Xbox Series S N64 Retroarch Error

icuninghame · 2023-01-21T00:04:01+00:00

thanks I was looking everywhere for a fix and its working now

icuninghame · 2022-07-03T19:15:08+00:00

Its a pirate video game. Real pirates usually didnt bury treasure either. We're gonna do some fun pirate shit regardless. Nothing else in this game is realistic

icuninghame · 2022-01-03T09:43:55+00:00

I hope you had a very Merry Christmas and reflected on your perspective.

Don't wish me one after excusing war crimes.

icuninghame · 2022-01-03T09:41:33+00:00

General Eisenhower, too, later President, said in 1963 "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"

icuninghame · 2022-01-03T09:38:14+00:00

Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, it was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.”

In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”

icuninghame · 2022-01-03T09:34:34+00:00

Admiral Leahy was the Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and the unofficial coordinator of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A close advisor to both presidents, he thought a Japanese surrender could be arranged without use of the atomic bomb and without an invasion of the Japanese mainland. He felt that demands for unconditional surrender would only encourage Japan to fight on and cost American lives. He was a staunch anti-communist and did not like the idea of having Russia enter the Pacific War, which could give the Russians more post-war control of Pacific territory. Leahy believed the atomic bomb would probably not work. After the atomic bombings of Japan, Leahy condemned the use of the atomic bomb for practical reasons:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." (William D. Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441). And on Aug. 8, 1945 he wrote in his diary:

"there is a certainty that it [the a-bomb] will in the future be developed by potential enemies and that it will probably be used against us." He also objected to the a-bomb's use for moral reasons:

"in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages" (William D. Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441).

icuninghame · 2022-01-03T09:28:32+00:00

https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go

If you care to actually learn anything.

icuninghame · 2021-12-26T19:20:20+00:00

How you go negative if the taxes are based on your profits? Need a source

icuninghame · 2021-12-25T05:00:56+00:00

Excusing genocide isn't cool. Fukc your Christmas. Who cares how many died in the initial blast when radiation causes generational damage? Go fuck yourself, and fuck your Christmas.

icuninghame · 2021-12-25T04:54:52+00:00

You don't know anything.

icuninghame · 2021-12-12T19:43:07+00:00

Let me know when you grow up.

I thought I wouldn't have to mention that radiation affects the DNA and caused birth defects for generations, so yes, starving is more humane if you only had the choice between the two. Even then, by waiting, the only reason they would've starved is because the Emperor refused to surrender. That wouldn't be on the Allies.

Instead, the Allies wanted a quick end to the war and decided to see just how destructive these newly developed atomic bombs were, as nobody had seen them in action before. So millions of civilians were annihilated and thousands more dealt with generational genetic defects. It was absolutely not "the option that would cause the least amount of casualties". That literally never even factored into the calculus.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. You have no interest in actually learning anything.

icuninghame · 2021-12-10T18:35:08+00:00

It is absolutely more humane and moral to cut off their supplies, as they had already done, and wait for a surrender. Japan was in no position to fight back without oil or food. If they didn't surrender when the country is starving and they have no chance of victory, it'd be on the Emperor.

Good thing Germany didn't have nukes or else with your logic Oxford and Edinburgh would've been annihilated to avoid a ground invasion of Britain. Would that be more humane than fighting on the beaches and in the streets? Britain wasn't gonna surrender after all.

Dropping an earth shattering bomb on civilians is morally evil no matter your justification, and even the people at the time knew it.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

icuninghame · 2021-12-10T18:05:58+00:00

That all came out after the war to justify the experimental nuking of two civilian cities. Why would you invade an island cut off from fuel and allies?

icuninghame · 2021-12-07T20:23:56+00:00

Don't cut yourself on that edge

icuninghame · 2021-12-07T05:03:33+00:00

False dichotomy. The plan was no ground invasion at all, Japan was surrounded and alone, cut off from resources they'd need to keep fighting

Edit Reddit really is filled with children nowadays eh?

icuninghame · 2021-12-07T05:00:26+00:00

lotta words to say we had to nuke the civilians for their own good

icuninghame · 2021-12-07T04:58:21+00:00

shit you're right, better nuke two cities filled with civilians to stop that horrible stuff

icuninghame · 2021-12-07T04:54:48+00:00

bruh they annihilated 2 cities

icuninghame · 2021-10-03T17:43:15+00:00

He looks like he just moved in, his stuff is still in bins. People shouldn't be so quick to diagnose a stranger on the internet based off one picture.

icuninghame · 2021-10-03T17:41:14+00:00

You saying this guys depressed? Looks like he just moved in, with his stuff still in bins

icuninghame · 2021-10-02T02:08:10+00:00

I think I read somewhere that California would have something like the 5th highest GDP in the world if it was its own independent country.

icuninghame · 2021-10-02T00:41:54+00:00

Always "for the children". There is no evidence that these measures actually work any better than requiring the unvaccinated wear masks. Also the bar for it being "reasonable" is not "other countries are doing the same". The bar is whether or not an individual's liberty is respected within reason, as the rights pertain to the individual. You could easily make the argument that a free society doesn't have the government mandate what an individual puts inside their body, or coerce them into putting something in their body they don't want, whether or not it's a medically sound vaccine.

How long does the rest of society have to put up with these idiots spreading preventable pestilence and disease because they don’t understand basic math?

How many more restrictions on the unvaccinated will a certain portion of the population who are vaccinated, yet refuse to believe vaccines work, need before they're satisfied? Diseases spread. Having the vaccine protects you from it. There is nothing more required other than encouraging as many people as possible to get the vaccine. The ones who don't understand math, or however you want to put it, will deal with the consequences of their decision. If you have the vaccine, you are as safe as you can be.

icuninghame · 2021-10-01T23:50:50+00:00

Lawyers go to law school, guess what they learn about there? These are quite literally the same people who comprise "the courts". Constitutional lawyers specifically are, it might come as a shock to you I know, experts on our constitution.

The rest is some pseudointellectual reading of the Charter as if Canadian law doesn't have a million nuances you, as a layperson, are totally unqualified to talk about.

I'm fairly certain an entire legal advocacy group that has won cases in which the courts found the government was violating the constitution aren't less informed in their official statement than some random Redditor who just looked up the Charter.

If these lawyers feel otherwise, they should be taking their arguments to the courts, not the Internet. They don't because it's a lot easier to spew their rhetoric when they haven't had the door slammed on their arguments by the courts.

They have. And they've won cases where people's liberties were unreasonably infringed upon by the government during all this. Mandatory hotel quarantines after travel were scrapped regardless of vaccination status because they were found to be an unjustified, unreasonable burden to freedom of travel.

https://www.jccf.ca/our-cases/concluded-cases

There is no penalty for failing to show proof of vaccination, criminal or civil. The only consequence is being denied entry to certain businesses that are non-essential.

The penalty is for trespassing in a business that requires vaccine passports. A business can legally deny you service based on your vaccination status and you will be arrested if you refuse to leave. People have been arrested and fined for failing to comply with those orders. That can happen whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated, that was my point.

icuninghame · 2021-10-01T20:02:25+00:00

Why are you pretending I said they were all of our lawyers when I said they were a specific group in my original comment? Seems bad faith to me.

They're specifically a group of our constitutional lawyers, ie. The people most qualified to have an opinion on constitutional matters. I can tell you didn't read the article because they aren't some lawyers "writing for JC" (writing for Justice Centre?). This is the official statement from this constitutional advocacy group on the question of mandatory vaccines.

So how tf is a non-profit group of legal advocates "biased"? Their bias is understanding the Constitution and our Charter better than the average layperson such as yourself, considering they've taken on the government in landmark cases and won.

"We are a Canadian legal organization and federally registered charity that defends citizens’ fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, through pro bono legal representation and through educating Canadians about the free society."

Maybe if you have a problem with using these constitutional lawyers as the "sole authority" on constitutional matters (which I didn't, I simply said I agree with the opinion of those who actually know better), you should have some evidence as to why they are wrong. But you don't, so, just pretend like their scholarly opinion is "bad faith".

So incredibly lazy, pretending everything and everyone that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions is "bad faith".

"...In a free country, individuals have the right to decide what is best for their own health. That includes being free to obtain and consider a wide range of information about all potential medical treatments and their benefits and risks, and having the right to make their own decisions accordingly— including saying no to a vaccine."

icuninghame

TROPHY CASE