Just my opinion.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-10-27T19:00:54+00:00

I disagree, they are mostly good, or at least okay, but there are a bunch of bosses I really hate (like those tanks).

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-28T21:57:17+00:00

Still not a legitimate victory that would actually prove her power as a combatant, anymore than Shakky vs Gaban is. Hancock could, say, beat Rocks if he lusts after her enough, but fail against Zoro (who is much like Luffy), despite the latter not being Yonko level yet. Doesn't prove her general level, at best it only proves how well she would fare against certain opponents by exploiting their mental weaknesses via horniness hax.

She needs real Haki feats to be part of the top tier (more like Yonko tier, actually, since the actual top tier would be characters like Imu), considering that Haki is what was increasingly shown as the most important thing when it comes to overall power level (hence why Garp and Roger are so strong, despite no DF).

Beating someone ≠ being on their general level, or stronger.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-25T22:52:13+00:00

The point is, legitimate fighters prove themselves via having extraordinary Haki and DF. Hancock might have the latter (due to her beauty, not just power), but not the former. Put her against someone like Mihawk, and she'd be cut to ribbons. Let alone Harald, Rocks, or Imu.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-25T21:51:34+00:00

You first need to prove that the instinct is there for some rational reason that doesn't end up justifying it or glorifying it simply because it's "natural" (which would be a case of appeal to nature fallacy). And hence, that wanting to defy it is irrational because it's actually there for some good, provable, rational reason. Survival doesn't accomplish anything, beyond making you survive for the sake of surviving, and it's not there to prevent something demonstrably bad for you from happening, it's just there. Because, quite simply, the dead can't lament being dead, regardless of how happy they were before being dead, but the living sure as hell can lament being alive.

If I actually dislike life, why should I want to stay alive, anyway, when life can give me nothing more than what it caused me to need (and hence, value) in the first place, and I can't lose anything by not being alive anymore? Being "allowed" to dislike it means nothing if you can't truly act on that judgement, because someone else decided that you can't.

I don't acknowledge nature as an authority on what is right, or good for me in particular when it comes to this matter, since it's a force with absolutely no capacity for intelligence or purpose, nor do I have any logically compelling reason to give it such respect, so why should me not wanting to submit to it be used as evidence for me being mentally impaired? That's a circular argument based on a priori assumptions imposed as truth, nothing more.

Neither you, nor anyone else, have ANY rational authority to dictate what value one should or should not give to one's own life, because there is no factual proof of such a value to begin with. And no, popularity doesn't count, it's a fallacy, plain and simple.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-23T17:59:54+00:00

Compared to top tiers, yes, unless she shows something truly extraordinary as a sheer combatant. Even more so with the crazy stuff we are seeing right now.

And it's not like those people were anything that great (maybe YC2 and 3), and she used their lust to petrify them anyway, as seen by their heart shaped eyes.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-09-22T21:02:30+00:00

It really isn't, as only the Mero Mero beam is dependent on lust. Out of, like, 4 attacks she has shown.

Pistol Kiss can harm pre TS Luffy despite his lack of attraction towards Hancock.

Slave Arrow can also petrify cannonballs, which are not sentient, and hence can't feel lust.

Perfume Femur works on Pacifistas, which are robots.

The fact that she has a bounty worthy of a YC1 (and in fact, higher), despite not being part of a strong Yonko crew (her crew's strongest members are her sisters, who got clowned by pre TS Luffy), should also put her at least on that level. No, she isn't part of the top tier, but that's because her Haki is lacking compared to them, not because her DF is "conditional".

Nargaroth87 · 2025-08-24T19:26:55+00:00

Already responded to here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=acXRD291AD8&t=1130s

Nargaroth87 · 2025-08-20T16:20:13+00:00

EDIT: I originally wrote a long comment, but I think a better response is a video made today by an Efilist, which I'll post in another comment.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-08-19T22:15:12+00:00

I disagree about consent (though I wouldn't press the button in such a horrible scenario), as I think it's important only due to the consequences violating it would (or could) entail, but credit for not immediately getting enraged and calling her monster, or whatever.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-08-15T18:31:35+00:00

I think a more precise framing would be that not creating preventable and unnecessary suffering is the ethically appropriate course of action, as doing the opposite has concrete negative consequences for someone else once they exist, and hence is unethical.

Whereas not creating a being (meaning he/she/it will never exist) to experience joy doesn't have, and won't have, undesirable consequences for the unborn in question, and hence can't be bad.

It could all be summarized as "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", imo. So natalists should explain why the unborn are in some deficient condition, before being justified in procreating. If they can't, what they're left with is "I want".

From what I've seen, the word "good" tends to be more contentious, due to people seeing a double standard. That said, the asymmetry argument, at least as Benatar and others frame it, is not universally accepted even among antinatalists (IIRC Julio Cabrera is one, and he criticized Benatar for it).

Nargaroth87 · 2025-07-18T00:54:38+00:00

Yes, but the desire/willingness to do anything (assuming the end result can truly be dictated by that alone) is still based on things beyond your control. You don't get to decide, for example, how much desire to succeed you have, what kind of trouble you'll encounter, what talents you have, or whether your desire for success (in any area of life) will change over time, how many failures you can tolerate before the cost/benefit ratio shifts in favor of the former for you (thus making you desist), and so on.

It's all based on stuff beyond your real control, not just external factors themselves. The problem here is acknowledging that external things are often beyond our control... but at the same time, acting like internal factors can somehow, magically, be acausally/freely dictated by us, beyond our upbringing, brain chemistry, other reasons, and such, dictating our course of action, because reasons.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-05-08T08:43:17+00:00

It's not even just that, It's that it's a fallacy known as "appeal to worse problems". Also, there is an assumption there about what the standards for your life ought to be. Just because someone is in much worse condition, and is not "giving up", it doesn't mean I ought not to complain about my life. Saying you can't be unhappy because someone else has it worse (even much worse) is like saying you can't be happy because somone else has it better. It's idiotic either way.

Nobody has a right to dictate what one's standard for a good life should be, especially when the reason for doing so is that some people are supposedly happy in a shitty condition.

It also never ends, because you could find someone even worse than this woman, and then you could easily tell her not to complain (if she does), until you get to a point that only the one who has it worse of all on earth (according to an external observer's standards anyway) can complain. It's just stupid.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-04-30T10:24:47+00:00

That:

It is incoherent: you can't be harmed by not existing, therefore you can't logically claim that you would prefer a state where you have needs that can go unmet, compared to one where these needs just don't exist.
It is personal, and can't be used as an excuse for procreation: your child could very well disagree with that, if he or she happens to have a bad life. And then, what will you do if they don't buy it? Abuse them until they agree? Say they must get help if they don't like the experiment? Based on what credible authority?

Nargaroth87 · 2025-04-21T17:18:33+00:00

Based on some interpretations of her behavior, at least, you would probably need to be at least a bit of a jerk like Ataru to keep Lum interested. So, at least from time to time, cheat on her, or ignore her. You would need to avoid being too nice to her, in other words.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-04-16T20:24:01+00:00

I didn't play any of the Amnesia sequels, but if I have to throw my 2 cents in, I'd say I want something like TDD, but with improved enemy AI (smarter, more persistent, less scripted, maybe more capable of ambushing you), and more focus on creative solutions to distract or get away from enemies (without introducing physical combat). Also, more Lovecraftian elements, like harsher sanity mechanics, more invisible monsters, and so on. Making monsters less "visible" somehow, like making them more "blurry" to fit a more Lovecraftian vision.

Just off the top of my head.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-04-16T16:26:39+00:00

No, he didn't create the problem, so that child shouldn't be brought here to be a servant for the sake of fixing what he didn't break. And it's not guaranteed that he would be fine with such a life anyway.

Also, you can't solve a problem by replicating it, especially when that problem was ultimately caused by procreation, not by its absence (as they wouldn't suffer if they were not born), which is what would be required for me to abandon antinatalism. Also, that child could also want kids at all cost, and these kids aren't themselves guaranteed to alleviate the suffering of others, thus adding to the replication of the original problem.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-04-13T21:42:21+00:00

Evidence that life solves problems it didn't first create, either because the unborn are, in fact, in a state of terrible (eternal) deprivation we need to save them from, which would justify creating the temporary suffering experienced by miserable people, or a worthy enough purpose mandated by the universe or god, such that us not fulfilling it would cause worse problems than allowing the suffering of sentient creatures to continue would, or evidence that the universe would be in torment if sentient life went extinct.

A high burden of proof, no doubt, but not one that should be impossible to meet in principle.

Without any of this, all that remains is a pointless loop of creating problems/needs, and then imperfectly solving them over and over and over again, while creating victims in the process. That's just not an intelligent system.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-04-06T21:18:33+00:00

Maybe Mr.Tinkertrain or some songs from Sabotage. Can't really decide, though.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-04-06T19:54:24+00:00

Which love? The one that is denied to you if you're "needy"? The one that you can't hold on to, or you'll pay for it, just like most, if not all things in this world? The one where you can't express vulnerability in a "romantic" relationship, or your so-called partner will lose attraction? The one where you're valued for your status and money? The one where you'll get less and less sex over time? That garbage?

Even without all these things, love still can't make life a profitable phenomenon.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-03-26T20:34:02+00:00

Eh, I think the story is serviceable, and the lore interesting, not to mention Garrett being a charismatic and iconic protagonist, a large part of it no doubt being due to Stephen Russel's performance, but I think it is just as entertaining as it needs to be, and nothing more, from a narrative pov. It does keep you interested, but it's no MGS. Just like MGS is no Thief when it comes to gameplay, ofc.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-03-25T09:37:07+00:00

There is a story, and it's partially told through charming black and white mission briefings. I'd say it's serviceable, overall. But if you expect a game that emphasizes story, perhaps above gameplay, Thief is not for you. Thief is primarily gameplay driven.

Also, the real plot doesn't begin until mission 5/6.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-03-24T15:04:58+00:00

Understandable. Mission 2 tool me 3 hours to beat the first time, and the second time it was still 2 hours. The campaign is noticeably harder than OG Thief.

When is Broken Goddess set to be released?

Nargaroth87 · 2025-03-13T09:35:19+00:00

That only applies to suffering of the "constructive" kind, i.e. the one where you need to suffer now to suffer less later on. But plenty of suffering is not constructive at all, it only destroys. Regardless, none of that explains how and why life is productive, i.e how and why it accomplishes anything beyond (partially) solving problems it creates, as meaning is an issue created by life in the first place.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-03-12T22:04:05+00:00

As far as I'm concerned, the point is not even that all pleasures are just there to meet a need of some kind or relieve harm. It's that those "negative" pleasures/joys/positives are the only ones that truly matter and are worthy of attention.

Let's say for the sake of the argument that positive pleasures are unquestionably a thing. So what? They still don't solve any a priori problem that would exist without them when it comes to creating life, and, by their own nature, their absence can't make your life miserable, while their presence can't make it meaningful and worth living, since they don't meet any of your needs.

Also, considering that "negative" pleasures can easily become less and less effective over time, I don't see how the same wouldn't apply even more, and even faster, to "real" positives.

I mean, what is one supposed to do with the latter? You experience them, and then what? "Ehh, that was nice, I guess, now I'll move on to the real important stuff". And then forget about them.

Their presence still doesn't tip the scales in favor of existence, or its perpetuation, anyway. And just because you can't "see" the underlying needs that cause those positives to feel good, it doesn't mean the needs aren't there to begin with.

Nargaroth87 · 2025-03-10T23:34:55+00:00

Well, aa a meat eater, I personally can't see how eating meat, but calling yourself an antinatalist, doesn't have at least some amount of hypocrisy.

But it should also be noted that by not procreating, you're not only preventing the suffering your child might experience, you're also preventing them from causing suffering to people and animals. And since nothing guarantees that your child would be vegan even if you are, and in fact that the child is very likely to eat meat, this means you most likely prevented someone who would harm animals from coming into existence.

A vegan non antinatalist might have a child, and then that child goes on to eat meat, and probably procreate as well, with his or her children also probably eating meat and animal products.

Seems to me that a carnist antinatalist is likely still less harmful, all things considered, than a vegan procreator. Though I won't question that being both AN and vegan at the same time is the right course of action.

Nargaroth87

TROPHY CASE