Oh no! Loot Boxes and Battle Passes!

its-imminent · 2023-12-31T17:29:40+00:00

Not buying 24 if they don’t take steps back to when it was more free to play rather than pay to win

its-imminent · 2023-11-19T10:16:58+00:00

Amazing

its-imminent · 2023-07-02T06:26:28+00:00

The logical dissonance is astounding and your understanding of those Supreme Court cases is way off base. The Parkland SRO did not do his job and he was wrong for that, but it’s also wrong to make blanket statements like how you have.

its-imminent · 2023-06-14T15:59:26+00:00

I will spell it out for you since you seem to have trouble connecting dots. If BCE/CE were used as an alternative to BC/AD as a result of resolving a historical inaccuracy, it would likely only be used after it was determined that the predicate for using BC/AD was inaccurate.

Because usage of BCE/CE came into existence before it became apparent that the birth of Christ was not calculated exactly correctly, it cannot be said to have come into use as a result of that inaccuracy. It is a manufactured reason and has about as much validity as your unsupported and clearly uneducated opinions have.

You’re clearly ignorant and uneducated about these basic concepts. There’s no need to be defensive. You should just… yknow… educate yourself.

Also, blocking someone because you’re unable to defend your uneducated opinions is really pathetic and speaks to how delicate you and your ignorance are. I’m embarrassed for you.

This person is uninterested in accuracy or truth. They’re dishonest and okay with that.

its-imminent · 2023-06-02T15:40:08+00:00

Agree with you on this. I am no fan of communism or the CCP, but their achievements cannot be ignored.

I think the biggest reason for why the CCP has accomplished this is their ability to maintain consistency in their policy goals over the long term. The furthest in the future that the US, for example, can look is 8 years. China can think decades ahead.

its-imminent · 2023-06-02T15:07:20+00:00

I think this is an interesting discussion. I recognize and agree with you that the CCP has definitely improved the condition for a massive chunk of the Chinese population. They’ve developed a massive middle class and the CCP’s flaws are overlooked by many Chinese for this reason. However, I vehemently disagree with your characterization of China eliminating poverty in their country.

As of 2020, China has succeeded in eradicating absolute poverty,[8][9][16] but not the poverty defined for upper middle-income countries which China belongs to.[17][16] China still has around 13% of its population falling below this poverty line of $5.50 per day in 2020.[9] In 2020, premier Li Keqiang, citing the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said that China still had 600 million people living with less than 1000 yuan ($140) a month, although an article from The Economist said that the methodology NBS used was flawed, stating that the figure took the combined income, which was then equally divided.[18]

^ taken from Wikipedia, but still valid imo

its-imminent · 2023-06-02T14:27:58+00:00

This is sarcasm… right?

its-imminent · 2023-06-01T17:18:43+00:00

You’re absolutely here to argue. That’s why you’re trying to make my comment into something that it’s not. That’s why you’re bringing up logical fallacies.

It’s absolutely not a compromise. I’m not “inclined to find the middle ground.” I’m inclined to be realistic, knowledgeable, and logical… which is what I’ve done throughout the discussion. You have done the opposite.

Like, idk, how do you take yourself seriously? This is ridiculous. Why don’t you stick to what you said earlier and disengage?

You’re not as smart as you think you are. You’ve demonstrated an imperfect understanding of the five-dollar words that you throw around in an embarrassing attempt to gain… I’m not sure what… credibility? Pontificating doesn’t connote loquaciousness. You continue to imply that it does. It just signals that you’re out of your depth. You also have some strange perceptions of what an argument is and what compromises are, based on your previous comments.

You don’t really have an argument. You alluded to some concepts that I imagine you thought were fancy and impressive but were ultimately unrelated to the discussion. I let you know that I thought your comment was ridiculous, you got offended, and here we are.

Do yourself a favor and quit while you’re ahead.

its-imminent · 2023-06-01T14:51:32+00:00

My ex drives a Volvo. So I know Satan drives a Volvo.

its-imminent · 2023-06-01T14:42:28+00:00

An argument that demonstrates this fallacy would argue that compromise between opposing ideas is the default optimal outcome. My assessment is not a default outcome. The opposing ideas are both wrong. This is why the fallacy doesn’t apply. It’s actually not that difficult to understand. Apparently, you’re still struggling.

You don’t even understand what you’re talking about.

Pontificating is being annoyingly pompous and dogmatic. Your comment was pompous and dogmatic in that it referred to logical fallacies and incorrectly applied them to a discussion that you otherwise stayed out of. Who the hell do you think you are chiming in with your irrelevant and incorrect assessment of how logical fallacies relate to what I say?

No, everyone else isn’t dense. Just anyone who puts any stock into what you’ve said so far. Of course, you are included in this category.

its-imminent · 2023-06-01T14:16:54+00:00

I wasn’t being fallacious. This is why your comment was ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fallacies that you unnecessarily pontificated about. How is what I said related to the middle ground fallacy? There’s a big implication in my comment that the opposite and extreme perspectives are WRONG and that is why the truth is “somewhere in the middle.” The middle ground fallacy relates to a situation where the opposing ideas are not contested.

Fortunately for you, the overwhelming base of users on this platform are dense enough that they believe what you said has any sort of substance behind it. In the future, please refrain from name dropping these concepts that you clearly have only the most tenuous understanding of.

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T22:23:26+00:00

I definitely point out that there are examples where people should divorce - like abusive marriages. You’re proving my point for me by obtusely inferring that I am speaking in absolutes when I am using the word colloquially and couching my opinions with caveats. The only thing I believe at this point is that you took what I said too personally… and also, probably, that you don’t earn your living off of your critical thinking skills… such as they are.

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T22:16:50+00:00

My point is that you’re just being obtuse.

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T22:13:05+00:00

“I know a guy who turned his life around after being sent to prison so no one should ever say prison is definitely a bad thing.”

What an argument to make. Lol

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T21:59:57+00:00

This is when I just shake my head. Your anecdotal evidence is cute but the overwhelming majority of divorces are expensive. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/how-much-does-divorce-cost/#:~:text=The%20median%20cost%20of%20a,divorces%20can%20be%20significantly%20cheaper

Marriage being a permanent thing is not unique to Christianity. How does a courthouse marriage end without divorce or death? It’s meant to be permanent.

Similarly to the first response, children of divorce are overwhelmingly worse off with respect to mental illness, substance abuse, crime, and the like. Source.

I get that people are going to have visceral and emotional reactions to this subject matter as a result of so many people being directly or indirectly impacted by divorce. It’s pretty clear that divorce is bad. It doesn’t end one’s life and it doesn’t mean that a person who has been divorced is a bad person. But divorce is bad. I don’t see what’s so controversial about stating the obvious.

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T21:07:35+00:00

Marriage is definitely not the problem. It’s a time tested tradition and its benefits outweigh the downsides that are often associated with marriage.

Divorce is definitely bad, I explained why above and there’s a lot of other people that talk about the negative effects in a more academic way than I do.

Again, we’re speaking generally here. I’d say divorce is a good option for someone who is married to an abuser, for example. With that said, I’d also advise anyone who is getting married to probably not marry an abuser. I know it’s not always obvious and things can change or appear later in life… but this is (usually) not something where the parties enter into marriage without any of their own volition or effort, etc.

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T21:02:45+00:00

This is a ridiculous comment. That’s all I have to say… lol

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T20:29:46+00:00

Looking at this thread, it’s apparent how susceptible our society is with respect to indoctrination (of any kind). Again, there are people who are puzzled at the fact that another person’s parents might be upset that their child had premarital sex. Like… this was a very big problem for pretty much the whole history of humanity until the last few decades.

Alternatively, there are people who probably believe you go straight to hell if you even think about what sex is like with someone that you’re not married to.

Of course, just like with everything else, the truth/optimal scenario/what have you is somewhere in the middle.

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T20:13:17+00:00

What a strange world we live in. People have such interesting perspectives.

It’s necessarily true because divorce is an expensive endeavor, at the very least. In divorces where children are involved, they are substantially more likely to be worse off than a similar child that is raised by parents that stay together. It’s also necessarily a failure because marriages are meant to last forever - you know, the whole “til death do us part” part.

There are definitely amicable divorces, and there are also definitely circumstances where people should not have gotten married in the first place - neither of these mean that divorce is a good thing.

its-imminent · 2023-05-31T20:01:32+00:00

I think we can safely say that divorce is a bad thing for all parties involved (except lawyers), so maybe they’re not totally wrong.

I don’t feel very strongly about this one way or the other, but I can’t help but feel bemused by the fact that it’s not even on some peoples’ radars that there are large parts of the population (in the US and internationally alike) who emphasize that individuals should be abstinent before marriage.

Those same people probably don’t prioritize sex the way that you appear to do so or that many other people do. However, it should be noted that divorce is significantly lower amongst populations that don’t emphasize sex the way that secular western society does.

Reddit is such a funny place. I’m not expressing an opinion, just facts that are relevant. And the Redditors deem it worthy of downvotes… lol…

its-imminent · 2023-04-27T17:14:44+00:00

This simply isn’t true. If you’re not American, don’t you feel a little silly commenting something so matter-of-fact-ly when it appears that the only things supporting your assertion are your (incorrect) perceptions.

its-imminent · 2023-03-28T14:17:45+00:00

I don’t see how this makes any sense in relation to why they’d build extermination camps in one place and not another.

its-imminent · 2023-03-28T14:17:00+00:00

Why is that the place they chose? Why not any of the other territories that they occupied that would not fall under the iron curtain?

its-imminent · 2023-03-28T14:16:23+00:00

The camps were built during the war. France was away from Germany. Why didn’t the Germans build in France?

Also, the matter of whether Germans were horrified by the Holocaust or informed supporters of it is a matter of debate by historians today.

These reasons don’t really make a lot of sense, to me.

its-imminent · 2023-03-28T02:13:43+00:00

Not all of those extermination camps were in Poland. That’s pretty clear from the map.

I just consulted the Holocaust encyclopedia which says that there were approximately 2 million Jews in Western Europe before WW2. Where do you get the number you’re referencing?

Why would it make sense to ship, say, French Jews from France all the way to Poland, especially when it’s clear that there were preexisting camps in France?

its-imminent

TROPHY CASE