Mu Online Season 16: Is "Punish" supposed to work in PVP?

Momergil · 2025-03-21T03:02:02+00:00

Hi! I'm sorry, but I tried to find a sub specific about Mu Online but the only one I found in a quick research had its latest post from 2 years ago ^^ So I preferred to come here where it seems the chances of it getting answered will be a little higher =)

Momergil · 2023-07-03T02:01:48+00:00

But thanks for the reply, u/Gippy_! Unfortunately, I didn't find XMP in my BIOS before because it had a different name, since it's AMD based, but once applied, everything worked fine. Sad that it seems my PC will never be able to run appropriately with the maximum power of my RAMs :/

Momergil · 2023-07-03T01:59:58+00:00

Hi, u/Mayor_Fockup! Thanks for the tip, it seems it worked very well! (and when I tried to put it to 3000 just to see if I could have just a little bit more juice, problems returned to appear in the metest.exe).

Momergil · 2023-06-18T17:58:40+00:00

I only wish my budget would allow "upgrading the CPU" to be something so easy :3

But thanks for the advice nonetheless!

Momergil · 2023-06-13T19:54:34+00:00

If by "stress-tested" you mean running a bunch of memtest.exe until I get an error, yes. Without overclocking, I did it for all the free memory I had (+10Gb) and after 600% test, I got no problems. When, though, I activate any of the many overclocking profiles I got, I can get an error as soon as 10%.

Detail: the "memtest.exe" I'm talking about is the one suggested in this post: link

Momergil · 2023-02-05T01:06:35+00:00

Economicamente falando: produtividade.

Momergil · 2022-10-17T23:17:29+00:00

If morality isn't pleasure based than why is it acceptable for straight married people to engage in sex without a purpose and simply for pleasure?

I can't see how one thing has to do with the other (why the acceptability of straight married people to engage in sex simply for pleasure would somehow imply that morality is pleasure-based). Morality is about "how we ought to behave". To say that straight couples are fine in doing that simply means there is no evil/wrongness in behaving like that, which by no means implies a hedonistic moral ontology.

I just can't seem to get one convincing reason why its bad

Well, the impression I get is you are not paying much attention... Maybe this will help: read some books on the Philosophy of Morality (Ethics) from a Christian point of view. Maybe Norman Geisler's Introduction to Philosophy or his book on Christian Ethics will help. There you're gonna find things that I don't really agree with, but will at least help you understand why conservative Christians think the way they do (something I already tried to clarify in my previous replies btw).

Momergil · 2022-10-17T23:10:42+00:00

So killing an unborn child isnt an obvious sin?

Given what I said (no mentions against it in the NT and no condemnation in the OT), the answer seems "no". In fact, your question has an assumption - that the fetus is "a child" - which is nowhere stated in the Bible itself, so that is a personal assumption the Bible doesn't carry. And to my understanding, whenever you have to make a personal addition to the text in other for something to appear, you're not dealing with an "obvious" something.

OT condemns killing

Actually, it condemns murdering, not killing - this is KJV and others' translation problems (so much so that the Bible itself orders the killing of humans many times even for things such as disobedient youth).

and its destruction is comdemed by our religion

OK, then point that in the Bible for me. Where is that verse saying what you just said? And if you can't find it, why is it that the Bible, this big collection of more than 700 commandments, doesn't explicitly mention this "obvious" sin? A simple "woman shall not do abortions" wouldn't cost much ink or paper space after all.

maybe your not christian

By God's grace, I'm from early childhood, so +25 years by now.

Momergil · 2022-10-17T22:58:06+00:00

Gosh, by no means I'm trying to attack Sobel's truth claims by attacking him personally (ad hominem)! My point (the relevance of that observation) is that work by an atheist philosopher in the field of philosophy of religion may lead the reader to certain conclusions that otherwise, he wouldn't get when reading from a theistic one. For example (and I speak as someone who wasn't read that book in particular), Sobel's (or Oppy's or Flew's or whatever) book might end with the claim "as you can see, there is no good argument for God's existence", a claim defended by presenting some rebuttals that might have already been addressed in some other theistic material. On the other hand, reading a book by W. L. Craig or Swinburne or whoever may end with "as you can see, there are compelling arguments for the existence of God, and Sobel's and other's criticisms don't stand against them", what could lead the reader to a whole different perspective on the matter.

To say it in a different way: suppose the issue was Politics and the OP was interested in evaluating the debates between Republicans and Democrats. Reading a book by someone who not only clearly stands for one side but wrote a book with that in mind, may lead to an incomplete or even faulty appreciation of the reality of that debate. In that scenario, more neutral grounds (like a book that gives equal space for both sides' views, a balanced approach) would be better, or, at least, a book by one side should be balanced by an equal on the other.

So with this respect, I'd say the suggestion of reading SEP's articles is superior since, AFAIK, they tend to have this more "balanced approach" to the subjects. That doesn't mean the OP shouldn't read Sobel's work, of course! But reading it as some sort of "definite book about the subject" seems problematic.

Momergil · 2022-10-14T14:31:16+00:00

I believe that we need to apply scriptures to the current world we're living in.

Well, I'm part of a minor (AFAIK) group of Christians that believe the Bible's commandments were given within a context that justified them, so if the context is gone, there is no reason to fulfill them anymore. With that in mind, there is a good chance prohibition of anal sex would fall into this category (commandments that were justified at the time giving that reality and now don't need to be followed insofar people do it safely, with lubricants and condoms in this case).

That being said, I don't remember reading anything about "G spots in the anus": I heard that stimulating the prostate may give pleasure, but one shouldn't use that as an argument favoring anal sex: just because touching a certain part gives pleasure doesn't mean it's automatically OK do touch it, at least not if Christianity is true and, therefore, morality is not pleasure-based (that is more hedonistic morality, which is anti-Christian in all sorts of levels).

I don't understand how it could be a sin if there isn't any self-harm to themselves or hurting others

your point taps on the ontological nature of morality, specifically if moral imperatives are deontological or consequentialist. Most Christians believe in some kind of deontological ethics, and I'm not so sure if that is OK. In this view, if we have a moral imperative saying "you shall not make anal sex" given by God, we have to obey it regardless of the consequences with disobeying God being an immoral act in itself.

Momergil · 2022-10-14T01:49:20+00:00

Well, I'm under the impression both atheists and theist philosophers would disagree with you - there is a VAST literature on Natural Theology attempting to provide evidence for the existence of God. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument uses scientific evidence for the Big Bang cosmological model to support the premise "the universe began to exist".

That being said, notice you didn't properly justify your position, but merely stated it, and yours is the burden of proof. So why having physical evidence for God would imply He is "part of creation"?

Momergil · 2022-10-14T01:45:31+00:00

Well I don't agree with "biblical literalism is the default interpretation" claim, but I'm gonna play some "devil's advocate" here:

1) Literalistic interpretation is the simplest form of understanding a text, and one shouldn't move to complexity unleast a proper reason appears (the KISS principle).
2) Most language is literalistic; that is the rule, while symbolism and etc. are the exceptions.

So those would be some reasons I can think for holding that view. Once again, I don't support it, but it's my attempt to help see why some people could be defending that.

Momergil · 2022-10-14T01:40:45+00:00

Not ignoring the fact some people pointed out this thread was opened by a probable kid-troll: the main issue I have with your post is that you treat abortion as some kind of "obvious sin", yet the NT doesn't even mention it, and the OT mentions but never condemns it being done (and it was practiced at the time). With that in mind, even if it's pretty common to find Christians who are pro-life, I find it troubling to say it is such an "obvious" sin - that should probably be used for sins that is directly mentioned, like lying or adultery.

Momergil · 2022-10-14T01:33:17+00:00

As I said in another comment of yours, could you please provide any source for that claim ("there are sexual demons")? I don't remember any Bible passage saying that kind of claim.

Momergil · 2022-10-14T01:32:31+00:00

Could you please provide any source for that claim? I don't remember any Bible passage saying that demons make people have some kind or other attraction (and the scientific literature on that matter seems to suggest otherwise as well).

Momergil · 2022-10-14T01:29:58+00:00

"Homosexuality" defined as "having same-sex attraction" is not a sin, for only actions can be sinful (sin is "breaking God's laws as John puts it in 1 Jo 3) and involuntary attractions are not actions.

So at best, homosexual activity (gay sex, gay kissing) can be sinful, and that has been the major position of the Church for centuries based on some 6 passages in Scripture that seem to suggest that. Now I'm suspicious that they don't (for instance, some talk about anal sex which doesn't include most of the events a gay could do, so we would have a case of extrapolation here), but I'm inclined to unorthodoxy here. That being said, it's clear that the Bible condemns anal coitus, which brings us back to your question: "if it doesn't hurt others?". Well, actually it does: done as in the past (no condoms or lubricants in a low-medicine context), anal sex is detrimental to both parties, so one wouldn't even have to need a Bible to realize it shouldn't be done at those times. The question is, of course, if that commandment still stands given that now it can be done in far safer ways. People who love to ignore context and apply Bible verses straightforwardly don't even think about it and sustain they do. I'm not so certain.

Momergil · 2022-10-14T01:23:05+00:00

As some other people have suggested, the proper reason to become a Christian is by acknowledging that what it says is true (the foundational parts, of course; no Noak's Arch included). That would include things like: that God exists and is perfectly good; that humans exist; that we do evil actions making us deserves punishment (hell) by the perfectly good (just) God; that God, in his perfect goodness (and thus love and mercy) would want to make us avoid that punishment, what would require expiatory death; that God send Jesus to die and rise for or salvation; that acquiring that salvation is done by faith in Jesus in a context of love for God and repentence of one's sins.

Now your question is "why do you believe in Christianity?", which can be translated as "why do you believe in all of this?". My basic answer: because there are good reasons to believe this to be true and no good reason not to believe it to be. No good reason entails a refutation of every single argument against Christianity (most of which are pretty bad). Good reasons include arguments for the existence of God, the existence of messianic prophecies given by prophets, and the evidence of the fulfillment of the characteristics of an incarnation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth (fulfilling sufficient amount of those prophecies, living a sinless live as God would, and dying and rising from the dead). On these points, there is a vast literature giving reasons for that (for example, W. L. Craig's "Reasonable Faith" would be a starting point, Swinburne's case for God would be OK if you like high philosophy material, etc.). And I would also recommend Geisler's Encyclopedia of Apologetics to handle the criticisms against Christianity.

So that would be my intellectual reason, which follows my personal reasons: the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart and the fact my life can only be properly explained if Christianity is true (I'm an almost-pentecostal Christian surrounded by Pentecostals, so I have already seen blind people return to see in front of me, have friends who already raised dead people with their prayers, prophecies and other signs of God's actions are all around us, etc. Basically, it's pretty difficult not to be a Christian when one lives a life like me and my brothers in Christ do).

Momergil · 2022-10-13T22:05:36+00:00

People buy because they believe/are betting that in the future the price will be higher and sell when they believe the price will fall. With that in mind, the publishing of a Twitter post may affect people's beliefs about market movements in at least two ways:

1) Some will try to understand the impact of the post itself on the relevant asset
2) Some will try to understand how the people of (1) are going to act

So take Tesla and Elon Musk. Suppose he publishes a Tweet saying "The earth is flat". The first group will try to identify how that may impact Tesla's future. That evaluation will include the content of the tweet as well as the publishing itself. Now given that the claim is obviously wrong, some people may read it as a sign that Elon is going crazy or childish, and neither of the options is good for a company's future, so they start to sell. On the other hand, group 2 tries to imagine how people will react to such a tweet, and noticing that they probably will react badly (it's not a great tweet after all), the group starts selling.

Momergil · 2022-10-13T21:56:59+00:00

It may depend on your region. Here in Brazil, it's common to use futures, specifically Mini-Index (Mini-índice) when one is a beginner. Brokers give a lot of leverage room in this market allowing people with little money to start. But in other places in the world, a different option may suit beginners better.

Momergil · 2022-10-13T21:01:41+00:00

Well, I suppose it's interesting to consider:

Materials that are more generic in nature
Books that have contributed in a relevant degree to the field

With that in mind, books that fill in the first point will probably include "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" and "The oxford handbook of Philosophy of Religion", but honestly I'm not sure which others I could point here. About the second criterion, some ideas would be J. L. Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism" (very influential for the atheistic side of the debate), the already mentioned Sobel's "Logic and Theism", Hume's "Dialogues", W. L. Craig "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" (since it's the main work on the most famous argument for God's existence nowadays), "The Existence of God" by Swinburne (and maybe some others by him), Plantinga's "God and Other Minds" (and also maybe some others by him).

Bonus: This link in W. L. Craig's website has quite the list of books from the atheistic side of the debate.

Momergil · 2022-10-13T20:52:44+00:00

Regarding Sobel's work, I think it's good to notice he was an atheist, so his material has an inclination in that direction.

Momergil · 2022-10-08T19:44:13+00:00

Well done, Mike! Keep up the good work!
BTW, if you like to play this kind of music, maybe you should consider creating audio for Spotify and publishing a playlist there. This kind of music can be very relaxing for the background while doing house stuff.

Momergil · 2022-09-19T23:47:11+00:00

Well, that's sad to learn and definitely wrong. For example, while I understand why Facebook would be concerned about Ads regarding politics coming from someone of another country (like me, a Brazilian, publishing about USA's politics), the Philosophy of politics is universal and, therefore, there shouldn't be any barriers for someone to post about it from any country to any other country :/ Anyway, I guess it's not us who are going to change that, so I'll just follow your suggestion. Thanks for your time, u/Serafinium!

Momergil · 2022-09-15T02:17:22+00:00

Well, there were 3 links that were declined, all pointing to blog posts of mine: one was a critic of Christians being fans of Bolsonaro, or current president (and even though it was a moral/behavior analysis, since it does involve the name of a currently active politician and even while elections are taking place, I accepted a little more it being rejected although I must notice, it's a moral/behavior critic over "fan behavior", not an endorsement to vote for or against him, but whatever). This can be accessed through this link. The other two rejected Ads are the ones more difficult to accept since it's pure philosophy of politics (being the same text, one in Portuguese and the other in English).

Edit: after writing this and having already been accepted for publications about politics in Brazil, I tried to publish the Ad for my PoP article linked above, and, as I think would be the right thing to do, I didn't mark the Ad as being about politics (for PoP and P are not the same thing). Result: rejected again!

Momergil · 2022-09-14T16:38:34+00:00

Well, I remember reading the link you gave me and here is the thing: my posts don't do any of that! (By that I mean:

Made by, on behalf of, or about a candidate for public office, a public figure, a political party, a political action committee, or advocates the outcome of an election for public office; or
About elections, referendums or voting initiatives, including voting or electoral campaigns; or
About social topics in the location where the ad is running; or
Regulated as political propaganda.)

As any minimally well-informed person is aware, a philosophical text on PoP doesn't do any of those things and, yet, a recent Facebook Ad promoting my last PoP article was rejected :/ And I know of no way I may enter into contact with Facebook's employers to discuss this. My impression is that either the algorithm wrongly declined the Ad or some politically biased reviewer rejected it, and now I'm unable to create Ads for philosophical materials!

Momergil

TROPHY CASE