That's how NosTale works

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Morgoth wrote:

      Pinkamena wrote:

      Plz don't , like grow a pair of b and accept the fact that S8 ruined your franchise and there is no redemption. Or simply took a different direction hence the last 2 books of GoT aren't even released.
      I don't think they ask for new season, they ask for season remake as far as I know.
      Yh its like they can just snap fingers and replace the entire season in a matter of minutes.
      Dosent the actors wanna move out for other projects ?
      ~All the things she said ~
      ~All the things she said~
      ~Running through my head~
      ~Running through my head~
    • Pinkamena wrote:

      Morgoth wrote:

      Pinkamena wrote:

      Plz don't , like grow a pair of b and accept the fact that S8 ruined your franchise and there is no redemption. Or simply took a different direction hence the last 2 books of GoT aren't even released.
      I don't think they ask for new season, they ask for season remake as far as I know.
      Yh its like they can just snap fingers and replace the entire season in a matter of minutes.Dosent the actors wanna move out for other projects ?
      I don't think anyone expected it to happen over night.
      But yeah most likely their contracts have expired they would need to reorganize the whole thing.
    • and this is why anime is better than tv shows, most of them dont get another season so it cant be ruined lul, u just have to read the manga where it usually stays good. and for the few that do get new season(s), they almost always turn out to be good.
      English Gandora the Dragon of Destruction

      Chinese 破壞龍 鋼多拉

      French Gandora le Dragon de la Destruction

      German Gandora der Drache der Zerstörung

      Italian Gandora, il Drago della Distruzione

      Korean 파괴룡 간드라

      Portuguese Gandora o Dragão da Destruição

      Spanish Gandora el Dragón de la Destrucción

      Japanese (kana) はかいりゅうガンドラ

      Japanese (base) 破壊竜ガンドラ

      Other names Crush D. Gandra

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Gandalof ().

    • Pinkamena wrote:

      Gandalof wrote:

      u just have to read the manage
      Ganda the Manager.JAJAJAJAJA
      i blame auto correct. since when u turned espanol amigo?
      English Gandora the Dragon of Destruction

      Chinese 破壞龍 鋼多拉

      French Gandora le Dragon de la Destruction

      German Gandora der Drache der Zerstörung

      Italian Gandora, il Drago della Distruzione

      Korean 파괴룡 간드라

      Portuguese Gandora o Dragão da Destruição

      Spanish Gandora el Dragón de la Destrucción

      Japanese (kana) はかいりゅうガンドラ

      Japanese (base) 破壊竜ガンドラ

      Other names Crush D. Gandra
    • So after today semi my prediction hasn't changed one bit !
      1. Netherlands.
      2. Russia.
      3. Switzerland.
      4. Sweden.
      5. Malta.
      6. Azerbaijan.
      7. Romania.
      8. Norway.
      9. Armenia.
      10. Albania.
      Time to see if I was right !
      ~All the things she said ~
      ~All the things she said~
      ~Running through my head~
      ~Running through my head~
    • Neither Romania or Lithuania is in the final, lol , im suing !!!!!!

      Jekyll wrote:

      Pinkamena wrote:

      So after today semi my prediction hasn't changed one bit !
      1. Netherlands.
      2. Russia.
      3. Switzerland.
      4. Sweden.
      5. Malta.
      6. Azerbaijan.
      7. Romania.
      8. Norway.
      9. Armenia.
      10. Albania.
      Time to see if I was right !
      u got 8, i got 9HA
      Ok so I can loosely understand why we didn't qualify, the running order didn't helped while Armenia had the curse of being the first to perform and therefore people kinda forgoted her performance fast.
      But anyways, Denmark and North Macedonia songs are both trash , last year winning song Toy was a way better feminist song then that North Macedonian garbage and whats with that Disney Danish song.
      Honestly I would had preffered our countries instead of these 2 >.>
      But hey atleast my 2019 favorite Netherlands is in the Final ! If Netherlands gets to perform in 2nd semi-final then Eurovision will surely be hosted in Amsterdam in 2020 !
      Also here is the press conference >>
      ~All the things she said ~
      ~All the things she said~
      ~Running through my head~
      ~Running through my head~

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Pinkamena ().

    • Gandalof wrote:

      and to go against your example of murder specifically, what if it was in self defence? what if it was murdering a "horrible" person that *insert whatever you think the most horrible acts here*? it's not black and white, it's not an absolute.

      Morgoth wrote:

      Baal wrote:

      See we have this thing called Absolute Morals like some actions are intrinsically right or wrong, no grey areas. For example, I think everyone can say that Murder is plain wrong
      Sorry I had to but no, not everyone thinks murder is plain wrong. (If that was the case no human would kill another human.)"Serial killers" believe killing another human is fine.
      Fyi, Murder is different from killing >.>. A kill can be accidental, self-inflicted and justified. Murder is with malice, premeditation and aforethought.

      Also, when you say "Serial killers" believe killing another human is fine. - How do you know what they think is right or wrong? Sometimes doing smth doesn't follow what you really think "objectively" (Objective morals=Absolute morals). Based on your analogy, rapist rape because they think rape is right. Welp, if you think that way, dunno what else to say.

      Morgoth wrote:

      Baal wrote:

      Ser Morg, you confuse absolute morals with relative morals.
      (Sorry if it ends up double posting...I had to)
      "Absolute Morals" were created by human groups that forced their own version of right for everyone.
      Ow. So shooting people in the street with no apparent reason might not be wrong for some people? Or rape/molesting kids is right just look at it on different perspective? Lol, if that is true then I rest my case. I will just remember you say this :D

      Annieway, my point is "If we don't question or fight for things which we think is right" then it won't really solve anything and real progress will not follow contrary on what you said.

      G-enetically M0-diFied Bad boi from the C0-smos

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Baal ().

    • Well , another semi goes and so now we have all the countries that will participate in the Grand Finale this Saturday ;
      First half of the Final ;
      Albania.
      Cyprus.
      Czech Republic.
      Denmark.
      Germany.
      Greece.
      Malta.
      Netherlands.
      North Macedonia.
      Russia.
      San Marino.
      Slovenia.
      Sweden
      Second half of the Final ;
      Israel.
      Australia.
      Azerbaijan.
      Belarus.
      Estonia.
      France.
      Iceland.
      Italy.
      Norway.
      Serbia.
      Spain.
      Switzerland.
      United Kingdom.

      Im kinda curious who will win,first impression it seems that it will be a battle beetwen Netherlands and Iceland.
      ~All the things she said ~
      ~All the things she said~
      ~Running through my head~
      ~Running through my head~
    • Baal wrote:

      Fyi, Murder is different from killing >.>. A kill can be accidental, self-inflicted and justified. Murder is with malice, premeditation and aforethought.
      i mean there is always multiple definitions especially when it comes to law where the language is complicated and differs in each country. but i'm not going to argue for that because it will get somewhat messy.

      Baal wrote:

      Also, when you say "Serial killers" believe killing another human is fine. - How do you know what they think is right or wrong? Sometimes doing smth doesn't follow what you really think "objectively" (Objective morals=Absolute morals). Based on your analogy, rapist rape because they think rape is right. Welp, if you think that way, dunno what else to say.
      this goes both ways, if he cant know for sure that another person (be a serial killer or whatever) thinks they are right, you cant know that they think they are wrong either. so we'll be stuck when using this argument.

      Baal wrote:

      Ow. So shooting people in the street with no apparent reason might not be wrong for some people? Or rape/molesting kids is right just look at it on different perspective? Lol, if that is true then I rest my case. I will just remember you say this
      yes honey, that is true. i'm sorry to burst your bubble but that's how the world is. some people think they are right by doing these things. let me give you an example that you probably know about: the (relatively) recent shooting in new zealand. he genuinely thought
      that what he did is right.

      also gotta love your closing sentence: "Lol, if that is true then I rest my case. I will just remember you say this"... you're saying that as if morgoth was saying those things are right, which he didn't. he simply said that there are people who think what they do is right. so im not exactly sure what you're trying to hold against him here.

      Baal wrote:

      Annieway, my point is "If we don't question or fight for things which we think is right" then it won't really solve anything and real progress will not follow contrary on what you said.
      again, ill make the argument that you conveniently ignored.. this point goes against what you said about absolute morals. you could either say there are absolute morals that we can't question, or there are no absolute morals and that we should always question things.
      you can't just throw in either of them whenever they fit your agenda.

      Kacchan wrote:

      well i am not expecting any remake, it's more of sending a message and shaming d&d.
      Screenshot_20190517-023802_Reddit.jpg
      imagine being this pissed off and angry at a fictional story. i feel sad for y'all
      English Gandora the Dragon of Destruction

      Chinese 破壞龍 鋼多拉

      French Gandora le Dragon de la Destruction

      German Gandora der Drache der Zerstörung

      Italian Gandora, il Drago della Distruzione

      Korean 파괴룡 간드라

      Portuguese Gandora o Dragão da Destruição

      Spanish Gandora el Dragón de la Destrucción

      Japanese (kana) はかいりゅうガンドラ

      Japanese (base) 破壊竜ガンドラ

      Other names Crush D. Gandra
    • Gandalof wrote:

      Baal wrote:

      Also, when you say "Serial killers" believe killing another human is fine. - How do you know what they think is right or wrong? Sometimes doing smth doesn't follow what you really think "objectively" (Objective morals=Absolute morals). Based on your analogy, rapist rape because they think rape is right. Welp, if you think that way, dunno what else to say.
      this goes both ways, if he cant know for sure that another person (be a serial killer or whatever) thinks they are right, you cant know that they think they are wrong either. so we'll be stuck when using this argument.
      I mean I can say what he is doing (serial killer) is "objectively" wrong, no?

      Gandalof wrote:

      Baal wrote:

      Ow. So shooting people in the street with no apparent reason might not be wrong for some people? Or rape/molesting kids is right just look at it on different perspective? Lol, if that is true then I rest my case. I will just remember you say this
      yes honey, that is true. i'm sorry to burst your bubble but that's how the world is. some people think they are right by doing these things. let me give you an example that you probably know about: the (relatively) recent shooting in new zealand. he genuinely thought that what he did is right.
      Again, how do you know he thinks (asssuming that he is sane) this way? But objectively I can tell that you can say he is wrong.

      Gandalof wrote:

      also gotta love your closing sentence: "Lol, if that is true then I rest my case. I will just remember you say this"... you're saying that as if morgoth was saying those things are right, which he didn't. he simply said that there are people who think what they do is right. so im not exactly sure what you're trying to hold against him here.
      I'm holding nothing against him really. What I meant he seems to say is like "people who do this horrible stuff think they are right and we can't objectively tell them they are wrong, because it's a matter of perspective, so why bother?". Also, don't know how far this typa argument will take you in court room - farthest will be insanity defense.

      Gandalof wrote:

      Baal wrote:

      Annieway, my point is "If we don't question or fight for things which we think is right" then it won't really solve anything and real progress will not follow contrary on what you said.
      again, ill make the argument that you conveniently ignored.. this point goes against what you said about absolute morals. you could either say there are absolute morals that we can't question, or there are no absolute morals and that we should always question things.you can't just throw in either of them whenever they fit your agenda.
      Oh dang, can I just say this multiple quoting is tiresome xD.

      Annieway, what morgoth quote there is about the "homosexuality phobes" encounter jekyll was talking about which is a relative morals, that's where I counter reply the statement you quote above. Don't wanna explain again whats the difference between the two cause its kinda frustrating to repeat and repeat and repeat (pun intended).

      G-enetically M0-diFied Bad boi from the C0-smos
    • Baal wrote:

      I mean I can say what he is doing (serial killer) is "objectively" wrong, no?
      no. that is your opinion, which is subjective.

      Baal wrote:

      Again, how do you know he thinks (asssuming that he is sane) this way?
      because he said so. it doesn't matter if he is sane or not. what matters is what he thinks.

      Baal wrote:

      But objectively I can tell that you can say he is wrong.
      aside from "objectively" being used incorrectly again, what we're talking about here is what he thinks, not about what you think about him or about what he did.

      Baal wrote:

      I'm holding nothing against him really. What I meant he seems to say is like "people who do this horrible stuff think they are right and we can't objectively tell them they are wrong, because it's a matter of perspective, so why bother?".
      i'll leave that to him to reply to i guess. but i dont think that's what he was saying.

      Baal wrote:

      Also, don't know how far this typa argument will take you in court room - farthest will be insanity defense.
      i don't think we mentioned using this as a defense in court room, we weren't talking about the law at all.

      Baal wrote:

      Oh dang, can I just say this multiple quoting is tiresome xD.
      that's why i usually dont include the previous quotes in quotes. if someone wants to see it, they can just click on the quote and it'll take them to original comment, and can be repeated for as far back as they want.

      Baal wrote:

      Annieway, what morgoth quote there is about the "homosexuality phobes" encounter jekyll was talking about which is a relative morals, that's where I counter reply the statement you quote above. Don't wanna explain again whats the difference between the two cause its kinda frustrating to repeat and repeat and repeat (pun intended).
      i dont really care about what morgoth or jekyll said, i'm only focusing on what you said. also it's funny how you say it's frustrating to repeat, when im going to repeat myself for the third time because you keep dodging it.

      you said (paraphrased) that: "there are morals which are objective and absolute, there is no arguing against them no matter what" and also "we should question everything no matter what, even if something is widely accepted as right, we should always question it to progress".
      those 2 statements are contradictory, you either believe one or the other. you can't just switch between the two whenever it's convenient for you.
      English Gandora the Dragon of Destruction

      Chinese 破壞龍 鋼多拉

      French Gandora le Dragon de la Destruction

      German Gandora der Drache der Zerstörung

      Italian Gandora, il Drago della Distruzione

      Korean 파괴룡 간드라

      Portuguese Gandora o Dragão da Destruição

      Spanish Gandora el Dragón de la Destrucción

      Japanese (kana) はかいりゅうガンドラ

      Japanese (base) 破壊竜ガンドラ

      Other names Crush D. Gandra
    • Gandalof wrote:


      i dont really care about what morgoth or jekyll said, i'm only focusing on what you said. also it's funny how you say it's frustrating to repeat, when im going to repeat myself for the third time because you keep dodging it.
      you said (paraphrased) that: "there are morals which are objective and absolute, there is no arguing against them no matter what" and also "we should question everything no matter what, even if something is widely accepted as right, we should always question it to progress".
      those 2 statements are contradictory, you either believe one or the other. you can't just switch between the two whenever it's convenient for you.
      Green font - exactly alt+d

      Maroon font - dunno what you seeing, but I can't remember saying "question everything no matter what", I only said you can question it when talking about relative morals (again) like the topic being discussed (homophobic hate groups).

      Also, I won't quote the other points that you provided above cause i'm lazy to reply bit-by-bit. But I think your missing the point about the whole objective/absolute morality. When I say "objectively" I mean remove all your biases and when you see something horrible, like rape & murder, you still can't decide that its just wrong?

      G-enetically M0-diFied Bad boi from the C0-smos
    • Baal wrote:

      Maroon font - dunno what you seeing, but I can't remember saying "question everything no matter what", I only said you can question it when talking about relative morals (again) like the topic being discussed (homophobic hate groups).
      here:

      Baal wrote:

      Uhm. I think the opposite is true, if we just accept things (inherited ideas and old ways) even if its not "moral" then I'm pretty sure we won't progress as "humans" and its just stalemate. By continuous public discourse (challenging or questioning smth) we were able to really develop, establish what is morally acceptable and what not.

      Baal wrote:

      How did they realized - Holy crap, what I'm doing is wrong and I should stop? Certainly not by just accepting things and move on with their life. Somehow someone manage to question it, fight it and eventually abolish it. That's how we progress as better humans.
      and remember, i said paraphrased. so it wasn't exactly what you said, it was my own words and expression of what you said. but now that you made me do the exact quotes.. these up there are contradictory to what you said afterwards about absolute morals.


      Baal wrote:

      I think your missing the point about the whole objective/absolute morality. When I say "objectively" I mean remove all your biases and when you see something horrible, like rape & murder, you still can't decide that its just wrong?
      we're going in circles at the point. here is the thing, with my biases, opinions and personal feelings i see rape and murder as wrong.

      if i remove them completely out of the picture i wouldn't be able to say something is wrong (or right), there isn't a universal rule that constitute something is always absolutely wrong or right. because that concept is subjective.
      English Gandora the Dragon of Destruction

      Chinese 破壞龍 鋼多拉

      French Gandora le Dragon de la Destruction

      German Gandora der Drache der Zerstörung

      Italian Gandora, il Drago della Distruzione

      Korean 파괴룡 간드라

      Portuguese Gandora o Dragão da Destruição

      Spanish Gandora el Dragón de la Destrucción

      Japanese (kana) はかいりゅうガンドラ

      Japanese (base) 破壊竜ガンドラ

      Other names Crush D. Gandra
    • Gandalof wrote:

      Baal wrote:

      Maroon font - dunno what you seeing, but I can't remember saying "question everything no matter what", I only said you can question it when talking about relative morals (again) like the topic being discussed (homophobic hate groups).
      here:

      Baal wrote:

      Uhm. I think the opposite is true, if we just accept things (inherited ideas and old ways) even if its not "moral" then I'm pretty sure we won't progress as "humans" and its just stalemate. By continuous public discourse (challenging or questioning smth) we were able to really develop, establish what is morally acceptable and what not.

      Baal wrote:

      How did they realized - Holy crap, what I'm doing is wrong and I should stop? Certainly not by just accepting things and move on with their life. Somehow someone manage to question it, fight it and eventually abolish it. That's how we progress as better humans.
      and remember, i said paraphrased. so it wasn't exactly what you said, it was my own words and expression of what you said. but now that you made me do the exact quotes.. these up there are contradictory to what you said afterwards about absolute morals.
      Still not seeing or seem to be seeing "question everything no matter what" and for the nth time, I'm not talking about absolute morals here just relative morals (gosh, I promise I wont use this word anniemore - I used it today like 100000 times already - sarcasm)


      Gandalof wrote:

      we're going in circles at the point.
      I agree 100% , so to summarize yer argument, you believe that there is no real "objective" thing that exist only subjective. Like for example, I want to write the word rehsown!ng (reasoning), and this is what I write instead. Obviously I'm wrong because I make up the word, but you will say maybe you were right, because there is no real right or wrong in spelling the word reasoning.

      G-enetically M0-diFied Bad boi from the C0-smos
    • Baal wrote:

      I'm holding nothing against him really. What I meant he seems to say is like "people who do this horrible stuff think they are right and we can't objectively tell them they are wrong, because it's a matter of perspective, so why bother?". Also, don't know how far this typa argument will take you in court room - farthest will be insanity defense.
      When I said that I was talking about a small utopia world where everyone would not do it, obviously when everyone is doing it you are bound to do it as well.
      Not sure either if it would even work out if people did not fight for what they think is right or wrong, but I guess it is something we will never witness (in our lifetime for sure).

      But we kind of moved from that one and now discussing that nothing is objective in its root, but subjective.
      Gonna bring up the slave example you mentioned, back then humans consider this an "absolute moral" (How you call it) that rich people should have slaves, slavery was something completely normal back then until a group of people fought against that "absolute moral" and forced their version of right (That this type of slavery should not exist) to the other group of humans that thought having slaves is right, including they managed to change the "absolute moral" as well.

      Through the course of time and lets take just the last 6000 years, you will see a lot of "absolute morals" being changed because people fought against them.

      Baal wrote:

      It depends. See we have this thing called Absolute Morals like some actions are intrinsically right or wrong, no grey areas. For example, I think everyone can say that Murder is plain wrong (please don't tell me i fail in this assumption xD). Then we have Relative Morals which is based on each indiv. own judgment cause of culture or philosophical views - spectrum applies here. For example, Is premarital s*x wrong? If yes, why it is okay only after you have a paper saying "go for ittt". For this kind of discussion, we have a lot of different opinions, so there you go.

      Baal wrote:

      Ser Morg, you confuse absolute morals with relative morals.
      Kinda along those lines you imply that the "Absolute Morals" are something all humans agree on, and as I mentioned above this is not what's been happening at all for the last (at least) 6000 years of human history. Absolute and relative morals tend to change, whenever a strong group of humans unite and gain the power force to force their way in and make all the other humans accept their version of right. Then all human generations after that live with that default so they take it for granted, until it happens again in repeat. (So I don't really think there are any true absolute morals around)

      As for the rest of points I more or less agree with Gandalof so I thought to not circle back to those again.

      The point I guess here is, nothing is really objective but subjective. The only thing that's actually objective is the rules of nature. (And no I do not mean the forum meme) Or universal laws etc.
      Human laws, morals etc tend to change depending on how much power certain groups gain.
      To decide what is somewhat "right or wrong" I guess some certain years have to pass (I am talking about big scale stuff here such as wars rather than a murder or a robbery) and keep in mind we only ever see 1 of the 2 outcomes. (The winner's outcome) (And that is still not objective but at least you can maybe form a better opinion over it)

      And I indeed have not shared any of my personal opinions/views so far in this (Just to make it clear for everyone, not aimed at you Baal since you know I haven't)
    • Baal wrote:

      Still not seeing or seem to be seeing "question everything no matter what"
      that's why i said i was paraphrasing, yeah you didnt say that specifically but that doesn't matter, as long as my sentence had the same meaning as what you said.

      and just ignore my paraphrasing cause i quoted you afterwards, it's not the point im making.

      Baal wrote:

      and for the nth time, I'm not talking about absolute morals here just relative morals (gosh, I promise I wont use this word anniemore - I used it today like 100000 times already - sarcasm)
      ok, sure. it's not a contradiction then.

      so let's move away from that. and let me ask you, who decides what those absolute morals are? and is there a list for them? (i know u mentioned murder and rape, but what else?)

      Baal wrote:

      so to summarize yer argument, you believe that there is no real "objective" thing that exist only subjective.
      no, i am saying that the idea of what's wrong and right is subjective. not that "there is no real objective thing" as you said.

      Baal wrote:

      Like for example, I want to write the word rehsown!ng (reasoning), and this is what I write instead. Obviously I'm wrong because I make up the word, but you will say maybe you were right, because there is no real right or wrong in spelling the word reasoning.
      im not sure how this example would've helped you even if i was saying what you claimed i said. this is more of a language issue rather than objective vs subjective.

      Morgoth wrote:

      But we kind of moved from that one and now discussing that nothing is objective in its root, but subjective.
      not the case for me, im just saying "right and wrong", "good and bad" are subjective.

      Morgoth wrote:

      The point I guess here is, nothing is really objective but subjective. The only thing that's actually objective is the rules of nature. (And no I do not mean the forum meme) Or universal laws etc.
      RULES OF NATURE!

      anyway, so you say nothing is objective.. but then you say there actually is?

      for something to be objective it doesn't have to be limited to things like rules of nature and universal laws etc (and just in case.. no, putting "etc" here doesnt mean you could include whatever you want later, it only includes something related or similar to the example you provided).
      back to what i was saying, being objective just means that it's not influenced by personal feelings, opinions, biases.. etc. so it encompasses a lot more than what you mentioned.
      English Gandora the Dragon of Destruction

      Chinese 破壞龍 鋼多拉

      French Gandora le Dragon de la Destruction

      German Gandora der Drache der Zerstörung

      Italian Gandora, il Drago della Distruzione

      Korean 파괴룡 간드라

      Portuguese Gandora o Dragão da Destruição

      Spanish Gandora el Dragón de la Destrucción

      Japanese (kana) はかいりゅうガンドラ

      Japanese (base) 破壊竜ガンドラ

      Other names Crush D. Gandra