Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

TheEngineer

User
  • Posts

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheEngineer

  1. Oh come on guys, stop the punnishment! It's just tearing at the threads of my sanity!
  2. It depends entirely on the context for me. When I'm watching the regular show, they are just cute and adorable as always! When I'm cuddling with my Twilight plush, they are also amazingly cute! But everyone once in a while...
  3. Both! I have good intentions in life and really enjoy helping people, but I do engage in some activities that some would consider "sinful" with absolutely no shame!
  4. Well, there's my ignorance for not owning one. My main issue with the WiiU is that it doesn't seem to be worth a purchase in terms of the games out for it. Also, I do have a bit of an issue with Nintendo stance on visuals not mattering as much as gameplay. How can one blame developers for wanting more artistic freedom in terms of realism and the smoothness of visuals in their games?
  5. There's quite a bit to say about this topic. I'm not sure anyone really hates Nintendo aside from the fanboys and Game Informer; but Nintendo has had a checkered history in recent times in terms of games and consoles they've released. In general, yes, though, gamers have been a bit harsh on Nintendo. The Wii was a great system. Sure, it paled in comparison when it comes to power, but if you are buying the Wii for power you aren't Nintendo's audience. The Wii was a fantastic creative system that had very little power usage, interesting controls that did work at times, and a decent library of games. People, however, looked in all the wrong places for good Wii games. I remember being disappointed with the lack of shooters until I played The Godfather: Blackhand Edition for the Wii which was unbelievable fun. It really was a blast running around and picking fist fights with people, and felt better than any fighter the 360 or PS3 could conjure up. Still, I sometimes wonder if people who played the Wii had ever bothered to play Super Paper Mario, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Mario Kart, the Metroid Trilogy, or the numerous other first party games that rocked. Another department the Wii did well on was miscellaneous third party games that were genuinely a good time or unique. Endless Ocean was a game that really struck me with its beauty and relaxing music. In short, the Wii sucked....if you didn't know where to look. The other drawback, of course, was that good games didn't come out as often as they did with third parties working day and night on the other consoles. You also had to be patient. Now, with the WiiU, I do think that Nintendo has earned a lot of criticism. They've reverted back to a tablet format for the controller and I'm honestly tired of see tablets everywhere. The WiiU, also, while it is an improvement feels like just that. I was looking forward to a new direction but I honestly think Nintendo dropped the ball here. Still, though, there are some good games on the WiiU and, though it's still a bit expensive, it is right for certain people. With all of that said, though, I believe the reason Nintendo has been receiving so much flack is because the great games haven't been on their consoles as of late. The Last of Us, Spec Ops, Fallout, the Tales series, Bioshock, Dishonored, and many more aren't on the WiiU and it's a shame. Sure the WiiU gets the occasional port like Deus Ex and Batman Arkham City, but it's not the same as having a steady flow of new and groundbreaking games. The real reason Nintendo deserves some criticism is not bad hardware, it's because they've been leaning too much on their go-to franchises and not appealing enough to the developers of some truly monumental games. In all fairness, Microsoft doesn't do much either but they have a more powerful console and brand recognition which gets them instant developer recognition. Sony, to their credit, has become much more aggressive in trying to get developers onboard and coming up with new first party IPs. I would almost say that Sony has become the new Nintendo in terms of having a flood of great games on their console.
  6. We simply wish to have our philosophical views known, that's fair enough. Atheism/agnosticism/non-belief in general isn't a religion, but it does reflect various conclusions that can be profound much like the belief in a God can be something profound and philosophical to adherents to a religion.
  7. I hate to depart from the original post too much, but I have to disagree about chaos. Chaos is needed for change only when people do not see the intrinsic value in improving the human conditions without need but because we can benefit as individuals and as a whole.
  8. I voted that it was ok. The reason why and my main complaint is that the episode is largely pointless. The ponies in it don't really learn much about themselves or any real lesson. It's just sort of a crises and then another crises and then a resolution that has no real bearing on the characters themselves. Contrasting this to DragonShy illustrates many problems recent episodes have been facing. Many have no real point besides creating a problem and then having an adventure. In DragonShy, by contrast, there was an adventure but it wasn't forced (the crises made sense) and the lesson learned was a valuable one for Fluttershy; who had to confront in a very personal way a problem that she herself had. In all, the episode does well; but it doesn't have that same feel as do earlier episodes. It's important for the creators of MLP not to forget where the show began in seasons 1 and 2.
  9. Then I could simply adjust my topic to say, "Are Harmony and Celestia the real villains?" That would make more sense, I just used evil as in the context of the show.
  10. This is a theory of mine that I recently put together about the show. I would appreciate any feedback, especially if you can find holes in my argument. Criticism is always welcome! Chaos and evil are supposed to go hand in hand in Equestria. The Tree and Elements of Harmony both have been used to vanquish discord and restore the rule of Celestia and Luna which means that life is harmonious for Equestria. They oppose and have tamed Discord, who is supposed to represent the forces of Chaos. It seems so straightforward: Celestia is good and Discord evil. Well, it is straightforward, until you consider cutie marks. Cutie marks are symbols that tell a pony his or her destiny in the MLP universe. Most of what we know about them is positive and comes from Twilight and her friends. Still, what about those ponies who cutie marks remind them of a destiny set for them which isn't so positive after all? Consider Snips and Snails, the servants who work in Canterlot, or any pony whose cutie mark reminds them that their destiny is to do repetitive tasks all day long, every day. In the MLP universe they are imprisoned by destiny. Not only not are they recognized as not important by those marks, but they will be constrained by their destinies and constantly reminded of them. This isn't just one or two ponies, but probably hundreds or even thousands. Imagine how many ponies in the show have servant, labor, or other unfortunate positions in Equestria; that is a number far larger than Twilight and her companions. The nature of destiny in MLP is not expounded upon much, but it is clear enough that a force outside of the control of most ponies is responsible for it. Destiny or fate is, by definition, outside of one's control. This is why the Cutie Mark Crusaders, no matter how much they try, cannot force their cutie marks to appear. Can this force behind destiny and cutie marks really be benevolent when it sets a destiny for ponies who are forever trapped in a life of insignificance or suffering? At the very least, it is difficult to answer that question in the affirmative. If this force is malevolent then, who is responsible for it? Here, we reach the logical conclusion, the destiny of ponies is part of the grander schematic of Harmony or order. Only within the framework of order does every pony having a predetermined place in society make any sense. This is hinted at throughout the series as each pony, under Celestia's rule and the forces of harmony, is supposed to find their cutie mark which shows them their destiny. Therefore, though Celestia may not be at fault, the underlying forces of harmony certainly are and Celestia is invested in defending the status quo. Which side, then, is really evil? Is it not possible that the real injustice in Equestria stems from the force of Harmony itself; backed by royal sisters? In fact, we have had it backwards the entire time. While we looked to Celestia and Harmony for goodness, hundreds of ponies were saddled with destinies that doomed them to a life of insignificance and suffering. Indeed, as the ponies who have these cutie marks stayed in our blind spot, we also missed the only possibility of escape from this destiny: returning the world to it's natural uncertain state. Though Discord the character may have been selfish, the forces he represented are the only escape from a predetermined world in which ponies live as automatons to Celestia's order.
  11. I've always been a bit 50/50 on this sentiment. For me, yes, I prefer to stay away from that part of the fandom. I'm not against any kind of brony (unless they are hating on others, bullying, in which case I am more concerned about why they are doing it), still, as with any fanbase you are going to find really disturbing things. Personally, I like the idea of Equestria without homicidal Pinkie Pie or Fluttershy. For me, it is a peaceful place that shows a lot of the good that can come from our world like love and kindness. Some bronies have turned Equestria into an entirely adult world filled with war, violence, sex, and alcohol. That's not me, it never will be, I like to see the show as it is and smile when the ponies turn things around with kindness in most of the episodes. Still, if you don't like that part of the fandom, you just don't read their material, watch their youtube videos, or go into their chatrooms.
  12. Unfortunately, in today's materialist society, making money seems to be all that matters. In any case, I do mostly agree with you about the burden of taxation. /)
  13. Right, and I agree that we should get rid of the taxes that are a burden to businesses in the form of transportation, property management, and income. I'm just saying that there are a number of ways to adapt to an increased tax burden, there are more ethical choices than paying people as little as possible. Let's not try and excuse immoral behavior, again, there are other businesses I can cite who, in the face of taxes and costs, do not fire workers or pay them substantially less.
  14. I'm really not thinking that's the cause. China is not socialist at all, but is a capitalist Communist state with minimal regulation; thus they have a large problem not only with labor but with pollution (much more-so than the US). I don't think that those people would have to pay taxes on their income at a rate anywhere close to the US' current income tax rate. And, though I believe that the US government should abolish the income tax (along with every other tax) and establish a national sales tax (thus making business easier in the US), I also know that businesses have ethical choices. They are not just helpless victims of regulation who have no alternatives than to pay their workers minimally in every case.
  15. All I'm saying is that outsourcing labor and paying people minimal wages overseas should be outlawed. Until then, we need not spend money at places that abuse human rights on a regular basis. ...and no evidence of them doing anything wrong? Paying workers pennies overseas who work for long hours is not morally wrong?
  16. Again, property tax rates are, at most 8% while the burdens of taxes and other expenses are actually at an all time low for many corporations even as their profits increase. Unfortunately, this is precisely because of outsourcing and that the government takes it easy on corporations that do exploit labor overseas. Again, I just don't think you can justify the hefty ethical costs of wage slavery just to pay less to run a business. Businesses, just like everyone other entity, are bound by certain ethical and moral standards.
  17. I understand that there are maintenance costs and property taxes, absolutely. But if they are so burdensome, then how is it that Costco can afford them and pay their employees more than triple of what Wal-Mart does with added benefits while still growing by 8% in one quarter of 2013?
  18. Some ponies really need to be kind to others trying to branch out in their creative expression.

  19. I really don't hate capitalism, I'm in favor of a mixed economy and I still am not a fan of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, a company whose profits are in the billions and grow every year (including this one), can afford to pay their producers in other nations a few extra dollars per person and give more back to the economies which make up a substantial part of their supply chain. Government regulations in the US also are really not that awful and corporate tax rates are not as burdening as some would claim. If you want a counter-example of a company that has made profits and paid people more, an easy example is CostCo. which has not only done extremely well in the market, but, in addition to a $40,000+ a year salary for employees, offers them an attractive healthcare package. Big businesses do not have to cut back on worker's salaries either in the US or abroad to be successful, such a claim only holds up in arguments because people assume it is the only way. Instead of the only way, in fact, it is the least ethical way to create profits.
  20. Just got through watching the new "Double Rainboom" episode and I have to give serious props to the creators. You did an excellent job! It's a different kind of episode, but I still really enjoyed it and the nods to Faust throughout the episode.

  21. Is vanilla a good flavor? That's the same kind of question. To some, yes, sometimes they think ponies can be sexy, to others the idea is personally repulsive. There isn't a right or wrong answer here.
  22. I'm not a fan of Wal-Mart personally not because they drive out the competition, but because of the way they exploit labor overseas. Wal-Mart has been, true, responsive to the incident that happened in Bangladesh in which one factory owner's decisions led to the deaths of a variety of workers. Still, this incident only highlights the beginning of problems with outsourcing labor, the ethics of which are difficult to justify. Is it really worth it to pay $100 less for an iphone at the cost of a worker being payed minimally and treated without compassion in developing countries? Not only are workers in other countries paid considerably less than their American counterparts, but there are other ethical issues which companies in general choose to ignore when they outsource. In China, for example, Apple has factories which have suicide nets to keep factory workers from jumping out of their windows and killing themselves. Again, I ask, is this really something you want to support? Sure, Wal-Mart is probably good for the US economy at large, but I think it is time for consumers to grow up and realize that the choices they make and where they choose to shop have real effects on other nations. Those cheap products you buy at Wal-Mart and the prices of a variety of other products produced outside of the US have a heavy cost: human life and suffering. PS. Wal-Mart is currently under investigation for bribing officials in Mexico to build in environmentally sensitive areas and to illegally drown out the competition.
  23. Yay, I'm having a My Little Pony Marathon...by myself...in a room beside my dorm... *insert forever alone face here*

×
×
  • Create New...