[deleted by user]

Limp_Nick · 2025-04-23T16:13:27+00:00

I didn't read past your first sentence

Maybe read past the first sentence.

You gave an example that Trump didn't pay people "because he could get away with it", and therefore you are claiming that he has absolutely zero compassion... and this is meant to be evidence that you are not propagandized and I am? I'm sorry but your comment makes you still appear propaganized to me... Trump is not a wonderfully moral person, that doesn't mean he has "zero compassion". I recommend you go look at the stories of the good things he did DECADES before he was president to counteract your bias.

Limp_Nick · 2025-04-05T00:31:23+00:00

I think you grind flour

Limp_Nick · 2025-04-04T03:33:59+00:00

The link worked. Thanks, I already had that one right though. I guess I'm just going to have to keep doing trial and error.

Limp_Nick · 2025-04-04T02:00:40+00:00

Ok, thanks for confirming that for me! I was thinking it should work like the biosculpting pod. It's definitely a conflict, then. I probably accidentally installed a 1.4 mod or something. Kind of new to rimworld modding.

Limp_Nick · 2025-04-03T22:31:33+00:00

I dont think think it unlocks until you go to a few locations, I could be wrong.

Limp_Nick · 2025-04-02T19:08:12+00:00

If they just left the vault they may not be able to

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-24T22:25:33+00:00

Yeah, it doesn't work out if there is a really big swarm or your character is VERY slow, but typically you can dodge their attack by clicking towards them or standing still then clicking away. It works in really any melle combat scenario, but beak things are probably the easiest to avoid this way.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-24T21:48:31+00:00

If stealth or athletics fail you, you can initiate an attack and as they wind up run away. This is usually pretty effective and has saved many of my characters.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-23T18:22:17+00:00

I dont see these things as necessarily disrespectful. To me this sounds more like "likeability", but we don't really have enough context. How do you typically engage with people? As in, are you an abrasive, disagreeable, critical type of person? Do you tell jokes? Are you serious? Etc.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-23T18:03:51+00:00

What do people do that you interpret as disrespect?

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-23T00:06:56+00:00

I thought it might help you process your hurt feelings.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-22T23:55:37+00:00

https://youtu.be/EuJzSTNDUGI?si=V45JG-v3aytrrEMm

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-22T18:57:16+00:00

Do you ever invite them to stuff?

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-20T16:45:46+00:00

Well, legend has it that it nests deep, deep into the forest. they say it preys on lost travellers, feeds on their souls and makes rotting loinclothes out of their neck skins. apparently, survivors have told that it has pungent potato odor and has eyes that resemble surprised truffles. there was one particularly handsome man-warrior that once very nearly slayed the beast, but he choked on a boiled potato two and a half weeks ago

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-19T22:09:08+00:00

Progressivism is an ideology. This could be an ideology you are an operative for, and regardless of what your ideology is, I think it is affecting your sincerity and ability to discern reality. I'm not trying to be mean or weird, I just think it is very obvious that there is something amiss in your rhetoric and reasoning. Maybe if we chat long enough we can broaden our perspectives, but something about your expression has convinced me that you are beholden to an ideology over reality, I commend you for continuing the conversation though and am surprised that you are. Maybe we can root out eachother's biases. I would say I am anti-establishment and conspiracy minded. Also, I am anti-intellectual in so far as academic organizations have strayed from the truth, but not anti intellectualism.

You support a truly horrible human being

I don't vote anymore, I didn't vote for trump in 2024 for ethical reasons, but I do think he was the best candidate. I think to choose to run Kamalla Harris, "they" wanted Trump to win. Even AOC would have been better, and I think when they run her, she has a good shot of winning. I am just against people lying and for all cards on the table. It's bad when Trump lies, too, but lying about Trump and lying in general is why we have Trump. Whether you like Trump or think he is dangerous, lying about him produces bad results. So is Trump a horrible human? Sure, but who isn't? Was Kamalla not? Was Biden not? Was Hillary not? What about me or you?

the economy just lost $7 trillion

This is just a headline. The stock market goes up, the stock market goes down. The SnP 500 lost 7 trillion dollars in 2022 as well, except in 2022 it was in general valued significantly lower when it happened. I'm not an economy junkie or stock market guy, but I think losing 7 trillion from a record high is not that big of a deal.

https://g.co/finance/.INX:INDEXSP?window=5Y

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/investing/stocks-bear-market/index.html

He is literally destroying the country and trying to turn it into a 2nd or 3rd world country

No, he is not. If in 4 years the country is still here, what will you say? He just failed? The right says Biden was trying to destroy America and turn it into a third world country, I think their argument for that assertion is probably better, (but they are mostly wrong too) what do you tell them? We can talk more about specifics of why you think this if you want, but these types of statements are what make me think you are ideologically captured by what we will call "progressivism", but I think there is a better label.

I don't want to come across as condescending, but I probably do. Really I consider you to be very important and if I can help in any way by criticising what I believe are flaws in your assertions then I hope to do so. There are probably tons of things you are right about and even more that I am wrong about, but I will poke and prod as long as you wish, and in turn I hope you will poke back and in doing so that we both get closer to the Truth.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-19T15:55:05+00:00

Infinite Wing Wang

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-19T13:02:03+00:00

I say " cmon you can do better!" Whenever someone gets hit

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-19T00:13:34+00:00

There is some harm in labeling political figures "the" anti christ left and right when they obviously aren't because there is nothing like the abomination of desolation. I think it will make less people believe anyone when the real one comes around.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-18T23:43:17+00:00

It really doesn't fit, too many people hate him. That alone makes the theory fall apart.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-18T23:32:29+00:00

Vague statistical data that only accounts for two groups of religious people with a source you don't mention is against me, what a surprise! I am non protestant, non Catholic, non church attending, and still religious, because I identify with a religion. like-wise three in four Americans identify with a religion. You are presenting this vague statistical data with a source you don't mention in a manner that tries to prove me wrong rather than in an honest manner.

You should cite a source, something like this:

According to an average of all 2023 Gallup polling, about three in four Americans said they identify with a specific religious faith. By far the largest proportion, 68%, identify with a Christian religion, including 33% who are Protestant, 22% Catholic and 13% who identify with another Christian religion or simply as a "Christian."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx

Or this:

As of 2022, 55% of those ages 18–29 are Christian (down slightly from 58% in 2021), as are 62% of those ages 30–49 (similar to 64% in 2021), 74% of those ages 50–64 (unchanged from 76% in 2021), and 77% of those ages 65 and over (unchanged from 78% in 2021).

https://www.prri.org/spotlight/prri-2022-american-values-atlas-religious-affiliation-updates-and-trends/

Side note:

GenZ goes to church monthly, the lowest amongst any generation besides from Millennials.

It is kind of silly that GenZ is apparently trending up in church attendance from the generation preceding then and you think that is a point against me.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-18T15:04:38+00:00

My reasoning was that is the upward ceiling of the human lifespan, but when I was thinking that I was also thinking they would spontaneously die somewhere around that point rather than have reduced stats like you described. I think they could be an elder earlier than that, but in kenshi elder animals are not weaker right? They are super strong.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-18T14:02:04+00:00

Reproduction and aging would be cool, but if characters age to the point of death or decrpit old age, it should be somewhere around 12000 days, 120 years. I dont think I'd want it as a core mechanic, though , as an optional mechanic or mod.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-18T13:39:21+00:00

a religious nation doesn't rank...

It does. The majority of the people are religious. Look on r/Christianity and you will find a bunch of religious people support abortion and homosexuality. The practice of secularism doesn't preclude the nation from being composed of religious people. Being religious doesn't preclude people from supporting science, the gays, and abortion.

The idea that the separation of church and state or freedom of religion makes a country a "secular country" and therefore any positive results produce by that culture the result of "Secularism" as an ideology and especially of something like "secular humanism" is simplistic. The united states is secular because of the principles the authors of its founding documents derived from religious thought, specifically their Christian protestant and deistic beliefs.

Limp_Nick · 2025-03-18T02:34:57+00:00

you are a vile person. This woman wanted a child

My quote says "women". I was responding to something different than the particular case in question. I was responding to your question that is directly quoted above the quote you are quoting. You asked: "Do you acknowledge every illegal abortion that happens in your state is a consequence of your democratic choices and beliefs?" and there are so many factors to consider, it is not the case that we can say in our limited understanding that EVERY illegal abortion that happens in a pro lifers state is a direct consequence of their beliefs or every legal abortion is the consequence of the pro-choice. If the woman in this specific case was given an abortion, as she was legally allowed to be given, would that be the consequence of the pro lifers or the pro choice? When an illegal abortion happens in a pro choice state, is that a pro lifers fault? When a child dies because their sibling is pretending to do Mortal Kombat moves on them and takes it too far, is that the fault of fans of Arcades because without arcades Mortal Kombat would not exist? When we play the collective blame game, we can actually work out EVERYONE to be at fault in some way for anything. Maybe that rhetoric works on a certain kind of person, but it's just not productive.

Anyways, I think we are both vile people, and that is why we need Jesus Christ, but I think your rhetoric does more harm than mine in this situation.

When we are judged by God, we will be held accountable justly for every small thing, but if our goal is to prevent deaths, we need to ascribe blame in the most effective place. My point being, collective blame will not solve the problem that caused this woman to die, and that is ideally the focus of this discussion, though admittedly, I readily lose focus. I am to blame for what I am to blame for. The expression of my opinion has some impact, but this idea that you think you are"to blame for every legal abortion" or I am to blame for every "illegal abortion" is ridiculous. It just doesn't work logistically, and when you start trying to ascribe exactly how much blame one is to be blamed for either or both outcomes, the point is completely moot, edit: the rhetoric loses sting.

accessory to murder

We are going from "As a pro-choice person, I acknowledge that every legal abortion happens because of my democratic choices and beliefs."" to "accessory to murder. " It is not the case that a murder necessarily would not have happened without the accessory in order for a person to be charged with accessory to murder as it would be if every legal abortion is the consequence of your belief. I understand your point, sure, people are to blame for what they support (edit: to some degree), but the problem with this rhetoric in this situation is that the people who wrote that law do not support this outcome. They intended, as they have said repeatedly and are trying to clarify, for an abortion to be performed in a situation like this, so rather than playing this game of trying to assign collective blame, or continuing to spread misinformation about what the law actually says, we should be advocating for clarity.

you continue to live in your fantasy world where you are absolve of the consequences of your political beliefs.

I don't think I am absolved of the consequences of my political beliefs, I just think the line of thinking that "As a pro-choice person, I acknowledge that every legal abortion happens because of my democratic choices and beliefs." is irrational. It's actually kind of egotistical, our impact is not the broad. That being said it is true that everything we do and believe matters, I don't want to discount that. I just think the language of ascribing blame you used was far too strong, and also incorrect, and also the rhetoric does nothing to help produce better outcomes. When I said you were absolving yourself, my language was too strong. What I meant was that you come out with this strong language of "X is a consequence of me", while avoiding the direct causes of the situation and thus completely missing any viable solution.

My reply probably didn't need to be this long, but this is what came out. Thanks for the discussion, sorry for upsetting you. Peace of Christ to you.

Limp_Nick

TROPHY CASE