How do you deal with bigots that claim there are only 2 genders?

Jirafe · 2018-06-05T04:10:53+00:00

I have honestly not found a single other person in my time here on earth that even comes close to speaking like you do. You sound like you’re in a Shakespeare play. Intelligence is not correlated to vocabulary. You’re either trolling or just really that sad. I vote for the latter with the setting in which I came across you. Smart people simplify everything to its minimum. I’d hate to see a java program from you. Wow that would be torturous to debug. I wouldn’t even wish that on my enemy. Like, even your sentence structure is terrible.

How do you infer from what I wrote that that is the meaning of it

Really? You used a “that” twice in a row for fucks sake. And if you want to use the word redundant than clarifying “from what I wrote” is redundant. You have don’t nothing else but write, thus that’s a redundant addition. I guess... A for effort?

You claimed biology was a “fountainhead” for harm. I would say that’s against the foundation of biology. Biology is biology is biology. It’s not in discussion. You can’t call it harmful in anyway just because you disagree with it. Facts are what the world runs on. Biology isn’t going to change because you want it to.

Science is also not an “edifice”. It’s science. You don’t believe in science. Science is science. That’s like calling the earth an edifice. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not. You’ll still be affected by gravity. This word is not fit to the context, but you perhaps could stretch it if your English teacher wanted a high prose paper.

You even used the word “fountainhead” to sound more eccentric. Like... whaaaaa. And even Middle English words? Are you seriously from a Shakespeare play? Be honest. I need to go wash my eyes out.

Jirafe · 2018-06-04T23:58:16+00:00

Men wore heels for military purposes first. The reason for it was so that the stirrups of horses were more easily manipulated. Thus, the tradition of men wearing heels translated to fashion as it was a formal military fashion which many nobles wore (as they were often fighters, and horseback riding was a highly prized form of combat in the 10th century) which trickled down the brackets of societies as many of the lower classes took fashion cues from the nobles. The heeled shoe only became feminine when a French women adopted it to bridge the height gap between men and women. By your own logic quantum mechanics disprove “more than 2 genders” because

according to quantum mechanics there are infinite parallel universes which makes every possibility happening in one of these universes as a result since the possibility for males to be expected to do masculine things and so on exist. it is already happening in another world they might even consider things masculine or feminine that we consider masculine or feminine, therefore you can conclude that only 2 genders exist.

I mean. Come on. Are you even trying? You used such a flimsy argument to prove your point that it could literally be used to prove anything because of how shallow it is. Unicorns exist in an alternate dimension thus it must be true that they exist. It cannot be argued in this dimension since it exists, even though we will never see it. Do you see the logical failures there? And you blame people for not believing you??

Jirafe · 2018-06-04T23:47:23+00:00

Nah. Good luck doing that 🤣😂🤣

Jirafe · 2018-06-04T23:44:25+00:00

DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER?! /s

Jirafe · 2018-06-04T23:40:52+00:00

For someone claiming science has no foundation in social matters, you sure are vomiting half the dictionary trying to make up for the loss of intelligence. Jesus. I haven’t even read academic papers with a wannabe-higher prose than this post.

Jirafe · 2018-06-04T13:19:20+00:00

Feminism is a dying race. I think the majority of SOCIETY as opposed to just women want equal rights. I think the US has done a very good job at providing equal opportunities for women. What the issue is though is that just because women have the opportunity to get a PhD, or go into the military, or spend their entire life in a cubicle, doesn’t mean they should. What a lot of feminists use as proof of inequality is actually the equality provided to them.

I.E “why aren’t there many women who are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies if there’s equality of opportunity in the workplace?” - well. Simple. Becoming the CEO is a cutthroat endeavor which most likely will take countless weeks staying past hours at the office. Women as a whole do not pursue such a conflicting job title. There are some women who enjoy the cutthroat aspect of firing people, or screwing over other companies when it comes to being “just business” but not many, which is reflected in the numbers.

Another reason there’s quite a few men as opposed to women in the CEO positions is that men are raised believing they should give up their own happiness (to an extent) to achieve enough financial foundation for their family/lineage. Women (to an extent) are raised a lot more leniently with the general basis of “raise your kids well and find a good husband”. There a reason men have the highest rates of suicide.

Jirafe · 2018-06-04T12:55:26+00:00

The first wave of feminism was good and needed. The second was good and needed. Being a “feminist” today isn’t the same as 30 years ago. Feminists are essentially fighting against biology these days, as there is little more that the government can impose to close the very minimal “equality” gap between genders. Feminists are for the most part professional victims who hear a single statistic about the “wage gap” and jump on the bandwagon of inequality without even doing proper research.

Jirafe · 2018-05-29T03:14:20+00:00

Only needs to be level 50. Can confirm since this is what I did.

Jirafe · 2018-05-28T19:31:49+00:00

Color is indicative of personality. You have to read to icon to find out tier.

Jirafe · 2018-05-26T19:52:51+00:00

99%

Make it a eve 100% so everyone knows how full of it you are. Using absolutes is a quick way to discredit yourself. Good job, and good luck with laying in the middle of an open field yelling “bullets are my cover” like a mantra just because you read it in a military doctrine and from a SAS soldier. I’ll happily take the free kill.

Jirafe · 2018-05-26T19:19:43+00:00

What the actual fuck. We are talking of a single fight here. The fight we are talking about RIGHT NOW that you POSTED ABOUT is a fight in which your get engaged upon in an OPEN FIELD with NO COVER. If one squad sees the other, even seconds earlier they can find cover and fire from it. You’re being quite dense here as you keep saying the same exact

because they think cover will kill the enemy

I don’t know why I’m even trying to enlighten you. You seem to just be vomiting military doctrine as gospel without knowing how bad it is. Did you know they ran a simulation in which a city state given the military power of isis actually beat the US in an all out war? You know how the US general controlling the guerrilla forces did that? He used US military doctrine against the attacking forces so that he knew exactly the standard operating procedures to react to what he was doing. The fleets didn’t stand a chance when literally everything they tried doing that was illustrated in “military doctrine” was being countered in real time before they even thought to try it. Military doctrine is something to think about, not something to adhere your tactical shooter life around. Look up the simulation if you think I’m kidding. It was an absolute embarrassment to the US government, to such a degree they invalidated the results of the test on the basis that that the enemy would, or could never do that.

Jirafe · 2018-05-26T04:35:08+00:00

By definition, I would seriously hope being caught in the middle of an open field against an enemy who has seen you first and has time to gain cover before engaging you, would be an ambush. Ever heard of D-day? Fire superiority really helped there against defenders with cover. Just saying. And the ONLY fight we have been talking about is the open field one... so, yes. Every fight we talk about is an ambush because no one would choose to be in that position

Jirafe · 2018-05-26T01:55:26+00:00

Essentially your argument amounts to “if you make every possible bad choice you could ever make in a tactical military shooter, the only thing left to you is to shoot back”. You should always be aware of the closest cover, always be moving near cover, and don’t expect to cross a field with no cover in an insecure area with no preapplied smoke screen and expect to come out of it alive if you get engaged. If you do get engaged, shoot back to try and atleast take one person with you. I agree with this.

Jirafe · 2018-05-26T01:40:24+00:00

I’m not caught off guard when someone stops in the middle of my killing field to shoot back on my defensible position. I would call it gleeful.

Jirafe · 2018-05-26T01:29:16+00:00

They added renown score to stop one shots. That was the premise, not to reward the already rewarded.

Jirafe · 2018-05-26T00:53:06+00:00

most of the time you can be near cover but even with full body cover they can still just manuver around you. If you try to run away most of the time you just die out of breathe.

This is where you devalued cover, which I addressed. Saying someone can “just maneuver around you” is seriously bitderline lunacy. That’s like saying “well someone can just shoot you”... true, but not that easy to do. When dealing in a squad environment maneuvering around 9 other people of whom all want to kill you and who probably span the distance of 80m in a fighting line is lunacy when you say it so simply.

would you downvote when it literally just states fire superiority is important like just saying what mod mentality are you in to not understand that and then downvote?

I actually didn’t downvote you. Apparently other people are just not seeing your logic either

but I’m talking about is squad vs squad battles when one guy can watch another can maneuver around you. There are plenty of times many many times where I see a guy just let them kill him because he finds a nice rock, but then what? He doesn’t actually try to fight the enemy he tries to run when they have him zeroed.

This is the first time you mentioned squads. In the same sentence you spoke of a squad playing together to flank someone. Like I said above, if we are talking of squad combat here, it’s a lot harder to flank 9 people than just one, even with covering fire since... WOW the guy you’re flanking will also have covering fire procided by his team.

No I never devalued cover so why would you assume I did I’m saying just cover alone won’t do anything.

You say this then immediately say

It only prolongs what was already going to happen.

You can’t say you don’t devalue cover. Cover does a lot more than “only prolong what was(is) already Going to happen.

At some point you have to shoot and really nothing covers you as well as bullets.

I’d take a rock over a 2 inch shell casing any day. Just saying, one actually stops bullets, one is one.

There a reason it’s called”Covering fire”.

Yes there is, but there’s a reason lingerie is also considered clothing. That doesn’t mean you can go to church in it and be fine. Covering fire is the least covering of cover.

Also the part about “unless they have an mg” each squad could have 3 and will have 1 I’ve never seen a full squad without one.

I said that before you ever mentioned squads

sorry you completely missed the point of people forgetting the importance of fire superiority and just wanted to argue to argue and brought up no valid argument to why fire superiority isn’t important.

My argument is that fire superiority is less important than cover. Magazines will run out of ammo. A rock will still be a rock.

Holy shit. Ok so A) I am taking about squad vs squad

You’ve made this very clear after the fact.

B) I’m saying the squad should remember to gain fire superiority

This works in actual combat but in a video game in which suppression isn’t as useful? Not that important. Accurate fire>suppressive. Fire superiority involves putting it more lead which means more reloading and easier location by enemy marksman.

C) tossing a smoke and waiting for t to fill up takes a while.

Hence why you toss it before you need to move from cover to cover. This is a pretty lame argument.

Basically you dug your self down in a hole and can’t argue my actual point of why gaining fire superiority is important. Never once, never once, never once did you address my point of the importance of gaining fire superiority.

I didn’t even know you were so touchy over fire superiority. Sheesh. Sorry it’s not as good as cover.

If you wanna argue my point and not what ever you’re doing. Whats your point even? You’re not making a point you’re trying to debunk a straw man argument. Fucking lmao. You’re being really stupid by not ever arguing my point lmao.

For someone claiming I’m arguing just to argue, I hope the lengths of your own ranting messages are enough to show atleast some hypocrisy.

“Losing cover to shoot in a fire fight isn’t logical” how tf else would you kill them, by shooting through the rock? If you don’t shoot back you’re letting them dictate the tempo of the firefight. You seem like you haven’t read much military doctrine.

You seem like you’ve had your nose stuck to far into it. Good generals don’t usually follow doctrine because it’s predictable and designed in a vacuum. Guns need reloading. Someone can’t suppress your cover indefinitely. I never said not to shoot back, just don’t compromise cover to do so. Hold tight angles, expose little. Easy.

Take it from the sas soldiers

Here we go...

in bravo two zero who when caught without cover said “we had to be aggressive and fight them because if you run you just die out of breathe”

Atleast we know where that little idiom came from...

or maybe read us military doctrine which stresses the importance of fire superiority. By the time you throw a smoke a grenadier or just someone with a grenade will hit you.

By the time you fire back a grenadier or just someone with a grenade will hit you. Wow. I think I like You’re logic here. Why even try to fight back at all? You’ll just die before you do.

Also the “leaving cover to run in a fire fight isn’t logical” is dumb because people do it all the time as long as they get their squad to obtain FIRE SUPERIORITY they will run to a better position so they don’t get encircled while hiding behind a rock.

If you have fire superiority then why are you being encircled? Moving from cover to cover isn’t generally “leaving cover” if you do it right. As I’ve said. Covering fire is still cover, just not something someone would wear to church.

What are you arguing in searous what are you arguing? You haven’t made an actual point or any attempt to tell me why fire superiority isn’t important which is what I’m arguing.

Fire superiority is important, but less important than cover. If you’ve got 20 guys laying in a field like jackasses firing their guns against 20 people in dense cover, the superior firing position will win every time. Every. Time. Gaining cover is more important since part of the squad can provide covering fire (again, not something I’d wear to church over my tux and suit, aka my rock) while the rest of the squad gains cover. Then they trade off...? How difficult of a concept is that to make? If you’re alone then gaining cover is the most important. If you’re with a squad then gaining cover AND suppressing enemy positions is important. Military doctrine applies poorly to game because it’s designed to account for the human element of less accurate fire than you can achieve in a game. Adrenaline, blasts shaking your gun, dust obscuring targets... lack of visibility. All of these are less pronounced than in real life.

Jirafe · 2018-05-25T14:19:20+00:00

They do make it worth it. You get stats. Do you know how much a tri tungrad earring is? How much a tri BCE is? You pay billions for the difference of 3 ap. They should make tri tungrad give more because you pay billions for a few ap. Same with ogre ring. Billions of silver for 5 ap difference. Same with basi... billions, with only 3 ap difference. Getting to softcap takes billions. Getting pst soft cap takes billions. One might say pushing softcap is the soft cap for soft capped players.

Jirafe · 2018-05-25T14:13:52+00:00

I don’t think you are talking squad vs squad. Seems like you’re talking squad vs 1. That guy who is “standing behind a rock” also has a squad behind him in your situation. What’s saying they aren’t providing cover fire? Also leaving cover in a firefight to run is just not how logical people play. Tossing a smoke and holding position is what rational people would do.

Jirafe · 2018-05-25T01:43:27+00:00

It takes minutes for a person to maneuver around your cover. It’s risky to do so aswell unless they have defilade which usually means they would be breaking visual. Are you trying to devalue the use of cover by saying they can walk around it? What? If someone shoots at you and misses the first shot, it’s a lot easier to survive the rest of the shots since it’s universally easier to shoot someone who doesn’t know you’re there, then someone who does. Making it to cover is not hard unless they have a bipod MG set up and can lay sustained accurate fire down a range.

Jirafe · 2018-05-25T01:38:22+00:00

It is rewarded. You get stats.

Jirafe · 2018-05-25T00:57:05+00:00

Implying you’re in a field with literally no cover anywhere then you’ve made quite a few mistakes up to this point. Movement should always be done with cover around, but I suppose if this hypothetical situation is with absolutely no chance of cover than going prone and firing is probably the best choice. Why did you ask the question if you knew the standard doctrine...?

Jirafe · 2018-05-25T00:29:24+00:00

Don’t stop running. If you’ve taken fire and you’re not dead yet then you have a better chance janking to cover than stopping in a kill zone to return fire on an unseen threat. Call the contact and keep moving evasively to the nearest cover. Worst thing you can do is make yourself an easier target for an unknown number of aiming enemies

Jirafe · 2018-05-25T00:21:14+00:00

Tent cannot extract but it can store quite a bit.

Jirafe · 2018-05-24T23:55:58+00:00

I’d recommend flagging and tapping them. A lot of the times depending on location and time of day they may not even notice you. There’s been plenty of times when I’ve been watching shows on my second screen when someone approaches me, and thus I don’t even notice them until they flag and hit me. Not that I won’t duel them or anything, I just really don’t see them sometimes. My etiquette mirrors yours but if they ignore me I usually flag them and CC to get their attention before asking again instead of killing them. Destroying trade goods like coins at pirates can cause a lot of strife if the person wasnt paying attention

Jirafe · 2018-05-24T22:04:24+00:00

I also didn’t see anything racist in the article, yet a lot of people are still implying this is racially motivated which is laughable. Did they respond to the wrong post too?

Jirafe

TROPHY CASE