Toa Nidhiki05

PYONGYANG, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA - Kim Jong-un, the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), has announced with much fanfare that the mighty People's Navy of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (PNDPRK) will invade the United States. The boat, manned by skilled Korean soldiers, will be launched today and is scheduled to land in America some time in the next 24 months; in a show of support, Supreme Seader Kim Jong-un will ride with the soldiers on their quest to destroy America. Surely the Americans will be unable to defeat PNDPRK with the aid of Dear Leader. In a statement Dear Leader stated that, while launching nuclear missiles was considered, such an attack would be unfair to the Americans due to the overwhelming power of the People's Army of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (PADPRK). Instead, the glorious power of the Koreans will be demonstrated by attacking on the sea. "America has no chance to defeat the Navy of the People," Dear Leader Kim Jong-un reiterated. "We urge the American capitalists to surrender immediately or face destruction". Under the leadership of Eternal President Kim Il-sung and Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il, the DPRK has emerged as the world's leading power in sports, military, and economics. They have won the last 15 FIFA World Cups and established themselves as the world leaders in baseball, basketball, hockey, and handball. The citizens of DPRK also enjoy much greater lives than those of global capitalists; the rice ration was doubled from 1 kg a year to 2 kgs a year, a far higher rice ration than any other country on Earth. Under the leadership of Kim Jong-un DPRK is ready to destroy South Korea reunify with South Korea and then expand communism globally. -TN05

I just heard the Trololo song in a Volkswagen ad. Words can not describe how amazing this is.

Given how many video games I have sold and regretted selling, I know that feeling. I'm leaning towards keeping it, at least for now, because it is pretty fun to use. Unless a Madden 13 UT card is limited-edition, it won't increase in value. I'm pretty sure this one is limited edition since it is themed towards the college basketball tournament, but I'm not sure how many they released. Normally the auction block makes these things worth a lot early and they decrease in value as more pop up for auction. Well my original idea was to auction it for at least 60,000 coins and use the money to get two tight ends with a 99 rating, which would cost about 30,000 at least. I'd have some coins left over to do whatever with, but I'd lose a rare card.

I finally got lucky with packs yesterday. I got a 99, two-star Antonio Gates basketball card as part of a Legendary pack. These go for anywhere from 60,000 to 120,000 on auction, but it is a very good gameplay card, so I'm debating what to do with it. I've also finally settled on a team name, the 'FightingSheldns' (bonus points if you get the reference). -TN05

The post that sparked this whole thing was Fisher94's, which was about gender roles.

I thought this was a discussion on gender roles (or lack thereof), not same-sex marriage. I've never once made an argument here for or against same-sex marriage. Regardless I echo Ryuujin here. Can we calm down here a bit?

So what you mean is that animals are sometimes typical of established gender roles but not always and that we should carry over these gender roles - or not, if they don't apply - to humanity, and gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there's no way that they could handle one of them going out to work and one staying home to look after their kid because they're both men and are programmed to only survive the gender roles that may - or may not - be established already. That WOULD explain why transgender people spontaneously combust once they've changed their gender. Their brains can't handle going against the programming they do - or don't - have. No. There are observed gender roles in particular species of animals. Humans are a species of animal. Therefore, there just might be gender roles in humans. One could go further and say that particular groups of species often have similar biological and behavioral traits (both evolutionists and creationists agree with this, for different reasons). Therefore, members of that group of species might have similar traits. Obviously there are going to be exceptions to this, just like there are exceptions to nature like the Platypus or the Echidna, but exceptions are not the rule. You can take that whatever way you want.

So I'm wrong for admitting I don't know everything? Really, I don't think we'd be having a conversation on gender roles in animals if, well, animals didn't have basic gender roles. You can argue it is a social construct, an evolutionary construct, a religious construct, or whatnot, but there are basic roles. In science, however, rules aren't necessarily 100% correct all the time (especially in chemistry, which is proving to be rife with them).

Well, I've said that "There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, of course, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other, but they can work out outside of the standard role." So really, I don't know. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not too knowledgeable on transgenderism in general. I do know there are biological examples of transgenderism, however, like the clownfish (I've heard this is somewhat common in fish in general) so it isn't unprecedented among other species.

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist. If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not). Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender. My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners. Tyrranosaurs have a brief and violent mating ritual, where the larger, more powerful female will sometimes attack the male afterwards, and will not hesitate to kill him if he remains on her territory. She then raises the eggs she produces, guarding them vigilantly, and feeds her young until they reach the point, which is fairly soon, that she can leave them to their own defenses. After this, she may become one of the biggest threats to her own young. If we're talking biological gender roles, reptiles kinda throw a chink into your armor there. Females tend to be larger and more aggressive, and not even all mammals conform to your view; lionesses are the "breadwinners" of their prides. Don't try to take the middleman position, because that IS the "no-action" side; to say each has their merits is aiding in the institutional oppression of the groups that ARE affected, and panders to people who AREN'T. To recount what I said, I said that "there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender". To some degree, there is a similarity between gender roles in 'species groups' like mammals or reptiles. They may differ, even drastically, from group-to-group, but within the species or group itself there are indeed distinct traits. I don't have 'no position' - my position is that I support civil unions and I support the right of people to live their life whatever way they want, without government intrusion. I also support the right of states to determine what benefits they will provide as part of their own tax codes as well as for legal purposes. If that comes off as being 'in the middle', it pretty much is. Obviously this whole conversation isn't going anywhere, though, so I'm not going to continue here.

* So? In our society, culture and species the female can go out, get food, supply food and protect (re: Mothers have jobs). And in a lot of families, this is how things work and there has been no collapse of civilization or water turning into lava because what someone perceives "as the natural order of things" has been usurped. (Also, there are exceptions like you said, why can't humanity be one?). Fathers can raise kids just fine, we have formula and bottles for that formula babies can drink (and babie food, look at the booming business of Gerber's), animals don't have these things so... again, why are we taking cues from animals? My point being: A father can provide what a mother can provide and a mother can provide what a father can provide; one is not better than the other, and neither come with a stipulation from the natural realm of things as "only females can do this, and only males can do this, or you'll all die." So... what does it matter, anyway? Why should this argument dictate whether or not I have potential to be a good mother-figure in a same-sex family? * Yet no one said anything else you mentioned, so it doesn't apply here. I never said gay people can't be decent parents (I have no opinion on the matter). My comment was related to the idea that there are no differences between the genders. There are differences, for better or for worse. My point is general - there may not be any people that can use religious arguments against same-sex marriage/relationships/whatever here because the rules forbid it, but there are plenty of people who do so outside of here. I think both sides have a general mistrust of each other, and to, relate to a comment here, we need more replies like Sumiki's - comments that, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, are well-written, well-thought-out and that relies entirely on factual arguments. The case, for either side, can be made without questioning the intent or targeting the person, and that's really all I'm saying.

Then tell me, what are these "gender reliant" roles that you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, such a thing doesn't exist. If Fishers feels like it is an insult, then Fishers is allowed to take that up with appropriate staff. Calling someone out on usage in this context and manner, to me, seems more like a cop out so that one side may claim a moral high ground when no such high ground really exists right now. (In other words, if you feel it is breaking rules and is insulting and is inflammatory, report it and let the blog staff do their job and then read what Emkay actually said, which has a lot of merit). I'm not blog staff, so I'm not an authority on the matter in the blogs (but, from my perspective, it's not really an insult as it's not a personal attack on Fishers; and it does not negate the merit of the rest of the text, whether you think so or not). Well, if you look at a most mammal relationships the male goes out and finds food or protects, while the female raises the young one (this is normally due to a biological feature that female mammals have). I certainly don't think this is the case for all animals (or all humans for that matter, seeing as I have no intention of getting married or having kids), but there is a tendency of certain genders in certain animal groups to have a distinct role in comparison to the other gender. My comments related to both sides, not one. I really think there is a lot of hate or distrust on both sides, when there really doesn't need to be, and that there can and should be a reasoned debate on this topic - with only the merits of each side. And frankly there is plenty of 'calling out' going on, especially when we 'call out' people as bigots and Neanderthals, or morally depraved people and sinners.

You can disagree, but I don't think, regardless of how you act, a father can be a mother or vice versa. Now, can a family survive without a father or a mother)? Sure, it happens all the time. I'm not going to say anything further on the matter, because there really isn't any need to. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think that maybe if we all stopped yelling at each other and saying 'sinner' or 'bigot', maybe there can be a bit of understanding. And further, you are not going to change anyone's mind by insulting them or applying pejorative labels to them. Period. It paints a very, very poor image of your side and it does not make people on the other side want to join yours. If you have a winning argument, use it - you shouldn't have to resort to insults if you are obviously correct. You can't claim to support 'love' while yelling at the other person, it simply does not work. I don't see any yelling from Emkay, though I see quite a bit of condescension from you, and your "no-action" attitude is passive discrimination that helps enforce a society that oppresses the individuals affected by these issues. I don't have a 'no-action' attitude, I just think you can present your case a lot better if you don't insult the person you are talking to. If I was condescending, I apologize - that wasn't my intent at all. What I took issue with was the use of 'dumb' and 'sexist' - I think if you have the superior case, there should be no need to attack their person or their belief. A superior case can stand on its own. There are basic roles in nature that different-gendered animals fill - there are differences based on circumstance and environment, of course, but the basic role remains the same. It is a bit shortsighted to regard humans as an exception to this. There are certainly tendencies towards one way or the other, but they can work out outside of the standard role. I really don't see why the word 'dumb' needs to be used. Fishers did not use any sort of words like that. I'll reiterate - if you have the superior case, there is not a need to slip into attacking a belief. Right and wrong can be proven factually (ie. "The Nazis were bad because they killed a lot of people", not "The Nazis were dumb").

You can disagree, but I don't think, regardless of how you act, a father can be a mother or vice versa. Now, can a family survive without a father or a mother)? Sure, it happens all the time. I'm not going to say anything further on the matter, because there really isn't any need to. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I think that maybe if we all stopped yelling at each other and saying 'sinner' or 'bigot', maybe there can be a bit of understanding. And further, you are not going to change anyone's mind by insulting them or applying pejorative labels to them. Period. It paints a very, very poor image of your side and it does not make people on the other side want to join yours. If you have a winning argument, use it - you shouldn't have to resort to insults if you are obviously correct. You can't claim to support 'love' while yelling at the other person, it simply does not work.

It's been a bit since my last update, so quite a bit has changed with my team. I'm shuffling between Vince Lombardi, John Madden, Dick Vermeil, and Tom Flores at Head Coach, but that is the least of it: *I've reluctantly replaced my 99, two-star Kurt Warner with a 99, one-star Russel Wilson. Kurt is one of my favorite players of all-time, but this card fumbles way too much and tends to have weak deep accuracy. I now have three 99 overall QBs, with Kurt being the number-two and a 99, two star John Elway being third-string. *At WR I've kept Jerry Rice at number-one, but added a 95 overall Steve Smith (one of my favorite players) and a 90 Victor Cruz *I've beefed up my offensive line. I now have a 93 overall Jordan Gross (another personal favorite) at LT, 99 two-star Gene Upshaw at LG, and a 95 overall Josh Sitton at RG. *I'm starting a 94 Chris Long at LE; he's no Howie Long but he is a very, very good player in this game. I've also boosted DT with a 92 overall Ndamukong Suh. *I have a 92 James Harrison starting at LOLB and a 99, one-star Luke Kuechly (yet another favorite) at ROLB. I also have a 99, two-star Ronnie Lott at FS and a 99 overall Eric Weddle at SS. *I've increased at punter with a 92 overall Sam Koch, and I've put Percy Harvin (99) at backup KR and PR. So overall, a lot of changes. I still need to solidify my offensive line and get some better linebackers, but aside from that my team has a good shot against any team. -TN05

I GAVE YOU MY LOVE BUT YOU DON'T CARE

I got that for GameCube on my birthday... I had beaten it by the next morning. I have to say the GameBoy version is much, much better than the console version - it is a decent platformer on that one.

Ooh, nice - I have a ton of cards but none are really special or autographed.

So in more Madden 13 UT fun today, I managed to win a Legends pack (as well as 8,000 coins), and who else did it contain but the G.O.A.T: Jerry freaking Rice. Considering I'd been looking to buy a Jerry Rice card, this is great - the card also contained a Anquan Boldin, Greg Olsen (one of my favorite Panthers), and 92 Jay Ratliff. Seriously, these packs are awesome. In addition to those, I bought some other cards off auction - Marshall Faulk (reviving the Greatest Show on Turf, perhaps?), 97 overall Eric Weddle, Josh Scobee, Thomas Morstead, and Mike Tolbert. All of this boosts my team overall up to a 93, quite a ways away from my pitiful 80 overall just a few days ago. My offense is looking to be a juggernaut, but I still need to improve my linebacking corp as well as offensive line. Additionally, my naming contest is still up and running - we've got The Springfield Mascots so far, and I'd be glad to take more. -TN05

We would have won if the Patriots hadn't cheated.

Haha... unfortunately for you guys, we got to the NFC Championship game in two years - it took ya'll twenty years just to get a winning season, and another twenty to win the Super Bowl.

Okay, so over the past few days I've managed to radically improve my team. Here is my current lineup, with bolded players being new additions: Offense: QB: Kurt Warner (96 overall), Steve Young (93 overall), Cam Newton (85 overall) HB: Adrian Peterson (85 overall), DeAngelo Williams (84 overall) FB: Stanley Havili (63 overall) WR: Randy Moss (84 overall), Lance Moore (82 overall) TE: Vernon Davis (95 overall), Jason Witten (93 overall) LT: Joe Staley (87 overall) LG: Justin Blalock (85 overall) C: Scott Wells (89 overall) RG: Brandon Moore (89 overall) RT: Bryan Bulaga (89 overall) Defense: LE: Calais Campbell (93 overall) RE: Osi Umenyiora (88 overall) DT: Tommy Kelly (86 overall), Terrance Knighton (84 overall) LOLB: James Anderson (87 overall) MLB: Sean Lee (88 overall) ROLB: David Hawthorne (88 overall) CB: Leon Hall (89 overall), Patrick Peterson (84 overall) FS: Pat Tillman (79 overall) SS: Ronnie Lott (96 overall) Special Teams: K: Graham Gano (72 overall) P: Donnie Jones (78 overall) KR: Patrick Peterson (99 overall), Brandon Banks (99 overall) PR: Patrick Peterson (99 overall), Brandon Banks (99 overall) Other: Head Coach: Vince Lombardi (99 overall) Jerseys: Carolina Panthers Overall rating: 89 As you can see, a lot of new additions. Vernon Davis was priced insanely low at about 1,500 coins, and Kurt Warner was an even more absurd 3,400 coins. I'm a big Kurt Warner fan, so I'm really glad I could get him, and Vernon Davis makes a great TE duo with Jason Witten. You may be wondering why the Adrian Peterson card is rated only an 85 - it is a 'Treat' card, much weaker than any other AP card. Regardless, he and D-Will make a good one-two punch at running back and I'm not too conerned there. My biggest holes are at FB and WR currently - I wanted to get Mike Tolbert at FB, but all fullbacks are priced insanely high. I'm not as concerned about WR, given I run a lot of two-TE sets. Also, I'm going to hold a little contest here. Right now my team name is "Panthers4Life", obviously a pretty lame name. So basically I invite any and all of you to suggest a name here - I'll take the suggestions and hold a poll here to determine a new team name. Update: I've managed to acquire both Lawrence Taylor and Dick "Night Train" Lane since this post. -TN05

It is confirmed that you can make level-nine disks for any mask power, and they would be just as difficult to control as a Legendary mask. However, unlike legendary masks they don't contain fundamental forces of the universe, so nothing would leak out. Keep in mind that each Great Disk had a regular power, so theoretically there could have been six Legendary-level Kanohi with the powers of Enlarging, Regenerating, Weakening, Freezing, Teleporting, and Reconstituting at Random. As for creating them, Artakha is the only person to have ever made level-nine disks, and he likely did that with the help of the Mask of Creation. Unless he chooses to reveal how to make them (unlikely considering the steep learning curve for using a Legendary mask), no more will probably ever be made. -TN05

I made that one - the Kanohi Uah. Deflects all ambush/sneak attacks and causes a rebound to strike at the attacker at twice the damage, but is completely worthless against non-ambushes. I wouldn't say it doesn't have a weakness though, because all you need to do really is say something like "Hey, over here!" before attacking. Honestly though I think Tahu will be fine. He is the most powerful Toa in existence with all those Kraata powers, and he still has the good old regular Hau to help. It is a bit weaker, but against most attacks it should work well, and don't forget the other Toa Nuva still have Hau Nuvas, so they could always use it if needed. -TN05

Hopefully he is in the key packs - they contain a random Legendary player, of which LT is one (I think). It takes quite a bit of offline grinding to unlock key packs, however, and you don't know what you've worked for until you get it.