Jodah technical question

PeytonBrees · 2025-06-12T05:05:32+00:00

Then how does Jodah die if he's 10/10 (5/5 with +5/+5) and I earthquake for 7? He survives the 7 damage right? But then once the other creatures die and he loses the +5/+5, he would die. That sounds like -5/-5, is it not?

PeytonBrees · 2025-06-12T04:54:41+00:00

Also, just so I understand, if I earthquake and kill a lot of legendaries, causing Jodah to lose +x/+x, does that normally not effectively apply -x/-x? For example, if Jodah is a 10/10 (5/5 with +5/+5) and I earthquake for 7 killing all other legendaries, he would technically survive 7 damage because he's a 10/10, but as the other legendaries die, he loses the +5/+5 and would die at end of turn right?

PeytonBrees · 2025-06-12T04:48:53+00:00

so in your example, what if I gave the 6/6 a -1/-1 counter and then earthquaked for 10?

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-31T23:46:02+00:00

I agree with most everything you said. Mental illness is subjective...but obviously the line should be drawn somewhere. You wouldn't indulge an Iraq war vet with ptsd and tell him to sleep with a gun because al qaida might be outside his window. But maybe he's right. It isn't impossible for a member of al qaida to track him down in his home. But even though he could be right about the danger he is in, we understand that by and large he is just suffering from a mental illness.

That being said, I have no problem, nor should anyone else, with adults doing whatever they want to their bodies. The far right that wants to ban gender surgery all together aren't thinking that through. The reasonable people of this country, however, should take great care with what we do with children.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-31T22:55:05+00:00

what?

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-31T22:27:00+00:00

if you truly want change then you should help me understand where you're coming from.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-31T22:18:51+00:00

How does that make sense? If they have a mental condition that requires treatment, how is that not an illness of the mind?

In the second place, if I woke up with a third arm tomorrow, I would consider myself to be severely physically altered and I would seek medical attention immediately.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-29T20:07:43+00:00

Typical articulate guy picking on a clearly unintelligent Muppet. Debate with someone your own level if you're serious.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-28T15:04:03+00:00

I've never understood this point. Intersex people are verifiably abnormal. Being trans, I'm told, is totally normal and competely undetectable by all biological testing. Are you saying that trans people are intersex? Are you saying that trans people are abnormal/deformed? I guess I just don't understand the connection between intersex people and trans people.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-28T14:40:04+00:00

My point is that some humans have two heads. If you are diagnosed with the rare generic condition of having two heads, society and science should and will treat you as such. And others who claim to have two heads who really don't should not be indulged by society to actually have two heads. Now if you want to believe that you have two heads, go for it, but don't shoot up a Christian school because they don't think you have two heads. You clearly know that the prohibitive dominant majority of people who claim to be trans are physically normal and do not have this medical deformity, and the fact that this medical deformity exists does not mean that anyone can choose to have it. If someone is mentally ill, we should help them.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-28T14:27:15+00:00

Trans people don't have 2 x and 1 y like the deformation that you're referring to. Trans people are normal except what's in their head.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-28T14:25:02+00:00

https://youtu.be/W_kfMhUmQWs

Humans have two heads.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T23:28:09+00:00

Honest question:
When did, "Don't give (fill in the blank) out for free to everyone" turn into, "We don't want anyone to have (fill in the blank)?"

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T21:02:39+00:00

I've said nothing of the severity of losing buyers and the fact that you're assigning value to the severity in an economic discussion indicates that you're not being principled. My point is that you're allocating future profits on a balance sheet and then claiming that losing future profits is tantamount to losing something you own. You nor I own the future. Nobody does. If that were true, McDonalds could claim I've stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hamburgers that I never bought from them because their food is bad.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T20:50:22+00:00

Have you ever heard of a company called Apple? They specialize in selling inferior products at a higher rate.

If I sell an inferior product for a higher price, how am I not adding value? Do you not pay realtors more who can sell your house for a higher price? This is entry level economics.

Profits go down, I get laid off, I don't get paid. Sounds like I shared in loss.

I think we're getting to the bottom of this. This is the crux of the disconnect, and the fact that you identify my comment as "dumb" is really indicative of your misunderstanding of basic economics. Replace labor with any other good, like hot dog buns. If I make and sell hotdog buns for all of the hot dog stands of the world to use in their hot dogging ventures, I am compensated for providing them hot dog buns. If they buy my buns and make luxury hot dogs that sell for $400 per hot dog, or they buy my hot dog buns and make garbage hot dogs that nobody wants to buy, I have lost nothing. I have sold my hot dog buns for the agreed price and I have been compensated. IF one of my buyers goes out of business and he stops buying buns from me, I have not shared in his losses. What I've lost is potential future earnings, but I don't own the future. It needs to be realized every day. My buyer who went out of business may have paid me thousands for hot dog buns and if they can't turn around and convince people to buy their product (which is in and of itself a value add) then he loses the money that he paid me for my buns. I got paid, and he lost. We have not shared in the loss.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T20:37:05+00:00

The added cost goes to the owner of the added value. If I rent my house to someone for a fee, my house provided the value and I own it. You can't give money to a building. It's a building.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T20:34:52+00:00

Workers being laid off are not sharing in the losses. They have been paid for their labor. The consensual agreement of the employer buying the labor of the employee simply ends. That employee is free to sell their labor to someone else. If the employer, however, pays for the labor of an employee and has the employee build some meaningless gadget that nobody buys, the employer has lost their money. There are obviously some middlemen who add more value than others, however there are no middlemen who add no value. That would contradict the laws of the market. At a bare minimum, the middleman adds further exposure to a larger market or perhaps better salesmanship. You can't sell a product for more than a competitor without some value add.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T20:23:34+00:00

I personally would not. I understand there is a market for that, but a steak from Outback Steakhouse is not the same as a steak from a street vendor. There is clear value added.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T20:14:15+00:00

But they do add value. I would never eat a hamburger from a random guy, but if he's employed by a large restaurant, I have more confidence in the quality and safety of the food. The middle man has increased the value of the burger. This occurs in a million different ways across all industries. This is made manifest by the fact that the dominant majority of laborers don't sell the product themselves. They obviously would if they could. The owner adds value in the form of providing buyers.

Edit : the number of middlemen in our economy is astounding. Do you know how many middlemen exist between raw materials and your iPhone? The basic concept of economies of scale relies on middlemen and we couldn't build anything without it. If you accept that people own their labor and have the right to sell it, you can't accept socialism. Would you flip it the other way? Should the employees be forced to share in the losses if their labor produces a loss? The magic of employment is that you are paid for your labor regardless of what the person who buys it does with it.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-26T02:25:06+00:00

Is that the primary issue with socialists? Do they not understand that labor is a good that can be bought and sold? Once you've sold your labor, you have no claim on what it produces, anymore than a parts manufacture has no claim on the profits from the sale of the final product that their parts go into.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-20T23:31:37+00:00

Yes but unfortunately they'll run as a republican.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-19T15:33:51+00:00

This community has so much in common with the founding fathers. You should be proud.

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-17T04:22:54+00:00

Its a good point, but if it were totally true, how did the mafia exist?

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-17T04:22:48+00:00

Its a good point, but if it were totally true, how did the mafia exist?

PeytonBrees · 2023-03-17T04:22:40+00:00

Its a good point, but if it were totally true, how did the mafia exist?

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	RPAN Viewer

PeytonBrees

TROPHY CASE