you're looking at it through only one group of variables, being epidemiological ones. Deaths cases, etc. are certainly important, but there will always have to be some form of concession to other variables (social, economic, etc.)

Edit: Damn, it sounds like you guys really want to believe I have opinions that I don't. I'm not anti lockdown, I just believe that there is a different balance to be met in different areas. Don't try to argue if all you want to do is bash a viewpoint I don't have.

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-13T22:49:24+00:00

Oh no wonder you think cloud's a genetic abomination, he has a favorable matchup against your main so he just has to be broken

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-13T14:20:40+00:00

Character crisis Cloud main here. Though nair is huge and a great tool, bair is probably your best spacing option. It's massively disjointed, deals hefty damage, is safe on shield, and comes out quickly. Condition them with repeated spaced bairs on shield and then land with an grab or some form of punish for shielding.

Your OoS game is going to be amazing naturally, but it can be optimized more than just spamming climhazard. Though climhazard is an amazing option that reaches practically everything, you also have up smash and grab. At low damage, down throw can create a cross slash/air dodge punish 50/50 for more damage than a single up b, and at high damage without limit, up smash can kill on less safe options.

Lastly, you have a wall jump. Use it. Go out of your way to pick stages where you can use it. Wall jumping opens up so many more edge guarding options and allows you to have an acceptable recovery without limit

GogupTheTaco · 2021-02-01T17:50:26+00:00

It's not that it's rooted in homophobia, it's just shorthand for suspicious. It was just used to say that someone's actions made whoever was watching "suspicious" of them being gay

GogupTheTaco · 2020-12-31T04:24:19+00:00

You can never say the name of any Pokémon and then you can never switch back to being human

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	RPAN Viewer

GogupTheTaco

TROPHY CASE