Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
We wouldn't be still reading one fucken book
Sadly, God only gave Christians one fucking book that they can use.
Its kinda why atheists have the advantage, apparently not being forced to defend a 2000 year old nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Top 10 Countries with the Highest Percentage of Atheists - WIN-Gallup 2017:91%86%78%75%72%72%72%70%70%68%
According to Christians, countries with more atheists or more non-Christians should have more crime.
So why is person 50 times more likely to be killed in USA than in Japan?
OwO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheists worldviews like Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Cuba inter alia, have killed more people than all the religions in history.
Germany was a Christian country.
A Christian country elected both Hitler and Stalin.
Christians placed them in power.
Christian countries started both world wars and killed hundreds of millions during the existence of Christianity.
And before you commit the cherry pick fallacy,
"Just because they say they are Christians, doesnt mean they are"
Would also mean
"Just because they say they are atheists, doesnt mean they are".
So you have only two options.
1. Concede that those who say that they are Christians are likely Christians, therefore relating Christianity to crime rate.
2. Concede that you dont know who is a Christian and who is an atheist, thus making it impossible to blame atheism for anything.
Of course, it already stands as fact that those who claim to be Christians are committing the most crimes, so I am guessing you will go for option 2 to save yourself from trouble.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Let's think about it. How many abortions will a pro abortionist be in favor of until they have to reject abortion in order for society not to die out?
You assume that pro abortionist is someone who wants to extend the existence of an immoral society?
Created:
Pro-life is self-defeating position, since pro-life is pro-suffering, pro-disappointment and eventual death, where pro-choice is just death.
A simple deduction will tell you that pro-life has 2 more bad things which pro-choice doesnt.
Well, pro life has many bad things related to it, including selfishness, desire to harm others and cause them pain, thinking its okay to force a pregnancy...
Its not even a competition at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Because your statistics have nothing to do with violence. They are statistics similar to checking the box to identify one's race or ethnicity.
They are statistics about violence in relation to people who say that they are Christians.
A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
I already explained to you two times that thats cherry picking, and irrelevant to the statistic about people who say that they are Christians.
Since you cannot know who really follows the teachings of Christ, your counter argument is nothing.
You can't just ignore the fact that Christian conversions take place within prison. And since the number of professed atheists are so small, they all can't be atheists. So unless you can address that, your point is meaningless.
Since you didnt say what number of them happen in prison, its not a counter argument.
Do you think all atheists are accounted for statistically?
Does it matter?
I'm using him as an example of a cultural Christian who states belief in God is unnecessary
Using an example of a deluded person saying nonsense, is again, cherry picking.
Maybe you dont know what cherry picking means?
Anyway, your comment is mostly assumptions. You assume that if leaders are atheist, that country is atheist too, when opposite is true in North Korea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
only identify themselves as Christians from their upbringing, but not converted to Christ which means a change in lifestyle.
This is cherry picking statistics.
Something I already covered, so I dont see why you felt the need to repeat the fallacy, after it was explained to you once.
they say their religion is Christian, or they're a Methodist, Baptist, etc. They may not even believe in God.
So their religion is Christian, but they dont believe in God?
Since we cannot open people's heads to check if they believe in God, what we are left with is again those who claim to be Christians and those who claim to be atheists.
Exactly! And thus the problem. Many atheists, probably the majority, don't make any public claim to being atheist. Many probably don't even think about it. They don't believe in God, and never talk about it to anyone.
Those are bunch of assumptions..
There are no atheists who dont claim to be atheists.
And even if there were, you wouldnt know it, thus unknown number, thus irrelevant to any statistic.
He's most likely an atheist.
An assumption. And a cherry pick of a case.
He also stated that one need not believe in God or Norse deities to be a part of these religions
An assumption which doesnt leave us with conclusion.
Another example of false advertising is claiming that atheist nations are more peaceful than religious nations
Religious nations did give us Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and basically exterminated 100 million native Americans, and have been the cause of almost every war in this and former century.
But atheist nations are almost non-existent.
Many people in China have religion, which, despite not being Christianity, is still a religion that cannot be considered atheism.
Japan also has religion, which might be closer to atheism, since their religion involves more praying to mountains and spirits of ancestors.
In North Korea, Kim family is considered supernatural, which could be atheism if we ignore that leader is considered literal God who cannot make a mistake and must be obeyed at all cost, but North Korea isnt exactly an example of non-peaceful society.
In fact, North Korea wasnt at war for over 70 years.
Created:
Posted in:
I asked the Dark Gods to make me smartest and most good looking.
I am still waiting for that one to come true.
Created:
Posted in:
Christians have for centuries promoted all kinds of lies about atheists.
From being perverts to having no morality.
But truth turned out to be opposite.
Christian families tend to raise violent people.
While some have said that there are different types of Christians, and some are much better than others,
What obviously counts is average, and not cherry picking only good Christians and ignoring the bad.
Cherry picking is a statistical fallacy where you only pick good Christians to prove that Christians are good.
Conclusion of course, doesnt follow.
It would be like only picking smart atheists to prove that atheists are smart, or only picking good atheists to prove that atheists are good.
Statistically, what matters is average Christian vs average atheist, because for Christianity to be beneficial, it must be more beneficial as a whole compared against atheism.
If average Christian is more violent than average atheist, it follows that Christians are more violent and Christianity produces more violence.
Atheists make 0.1% of prison population, despite making 3% of the general population in USA.
Christians make up 65% of prison population, despite being 60% of population in USA.
So atheists ratio of population to prison is 30:1.
Christian ratio is 1:1.
So atheists are 30 times less likely to go to prison.
Now, some have thrown unsupported counter-argument that atheists in prison lie about being Christians.
We only know if someone is an atheist or Christian if they tell us.
To claim that we shouldnt trust people about that would just translate into not being able to say who is a Christian and who is atheist.
This would lead us to absurd position, but statistically, it still works against Christians.
Thats because if we replace "christian" with "people who say they are christian",
we still reach the conclusion that people who say that they are Christians, are more violent.
Statistics are not something which is easy to escape, as we can clearly see.
So Christians must concede that people who say that they are Christians are more violent than people who say that they are atheists.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Have you read a single word I've written? No, of course you haven't.
Of course he hasnt.
He only thinks something is true if it helps Trump or Putin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
what advantage do NDEs have in natural selection?
They dont need to have an advantage.
They just need not to be terrible disadvantage and they must have something causing them in order to exist.
people who dream say NDEs are more real than this earthly life and they have no question in their mind that it's real, and they no longer fear death. that is the opposite of a dream. people who have had both experiences say they are not at all the same.
So they say, but thats hard to verify or meassure.
People have stronger and less stronger dreams.
If dream near death fits expected image of reality in afterlife, it seems more real.
Those people have an incentive to lie, so they are exaggerating the experience.
All of these are possibilities.
Now, I will admit that I dont know much about near death experiences, and there is plenty of unknowns there.
Still, to accept them would mean to accept something as true just because someone says they saw it.
And nde exist in muslims, and probably in many other religions.
People who are near death often "see" or "hear" their own memories and desires.
Some even call names of people who are dead and claim to see them.
None of that is evidence of those things being real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
do you think NDEs are a product of evolution? they'd have to be, considering how common they are if they are products of the brain only. how does an end of life hallucination improve one's ability to reproduce?
They are a product of human's ability to imagine and dream.
When I dream, I think that the dream is real.
And one can even affect what he dreams by thinking about it a lot while awake.
Its hard to exactly explain near death experiences just like its hard to explain dreams or hallucinations or crazy people seeing things which others dont.
They just dont diminish survival to the point where we wouldnt be able to exist.
So they are either in category of neccessary for survival or simply of beyond survival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Evolution is about survival of the fittest.
There is a standard which is necessary to survive.
Those who fit that standard will survive.
Then there is "beyond survival", where certain things dont help people survive, but can exist because they dont significantly diminish survival either.
I can see how lying and religions help people survive.
In fact, even in early societies, one could make good amount of income if he convinced others that God chose him or that God exists and he is the only one who hears him.
Critical thinking skills didnt really exist back then.
And almost all societies had their version of God or Gods, and every society had a different God.
It shows that religion made some individuals rich and respected in society, so they went for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Most people cant even describe how critical thinking works.
They think something is true if it sounds good.
Created:
You cannot meassure without affecting what you meassure.
Either touching, moving it, approaching it, being near it.
Your body produces gravity, which, despite being insignificant on a large scale, slightly affects everything near you.
Created:
Posted in:
Obviously, there are only two possibilities:
1. God exists
2. God doesnt exist
So one can concede that 2 is impossible to prove and 1 is impossible to disprove.
Humans have limited knowledge, and even if there was actual proof of God not existing, it would be negated by category of omnipotence, where apparently an all powerful God can create proof that he doesnt exist and present that proof to humans.
So one must concede that existence of God is unknown and impossible to disprove, which makes his existence possible.
This creates the situation where God both exists and doesnt, since both options cannot be proven neither wrong nor right.
Of course, atheists can claim that theists need to prove their claims, but per law of proof, a claim that cannot be disproved can be true or false, and taking either position does not mean being more likely to be correct.
So naturally, not taking position that given claim is true is not any more likely to be correct.
And since there is a possibility that God exists, theists can justify their belief with that possibility alone, since it is not proven that God's non-existence is more likely, nor can it be.
So even if they had burden of proof, it would be satisfied to a great amount.
Further, since this puts theists at an already equal proof grounds where their claims cannot be disproven, the only thing theists need is to slightly move the proof towards their position.
So presenting arguments such as intelligent design which makes God(intelligent supernatural) necessary to explain the existence and organization of logical consistent laws of universe in the entire universe,
where otherwise there is no other explanation as to what created them and what upholds them constantly and why different laws dont exist,
where God's will and intelligence can explain why such laws are maintained everywhere equally, and why different laws dont exist.
Arguments such as those can move the proof slightly in favor of theists, or so would they assume.
But then we reach an interesting point, which is kinda what places theists back in position of lack of proof.
Option 1 isnt limited to one God.
Option 1 includes all Gods, known and unknown, revealed and non-revealed.
This basically means that an infinite amount of Gods are possible.
So even if theists could prove that God generally exists, they would not be able to prove that their specific God exists.
Theist's position is not "God exists".
Theist's position is "My God exists".
So, in this silly outcome, even if theists were to prove God, they would not prove their God.
Because they believe in a specific God with specific attributes, they cannot prove their God even if they prove God in general.
And that leads to question: "How did Christians select their God?".
Since its impossible to equally consider an infinite amount of Gods, it follows that something other than such consideration had to cause Christians to select their God.
Christians, of course, make an assumption that only the revealed Gods are possible.
A flawed assumption, but it is their only choice.
And from that assumption, they make way towards "selecting" their God, apparently Christian God, through deduction
by usually misrepresenting all other religions, not even studying them, ignoring them, and basically just accepting what their parents taught them.
So no, one cannot say that Christians selected their religion.
Selection would imply a choice, and choice would imply being informed enough and would imply consistent results of choices coming from different circumstances.
Religion cannot be considered a choice, because in most cases it isnt.
If type of family didnt determine your religion, we would expect to see same ratio of Christians being born in Christian family as the ratio of Christians being born in muslim family.
But we dont see same ratio. Not even close to same.
If you are born in a Christian family, you will most likely be a Christian.
If you are born in a muslim family, you will most likely be a muslim. (Not Christian).
How is it a choice, if a type of family you are born in greatly determines your religion?
It is not really a choice.
Most people are limited to going with what they are taught.
Most Christians didnt select their religion.
They simply inherited it from their parents.
Created:
Posted in:
"Immigration involves moving from one's home country to another, with 50.6 million immigrants in the U.S. alone, the highest globally."
Looks like US has most immigrants and US is number one in both economy and military.
Statistically, every country has a certain rate of very smart people being born in it.
And then those people move to USA and use their intelligence to help USA.
Created:
Posted in:
A group whose members have described themselves as “God’s army”
Thats how people usually call themselves when they go to commit immoral acts.
Its interesting how God is more often used to justify bad actions rather than inspire good actions.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, you are citing an article from Politico that provided an incomplete description of the judges ruling.
One of MAGA's main strategies is attacking claims out of their context or total structure.
Apparently, stupid people fall for it and Trump figured out that he can manipulate voters by constant out of context fallacy which masses are too stupid to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
Reminding you any an unfortunate soul who comes across this website what an irrational hypocrite you are.
You would think that, but really, that copy pasting just makes you look like a triggered idiot.
And anyone who sees that you promote civil war and defaming rape victims isnt going to feel pity for you.
Otherwise they might just think there is something like a point in trying to explain your endless misconceptions or point out the many contradictions you advance.
There are no contradictions.
As usual, your irrational mind cannot imagine more than two options.
Weak minds usually use "or" and "otherwise" in the dumbest illogical way possible.
The third option is that they see your copy paste and think of you as a triggered moron.
It's important that they know that whatever you may mouth about respect, rules, compassion, you're either too stupid or too immoral to stop yourself from choking out a callback over randomly bringing up a parent's death in an attempt to derail what little rational discourse may have been occurring.
Or I have respect and compassion towards people, and I follow rules, and I simply insult those who promote total destruction of our society.
You may assume that respect means staying silent on your promotion of civil war, and not insulting you, but you are wrong.
Respecting people means insulting those who promote total destruction of those people.
You may think that if I have lots of compassion, that I must remain silent on your promotion of civil war, but you are just wrong as usual.
Those who derail deserve to be derailed. Those who behave as hypocrites deserve to have their hypocrisy displayed.
Not if they derail those who promote civil war and who lie about rape victims.
Those who promote civil war deserve to be insulted and derailed.
I wonder how long will you keep copy pasting before you stop being triggered.
I used to be triggered too, but eventually, mind evolves past that and you realize that you dont need to be triggered about anything.
Created:
Posted in:
- Competing accounts of economic doctrines (capitalism, socialism, marxism)
I hope you are defending socialism or marxism there.
I find your arguments to be very interesting and very well constructed, and I like when you defend position I agree with.
Created:
Posted in:
Grey parrot seems to be making a lot of sense here.
No.
It's good to know they just writhe around spewing non-sense no matter what you post, so why put any effort having original content?
You would assume that, but if what you are saying is true, it still doesnt follow that endless copy pasting is a rational response.
In fact, endless copy pasting is a sign of brain damage.
Apparently, the brain doesnt want to respond to "nonsense", but is too damaged to simply walk away or stop posting, so instead it does endless copy paste for no rational reason whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Or even better, go debate AI on the topic:
"Is promoting civil war good for society?"
AI will probably tell you to seek professional help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
the plain folks of the land
He was talking about MAGA morons.
Thats how MAGA morons were called back then.
"the plain folks of the land"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Go ask AI:
"Is it okay to promote civil war?"
Created:
Posted in:
"Crimes Trump is Guilty of
Former President Donald Trump is facing several criminal charges. Here are some of the charges he is currently facing:
1. **Federal Felony Charges**: Trump is facing **40 federal felony charges**, including three new counts added on July 27, 2024.
2. **Falsifying Business Records**: Trump has been charged with **34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree**. These charges are related to an alleged scheme to cover up violations of New York election law and to hide a $130,000 payment made before the 2016 election.
3. **Conspiracy to Defraud the United States**: Trump has been charged with **conspiracy to defraud the United States**, **conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding**, **obstruction**, and **conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted**.
4. **Violation of Georgias Anti-Racketeering Law**: Trump has been charged with violating Georgias powerful anti-racketeering law in connection with efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss in the state.
It's important to note that Trump has pleaded **not guilty** to all the charges against him.
Please keep in mind that the information provided is based on the search results available and may not include all the charges or legal developments related to Trump's cases."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Its the lack of friends and lack of anyone who loves a person which makes the person seek love outside of the normal path.
This usually ends in them joining a cult to feel like they belong somewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I asked AI:
"Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo?"
AI answers:
"No, someone who lives alone and has not been in a relationship with a woman is not necessarily a "weirdo."
People have different life circumstances and experiences, and it is important to avoid making judgments or assumptions based on limited information.
Some individuals may choose to live alone for personal reasons, while others may have not yet found a partner or have different priorities in their lives.
It is essential to respect and understand that everyone's journey is unique, and it's not fair to label someone as a "weirdo" simply because their circumstances are different from societal norms."
I asked:
"What if that person promotes civil war?"
AI answers:
"If the person in question promotes civil war or engages in any behavior that incites violence or harm to others, that is a separate issue from their living arrangements or romantic history.
Promoting violence or civil unrest is a serious matter and can have significant consequences for both the individual and society at large.
It is important to address such behavior by reporting it to the appropriate authorities or seeking professional help if necessary.
However, it is still important to approach the situation with empathy and understanding, as there may be underlying reasons or circumstances that have led the person to adopt such extreme views."
Created:
Posted in:
Why does he need money from MAGA?
I thought he was a billionare?
Well, MAGA are morons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Show us on the doll where the deep state hurt you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wonder how long will you guys keep posting that.
Remember, its only funny once!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Whats even the logic in being able to dodge attacks from someone 100 times stronger than you
Apparently, reaction skills.
As long as you dodge attacks, you dont take damage, and you can then slowly poke enemy with weak attacks until enemy dies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There needs to be a sense of human imperfection behind it. The best games are not polished.
I agree.
Producers shouldnt focus on graphics and perfect animations, because gameplay experience is more important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
most games are too predictable
I played same games for 50 times because their replay value is higher than many games's play value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Heh
I didnt play Dark Souls, but I played some other games which were really difficult,
and yeah it sucks when you are basically the weakest thing in the game and have to do terrible amount of gymnastics and dodging
just to make up for the fact that enemies are 100 times stronger than you.
Created:
Posted in:
Some people define personhood to mean simply being a member of our species. But that renders the word redundant, because it would simply be a synonym for human.
Here is my view.
Personhood means greatest legal rights and protection by society, and also different treatment by law.
It is assumed that humans have personhood, while non-humans dont.
Thats why non-humans have less rights.
Thats why when law says "person", it talks about humans.
Now, if personhood should be extended to non-humans is a good question, to which we dont know the exact answer.
Cow being a "person" legally means that cow goes to prison if it commits a crime, that it has to go to school, that it cannot be killed for meat, and many other things which come with being a person.
AI being a person would work slightly better than cow, but there are many issues there too.
AI would basically have right to vote and reproduce, which means that eventually it could outnumber humans and take all legal power.
Created:
Posted in:
AdreamoflibertyBy the way you lied about me lyingMaybe you should recant your slander
Maybe you should stop lying and supporting civil wars, but you are probably too deep in delusions to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
AdreamoflibertyBy the way you lied about me lyingMaybe you should recant your slander
Maybe you should stop lying and supporting civil wars, but you are probably too deep in delusions to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
AdreamofLiberty:Unfortunately the deep state aren't imbeciles like you. They know territory and people means power
Ah yes, "them" who are really really in power even if democrats arent.
And Trump is fighting "them" and trying to save us, right?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Now with the abortion, God may have mercy on the baby , have them enter into his kingdom. But throw the aborting doctors and parents into the lake of fire.
Well, statistically, parents will most likely go to hell anyway since most people go to hell.
You assume that parents going to hell and their children to heaven is a bad thing, and that its better to have both parents and children likely going to hell.
But abortion increases heaven population.
So if baby will go to heaven if aborted, and probably go to hell if given birth too, and parents likely going to hell even if they give birth, abortion seems like a much better choice for the baby and likely doesnt change much for parents.
The other option is that abortion guarantees that parents will go to hell and baby will go to heaven.
So if 2 parents abort 8 babies, then 80% of people from that group go to heaven.
So one cannot really judge parents who sacrificed themselves to send their 8 children to heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
Nobody really thinks Texas would be alone right?
Few other republican states can separate too.
Its not a problem.
Politically, for Democrats, whats exactly the use of Texas and states like Texas?
Last time it gave 38 votes to Trump, none to Biden.
If power is the goal, it seems logical to prefer to have power with smaller USA than not have power with bigger USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
It seems that people in Texas are fed up with the migration crisis that old Joe is incapable of fixing.
There is a strong correlation between being Christian and being fed up with migrants.
One can almost sense a causation.
Now, Texas is only 8% of GDP and is filled with people who by all standards have nothing to look for in a democracy.
Its not a significant loss for USA to just kick Texas out.
Biden and Trump are very close in polls, and Texas is a state which could give Trump 40 electoral votes, which is about 8% of all votes.
So really, one must wonder if Texas separating would be a really bad thing or maybe not so bad after all.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because I didn't like Trump either
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
"Even if the Legislature were to act on the new Republican Party proposal to put an independence referendum on the general election, it would not be legally valid.
“The legality of seceding is problematic,” Eric McDaniel, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin, told The Texas Tribune in 2016.
“The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues.”
As the United States was torn apart by divisions over whether slavery could expand into the nation’s western territories, Texas in 1861 voted to secede from the Union.
In the ensuing Civil War, up to 750,000 people — more than 2 percent of all Americans — died.
Following the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865, Texas was formally readmitted to the Union in 1870, during the Reconstruction Era.
Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was forever defeated, McDaniel said.
The Union’s victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede.
Even before Texas formally rejoined the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that secession had never been legal, and that, even during the rebellion, Texas continued to be a state."
I vote to kick out Texas and few other Republican states.
It might seem like it would harm USA, but it would not.
Republican states are the ones electing Trump.
Trump is the one helping US enemies.
So really, without republicans in power, US enemies dont stand a chance.
Is Texas even an important part of USA?
Created:
Children and infants go to hell
There were Christians who defended position that non-Christian infants go to hell.
An insane position, you would think.
But actually, the other position (that they dont go to hell, but to heaven) is just as insane, because then it would be immoral to give birth and abortions would actually be greatly beneficial for unborns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Kick them out, look at the money we will save in Medicare, Medicaid and SS.
Texas is just bunch of MAGA morons who vote for Trump and support Putin.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you thing Texit is possible? Is it viable legally?
Legally, states in USA arent part of a country that is "voluntary union which its territories can leave at will".
While states have lots of power, they are overwritten by US government any time when in contradiction.
Although letting Texas separate would be biggest possible defeat for Republicans.
They would lose 40 electoral votes, making it impossible to win 2024 election or any election ever.
So yes, letting Texas separate would be good for USA and democrats.
In fact, letting a few republican states separate would make republican party politically non-existent in USA.
Created:
Posted in:
I have been thinking why I like the games I like, so I took their characteristics to explain which characteristics make better games.
Feel free to disagree, but here it goes.
1. Being easy and being difficult
Games should have difficulty options, but if not, it would be good if game was closer to easy.
Game needs to get slightly more difficult as you progress.
So the start should be very easy, basically impossible to get killed at the start due to enemies doing not much damage.
I really hate games which give strong enemies right at the start.
Like, you dont have time to learn the game slowly.
2. Strong character
Character shouldnt be easy to kill.
I really dont like it in games when some enemy can one shot me.
3. Character that gets consistently stronger over time
Character shouldnt be always equally strong, and character shouldnt be stuck on one power level too long.
Character should get stronger over time consistently.
4. Character should be able to do lots of damage to enemies
I dont like games which put you against bosses which take 5000 hits to be killed.
5. Farming levels should be possible, simple and easy
If there is a leveling system, it should be possible to farm to increase level
6. Farming gold/money should be possible in game
It should come together with farming level
7. Game is supposed to make you feel much stronger than ordinary characters and only 20% stronger than bosses.
I feel like this one doesnt require much explanation.
The game shouldnt focus on being difficult or complicated, rather game should focus on giving you lots of weak enemies and then one strong boss.
That way, you first fight against numbers, and then against one stronger character.
8. Game should never make you feel weak
I dont like games where you are forced to fight enemies which you have to put lots of effort to beat.
I also dont like games which force you to run away from enemies because you cant beat them.
9. Lots of options, powers, weapons
There should be, obviously, lots of options to give more freedom to player, and options should be working well.
No one likes useless options/useless powers in games.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What would be a really tiny step would be actually charging Trump for criminal insurrection.
Go one charge at the time.
He already has like hundreds of cases against him, so I understand it takes you time to process all that.
Created: