Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Glink

Member Since 05 Nov 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 04:39 AM
-----

#4170919 Women you would settle down with. 10/10 perfection thread

Posted Thaya on 16 July 2014 - 01:54 PM

Posted Image


#4150583 Women you would settle down with. 10/10 perfection thread

Posted Flavours on 21 June 2014 - 03:43 PM

Only woman i could ever love xo

Posted Image


#4147118 Women you would settle down with. 10/10 perfection thread

Posted Swapnames on 18 June 2014 - 04:01 PM

I'll put a good word to my father

Posted Image


#4147097 Women you would settle down with. 10/10 perfection thread

Posted Swapnames on 18 June 2014 - 03:32 PM

View PostEsiwdeer, on 18 June 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

Posted Image


The power of love,
A force from above,
Cleaning my soul,
Flame on burn desire,
Love with tongues of fire,
Purge the sou


#4147079 Women you would settle down with. 10/10 perfection thread

Posted Esiwdeer on 18 June 2014 - 03:22 PM

Posted Image


#4146782 Women you would settle down with. 10/10 perfection thread

Posted FTRouslan on 18 June 2014 - 10:59 AM

Posted Image


#4169662 [Lee] Beastcleave Vs RMP - Video

Posted Leeqt on 14 July 2014 - 04:27 PM


(watch in 1080p) Enjoy ~SLOW MO~

Hey guys,
Heres some Beastcleave games vs a 2800+ RMP. I know that it's a 'mage' team but whatever boo hoo, the guys we were vs'ing are extremely good players. Hope that you guys get some entertainment out of it and a bit of a laugh at the stupid burst enhance provides.

Please Like the video and Subscribe to my channel as it helps my channel grow. Feel free to comment on my video so I can reply and answer your questions or feedback. Thanks heaps!

Special thanks to Glinks & Jetnoob.

- Lee


#4144598 any of you guys actually play

Posted Esiwdeer on 16 June 2014 - 07:21 PM

It just feels, I don't know. It's like, okay. I am in better shape than him. I'm further in school than he is. My RBG team was legend like, I have literally allowed Reckful, Talbadar, Kollektiv and Snuts to cap the Blacksmith from me whilst I stood there with my map open, emoting at them only to command my men to win the game. I'm like some sort of sex Napoleon mixed with a Harlem Globetrotter of World of Warcraft. I mean Napoleon in the competency in war, engineering and physics sense - not the height sense. I'm just trying to say, I'm like 93rd percentile in terms of height. Not that it matters or anything, but I digress.

It just seems sort of logical, you know? Plus, it isn't even my technical skill with the female body, nor my penis(although both are far above average in terms of length, breadth and general efficiency) - it's my enthusiasm that sets me apart from my competitors, whose prices I continue to vow to beat or match.

We could be soulmates, Nymph. I'll forgive your gypsy heritage and you can forgive my past transgressions. We'll pay each other penance for our misgivings through glorious, determined sex and enjoy life as only truly free, independent people might, entangled only by each other's limbs, genitalia and the articulation of all of our sexual fantasies.  

My bravery and skill with weapons is second to no World of Warcraft player ever; to get an upgrade from me as a boyfriend you'd have to start somewhere in the range of Eric Bana, so unless you have plans to become at least a B list celebrity or porn star, I'm pretty much your best bet. You probably don't even know the first thing about Eric Bana, either, making the upgrade all the more unlikely.

I am the Casanova to Bailamos' Steve Urkel, the Prince to his John Goodman. I'm a genius, baby.

--

I can see the ocean from where I'm writing this post without moving my head. Reflect on that for a moment. And not the shitty, Atlantic one either. They call it "pacific" for a reason.

Amateur hour is over - let me teach you about fine dining, finer companionship, intimacy and love. I'm in peak physical condition, I'm in the top 1% of all marksmen, ever and there's no way for you to know this, but I'm heroically brave in virtually any situation and would defend you from even the most fierce attacker which, in California, would be a black human or bear, approximately 6' tall, usually male - regardless of our happenstance, and how fate might affect our relationship my sense of fair play and cat-like, Olympic reflexes make for an all-around good time.

This is like, winning the lottery for you, honestly. I know there's no way for you to know that right now, but my mate value is extremely high. I know people always say like, "you can never be the best, someone is always better than you" but I think there's a good chance that in my case, that isn't true.

Empathic, attuned to your needs and wants, fiercely loyal and intellectually superior to all your past mates combined - come home, Nymph.

USA,

Reed Wise


#4144439 any of you guys actually play

Posted Flavours on 16 June 2014 - 04:45 PM

View PostNympheu, on 16 June 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

Wondering how long it takes for people to realise I'm not actually Bailamos' girlfriend.

we know, ur just twitch girl #1656328 bialamos will try to romance


#4141268 Remove Sewers

Posted Esiwdeer on 13 June 2014 - 02:17 AM

thought this topic was about removing eu's access to website, lol


#4141763 Arena123 targetting actually hurts arena

Posted Avengelyne on 13 June 2014 - 09:41 PM

View Postsounds, on 13 June 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

Seems mostly everyone agrees that the problem isn't arena1/2/3 but in the way that some of these spells can be abused using arena1/2/3.

For example;

Mage1 is invisible. Mage2 on opposing team is spamming his @arena1 macro so he can silence mage1 as soon as he comes out of invis (without even having a clue where he might be). Mage1 pops out of invis halfway across the map. Mage2 is staring at a brick wall. CS goes off even though mage2 doesn't even know where he is.

Personally I see the problem here being that there is no positional requirement on some of the more powerful abilities (I think most if not all CC should have a facing requirement except for some casted CC due to latency & shit-eating feral druids) AND the fact that even if you miss an interrupt they are still silenced for X duration anyway.

Will be interesting to see when they remove the blanket silence parts of all the interrupts in WoD.

http://us.battle.net...5-23-2014#cc_dr

Look on the other hand... Your team is sitting there.. entire other steam is stealth'd (rmd)

Mage comes out already casting a poly which is guaranteed plus a deep freeze with a blanket CS and a ring.

Everybody is CC'd instantly. In comes a frozen orb and an opener. Everyone trinkets only to get cycloned/blinded/roared/stunned/anyoneofthemillionotherccs

or

Mage casts out of invis and is stopped as it should be with arena3 CS to prevent retard burst and CC

If RMD was good, this would happen

Rogue opens on mage

Mage cannot CS arena 3 while garroted

Bullshit occurs anyway



Or how about priest rambos across 50 yards invisible and fear bombs everyone. At least spamming A3 CS it could be stopped..


#4138319 Best Underrated Player (Hidden Talent)

Posted Braindance on 10 June 2014 - 01:33 AM

Posted Image


#4138997 On Relationships/Reedwise AMA

Posted FTRouslan on 10 June 2014 - 09:17 PM

View PostAyrasaurus, on 10 June 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

what a painfully try hard post

what makes it worse is he isn't even trolling like reedwise

haha, le troll xD

Posted Image

At this point, I'm hoping it's a troll. I doubt it, because there's people who actually think like that. It's depressing.


#4138979 On Relationships/Reedwise AMA

Posted FTRouslan on 10 June 2014 - 09:12 PM

First of all,

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

I am not replacing anything with anything. I said I was trying to replace my precepts with actual, quantifiable awareness.
What the legit fuck. Reread that and let that sink in.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

I didn't talk about ethics. I did not say that it was my intention to replace morality with science. I am not replacing anything with anything. I said I was trying to replace my precepts with actual, quantifiable awareness.

Okay, so you're not replacing morality with science. You're just replacing the principles that guide your actions and decisions with a sense of intuition developed by repeated experience.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

For example, if you eat beef or pork on a regular basis and you are a male of European descent, you will eventually get colon cancer. So I don't eat those two things. Not because of the Quran, not because of Lent: because I don't want colon cancer. I am not replacing my morality with science, I'm making decisions for a reason.

Okay, so you're making a rational decision based off of repeated empirical observations. Hmm, I wonder what we normally call that? Inductive reasoning? Hmm...

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

My question was never what, my question was always when. When does an action or person become good or bad? If economics can't hash out the particulars, say, of a market crash(when, how, why?)how could something so simple as becoming a "utilitarian" solve problems that men have spent their entire lives trying to solve, literally thousands of years of contemplation?

Yeah I understood what you meant by when. I questioned everything else because you began raving about the last great frontier of morality and replace morality with scientific awareness. At best, that doesn't mean anything. At worst, those are fucking idiotic ideas that I've already  explained.

What you're talking about is essentially a modernist/postmodernist criticism of progress considering that despite all our combined effort throughout the ages, we still haven't figured out everything.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

No reason to bring up Bentham(for those who don't know, he basically just lumped me in as a utilitarian and then said that I was unoriginal because the first person to have this idea apparently owns it forever) - you can go fuck yourself talking about Sam Harris and.. what else?

I called you out on it because you're beginning to spout vapid nonsense that betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of not only the subjects that you're talking about, but also what you have fucking written.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

Economics isn't a science either, did you know that?

Uh, since when? While economics isn't exactly physics, there is a huge inductive and empirical component in economics that is hard to ignore. Only Austrian economics tries to eschew as much of that empirical component as possible, and while it's actually pretty coherent for a heterodox theory, it has major weaknesses which keeps it marginalized as a critiquing influence on mainstream economics.

The difference is that the laws of nature are assumed to never change. When you add fickle humans to the picture, we lose the ability to embrace positivism as much we'd like, and the ability to quantify many human-created concepts, like morality. The scientific rigor of social sciences depends on the amount of quantifiable information, the quality of anecdotal information, and the amount of biases present in both the observer and the object. Even if it isn't scientifically rigorous, that doesn't preclude a social science from being important or useful.

http://www.nytimes.c...-a-science.html

Quote

But the headline-grabbing differences between the findings of these Nobel laureates are less significant than the profound agreement in their scientific approach to economic questions, which is characterized by formulating and testing precise hypotheses. I’m troubled by the sense among skeptics that disagreements about the answers to certain questions suggest that economics is a confused discipline, a fake science whose findings cannot be a useful basis for making policy decisions.

That view is unfair and uninformed. It makes demands on economics that are not made of other empirical disciplines, like medicine, and it ignores an emerging body of work, building on the scientific approach of last week’s winners, that is transforming economics into a field firmly grounded in fact.

http://business.time...has-helped-you/

Quote


Hansen: I would prefer myself the first couple paragraphs in [Milton] Friedman’s address which makes a strong case for economics as a science, and how the scientific underpinnings are critical to any discussions of what are prudent policies going forward.

The way that I look at it is, that if you look at subjects where there are the biggest discrepancies between what policy actions should be taken, those are often places where the empirical evidence we have is weakest. The more that we can learn, the more that we can improve our understanding of the economics, the more it will narrow these policy discussions.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

I made clear distinctions between life and theoretical sciences, other posters called them social sciences - it's just a matter of opinion, isn't it? I claimed economics was a theoretical science, not psychology. Psychology is like, I don't know, the same as bodybuilding. You can pretty much just work hard and make it up. I clearly stated that even physics, the most advanced of all the sciences, has major flaws - huge, unsolved mysteries that have lasted for centuries.

To be clear, you've never made any distinction between natural sciences and social sciences. You just mentioned physics and then economics like the two are comparable. You mentioned life and theoretical science while barely mentioning their differences in your incoherent ramblings.

"Work hard and make it up" in psychology, misunderstanding the difference between natural and social sciences, calling physics "the most advanced of all sciences"...

I don't think you understand how we come to knowledge in science or other areas of knowledge.  What is your definition for the word "scientific"? I hope you realize that the same criticism you hold for psychology could be applied in just about any scientific field. Just because a model works is no proof of its accuracy. See Tycho Brahe and his working model of geocentrism and Newtonian physics. And just because social sciences work with more anecdotal information does not immediately invalidate any knowledge we get from psychology, economics, etc.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

If you want to call me a rationalist, an immoralist or a utilitarian, you're an idiot. Nowhere in any of my writings have I ever mentioned distributive justice and I personally find the rest of Bentham's work to be pedantic. You just said his name in an attempt to pass ignorance for intelligent conversation. Neither psychology nor economics can be called wholly scientific, period.

I mentioned Bentham because of your quote here:

View PostEsiwdeer, on 09 June 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

I think it is possible to quantify the amount of good or bad you do with any action, roughly, and while this base of information obviously isn't scientific it still holds weight in the real world where physics hasn't carried us yet.

Basically an homage to Bentham's attempt to quantify levels of "good" or "bad" through the concept of utility and its rough calculation through the "hedonistic calculus". Hence, utilitarianism. I'm not sure how you missed that while you went on your rant about Bentham's pedantry and his system of distributive justice, which isn't event fucking relevant at all. Considering that utility is Bentham's  most famous contribution to the study of morality, let alone the entirety of philosophy,  I'm beginning to doubt whether you have any sort of intellectual grasp on what you're saying anymore.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

My thoughts of late have all been inspired by my reading Hayek's most recent book - Hayek died in 1992, is that too ancient to be relevant? Forgive me, friend. I bet you don't know the name of a single economist currently working on information theory without Googling it. "rofl einstein is dead bro stop fuckin around wit numbers.

You couldn't hang in an actual discussion. Much easier to dismiss something as a social science, or ethics or utilitarianism or whatever else. The fact that you even thought of Bentham after reading what I wrote proves that you have no idea what is going on. Stick to 5 sentence, name-dropping replies that will garner the favor of every Rush Limbaugh fan who reads this thread - you're not fooling me.

Just wanted to reply to show you can't take a swing at the champ for free. You and the other guy should take it to PMs so you two can (incoherently)talk about doomsday prepping together.

And in the event that you couldn't read this post either, here you go: you're an incoherent, name-dropping idiot who is also a Rush Limbaugh fan. You don't know anything about economics and you plainly illustrate that by confusing economists with philosophers. You might as well have written "Confucius died like 200 years ago brah, any attempt besides religion to solve morality is utilitarianism."

It's like calling a chef a survivalist or something - man, this guy really knows how to get the most out of his food. I don't need to be a utilitarian. Why didn't you compare me to Ayn Rand or literally hundreds of other prolific authors on the subject of possessive self interest? I can't believe how much you misunderstood like, it's astounding to me. I am astounded.

When. Not what. When. When does an action become whatever it eventually becomes? That is the question that drives markets, companies, relationships - that's the question economics tries to answer with stability or equilibrium. That's the thing you're missing. That's the thing about data: on a long enough timeline, there's a problem with everything. Isn't that interesting? Data from the past has no bearing on the future, that's why I'm not a utilitarian. Thanks, though.

What the fuck are you even talking about. You're so fucking wrong about me it's not even funny. How could you even extrapolate all that bullshit from two sentences? You're a fucking lunatic.

No sane individual would get that angry and self-righteous over two lines of text. You're grasping at fucking straws you fucking retard.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

My thoughts of late have all been inspired by my reading Hayek's most recent book - Hayek died in 1992, is that too ancient to be relevant? Forgive me, friend. I bet you don't know the name of a single economist currently working on information theory without Googling it. "rofl einstein is dead bro stop fuckin around wit numbers.

You've insulted my understanding of economics out of nowhere, simply because you read one book of Hayek and think you understand the entire field of Austrian economics, let alone economics as a whole. I don't think you realize that Hayek is actually irrelevant in today's world BECAUSE AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS HAS BEEN REFUTED A THOUSAND TIMES AND HAS BEEN DEAD FOR A WHILE NOW. Except amongst randroids and libertarians, Austrian economics is little more than a footnote in the annals of economic history. A failed attempt by Mises to derive a theory of everything but in the economic world from a set of logical deductions. Like Descartes, he fucking failed because he failed to understand problems with purely axiomatic systems when they're applied to understand the world. It's a familiar problem called the problem of induction. Read about it -- it's literally the most important concept in the philosophy of science.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

You couldn't hang in an actual discussion. Much easier to dismiss something as a social science, or ethics or utilitarianism or whatever else. The fact that you even thought of Bentham after reading what I wrote proves that you have no idea what is going on. Stick to 5 sentence, name-dropping replies that will garner the favor of every Rush Limbaugh fan who reads this thread - you're not fooling me.

The only fool here is you. I am not, nor have I ever been, a Rush Limbaugh fan. I don't even know what kind of mental gymnastics you have to perform to extrapolate that from anything I've said. Nor have I dismissed any social sciences. I don't know what's worse, your reading comprehension or your delusions of grandeur.

You seriously have no fucking understand of what you're writing. I brought up Bentham because you brought this up:

View PostEsiwdeer, on 09 June 2014 - 11:55 PM, said:

I think it is possible to quantify the amount of good or bad you do with any action, roughly, and while this base of information obviously isn't scientific it still holds weight in the real world where physics hasn't carried us yet.

That's literally straight up Bentham. Get a fucking education. You've taken on a straw man, but the straw man is wrecking your fucking asshole because you have little to no grasp of what you're actually saying.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

Just wanted to reply to show you can't take a swing at the champ for free. You and the other guy should take it to PMs so you two can (incoherently)talk about doomsday prepping together.

You're not a champion of anything. At best you're a pitiful, misguided idiot with decent writing skills and serious insecurity issues.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

And in the event that you couldn't read this post either, here you go: you're an incoherent, name-dropping idiot who is also a Rush Limbaugh fan. You don't know anything about economics and you plainly illustrate that by confusing economists with philosophers. You might as well have written "Confucius died like 200 years ago brah, any attempt besides religion to solve morality is utilitarianism."

Uh, many economists were also philosophers and vice versa. The Physiocrats, Hume, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Bentham, Mill, and Marx were all prominent philosophers and economists. It's not like you can only do one job and one job only. You seem to think that many fields are discretely separate from one another when it comes to the skills used in them, which is blatantly false.


Considering that you've:
  • Critcized me citing Bentham, without realizing you brought up Bentham's ideas. You brought up  an idea of Bentham (distributive justice) that had no bearing to the conversation, as if that would somehow negate anything I've said.
  • Name-dropped Hayek, literally the most name-dropped economist by all edgy young libertarians who think they've finally understand what thousands of academics have ignored for hundreds of years, in a conversation where he isn't even relevant. Not only that, but you've proven to fundamentally misunderstand how economics works.
  • Gone out of your way to invent some sort of twisted caricature that is in no way an accurate picture of me or anyone else on this forum.
I think it's safe to say that you're just another insecure armchair autodidact that prides themselves on being some sort of archetypical, intelligent alpha male that isn't necessarily  concerned with figuring out truth or knowledge. You're only concerned with the appearance, especially considering how much you go out of your way to invalidate others when they challenge your beliefs. You're basically an insecure charlatan.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

It's like calling a chef a survivalist or something - man, this guy really knows how to get the most out of his food. I don't need to be a utilitarian. Why didn't you compare me to Ayn Rand or literally hundreds of other prolific authors on the subject of possessive self interest? I can't believe how much you misunderstood like, it's astounding to me. I am astounded.

Because Ayn Rand is a fucking nutcase that ripped off Aristotle's Law of Identity in her attempt to rationalize her hatred of other people. Objectivism is literally the worst kind of mainstream pseudophilosophy out there.

I don't even need to attack objectivist morality: objectivism falls apart epistemically before we even reach questions of morality. But that's a debate for another day.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

When. Not what. When. When does an action become whatever it eventually becomes? That is the question that drives markets, companies, relationships - that's the question economics tries to answer with stability or equilibrium. That's the thing you're missing. That's the thing about data: on a long enough timeline, there's a problem with everything. Isn't that interesting? Data from the past has no bearing on the future, that's why I'm not a utilitarian. Thanks, though.

The problem isn't whether data on the past can accurately predict the future. Of course it can't accurately. However, economics relies on the premise that not much inherently changes, just like in natural science. Otherwise, it would be incredibly difficult to come to any kind of logical, coherent system of economics because everything would change the minute we tried to make sense of the world.

The question isn't if, the question is to what extent. Sure, empirical economics has problems, but you think the economics equivalent of theorycrafting in complete ignorance of whether those mentioned theories correspond with reality is automatically the right alternative, you're simply wrong. Austrian economics is dead.

Philosophically, the ideas died with Hume's criticism of Descartes when Descartes tried to logically derive everything from a few key axioms.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

Data from the past has no bearing on the future, that's why I'm not a utilitarian. Thanks, though.

Those two points have nothing to do with each other you dolt.

View PostEsiwdeer, on 10 June 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

One last time: I was discussing information theory as discovered thus far by economics in the context of the evolution of human morality. This should not be confused with a philosophy, like utilitarianism or distributive justice. There is no sum of information. Hence, you have no identity - there is no master sum of all your deeds and misgivings. Therefor, you only exist to those by whom your records are kept and the only possible way to be a "good" or "moral" person is by maximizing the amount of good or morality you inject into your relationships with other people.

If you ignore how philosophy plays an important role in coming to truths in other disciplines, you're going to have a bad time.

You're basiaclly said you're not espousing any philosophy while you're talking about the evolution of human morality. Maximizing the amount of good or morality. Wow. You're making value judgments and passing it off as fact like a fucking ignorant retard. That means you are trying to do philosophy, only poorly. Now you're espousing some sort of bastardization of utility and Martin Buber's I-Thou relationships -- I don't even know.

The amount of bro logic and pent up testosterone has gone meta at this point. I don't think it's worth talking to a lost cause like you.

It sounds like your brain has been addled by copious amounts of sex, shrapnel, and PTSD from Fallujah. If I ever wrote anything like that, I'd be embarrassed. Next time, if you're going to be vapid, try being vapid with less words please.


#4138988 On Relationships/Reedwise AMA

Posted Ayrasaurus on 10 June 2014 - 09:15 PM

what a painfully try hard post

what makes it worse is he isn't even trolling like reedwise




<