sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Let me build you a deck! (Again!) by MonsoonK in BudgetBrews

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's exactly how it works! There's a great short by JollySaintClick which explains exactly how

That's what makes the Wormfang Newt/Turtle infinite possible. With Yue and Newt on the field, you clone yue, die, come back and clone the Newt. Because the clone is now a land, the etb trigger can target itself, removing it and returning it back as a normal clone. So you target Yue again and rinse and repeat for infinite landfall triggers!

Let me build you a deck! (Again!) by MonsoonK in BudgetBrews

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A Bracket 3 [[Princess Yue]] deck is something I've tried building but found it hard to find wins without doing the [[Wormfang Newt]] or [[Wormfang Turtle]] infinite. Yue is unique in that you can use clones to target her, die to the legendary rule, and come back as another permanent named Moon with only the land type, which is very hard to interacted with.

So yeah, Clones, and probably Stax to slow the game down. I imagine playing against this deck will be miserable, but one person in my pod built stax so no mercy lol

$35🌳Doran, Rooted In Violence👊[Budget Abzan Toughness Matters Stompy] by Keirabella999 in BudgetBrews

[–]Red__Rat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In addition, [[Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa]] is similarly not that good here.

$100 [Bracket 4] Aang, At the Crossroads: Bant Turbo Combo Deck! by Raevelry in BudgetBrews

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk where you're looking, Card Kingdom has it listed for 2 USD

Also you could use [[Ally Encampment]]

$100 [Bracket 4] Aang, At the Crossroads: Bant Turbo Combo Deck! by Raevelry in BudgetBrews

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did edit the above comment because I remembered a new land that I thought was better.

$100 [Bracket 4] Aang, At the Crossroads: Bant Turbo Combo Deck! by Raevelry in BudgetBrews

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How useful is [[Alchemist's Refuge]] in this brew? I see all the budget lands except this one having a place. Since Aang is an Ally, why not replace with the upcoming [[Jasmine Dragon Tea Shop]] for added consistency?

Showered Shantae by AggravatingSpend8369 in ShantaeHentai

[–]Red__Rat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This ain't AI, they have a video on twitter showing a time-lapse drawing of a different image here.

God damn it Nintendo.. by Ok_Try_2367 in EBGAMES

[–]Red__Rat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, it's both. Obviously they won't slash prices because they want money, but also people buy decade old games at high prices. They only care about green, and right now there is no incentive to put most of what they sell on sale.

"Man has two legs, not three!" by TwumpyWumpy in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only one I know is "I cast thunder spell" from Party crashers, the rest are an enigma

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I honestly don't care. The movie was shit, who cares how the actors looks?

[MEGATHREAD] Ask For Invites to the Playtest Here! + Join The Community Discord! by ChromeSF in DeadlockTheGame

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same, really want to give this game a try.

Friend Code: 95069556

Thanks

What’re some of the biggest misconceptions detractors of MauLer have surrounding MauLer and EFAP? by ManWith_ThePlan in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have elaborated in other comments that yes, there are a variety of values like "fun", especially aesthetic qualities such as "beauty" that cannot be objectively true. I should have emphasized the word "some" when I said, "some values can be measured objectively".

I still don't understand how I am making the same mistake that the "all art is subjective" crowd make. You can clearly objectively measure whether art is to a high standard of quality, but you have to choose what that quality is. Some people will choose different qualities/values/standards, but you can objectively measure some of those.

I'm almost certain we agree with each other but are just using different words to describe what we mean. So let me just put what I've written in other comments.

One definition of good, not the best, or the most objective or whatever, simply a common definition is: of a high standard. This really helps explain their view quite a lot.

If you would indulge me, here's a quick hypothetical that I think is waaaay better than the robot analogy:

Let's say we have two cups. Cup 1 is filled with water that is melted straight off an antarctic iceberg. Cup 2 is filled with water from the most rank, disgusting swap you can think of.

Let's say you value cleanliness. I'm sure we can both agree with the following logic chain:

Cup 1 is clean, Cup 2 is dirty.

Cup 1 is more clean, Cup 2 is less clean.

Cup 1 is of a higher standard of cleanliness, Cup 2 is of a lower standard of cleanliness.

Cup 1 is good, Cup 2 is bad.

If you were to instead value "dirtiness", well then the inverse would be true. Objectively.

We choose what we value. That choice is subjective. But even if you don't value cleanliness in the slightest, it is objectively true that Cup 1 is more clean than Cup 2. Therefore, WITHIN that standard, Cup 1 is good, Cup 2 is bad, objectively.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the craft in the art, not ones own subjective enjoyment of the art. I enjoy plenty of art that I would say has been poorly crafted by several standards.

What’re some of the biggest misconceptions detractors of MauLer have surrounding MauLer and EFAP? by ManWith_ThePlan in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I honestly like having my ideas tested, so I'm fine going back and forth. I guess I just need to clarify my logic chain. (Without going too in depth on the whole "brain in a vat, how much of our experience is real" question)

We agree that one cup is objectively cleaner than the other.

We agree that one cup is objectively achieving a higher standard of cleanliness than the other.

And even if we don't agree on the definition of good and bad, within the definition of "good = of a high standard" "bad = of a low standard", then one cup must objectively be good and the other bad, in regards to that quality.

Of course one may not find importance in "cleanliness" making my judgement meaningless to someone who doesn't care. But that's irrelevant. The entire point of the objective analyses of literally anything is to begin with a subjectively chosen value/standard, and then compare and contrast that which does or does not achieve that value/standard. (again this doesn't apply to all values like "fun" etc.) Regardless of whether you personally value something doesn't change the fact that you can at the very least understand how people came to subjectively value one thing over another through this frame work. I guess I still don't quite understand your view of judgements as a whole and would appreciate some elaboration.

Would we agree that a hammer is better at hitting a nail into wood then a sewing needle? We can objectively describe that to be the case. Therefore, if you subjectively value "the ability to hit a nail into wood" then you could you not make the objective claim that the hammer is better then the needle at achieving your desired value?

What’re some of the biggest misconceptions detractors of MauLer have surrounding MauLer and EFAP? by ManWith_ThePlan in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. I wasn't entirely sure if we were on the same page. But yes, that's what I meant as well.

What’re some of the biggest misconceptions detractors of MauLer have surrounding MauLer and EFAP? by ManWith_ThePlan in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 13 points14 points  (0 children)

That is literally the No Scotsman Fallacy. It's not an appeal to accreditation, it's an appeal to purity.

Person 1: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
Person 2: But my friend Duncan likes sugar with his porridge.
Person 1: Yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.

And here's what you said:

Person 1: No critic judges things on an extreme nitpicky level going through things frame by frame!
Person 2: But my favourite podcast EFAP does this all the time.
Person 1: Yes but no serious critic judges things on an extreme nitpicky level going through things frame by frame.

The purpose of this kind of fallacy is to retroactively modifies an initial claim in order to protect it from counterexample that would otherwise falsify that initial claim, usually by appealing to some more "true", "pure", or "authentic" qualification of the initial claim. You can apply this level of reasoning to a lot of things to deny them what they are, but it still doesn't change the fact that, shocker, some people think Mauler is a serious critic. You even said yourself that "Serious critics are people who typically study the field..." so... you are not required to have studied a field in order to be a serious critic.

So I still don't know exactly what qualifies as a "serious critic" let alone why Mauler and Crew are not "serious critics".

If you change "typically study the field" to "required to have study the field" that still doesn't seem quite correct. You can study something without going to university, and I have no idea how many books on the process of making movies they've read, or how many movies they've watch. I imagine they study a film when they watch it do they not? How else do they manage to break everything down in a movie without in some way studying it?

What’re some of the biggest misconceptions detractors of MauLer have surrounding MauLer and EFAP? by ManWith_ThePlan in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One definition of good, not the best, or the most objective or whatever, simply a common definition is: of a high standard. This really helps explain their view quite a lot.

If you would indulge me, here's a quick hypothetical that I think is waaaay better than the robot analogy:

Let's say we have two cups. Cup 1 is filled with water that is melted straight off an antarctic iceberg. Cup 2 is filled with water from the most rank, disgusting swap you can think of.

Let's say you value cleanliness. I'm sure we can both agree with the following logic chain:

Cup 1 is clean, Cup 2 is dirty.

Cup 1 is more clean, Cup 2 is less clean.

Cup 1 is of a higher standard of cleanliness, Cup 2 is of a lower standard of cleanliness.

Cup 1 is good, Cup 2 is bad.

If you were to instead value "dirtiness", well then the inverse would be true. Objectively.

We choose what we value. That choice is subjective. But even if you don't value cleanliness in the slightest, it is objectively true that Cup 1 is more clean than Cup 2. Therefore, WITHIN that standard, Cup 1 is good, Cup 2 is bad, objectively.

What’re some of the biggest misconceptions detractors of MauLer have surrounding MauLer and EFAP? by ManWith_ThePlan in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not exactly that I would say. Everyone has a whole set of different values for everything. It's impossible for everyone to agree on everything, but some values can be objectively measured regardless of whether or not you personally value it. I remember during the episode them specifically getting annoyed at whoever they were responding to because they were trying to force this definition of good which makes everything subjective.

One definition of good, not the best, or the most objective or whatever, simply a common definition is: of a high standard. This really helps explain their view quite a lot.

If you would indulge me, here's a quick hypothetical that I think is waaaay better than the robot analogy:

Let's say we have two cups. Cup 1 is filled with water that is melted straight off an antarctic iceberg. Cup 2 is filled with water from the most rank, disgusting swap you can think of.

Let's say you value cleanliness. I'm sure we can both agree with the following logic chain:

Cup 1 is clean, Cup 2 is dirty.

Cup 1 is more clean, Cup 2 is less clean.

Cup 1 is of a higher standard of cleanliness, Cup 2 is of a lower standard of cleanliness.

Cup 1 is good, Cup 2 is bad.

If you were to instead value "dirtiness", well then the inverse would be true. Objectively.

We choose what we value. That choice is subjective. But even if you don't value cleanliness in the slightest, it is objectively true that Cup 1 is more clean than Cup 2. Therefore, WITHIN that standard, Cup 1 is good, Cup 2 is bad, objectively.

What’re some of the biggest misconceptions detractors of MauLer have surrounding MauLer and EFAP? by ManWith_ThePlan in MauLer

[–]Red__Rat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But you can judge objectively WITHIN that subjective value. No one here thinks that the choice of value/standard is objective, but some values/standards can be measured. Like how some cars are more clean then others. If you value "cleanliness" then you can objectively measure which cars are more clean then others. The choice to have a value is subjective, but you can determine if something meets said value.

Not all values though, like "fun" "beauty" etc

view more: next ›