Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Bishop Ze Ravenka

meatrace's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,066 posts (7,069 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,066 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.

If by "whole world" you mean "barely half"...

And that's only if you think that all Abrahamic religions worship the same god, which many do not believe.

Both Jews and Muslims think the idea of slicing God up into three parts to be rather off the wall. Islam however seems to draw very heavily from the pre-Paulist stage of Christianity.

What most modern Christians don't appreciate is that their religion is shaped more by Paul than Christ.

Genuinely have no idea how that relates to what I said.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Remember, conspiracy theories almost never come in single doses. Conspiracy theory-oriented thought is systemic. If someone subscribes to one conspiracy theory, they almost certainly subscribe to many. (or will eventually subscribe to many, given time)

Scott Betts is confirmed as Illuminati stooge!

Aranna wrote:
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.

If by "whole world" you mean "barely half"...

And that's only if you think that all Abrahamic religions worship the same god, which many do not believe.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
I'm a huge proponent of singular "they," which never really left informal usage and is finally coming back into formal usage.
I use "they" a lot in informal communication (see above, in fact). But, like any other substitute term, it doesn't always work in every instance.

Can you give an example?

I can't think of one that couldn't be worked out given context.

Some languages don't even have pronouns and they seem to work out just fine.

KenderKin wrote:

If you are a climate scientist and you want government grants, you have to continue to keep correlating the same thing namely CO2, because it is the most direct route to taxation, then your proposals need to come in with the politically correct ideology.

Some of these grants pay absurd salaries for extended periods of time....

Well yeah, I mean if you want to study the curvature of the earth you don't start with the assumption that the earth is flat. And then expect to be funded.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
KenderKin wrote:
Remember the graph by Robert Simmon CO2 concentration at the top and temperature Anomoly at the bottom?

This one?

That's actually a very cool graph.
Well, it's derived from an ice core, so... :]

An ice core BONG though?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a millionaire.

In Yen

Irontruth wrote:

When someone presents zero evidence to back up their claims, we're allowed to say "we don't believe you" with nothing else added.

On the flip side, I know I've been referencing this article for about 8-9 months, and no one has disputed anything about it yet.

Psh. Berkeley lab. Bunch of hippies, probably mixed up ice cores with bongwater.

Or something.

Highest- Int. I'd probably give myself a 17.
Lowest- I'd probably say Charisma. But my Con is probably pretty low as well. Both 8s?

If I were to guess, Str 10, Dex 13, and Wisdom 12.

I am human, and clearly I put my +2 in Intelligence.

So 0,3,-2,7,2,-2. 8 point buy?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Try "ExxonMobil bad, Greenpeace bad."

Fair enough, but there's quite a bit of false equivalence built into that.

It's like saying Galactic Empire bad, people who tear the little tags off of pillows also bad!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:

I think Clinton may be more adroit at heading off at least parts of the partisan gridlock that I suspect would ultimately paralyze Sanders.

There's some other reasons I prefer her despite some shadiness - work ethic is one - but I'm not going to decry ideologically driven gridlock on the right and then turn around and vote for it on the left.

See, I think that the gridlock is SO bad, and so ingrained in the system that the only way to change anything is to do what the Republicans have been doing for the past 2 decades: fight at the state level. Once you control state houses you can gerrymander and voter suppress and all that other stuff that is CREATING this gridlock.

I think Sanders has a better chance of actually getting voters excited for once, getting youth to go vote in droves, and once they're in the ballot boxes, vote for him for president AND vote the right way on the state level.

Democrats have a massive advantage in presidential election years, and I think EVEN Bernie could roundly defeat any of the current stock of Republicans, with the possible exception of Bush or Rubio.

TL;DR- I'm living in Japan right now. If it's Bush v. Clinton in 2016, I'm not f%@!ing coming back!

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And a shout out to Comrade Meatrace. Had no idea you had transplanted across the globe.


I graduated back in May and I got the job I interviewed for in February (and applied for last November) with the JET program, working as an assistant language teacher in Japan. Hachioji, to be precise.

A video I made of my tiny Japanese apartment.

Yeah, I'll be happy to hold my nose and vote Hillary if she gets the nomination, which is apparently already decided if you look at the actions of DWS.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

"Literally can't win" is strong. His chances are very low, because Clinton is a good candidate and because he will be attacked as you suggest.

OTOH, should Clinton stumble badly and the Republicans choose a horribly flawed candidate as they seem determined to do, anything is possible.

His chances are low, as I said. OTOH, just having him campaign and debate shifts the Overton Window and makes his ideas seem far more acceptable.

I think Clinton is a strong candidate.

I don't think she is a GOOD candidate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Your rhetorical definition that philosophy=bad and discarded philosophy is precisely as disingenuous as if I were to define science as only bad and discarded science
The definition of philosophy I'm using is that its investigation of the universe done chiefly by speculative means.

So, yes, a pejorative rhetorical definition.

Heck, let's just wiki it:

"Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

"As a method, philosophy is often distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its questioning, critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument"

I think the link between philosophy and all the useful fruits of such in our life (Democracy, skepticism, science, social sciences, reason, intellectual curiosity, formalized argumenation, logic and computer sciences, etc.) but it's no use arguing with someone who just poo-poos these things and sticks his head in the sand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Check your privilege.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

How many people do not belong to any minority?


What percentage of the population are white men, not disabled, cis, heterosexual, young or middle-aged adults, with no particularly different sexual tastes,

Damn. I was totally there up until that last one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Plus, the campaign billboards would look stupid as hell.

Wait, on a related note, is the shipname for the two of them "HillBill"? Oh dear. These two really should not be together in any media at all.

They are from Arkansas.

LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Biden for VP... again.

Hey, its constitutional.

Her husband of course is not elligible.

Is he not eligible to run for VP? He can't run for a third term as president, sure...

Also, the rhetorical argument "humans never learn from history" is flawed. While we may not consciously make changes in our behavior, in aggregate, due to past missteps, humanity responds to incentives, both individually and in aggregate.

When we discovered that living together, creating edifices, and cultivating certain crops worked better and made for a lower mortality than hunting and gathering, we started to do that. And thus civilization and agriculture were born. The fact that there are notable exceptions to this rule doesn't invalidate that we are, almost universally, a city-living species where once we were not.

The point is "learn from history" is a fundamentally flawed argument because it misses the point on how we, as a species, operate in aggregate.

Here endeth the lesson.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

What have you done for me lately?

Science is a rejection of philosophy. If the best part of a bad relationship is that when you dumped them you found a good relationship... that was still a bad relationship.

And this is where you lose me. You continue to insist on a rhetorical definition of philosophy which does not fit the standard definition.

Your rhetorical definition that philosophy=bad and discarded philosophy is precisely as disingenuous as if I were to define science as only bad and discarded science (phrenology, alchemy, spontaneous generation, Brontosauri, etc.)

When you say "what has it done for me lately" you expose your ignorance. Science has done nothing for you or I. It is technology that has improved our lives, which is the principles of science applied by humans to improve our quality of life. At least ostensibly, much of technological progress has instead been a burden on us.

Similarly, philosophy has done nothing for you or I because philosophy isn't a physical thing capable of manifesting in the world without human actors to implement the ideas therein.

You could argue for the value of scientific knowledge merely existing, and I would concur, but then you would have to acknowledge the value of philosophical wisdom existing, even if they are not perfectly implemented (i.e. the legal system and its system of argumentation, our political system which was the result of a centuries-long argument about how best to govern, and so on).

P.S. Yes, I'm alive and well, and living in Tokyo!

BigNorseWolf wrote:
LazarX wrote:

I don't get the question.
How do we know if the person speculating is right?

What you're asking there is a philosophical question.

Not just any question, but a question that spawned at least one entire school of philosophical thought: empiricism.

Empiricism is a school of philosophical thought that believes the nature of reality is best described through observation. The more observations you have of something, the more likely that it is true (as opposed to your fevered imaginings).

More specifically, if you want to know the relationship between two phenomena, you create an experiment and observe that, in an environment controlled against outside factors.

When you say you dislike string theorists, I imagine it is because their "theories" are not empirical. They are based on conjecture, and however mathematically sound their conjecture is it is not empirical i.e. based on direct observation. At the same time, I think we will both agree that once that evidence is observed (and published) we may change our minds, because we are rational folk.

You and I are philosophers. Specifically, we are empiricists. We are also rational, in that we believe in the power of reason.

As you say, when things are no longer of use (or sufficiently accurate) we discard them. This is also a philosophical argument. Many schools of philosophical thought are no longer useful or sufficiently accurate, and we have justly discarded them.

Similarly, alchemy has been justly discarded, even though many practitioners were inarguably scientists.

So, when I talk about science I don't talk about its missteps, its egregious errors, its laughable side-show offspring, I talk about the best things that it has brought us. Closer to understanding our universe. Therefore, when we talk about philosophy, shouldn't we talk about the best things that have come from it (science, the enlightenment, etc.) rather than its missteps?

Furthermore, just as we learn from a failed experiment as much as a successful one, in part because we (hopefully) learn WHY it failed, we learn as much from demonstrably wrong philosophy because we are able to hone our minds into a sharp stick of reason by disassembling arrogant half-truths and anachronistic misapprehensions.

LazarX wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
thejeff wrote:
A variety of social media metrics – increase in twitter supporters... indicates Sanders clearly sparked the most interest last night.
On that note, I heard that the candidate who gained the most Twitter followers during the debate was actually... Trump.
Probably because he had announced to his fans that he'd be live tweeting the debate. On the other hand most of us that were interested in the debate itself had no spare time to tweet it because unlike the clown show from the other side of the aisle, the debaters had content.

Lincoln Chaffee is clearly a master debater.

And Clinton is a cunning linguist.

thejeff wrote:

"Winning" the debate is always debatable and a internet poll doesn't really determine anything. If anything is actually meaningful, it'll be the polling in the next few days - if someone gets a definite bounce (or someone else drops), then winner might make sense.

For another take:


At this point, less than 24 hours since the debate’s conclusion, there seem to be two sets of judgments circulating within the punditocracy. According to one group, who I label the “traditionalists”, there was a clear winner last night, and it was Hillary Clinton. Based on the traditional measurements – impressions of debating skills, point scoring, lack of gaffes, and the candidate’s stage presence, among other factors – Clinton removed any doubts about her front-runner status. As one pundit put it, “Republican and Democratic strategists found common ground on one point on Tuesday night: Clinton was the runaway winner.” It was, according to another, “the best day of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.” From this perspective, Clinton was poised, knowledgeable, made very few mistakes and generally commanded the stage.

From a second perspective, however, Sanders supporters have reason to claim their candidate won. A variety of social media metrics – increase in twitter supporters, google searches, hash tag mentions – indicates Sanders clearly sparked the most interest last night. His angry outburst telling the media that “the American people are sick of hearing about [Hillary’s] damn emails” instantly prompted a trending #Damnemails hashtag and was likely the most tweeted comment of the debate (never mind that Hillary benefited from Bernie’s tirade).

Furthermore I'm less interested in "who won" in the horserace sense than in what the candidates actually said and did. I'd also say that the Democratic Party as a whole won in comparison to the clown show that the Republican debates have been.

Of course. The online poll is little more than a popularity contest. But why did CNN run the poll and then take down the results?

The only people I know of that are saying Clinton won the debate are media pundits and old-guard partisan hacks. Heck, I'd be more apt to give the point to Jim Webb who basically straight up said "I g*#&##n smoked a guy in 'Nam!"

The weirdest outfall of all of this is hearing conservative republicans rail against judicial power and talk about overturning Marbury v. Madison (something I think might be a good idea; the power of judicial review ought to be more spelled out and a proper petition process in place) and lawmakers such as in Utah want to take their ball and go home, taking government out of the marriage game altogether. Which I also agree with. It's a personal and religious ceremony. The government has NO business saying who can and can't get married. Who enters into a civil union, on the other hand...

Dual-Cursed Life Oracle with Fey Foundling.
Possibly the best healer in the game, and doesn't waste their spells or actions to do it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
Loads of options for builds and it's got all that full-caster goodness. It's pretty nearly impossible to make an oracle that's actually bad, and only moderately difficult to make one good at a specific concept.
Really? They're a spontaneous caster. All you have to do is not take the right spells and you're useless. There are a number of curses that will completely wreck your character if they're enforced.

Pro Tip 1: Don't take the wrong spells.

Pro Tip 2: Don't take the bad curses.

I mean, this is like arguing that the fighter is awful at dealing damage because he could spend every feat on Skill Focus. Don't do that.

^^^What she said.

But I dunno, man, Bruce Jenner was a weird looking old man.

Caitlyn Jenner is a weird looking old lady.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Those flying medusa heads from Castlevania.

F$%@ those guys!
*dramatic sting*

Yeah I know, but those things aren't nearly as bad as the CV ones.

If they had an AC of 24 and automatically paralyzed on a touch attack then maybe they'd be close. Also paralysis is 1d4 rounds and they hunt in packs of 2d6.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Those flying medusa heads from Castlevania.
F+*$ those guys!

Tacticslion wrote:
(But, uh, peanut butter M&Ms are just about the best.)

Ok, but what's better, Reese's Pieces or PB M&Ms?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey TL, it sure would be neat if you favorited all my posts.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I have been binge watching Community and Abed is always eating buttered noodles...I was also reading a food blog about bad customers and people kept complaining about people that ate buttered noodles. I checked out Google and buttered noodles appears to be just butter and noodles. ... Is just throwing a bucket load of butter in noodles a main meal in the U.S.?

I had imagined it to be something like butter chicken....

The Italian deli I used to work at has buttered noodles on the menu, but it's REALLY garlicky garlic butter, and you typically put a ton of parmesan on it and eat it with a hot sausage. Good eats!

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Damn dude, your dice suck!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
out on bail, cops fire back regarding Gray's knife

That's like epically missing the point.

DA: "We contend that the police arrested Gray illegitimately then proceeded to beat him so severely it broke his spine which eventually lead to his death."

COP: "That is a HORRIFIC, slanderous LIE. I did nothing of the sort!
It was a legitimate arrest ."

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I think the protection of other people's property (and welfare, though as of YET nobody has been hurt) is more important than you being able to continue protesting all through the night.

I certainly think it's a better alternative than coming in with teargas and billy clubs to arrest large groups of people at once.

You disagree.

You're being disingenuous.

In all cases that I've seen, riots form from protests AFTER police are called in in riot gear. They escalate. Sure, maybe there's some excess littering or traffic is inconvenienced or even a rare car bashed up, but it doesn't warrant ESCALATING the situation with police violence.

You'll note that the curfew doesn't just affect protesters. You're abridging individuals' rights because of what someone else has done. Unacceptable.

"I put on my robe and wizard hat."

This is just so wrong it's comical.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:

Not really. Both liberalism and conservatism are theories, a way to look at the world. Either could be implemented in different ways - as an extreme example, fascism is an implementation of conservatism and communism is an implementation of liberalism. They both ended up looking remarkably similar back there in the previous century.

I mean, the names are just labels plastered over incredibly broad arrays of approaches to a vast number of subjects that sometimes interlock and sometimes don't.

In either case, it is borderline absurd to claim that conservatism is more grounded in reality than liberalism is. Do conservatives unanimously have more experience than liberals? since both camps are so broad that it is virtually impossible that one is on average...

You've earned the following achievements: Epistemic Nihilism, Missing the Point Entirely and Interpreting Something to Mean the Opposite.

You'll notice that nowhere in my post did I mention liberalism. I'm not making this statement on some fictitious scale of left vs. right, nor am I talking about the British conservative party, or Israeli conservative party. I thought it was pretty clear from context I was talking about American politics.

Also, I'm saying that CONSERVATISM is unempirical. I'm not sure how you even misinterpreted that.

Conservatives in America, aside from being decidedly anti-science, like to make big bold claims about what will happen if we do X, Y or Z. Then, when that outcome fails to appear, they refuse to admit they were wrong and instead invent a new bugaboo. Sometimes they just keep beating a dead horse (Obamacare is bad, mmkay? What's that? You LIKE your insurance?).

Beyond that, though, progressive policies have a transparent end goal: improve the quality of life of our citizens. This is something that is testable. "Liberal" policies are based on science, social science, and math, given that the goal of government should be to work on behalf of and for the benefit of its citizens.

Conservative ideology is either purely reactionary (social conservatism, which I don't think there's a place for anymore) or based on debunked economic theories (for the most part) which are themselves unempirical (i.e. Mises, Hayek, et al). The only reasoning they can provide for these policies is nebulous ideas like natural rights.

Property rights say that if you own something legitimately no one can tell you what to do with it, and that you can transfer it to someone else.

Someone like myself might say "well, hang on, that just gives rationale to pollution. property isn't as delineated as we'd like and there are externalities. Furthermore, allowing someone to transfer their own property without regulation leads inexorably to the accumulation of wealth among a chosen few. Money is power, and power corrupts; the first priority of those in power is to stay in power. Without a check on this accumulation it leads to an oligarchy (or even aristocracy). Maybe we should enact policies that prevent that from happening."


Politics is a lot like systems design. Garbage in garbage out.

Lord Snow wrote:
The fact that I have a right to life does not require you to feed me. As originally understood, if I had a "right" to demand food from you, you would effectively be my slave with your liberty and property being at least partially infringed by your duty of having to supply my food on demand. How then, do I get fed? I either grow the food myself, practice some sort of trade that will enable me to make money so I can buy food, or as a last resort depend on charity. Charity back in the day was the province of the family and the church. Government was neither seen as nor intended to be the "charity" of last resort.

The great part about progress is that we can grow past earlier concepts into later concepts the evolved from them. With time, and with mankind's improved capacities thanks to technology, many things that were once true no longer are.

We accumulated knowledge, we constructed more sophisticated structures of thought and layered them on the foundations prior generations lay for us.

In other words, rights are a great ideal, but they're not based in empiricism.

This just sort of reinforces my idea of political conservatism as theorycrafting vs. play experience.

Rynjin wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Glad I moved back to Florida.
You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!


Seriously though, Florida may have a bad rap because of all the weird s~#! that goes down, but the state's not a bad place to live at all.

Just like anywhere you have to filter out a lot of people you don't want to meet, but it's a nice place to call home.

Plus, we don't have as much of an alligator problem any more. Those new pythons are eating them all!

Well if you like it that's all that matters I guess. Thing is, even before Gov. Voldemort Florida has been bass ackwards in nearly all regards. Did you know they're not required to teach history before WWII in public schools? That's f+#+ed up.

But as someone who does his best to avoid sunlight and prefers more moderate temperatures, there's nothing to recommend Florida as a place to live. I think we should give it back to the Spanish and be done with it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
I've never heard a conservative talk about police/fire unions, other than in a specific context (like a mayor of a city in the middle of negotiations). They seem to mostly pretend that those unions don't exist, instead focusing on similar language that they use to describe the military (brave men and women, honor, duty, etc).

Here in Wisconsin, when they were crafting Act 10 the union busting bill from a few years back, they specifically exempted police and fire/rescue unions. When the next round of attacks came, they were exempted once again, and in fact the police were given raises rather than cuts.

To conservatives, property "rights">human rights in all cases.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cthulhu automatically wins because Gojira is fictional.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Glad I moved back to Florida.

You win the prize for creating a sentence never thought or uttered by another human being before you. Congrats!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh man.
This guy sure did go through a lot of trouble writing a long post for nothing.

Let's keep commenting on it so that his shame will never die!

Yeah, it's an anice flavored candy basically.
I love licorice. I tend to have a strong preference for natural sweet flavors (licorice, vanilla, chocolate, root beer, mint) as opposed to some new flavor cooked up in a lab.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the right answer is "Stop asking questions and keep digging"

Like, 48 hours?
But what do those buried people care, they're dead! (I hope)

1 to 50 of 7,066 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.