Видео

is it only for the KG or does it combo with other attacks/spells? I tried with other weapons but I got the best results with the KG.

@@devilmansanchez strom stomp is ridiculously broken, it true combos with so many attacks and has been known to be overpowered since the network test

@@StrawberryMagica125 is that so? Maybe is because of inexperience but I didn't feel it was OP. I feel there are a lot of movements that beat it with their hyper-armor. In many instances I wanted to interrupt a combo or was caught mid-animation and the ash just didn't come up, giving my opponents a juicy punish window

loco llevo años sin jugar este juego y todavía recuerdo tener que matarme a bate en contra de los bandidos armados

@@devilmansanchez cierto, algo complicado.

While we do not need religion to be good people, with need a system of values to be good people. That is, we need to consider two moral options and be able to identify which one is morally superior to the other. Religion serves this purpose-hence its utility-but I would agree it is not the only system to be used. Finally, while religion can indeed be used for evil, that is not a flaw of religion itself, that is actually a human flaw that can be detected anywhere else. Science has also been used to advance forced sterilization, forced abortion, and human experimentation. Not long ago, science was used to advance the argument that individual freedoms were not as important as collective wellbeing, which is the usual justification for genocide of the "unfit" or some other murderous conclusion. That is evidently not a flaw of science, but a flaw of human beings. Any tool is nefarious if used improperly. Regards.

@@devilmansanchez I don’t think science can be used in the ways you describe. Scientism can be. Science in itself doesn’t assign a moral value, it just states empirical data. How you use that data is what you’re talking about. Religion is the inverse, it is all about morality (of some sort - often flawed in one way or another because of historically agglomerated dogma in that tradition) and nothing about empirical data. Religion is like saying “I will spit in this direction and no matter what the wind does, the effects will be good”. Science is like saying “If you spit in this direction the wind may blow it back at you, but we will not conclude whether this is good or bad.” I agree with you that there is an issue about the moral compass (and how to navigate if we were to get rid of our status quo historically developed morality of today), but I don’t think religion (nor science) help. Science however does help in other ways but not to that problem, not to that point. Religion is just absolutely unnecessary, useless. It provides justification and no real (I.e. useful) explanation to anything. It is like a small kid asking “why?” and someone saying “because it is the way it is, and we don’t know why but it has been like this, we were told by our parents and they were told by theirs, and what we have been told cannot be used in any way because there is no real cause-and-effect, but we should still do it cuz everyone so far has been doing it.. so, why not - won’t hurt, right”.

@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 You are arguing semantics. Scientism or science, the fact of the matter is that science can be improperly used to produce immoral circumstances, the very same way religion may be improperly used to produce the same. That indicates that the tool is not the problem, the problem is humans improperly using the tool. On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion of the utility of religion. The fact that it provides justification without explanation does not mean that the justification is not useful. One may conclude that one shall not murder, steal, or rape, and merely justify it with "because God says so," and thus the product would be good in spite of lack of explanation. What's more, the knowledge accumulated in religion is nothing but generations of moral trials-that is, ancestors codifying what is good and what is evil and passing them down to their children-this helps to build a moral basis for society, so that society does not have to spend their time figuring out this moral base and instead focus on the advancement of science, entrepreneurship, and technology. If every generation had to start all over again building a framework of morals and ethics, human progress would have stagnated. The utility of a moral framework is evident, and religion provides that.

@@devilmansanchez Hi. We can continue like this forever, but I’d rather if we recorded it and became rich then. I don’t think you understood my point 1. There’s a key thing there you missed, please try again. Your second point is easily falsifiable. I can say the same about the opposite statement and it would make it bad. Your third point tries to justify religion, but misses the problem which is the dogma that any religion necessarily comes with (otherwise it is more like philosophy than religion, which I have no issues with). The dogma prevents iterations which is the key important difference with any other ‘type of thinking’, broadly speaking. Also, I disagree with the premise that religions have undergone engineering that was aimed at making them as useful to the end-user as you make it out to be. Religions have been created to control and embezzle the masses.. make them do what you want and not ask or expect any real / pragmatic answers from the perpetuators.

@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 Religion has never been shy on updates. For instance, Christianity incorporated many of the gods and narratives of other religions, the Mesopotamians created a pantheon of the different gods of the different tribes, and the Romans borrowed and interpreted the gods of the Greeks-this was a adoption of religion and an update with new teachings. This was not a product of engineering, and I never made that case. This was the organic development of human beings discovering morality and making peace with neighboring tribes. You are disagreeing with a phantom premise. And religion clearly has its downfall, but its usefulness and its flaws are not mutually exclusive. Like a knife may be used to butcher meat or kill innocent men, religion has a utility and a innate danger to society-but such is the case with powerful tools. Again, the problem is not the tool, the problem is the improper application of the tool.

I linked the exact minute of the original video so that anyone can go and see it in its entirety. Is in the description.

4:50 he agreed with me

Oh absolutely, Milton made it very clear that the immigrants of that time came because they wanted better opportunities, and he also criticized the welfare programs. I also know that Donald Trump has the short end of the stick with regards to immigration, because we have a welfare system in place that can be abused by ill-intentioned immigrants. For example Cubans, although most of them are decent folk that came here to work hard, there is a considerable section that took advantage of the federal support, took the money and went back to Cuba. But I still think Trump made a mistake here: he did not aim at the real issue. I mean, controlling the border IS good because you can then scan the type of immigrants that come in, but a great deal of the reason why immigration is like this is because is absurdly difficult to immigrate legally to the US given the current bureaucracy, or the federal welfare programs attract the wrong type of immigrant, or the fact that criminalization of drugs makes it very profitable for Mexican Cartels to continue their smuggling. I think Trump attacked the symptom but not the origin of the issue, and so I wanted to show what Milton had to say, precisely hoping people would want to watch the full speech and see that when he talks about open immigration he refers to a country where you can come and work honestly for a better life, not come and rely on federal help like an old infant. I am an immigrant myself who was lucky enough to cross legally, but to just put it in perspective: we Venezuelans do not have a US embassy in our country, so we cannot make appointments to apply for a B1/B2-Traveler-VISA and then file the asylum application. In order to get the appointment, you need to travel to Colombia, so just imagine how difficult this is for impoverished folk which are the majority of Venezuelans. But that's not the hard part, you currently have to wait until 2023 to get your appointment, then you have to show proof that you have enough money to travel to the US or someone to welcome you so that you can get the VISA, then you have to prove that you are either: politically prosecuted, have an outstanding skill to get employed that no American has, or have half of a million dollars to invest in the US to get legal residence. This whole deal is unrealistic: First, every day you wait for your appointment is another day in a communist hellhole, and you do not even have guaranteed you'll get approved; second, travelling to Colombia is costly and difficult, as there is a gas shortage in the country; and third, most Venezuelans who want to come to the US are not directly prosecuted, nor outstanding professionals, nor have half of a million dollars-we are simply living in hunger and misery, and would like that to change. So of course people cross shark-infested oceans, walk 5 days straight in the Mexican jungle, and risk getting murdered or raped by the cartel when crossing the border-because doing all of that is simpler and more effective than going through the bureaucratic and administrative mess that is the current immigration system!

I was not aware of this quotation, and I do not know who Mr. Browne is. Thanks for sharing, I'll take a look.

What is it that you find illogical?

@@devilmansanchez How about the idea that Peterson claims genesis claims that truthful speech creates a hospitable place for humanity, noting that all of that is conjecture bullshit based on an iron age book of scribblings written by idiots from 6000 years ago.

La gente aplaudió, pero no incluí los aplausos en el video. Los aplausos son irrelevantes.

Primero, si quieres escuchar la discusión completa tienes que ir a la descripción y ver el video original, el cual tiene subtítulos en español. Esto fue solo un fragmento de uno de los argumentos de Jordan Peterson que me pareció interesante. Segundo, lo que dice Peterson en este video tiene fundamentos basados en psicología evolutiva, lo cual explica mejor en su libro "Maps of Meaning". En breve, el argumento detrás de su discurso es que existe una predisposición adaptativa en el ser humano de codificar conocimiento a través del lenguaje, existen varios niveles de análisis en esta codificación, y la religión es uno de estos niveles. Cuando habla de "el vacío" , se refiere a la consecuencia del movimiento racional del renacimiento, el cual accidentalmente desplazó la religión para reemplazarla con ciencia, o como Nietzsche diría, "Dios está muerto, y nosotros lo matamos". Sin embargo, según Peterson esto significa un error, porque la ciencia no puede explicarlo todo debido a su limitación objetiva. Es decir, la ciencia carece de valores porque busca explicar la realidad de forma objetiva, y los valores no son objetivos, lo que significa que se necesita un sistema por fuera de la ciencia para explicar la realidad de los valores: la moral o la ética. Por supuesto, como dije anteriormente, ya existe un sistema adaptativo en el ser humano que lidia con este vacío, y este sistema se manifiesta en forma de narrativas y lecciones, o historias y moralejas, por el simple hecho de que es la manera más práctica de transmitir información complicada a través de generaciones. De esta manera, este sistema termina convirtiéndose en un sistema de valores, o también conocido como: religión. Ahora, en el video Jordan peterson hace incapié en la "honestidad". Y eso es porque la codificación de la realidad en forma del lenguaje es directamente dependiente de la sinceridad del codificador, es decir, nosotros los seres humanos. Lo que significa que como codificadores de la realidad, tenemos la responsabilidad de ser honestos, de esta manera ayudamos a nuestra especie a sobrevivir, puesto que compartimos un conocimiento sincero de la realidad que puede ser navegable. Y por supuesto, este raciocinio está codificado en la religión, y es por eso que Peterson da el ejemplo de la creación y de cómo Dios creó el mundo utilizando el "Logos". Aquí nadie se está tapando los oídos, no existe un agente irracional, ni tampoco hay inconsistencias. El problema es que no te has percatado de toda la información porque no prestaste atención, pero aún así decidiste llegar a conclusiones. En todo caso, has sido tú quien se ha tapado los oídos.

No tienes ni puñetera idea de quien es Jordan Peterson no?

@@Nimbusz Creo que nisiquiera entendió su discurso, y así se pone a criticarlo. 😂

Jaja contesta la respuesta del dueño del canal, ya te tardaste

No entendiste mada de lo que dijo pero crees que si

x2 :c

Esta en el canal oficial de Peterson y tiene subtitulos en español

Sebastian Riesco amigo ¿cual es el canal oficial de peterson?

El canal se llama Jordan B Peterson y por suerte tiene muchos videos con subtitulos en castellano :)

@GD WARRIOR quiesiera ver en que contexto lo dice. por que un video previo a este el dijo haber terminado de leer su trabajo y que carecia de profundidad de otros filosofos en el tema de la religion y falta de oposicion a pensadores mas sofisiticados y señala que es un caso similar con Dawkin (que mientras es un cientifico ineligente y reconocido en el ramo de la fiolosofia le gusta enfrentarse a fundamentalista cuyo conceptos generalmente son aun menos sofisticados) . por mi parte le vi debatir con william Craig y no dire que ni siquiera Craig gano el debate, Harris lo perdio por la premisa a la que el habia dedicado un libro entero , no pudo defenderla por que parecia mas una divagacion sin contexto logico y paso a la tactica de decir la relligion es mala inquisicion y las cruzadas, desviandose del tema con lo que parecia un mantra antireligion y bastamente decepcionante

"quien es tu oponente más inteligente?" le preguntan a Jorda. A lo que responde Sam Harris.ruclips.net/video/TYb93T0xUgE/видео.html Es al final. Min 31:38 creo.

Yo diría que Dawkins es aún peor

GD WARRIOR yo sí, deléitate ruclips.net/video/tRSDtrC34bQ/видео.html

@@sirjocas Quitaron el video, podrías quizás compartirlo desde otro link?

hola