Welcome to Syndicate Gamers

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Rootbeer

Veteran
  • Content count

    816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Rootbeer last won the day on March 1

Rootbeer had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Rootbeer

  • Rank
    Koolaid xD
  • Birthday 03/24/92

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. hell yeah dude
  2. ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy u can be straight and have a folder full of chris evans pics I swear
  3. Oh I didn't actually notice that but yeah he uses the exact same overhead hilt-bash/block: Looks like the only difference against Obi Wan was that Maul missed his block completely.
  4. I like the stance swapping in Rebels though, that was pretty sweet. You know somethins 'boutta go down when Obi Wan swaps off his practiced defensive stance. The one he switches to was the offensive one in the Jedi Knights 2 if that means anything; it's been a while since I last read up on the different stances but in the game that one was a powerful & aggressive stance. What the frick is this, some sorta naruto sand-ninja technique? Sick nasty page from the comic tho:
  5. do u even kno who ur talkin to m8????????? im the #1 ranked human alliance, i have more experience than every one of you combined. ill first hit bash u the next time i see u bruh, cash me outside how bou' dah.
  6. u wanna fite m8o? assault's like #1 nostalgia, you dont mess with maps that are bae.
  7. Who's smart idea was this and why hasn't the rule been redacted yet?
  8. Yeah every admin deals with this in their own way, I like yours [=. Don't worry about it too much, the amount of people who don't actually understand all of the rules is pretty surprising. I also play with voice_enable 0 for the same reasons as you. However the other players are not at fault when you die to this rule, nor should you complain when someone calls a KOS on you over the mic and you suddenly get shot out of the blue. It's on you if you don't want to hear other players.
  9. Take initiative and host the JB party yourself! Can't rely on others to do it otherwise it doesn't happen.
  10. Reading this thread like smh then this line comes up LMFAO
  11. hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii [=
  12. sG golf pros There's like 1 good player and that's Pike, the rest of us herp&derp. Join our golf parties! We hold them every few nights, I'll remember to send you guys invites when we do.
  13. The koolest kids (that's me) on our wcs server waaaay back in the day all decided to change their names to a Koolaid for shitsngigs. I wanted to be a special snowflake so I looked up a list of Koolaids and chose the weirdest sounding one. A lot of people changed their name back within a week but some people kept theirs. I think I'm the only Koolaid alive =[
  14. I agree, in fact I was going to write a response asking whether or not it was fair to parallel the two together. I felt, however, that fatb0y's intention was not to compare the two but more-so to get Ordinary to see why someone might think another person should have less rights, something he felt was invariably wrong. I'm not saying that it's a correct point of view, but showing the logical path of someone coming to that conclusion, as well as following that with the question of whether it's right or not to think less of someone (trash, even) who logically came to that conclusion was a good lesson. The takeaway here is that people have differing moral beliefs and that thinking less of someone who doesn't feel the same way of you isn't a great way to go about it. (although tbf on Ordinary's part, he was merely making a broad comment against bigots in general.) That's an interesting topic that my Ethics professor also pointed out. He compared a mutually loving relationship between a brother and a sister (both consenting and both intelligent adults) to that of a couple that borderlined abuse (constant shouting and fighting heard throughout the nights if they were your neighbor). If you moved into the house separating the two couples, which of them would be more moral or "fit for society?" The adoption addition pops the favor even more towards the incestual couple. I'll posit another: our current argument against incest is merely birth defects. What if we got to the point in technology where birth defects are a complete thing of the past -- would incest still be immoral? I love it when technology and ethics collide, since ethics should stand the test of time -- it questions deontological philosophy. Like, what if we had a paste that solved world hunger for cheap -- its super nutritious and we can mass produce it. Would killing animals simply to enjoy eating a steak still be moral? Or if we invented a machine that could immediately detect pedophilia in a person's thoughts: would it be moral to immediately arrest that person? neat stuff.
  15. We're essentially discussing ethics ITT. At the core of ethics are values, and you learn in Ethics 101 that there are inherent values that you are born with and there are learned values that you learn from the people around you growing up, meaning everyone holds different values (compassion, loyalty, selflessness, list goes on). Not only that, but there are different approaches to ethics: one where the consequences of the action determines if it is moral or not, one where some things are intrinsically immoral/moral no matter what and it's our duty to know and remember those, and then there's one where you simply judge the guy by his virtues: his actions are simply a reflection of those -- if he's a good guy doing a bad thing, he probably had good intentions and so he was being moral. Those two things combined, values and approaches, means that almost everyone will think differently on a topic. For example, the 36 year old dating a 16 year old situation mentioned above. A virtue ethicist would look at both persons and examine the virtues that they possess. If the 36 year old genuinely means no harm, values compassion/affection with the 16 year old demonstrating capablity/intelligence/maturity, and both of them are genuinely in love with the other, it'd be completely moral for the two to get together. I listed a bunch of things but some would agree with it being moral with less stuff. Another example, pedophilia. A deontological ethicist (the second approach I mentioned) would immediately say STOP, that's an immoral state of mind and under no circumstances would it be okay. A consequentialist ethicist (the first approach) might ask, what if the pedophile only watches hentai or cartoons involving pedophilia (as opposed to videos of actual kids involved in porn, as that could lead to blackmarkets of it). Guy watches pedophilia only in its abstracts and never in his entire life would he actually involve a real kid (he in fact scorns the real life market of pedophile porn). A consequentialist (and mabey even a virtuist) would definitely consider this scenario moral, as nothing and noone is harmed. You might think, well we don't know if they won't do anything to real kids, it's only a matter of time -- we all play violent video games involving shooting other people, it's only a matter of time before we do so irl.