#beta-ptr-spoilers
1 messages · Page 193 of 1
the gayest of elves.
Im just glad that there is at least 1 race on Azeroth that doesn't mind the gayness.
and we dont have to interpret it
Wait who
the NIghtborne
when the female does her flirt one of them is showing interest in dating Tyrande.
I never listened to the male flirts so I don't know if theres gay tones there
Belves are just hinted at the gay. Same with nelves. Nightborne just toss it out casually.
@hollow dock Blizzard doesn't like to imply they have gay men, but lesbians are more "profitable" so they will casually showcase that.
johnny awesome and that belf in the badlands deathwing quest chain
That's neat.
.-.
Execpt those are played as jokes and not really as legitimate characters?
Because the joke is "LOL. Blood elf men are girly! So they MUST be all gay!"
I mean. I can see most of the elven races just bein gei
most of the cata-era quests that had blood elf men.
omg.
they were awful
like went back to 2001 era type of "LEL GAY GUY" level of jokes
worgen are all gay to me
I think in that specific case I'd give them a pass because it's not like the orc mistakes the elf for a woman. like he's described as a "strapping blood elf"
The supreme worst part of the cataclysm gay jokes: Theralion
and since only male worgen exist, well.
Its also the weirdest gay joke.
anyway though like
legit though
elves gotta be hella queer
Nelves I can see. Helves and all their descendants I can see.
theres like no way they're not
when you're over thousands of years old you have PLENTY of time to figure out what your idenity really is
if you're into men or if you're into women, if you're trans or not, etc.
I wonder how the transition works in Wow.
Is it just a lot of magic? A specifically crafted spell?
I wonder if there's druids that are into... cats or bears đ€
probably not as difficult if transmorphic tintures exist and magical methods speed up healing processes
Or is there some creepy forsaken doctor with a bad german accent doing the surgeries
small brain: none of the races are queer
normal brain: some elves are queer
glowing brain: all of the elves are queer
ascendent brain: all of the races are queer
yes.
E V E R Y O N E
đș
A S C E N D A N T
let's not get into that
does Malfurion yiff Tyrande?
please no
also đŹ tho on the "into cats and bears" thing like
lets not include zoophillia into an LGBT+ discussion please
there's only one type of bear that belongs in this discussion and it's not literal
I thought it was a topic of sexualities in Azeroth
^
zoophillia isn't a sexuality. its. literally a fetish. paraphillias are fetishes, and many of them are seriously fucked up.
it's a fantasy world
So then the original question: Would druids get attracted to animals more as they're in animal form for varying lengths of time?
and it was more based on the "elves have lived thousands of years, they should know their identity by now" and extending that to nelf druids that might be in animal form all the time
Would those that focus on being trees slowly become asexual?
arborphilia
We know that druids can talk in their animal forms
we also never said that we want to
Yea we're just musing the ideas of how shapeshifting into animals messes with that.
Back to the sexuality of races: Are there any examples of very strict societies that would maybe forbid homosexuality or the other sexualities that aren't hetero?
it's a fantasy world there doesn't need to be homophobia
not
accusing yall.
the harkness test thing is literally like "if it cant talk and is likely to rip your face off please do not."
so 99% sure druids would follow the same thing.
you can't really be all "balance-y" if you're sticking things where they dont belong in a non-sapient species
Balance doesn't mean you can't kill things. Death is part of nature.
I don't think the harkness test is known on azeroth
That is a two way street Mei
imagine a world where a non-insane kaelâthas still ruled the blood elves
They'd be even gayer
Balance is literally keeping both dark and light equal.
Not removing one or the other.
So it's okay for a Druid to murder you đ
just 'cause elune and malorne had a thing malorne was still a sapient, consenting ... thing
druids should not follow the example and try to bump uglies with an actual stag
Heâs fab.
Totally.
That is just assuming.
No one is innocent in Warcraft.
Not even the orphan children.
wailing caverns druids are Nightmare-insane tho
also xanuzar: Zeus
That's why I burned down three orphanages in cataclysm while serving the Old Gods.
oh you don't need to use Druids of the Fang for an example of murder by druids
D.E.H.T.A. is a great example
you just need to look at D.E.H.T.A
...which IS still apart of the cenarion circle.
---lmao yep
same thought
p sure DEHTA arenât officially recognized by the Circle
omg he's got a drip of blood KILL THEM
and there was the other druid chick in highmountain that literally is like
"okay let me turn you into an animal so iyou can VIOLENTLY SLAUGHTER these trappers"
I'm fairly certain she's apart of D.E.H.T.A.
for that WQ
animal form op you can roar at trappers and they die
also fire druids in cata?
Eh. Fire druids are less druids and more fire
giving rep has no importance tbh
helping Gilneans on Broken Isles doesn't give you Gilneas rep either
If it gives rep to a faction, it most certainly means they are apart of that faction
they aren't apart of Gilnaes
they aren't even apart of the Alliance
there's no sources that state they aren't apart of the cenarion circle.
and turning in the argus HC quest gives cenarion rep
they're literally apart of the cenarion circle's outpost forces, the cenarion expedition
Fire druids arenât a real druidic circle. Theyâre just Ragnaros corrupted druids.
Theyâre essentially elementalists.
no?
You're even told this by the druids in Valsharah
not every quest gives rep
but ones that do usually are somewhat tied to whatever faction the NPCs are apart of
not every quest gives rep.
I dont remember ever running into a village of Gilneans in Stormheim
I remember seeing alliance forces in Stormheim
Ah you mean the Alliance forward base?
not every quest gives rep. (x3)
Druids for the Ethical and Humane Treatment of Animals (D.E.H.T.A.) is an organization based primarily in Northrend and is a radical portion of the Cenarion Expedition. The organization was created in direct opposition to master hunter Hemet Nesingwary. They are opposed to what is essentially the decimation of the wildlife caused by Nesingwary and his hunters, and they also give players the chance to battle Hemet's hunters.
Yes they are apart of the Cenarion Circle
you literally cant use that as a counterpoint to say DEHTA isn't cenarion because not every quest gives rep.
Rep doesnât fucking matter
That doesnât change the lore
Half the nightfallen quests donât give rep
Rep is gameplay
Not lore
Maybe they don't give rep because it's a quest they don't care?
This channel argues a lot.
yea
we love each other really
We do?
@hollow dock @dusky ginkgo you guys love me right
@zinc sandal see! there is love in this chat
I even love Vris, while I fully admit that I was less than courteous at the beginning
new mount will defend Azeroth from the Old Gods
đ€
Can't wait for Blizzcon 2018 where they try to pretend that the big 8.1 reveal of N'zoth is going to be an actual surprise
watch them pretend the big reveal of 8.1 isnt vulpera playable
I mean. they tried to play off Legion like it was a big ol' surprise.
Vulpera better be playable >:(
Hope not
first,messlet plays alliance,then he plays void elves,and then he hopes vulpera are not playable
you're not looking good
I hate both factions but hate the horde more and dont want Vulpera playable because I'm not a sheep that dies at the first 'cute' thing that they see.
how am I doin?
You trying to fight, @strange falcon ?
i'll fite u over good playable races
Good is entirely subjective.
you're the laughable one playing void elves
At least void elves picked a side and aren't dancing around the problem
And they're not furries. Furries are also weebs. Weebs are illegal here.
Therefore, so are furries.
i dont see how you make the connection between furries and weebs
do you have some kind of foresight
Have you ever seen a non-anime furry?
i have,tons in fact D:
Then they aint no furries. Every furry I've run into has pics of their own or others in that horrid anime style
Dafire is a deep furry. The ones that scratch the surface of zoo.
Mickey Mouse is a furry.
sry fam.
messlet these are baseless accusations
Mickey Mouse is the OG furry
you're just insulting for the sake of insulting
and trying to bait me with no argument
Then prove emwrong
(BTW I'm totally kidding)
wait we were being serious?
Idk I think Dafire thought so
i'm kidding too excluding the fact,that vulpera would make a great race that's wanted by many
from the comments i saw
on forums
and wowhead
Theyre wanted cuz weebs
^
not because of any actual facts other than theyre cute foxes
Vulpera should be all eradicated by the Sethrakk.
I'll go on a proper crusade of the Vulpera
Burn the Furries.
they're like the new doggo store mount,anything cute is weeb now O.O
btw,that's what the sethrak are trying to do from what we know
I'm siding with them
That's why I said it
well technically you would have to worldquest in zandalar even if you're alliance at some point
I can side with them if I betray my faction. Which I would not mind doing.
i would find it very inefficient to avoid them
you do you man,if you want to shoot yourself in the foot by ignoring an entire zone,do it
Yes because Sethrakk are the only things in all of Zandalar
i said an entire zone,not a continent
the only thing in the zone of nazmir is vulpera,sethrak
hyenas
and trilobites
the rest is desert
Looks like i'll be grinding out Hyenas
Sethrak decapitate Vulpera
if Vulpera can get added in just because theyre cute so can mine because they do the kill stuff.
they're extremly unlikely,1 they're enemies,2 they have a weird skeleton,3 helms dont fit at all on them
Blame the furries.
Blame the furries for being furries but not for this
Wait mess isn't wanting Vulpera just cuz theyre cute foxes hto
which is why you said theyre getting added in fire
so
how is it mess' fault?
Boom.
Rekt
he said "sylvanas can enthrall them all" to which edgy troll said, "it comes down to sexuality"
that's why it's his fault
?
That...that doesn't make sense
I was referring to Sethrak. To make them our allies.
i was talking about something different
Enslaving people never helps the slavers
We'll uplift them like the Salarians uplifted the Krogan.
dadgar is dad
you can't guarantee that
One bad thing that's gonna happen: Sylvannas will survive
Boom.
end story
the horde rebelling against a corrupt warchief?
what a new and interesting concept that has never been done before
if i stop thinking about it, that's the whole point of it.
You can't guarantee anything based on conjecture. That's like, begging the question
Begging the question is when your conclusion is formed by one of your opening statements/ premises
That made no sense.
u made no sense
True. But that doesn't help your case.
I only said nothign bad will never come from uplifting the Sethrak like the Salarians uplifted the Krogen. I garuntee it.
how doesn't it?
My point is, you can't gaurantee anything based on conjecture.
Your argument is that, if I stop thinking about it, your point makes sense
Well yea.
once you stop thinking about it, it makes sense.
and I can garuntee it when you stop thinking about it
that's the whole point of my point.
but since you wont stop thinking about it, it'll never make sense
so stop thinking about it
I refuse
The point is, you have no point if there IS no point. Thus, proving Vris' point.
guarantee
I do have a point tho.
It's that Vris is talking nonsense
So are all of us.
True. đ€
when did I say I wasn't talking nonsense
You can't win against Vris
when you said that you gaurantee anything
Nonsense is the base of all of Vris' arguments.
@ruby prawn Vris can't win against me either.
At least in this case
EdgyTroll and Vris may be gods...
I can still garuntee nonsense
Who knows the truth
We're woke af
this channel is always nonsense
cuz we believe everyone in WoW is G A Y
They are.
Who knows who they are or what they do
They just may not know it yet.
"Nothing bad will happen, I gaurantee it"
"No, that's not right."
"Shut up. Stop thinking about it."
I only said 1 of those things
thinking is evil
Thinking is for Satan
^
Good thing I'm an atheist in that case
You know what happened to Galileo?
Ya know
That's whats gonna happen to all of us!
Not believing doesn't mean the devil isn't in you.
hey, satanism gets a bad rap but it's actually pretty decent
ye, i know that mei, but certain people here don't
Tony is so smug. He has seen a god and still atheist
Because thor isn't a god
No. He's a member of a hyper-advanced society, of which contains individuals who possess remarkably long lives and of whom, most of those individuals can't do much more than science the shit out of shit
Sciensplan all you want
sounds like elves, iyam
Odin in Thor 2: We are not gods Loki
^
Odin in Thor 3: What are you the god of, Thor?
^
So
odin was also replaced by loki
This was before that
and I'm talkin comics here, where Odin is still a god.
Oh
I mean, I would not be surprised in the slightest if the comics flip back and forth
Loki's not even Odin's son.
Yes
Loki is a giant, not an asgardian
Oh they will cuz they change writers like we change under garments
Arso told me he doesn't.
mess, if arson told you the earth was flat, would you believe him?
in the MCU Norse mythology is the only true mythology and Cap is still a Christian while Tony is still an Athiest. Its pretty great.
No, but I would use it against him later.
Cap was christian before he met thor tho
and he's still christian after meeting thor
satanism is definitely not decent - the church of satan believes in eugenics
The existence of other gods doesnât prove nor disprove the existence of Capâs god. It only changes certain aspects of Christianism.
Christianism. Don't you mean Christianity?
Garuntee. Donât you mean guarantee?
Christianism. Don't you mean Christianity?
Garuntee. Donât you mean guarantee?
@tropic trail source? not doubting you, just curious.
I met an Eugene once. Good guy. Definitely exists.
"Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics. "
that was written by Magus Gilmore, the current high priest
apart from that, it's largely babbys first Nietzsche with gratuitous amounts of Ayn Rand mixed in
yeah I'd heard some of their principles before and agreed with them but I did not know about the eugenics part
considering I'm autistic that's not something I want to have anything to do with
yeah, absolutely lol
tbh, that's pretty average in terms of what religions pull across history.
I mean sure, there are crusades and shit, but at least crusades aren't a current concern
but people wanting to reimpliment the policies of the third reich is definitely a current concern
Wait, I told you what? @zinc sandal
Also, about religious eugenics and all that...
Someone who's "fit" in every way but who also has an autistic gene could produce an autistic kid even if eugenics is considered
What you told me is irrelevant, Arso.
ok but what did i tell you? o.o
You've told me many things
I hope you do know that eugenics isn't solely a nazi thing. The US employed it for years before the Nazis perverted it.
i can't think of anything the nazis didn't pervert
Swastika? Perverted.
The color red? Perverted.
Nationalism + Socialism? Perverted.
eugenics was bad even before the nazis got a hold of it
Selective breeding isn't inherintly bad. :v And the world was OK with it until the Nazis got it. Like everything else the Nazis got.
I dunno man, I'm pretty sure selective breeding is a necessarily politically motivated act that's apart from science, which can in fact act against the interests of the entire population by reducing biodiversity, and is necessarily fueled by malinformed ideas about different races and shit
and just because people were "OK" with eugenics before the Nazis doesn't mean that it was good, it just means that the Nazis weren't doing something completely new
Well, politics are bad.
Racism is bad.
Homophobia is bad.
But they still exist
You just added in a bunch of extra stuff that doesnt necissarily have to do with what Eugenics is.
I mean, if you want to talk about why eugenics isn't bad because people liked eugenics pre-nazi, you should probably consider what they were talking about pre-nazi
also, Quora is bad.
Fuck Quora.
in some sort of ideal world where nobody has any freedom, and nobody wants any freedom, eugenics might work out fine if given up to some omniscient authority that can see the future
I never said they liked it. I said they were OK with it. It wasn't a widely frowned upon practice until the nazis had perverted it. That is a fact.
the nazis didn't pervert it, it's largely the same set of ideas, and it's still a shitty unscientific idea
like feudalism wasn't a frowned upon practice many years ago, that doesn't mean anything about it's moral status
Is this one of communism situations?
Where humans just make it really shitty but on paper its OK?
i think the only thing nazis perfected is torture.
but that's still a shitty thing
I don't know what you're asking of me - do you honestly think that eugenics is a reasonable, morally neutral thing?
Vris isn't saying that.
Tho if that's what they're saying here, they're trolling
Its science. We perform the samething with animals for generations
stop sciencesplaining
We also do the same with plants.
through spores and crosspollenization or however its spelt.
it isn't science, it's a politically motivated implementation of biological principles - the idea of eugenics is to define what you believe to be the fittest organism, and then try to breed people towards that - but that requires an understanding of what is fittest, and thus invites two main problems; reduction in biodiversity (say you breed out sickle cell adaptation and suddenly there's an influx of malaria carrying mosquitoes), and the decision of what is fittest has to be made at some point by politically motivated people who aren't making decisions based on facts but rather feelings and preconceptions
Its how we get such large fruit, why corn looks the way it does now, etc. We specifically make things to be more efficient for us. Suddenly its bad when applying the same methods on a human?
Again you're tossing in the application while I am not
to avoid those problems you need an omniscient being, though
OK so this is like communismthen
The issue I describe when I say that is on paper: Communism works perfectly.
But when applied, it always fails
Vris, we make food more efficient using genetic engineering
Kel, u must be new here
I don't agree with that characterization of communism
On paper: Communism is a system of government where everything is equal.
no, that's not what communism is
In practice: It can never work because someone has to make sure everyone is equal, thus making them not equal.
communism can (and frequently does) involve democratic elections
I am new, are there no mods?
TL;DR equality
it's more a question of the ownership of the means of production - the proletariat (the people who work the machines) should own the means of production so they aren't alienated from their work. There is a difference between personal and private property, as well - people should have things that are their own, but they shouldn't own things like the means of production.
Again, that's why it can never work
Yes there are Kel, but nobody gives a shit unless people are being rude to each other
or someone ruins our fun and calls in a mod
and the mods hate it when you ruin their day like that
alright, consider me schooled
be not afraid to report people for being dicks tho
was more me hungry for info on BfA and seeing communism chat lol
I think it's probably too strong a statement to say "this or that economic structure could never work" - that's a universal statement of a negation, which means you have to scour the universe and time to show that it's impossible
There's not much more than what's already on the website.
unless you have a good proof - in mathematical terms - and for something as complex as communism or capitalism, I doubt that's possible
Communism without altering it to not be pure communism can never fully function because the ideals of the people being truly equal is never met.
A very good example of this is the book Animal Farm.
and it didn't work.
?
I've read Animal Farm, but you know, I doubt it's a perfect representation of human behaviour/psychology
like, it's a fucking book about talking animals, sure it can highlight the problems with historic cases (which, I'd like to stress, is the point of it), but it can't form a convincing argument about how humans can never implement fully functioning communism
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" is kinda communism-like but that's because it implies that NO animals are equal and they're broken up into classes and earn however much depending on their class
which isn't true communism at all, really
^
Humans are greedy, there always will be greed and corruption within humans who have power. Most will abuse that. Not all, but most will. China is another example of having to alter communism in order to actually make it a functional government system.
nah, I sorta doubt that humans are inherently greedy, there's been psychological research that shows diminishing returns with increasing wages for example
China's governent doesn't care about being "functional" All it cares about is money
BfA politics.
on that note, China is sorta like the Goblin govts
and if you want to show that humans are inherently greedy, you have a lot of work to do
Money isn't inherent govern power.
The ability to choose how a land works is very different from simply having a lot of money.
again, you need to show me through psychological experimentation that humans are inherently greedy, and perhaps using a group of people not from a capitalist society (as capitalism sort of inculcates some of these ideals)
I dont have much work at all. You can see it throughout history; Greed will always be within humanity and most will abuse it if given the chance.
the history of humanity isn't characterized by greed, it's characterized by adaptation to social situations, and at times periods of cooperation
Throughout history is not all of our history. You can see it in every age, most rulers go corrupt with the power they have and want to keep. You can see it now within our own congress here in America where parties desperately tip the votes in their favor anduse as many loop holes to do so.
like we're obviously capable of working together for a greater good, and just caring about our fellow human - why should we extoll the virtues of greed just because it's somehow easier to act according to it? (which I don't necessarily buy)
shouldn't we cultivate the best of us, and build our societies to produce the best behaviour we can?
I think this is partly a matter of perspective on whether you believe the best in humanity or whether you believe the worst in humanity and a difficult discussion to have on an objective level, if at all.
and reward the best behaviours?
Power corrupts. It's not something you have to prove. Greed fuels that need to keep that power for as long as possible. Again not something that needs to be proven.
We should most certainlydo so, but noteveryone in society is a law-abiding citizen.
I'm sorry, but you really do need to substantiate some of these claims you're making, and the statement that humans are inherently greedy is a statement about psychology, you're saying all humans act according to this one motivation
I am not saying all
and so to show that, you need to perform psychological experiments with a wide variety of subjects not entirely from capitalist societies which inculcate greed into people
I'm saying most would if given the chance. As proven throughout our history where people have done htis
so don't give them the chance
the point of politics, the very idea behind the structuring of government, is to constrain the behaviour of the people with power to make sure that it's impossible for them to behave poorly
I mean. it probably should be noted that the 1% is the 1%. a minority of people in the population who control vast sums of money. I'd like to think the majority of people aren't so greedy.
Elera, by not giving them the chance, people don't allow others power
Chance to get greedy, is the chance to get power
the reason you have a democracy is so that no elected official has absolute power, and there are ways of modifying that democracy to improve that outcome
night, mei
Yes and that has nothing to do with what I amtrying to explain to you. Which is that communism will always give 1 person the absolute power over all, which is why it can never work as it destroys itself as shown with Animal Farm. It starts about equality for all and then slowly devolves, which is what has happened to Russia when attempting to apply it.
g'night, have fun, love y'all, try not to resort to ad hominem â€
All elected officials have power.
that's why there are elections
a small amount of power is still power, which again, can result in greed
the people have the absolute power, because they are the ones that can elect someone else, creating incentives to right action
communism isn't a governmental system, it's an economic system that can function with democracy, and in many countries that try to implement it, that's where they start
it isn't predicated on a single ruler
yes, but tyrant govts such as the USA's don't permit the people much power..
These are some weird BfA spoilers
and this is where it gets really cool, some countries like NZ have more robust voting systems (we use MMP over here), and as a result NZ politics is far less polarized and elected officials are more beholden to the people, and represent the people better
consider that classical democracy as run in Athens was democracy without elections, where people were placed in office for a year based on a lottery - this created a set of incentives completely different from modern democracies
political science is actually /really fucking cool/, guys
That was Athens' golden age
Yes and those are for democracy. Not for Communism. Communism has, and still does, run certain countries around the world. True communism can never work, and has never worked, as its the perfect breeding ground for a dictator.
I don't think you actually know what is meant by communism - it isn't a governmental system, it doesn't necessitate a certain system of selection of government officials, like it isn't opposed to democracy - it's an economic system like capitalism is, where the people who work own the machines which they work with
Capitalism is another set of problems which i prefer not to get into right now
so china isnt a communist government parading to be a democratic government?
I think you're confusing communism with the revolutionary politics of the October Revolution, which gave way to a communism with some level of democratic involvement sure, but was still a revolution that involved deposing the Tsars and replacing them with a communist party
Stalin didn't lead a communist Russia? The soviet union? USSR?
(I think Elera might have you schooled on this one, vris)
two things; Stalin is well recognized in communist circles as having manipulated the system present for right-wing goals, and just because two things are associated once (even twice, thrice, etc) doesn't mean they always go together
So then North korea isn't actually a communist govenrment. Alrighty then.
what are you two even arguing about now?
for the record, I'm not in favour of communism as a sole organizing principle for the economy, I just want to make clear what communism is and isn't because people seem quite confused about what communism actually is
equally, I'm not in favour of capitalism as a sole organizing principle for the economy
Explaining it doesn't mean you're for or against something
Ummmmm wtf? Lmao how does communism pertain to world of warcraft?
I didn't say it does, I just wanted to be clear
@quasi pelican this happens regularly, you get used to it
I feel like this has nothing to do with BfA
it doesn't, greenegg
@true matrix ah i see lmao
Oh it certainly doesn't. But nothings coming out about BFA so. Yea. we're talking about this.
Haha fair enough
It does. They're talking about greed. Gallywix is a greedy goblin whose greed for Azerite will lead to a war.
Mess coming in with the clutch save
honestly, I just thought Vris somehow trying to justify eugenics earlier was a bit ridiculous and wanted to weigh in
I got you.
I do not recommend it.
I'm not justifying it. I was stating facts.
always a wild ride here in the ptr-or-spoilers bfa-beta-spoilers channel
Elera, Vris wasn't justifying anything
I don't know, it seemed like they were trying to say that eugenics isn't actually bad
Misinterpretation.
nah.
what they were saying is that, the already terrible eugenics program was perverted further by the nazis.
I don't think they ever said that the US eugenics program was bad, just that it existed and that the Nazis perverted it, and that people were okay with the idea before the Nazis
they then compared it to things like the swastika
Btw, Elera wasn't saying North Korea or China were not dictatorships/communist nations. They were saying communism is not a form of government, but an economic system. The fact that it has always led to dictatorships does not mean the two always go hand in hand.
which at the least isn't exactly clear, and I think it's fair to say that it sounds like they're saying eugenics isn't so bad
Vris has a tendency to either,
- So horribly mis-word things
- Troll
- Deliberately misinterpret research
it seems the first one is true this time
1 and 3 can be included in #2
i disagree. I think that 3 can be included in 2 but not 1 in 2 because it's not all the time intentional.
That's arguable.
an argument for another day
XD
How are you on real world tyranny instead of WoW stuff?
the youtube effect
ahem Politics? In #beta-ptr-spoilers ? Move it to #no-wow-discussion
So how about those vulpera?
NO.
YES
If you guys get Vulpera
Well, in case anyone decides to jump in... jump on in via the right channel đ
we get Sethrakk to kill them
second furry race :3
Second?
4th furry
third, worgen don't count
Fuck Vulpera. give me blood trolls
Worgen do cout
What do you mean they don't?
werewolves aren't furries
Sethrakk would be cool, but I have no clue how theyâd wear helmets
Tell that to 99% of the furries in WoW
how are werewolves not furries
Worgen are THE default furry race in WoW
they're not permanently anthro animals, most of the time they're human
Not when furries play them
most of the time they're human
:khadgarface: u sure about that?
I dont remember the last time I saw a non-worgen worgen player
was thinking less about players and more about gothic stories
Furry races: Pandas, Worgen, Tauren
Tauren mk2
wut
Not really
Highmountain tauren as still just tauren đ
One thing that people do forget is that they have fur.
You can see it above their hooves.
Draenei aren't anthropomorphic except for the hooves
anthropomorphic means human-shaped
you mean they aren't animal-like except the hooves
Yeah, Draenei are just aliens, not furries
o
Yeah
Demons
That would be cool, but I doubt weâd ever see them
Not gonna happen
I canât wait to cast banish on them
Lel
corrupted eredar, who perhaps after the defeat of the legion change their mind about who they follow?
Too late
like demons hardly means anything in WoW apart from a stat perspective
we may get Man'ari if Draenei become DHs
Iâd assume theyâd seek forgiveness from velen first
He wouldn't give it to them XD
he totally would
Nope
he forgave Kil'jaeden
he gave forgiveness to Illidan
Not ever
but then Illidan had to kill the naaru and send himself to the most dangerous place in Warcraft's universe
now he's Sargeras's chewtoy for all eternity
that cutscene with Xe'ra was fucking awesome
i agree
its the only time I liked and agred with illidan
also interesting to see Illidan the jailer rather than the jailed
i think "Illidan the punching bag" would be more accurate
He still avoided all consequence which IMO
completely nullified this whole redemption arc
nah, we weakened sargeras enough, and the titans are helping him
why would the titans care about Illidan tho?
Illidan was created by Sargeras and they hate Sargeras.
I can't think of any reason why they'd want to help Illidan
exactly because they hate Sargeras
Illidan was changed by Sargeras, not created by him.
???
like Illidan hates Sargeras, the titans hate Sargeras, Illidan wants to imprison Sargeras, so do the titans
ye, he was changed by him but everything Illidan is now, is because of Sargeras.
But he didn't create him
close enough
He changed him and led him down a path by doing so
I don't get what illidan thinks he can do watching over sargeras cage
sargeras would crush him
if he broke out
I think the writers just wanted to get rid of illidan
Which I full heartidly agree with for an ending.
but its still a shitty ending
they're holding onto all of those characters just incase they want to bring them back later
but then, if they did that, someone would get the idea to bring him back.
And all that Illidan drama would repeat.
this way, nobody can bring him back.
Whether he dies or lives, nobody knows
Well death is just a setback. Imprisonment eons away fromAzeroth is more perminate.
5 expansions from now, titan cyborg illidan returns to azeroth to ask for our aid in once more, imprisoning sargeras
cyborg?
after BfA, what if we have to use Sargeras to kill void gods?
the titans improve illidan with robot limbs, duh
remove the curse of flesh from him
Let's harness the power of a god!
Great idea.
th-
but he never had it lol
all the titans creations were affected by the curse of flesh
on Azeroth, at least
all the people
it's not just gnomes
Sargeras is a titan, not a titan creation. In which yea all the creations on Azeroth were afflicted.
oh, I meant in reference to Illidan
I think we're talking about illidan
but illidan isn't a titan creation either
free range natural grown azerothian
And the night elves dont have the Curse of Flesh on them
Nope
No
just magically evolved trolls
weird
and I think trolls came from elementals, like dragons did
I'd assume anyway
then give him
aren't trolls titan creations?
THE BLESSING OF STONE
The only races that are afflicted with that 'curse' are Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, and Mogu.
They're not, Arso
orcs naturally evovled to be flesh, what losers
on here since before the titans or Old Gods.
Orcs supposedly evolved from Rock naturally .
does that make their diet cannibalism?
pretty much.
by that metric, we're all cannibals for eating anything
pretty sure every creature on earth has a single common ancestor
(only pretty sure because I've read that there's some conjecture about multiple common ancestors)
I'd assume I'm not related to this apple I have
you are though
you're so far and so distantly related to the apple that the genetic variability between you and the apple is astounding
Idk Green, you look pretty nice and juicy to me.
but don't try to have sex with the apple because that'd be weird
Don't kinkshame.
^
Unless you're kinkshaming furries.
its fookin 2018
food is meant for eating, not fucking
Tell that to the japanese.
you sweet summer child
So cute
no shit
I'd point you in the direction of reference material, but that would both require me to sully my eyes, and probably get banned
don't pm me it pls. i'd prefer to stay ignorant
lol, I wont
Stay golden, kid.
as a human you share roughly 50-60% of your DNA with a banana
yup
Yeah
so technically, we're all cannibals
and pro-lifers hate it
kek lmao
smh
snatches phone from mei gimme that. go to sleep.
smh tbh fam
squadfam out
25 europe dollars for the new mount, why's that so expensive?
ok ok goodnight...
its the same as all the other store mounts
some mounts are 30$ tho. it's on a discount
wait really? All the mounts Ive gotten is 25 bucks.
Oh OK. Yea. warforged is cuz of the toy.
Only store mount worth $30 is that one
ehh
Does the china dog uses quellen skeleton?
Probably
Yes. the only thing they change is how the model looks if it shows bones
and gravestones instead of skeletons on the ground
I think you misread that
china dog? wut
perfectly possible
Kinda interesting that. I mean.. One would think those are Mogu dogs.. But apprently this one is friendly
"As the Golden Lotus worked tirelessly to repair the Vale of Eternal blossoms, a single statue came to life and wordlessly defended them from the Sha that assaulted them. Believed by some to be a sign of good fortune and others to be a gift from the Light, Shu-zen provides faithful companionship to any that would defend Azeroth from the maddening whispers of the Old Gods."
what are you talking about
That doesn't mean it's Mogu-made.
The Vale of Eternal Blossoms was made by the Titans.
The edifices in it ARE Mogu, though.
I doubt statues in it were made by titans. Technically they were made by pandareeen while they were slaves to Mogu.
http://prntscr.com/idvp9z this doesn't look like it was made by mogu at all
I agree. Which is why I was curious about the text
Vale is full of statues (some of which come to life) living statues was kinda a very mogu thing, including queillen statues
this is a store mount and it has a really sloppily made 'The light made this so buy it' tag
it's obviously a MoP name so may have been created in Pandaria but that doesn't mean it's mogu-made
Its made to be sold nothing more, nothing less. :v
I would not try too hard to tie into the lore.
I guess it is mean to parallel "light made" tyrael mount that USians got for free.
It's cute, it sells.
tyrael mount?
US got it for free in same sense as China gets light dog for free
Honestly hideous
it was made from D3
Cause it has nelf riding it
your definition of "free" must be different from mine, @mental onyx
You didn't buy it
which means it's not free
You were not required to pay money for tyrael's charger explicitly
There is no free lunch.
yes, you were
No but you had to spend money in order to get the 'free gift'
if you wanted any part of the D3 collector's edition, you had to pay money.
I.e, it wasn't free
That... wasn't Coll edition mount
^
Yes, it is very similiar thing to what light dog is
Tyrael was 12 month commitment, dog is 6 months
It is free to me, because I was planning to be subbed regardless for that amount of time.
You're still paying money to get it. If you didn't pay for the 6 month lump and still got it
thenOK
but you had to pay for something in order to get it.
you're fighting a losing battle, Xen
marketing 101: Tag a 'free gift' onto a paid thing and people will buy it cuz they think the gift is free
I didn't had to pa annything extra, there fore it is free. That is my definition.
There is no free lunch đđŒ
but thats not free.
The fact that you do not explicitly pay for something does not mean you didn't pay for it, Xen.
but you did have to pay.
Having to pay for something else and getting another thing as a bonus does not make that bonus thing free.
This is just going in circles.
I'm of the mindset that if you were/are going to pay for six months of WoW anyway, then the item is indeed free.
The original point that I've made didn't even had to with it. But merely the fact that dog promo / bonus /whatever mirrors tyrael's
If you would have only done 5 months, and added a 6th primarily for the mount, then you paid $15 (or w/e) for it.
And yes I am with Sas148 on that
but sas, that's the same thing
US paid for X months, they got Tyrael for free.
China pays for Y months, they get the Dog for free.
Saying the former's mount wasn't free but the latter's is makes no sense. You either consider them both free, or neither.
It's not the same thing Edgy.
I consider them both free for people who were planning to sub anyway for that duration
Right, it's free if you were already going to pay for it before you even knew about the mount.
If you would have only ended up with 5 or less months, and then paid for more to get to 6, primarily (or solely) to obtain a mount, then you paid money for it.
whether you choose to play all of the 6 months or not, is irrelevant.
You paid for 6 months and got a mount as a bonus, which is a marketing scheme to get people to pay for more.
Sure, in the end, the $ is the same... but it wouldn't have been the same if you would have ended your subscription at any point during those 6 months w/o the mount.
i'm not sure how that helps ur argument
Edgy, yes, you're right! It's a marketing tactic; but it's aimed at people who WOULDN'T have necessarily paid for all six months at once, in a row.
If you were ALREADY going to do that though, then it's just a free mount.
i still disagree.
however, this is going nowhere
You might want to take a look at his name
because you're still paying for something else to get it.
If you wanted something for free and got it without paying for it, that is free.
If you want something for free and paid for something else in order to get it, that is not free
Scenario A: I'm planning to end subscription next month. I see mount. I decide, pay all six months now. I paid for 5 more months I wasn't planning to pay to get that mount. Marketing efforts achieved by Blizzard.
Scenario B: I'm planning to play WoW for the rest of my life. Blizzard releases a mount requiring me to pay for the next six months to get it; I was already planning on doing this. The mount has made no difference. The cost to me is no different. Marking effort by Blizzard had no impact on this scenario.
how much is the 6 month bundle anyways?
Your argument isn't really based in any sort of logic. You're honestly reaching. I've said my peace. Back to other tasks.
Anyone? With a price ont he 6 month bundle?
my argument is, "if you have to pay for something to get something else, that something else is not free."
Not sure how that's reaching but k
I dont think its available in the US anyways
Vris, you could easily look it up.
The 6-month promotion is not, that's correct Portergauge.
Here it's $25, no question about it, no argument to be had. đ
Go do your work Sas lol
But I must teach marketing! đ
But 6 months normally is a bit less than $80 USD iirc
Shhhhhhh work :3
Yes, true, so you could argue that anyone who would be paying for 6 months, on a monthly basis, has actually saved money by doing a 6-month purchase and cost Blizzard money they would have gotten W/O the promo. There's another Scenario for ya, one not in Blizzard's favor. But that's also not accounting for Blizzard having 6-months of money NOW and not later, which could potentially earn interest or be used to fund other projects in the meantime.
Okay, fine Onyx. You win đ
Ive been trying and haven't found it. that's why I asked here.
đ
ty
Get over it, omg
Serious business LOL
dictionaries provide guidance on popular use of words, that doesn't mean things aren't used differently
in fact, words are often ill-defined by dictionaries to the point of uselessness when talking about certain topics like religion, for example
I'm certain you've all heard this at least once though, I'm just sick of people using dictionary definitions for some sort of stupid "gotcha" moment
Dictionaries are obviously prone to bias but when a large number of dictionaries have the same thing for the same word, that definition should be considered
nah, just because they're popularly used definitions doesn't mean they're correct or useful in a serious discussion
better to use definitions from academic articles, or specific definitions for the case you're talking about
(but like, state them)
I realize that.
However, when the popular use of a word is dismissed, the word's 'true' definition eventually becomes obsolete
arguing definitions is also a very important first step in starting a serious discussion
I'm not sure what you mean by that
Popular definitions of words are usually the most recognizable form of the word and so, they become the word's 'true' definition.
That's not to say there aren't other definitions but when the popular definition of a word is dismissed for its popularity or some other reason, that definition of the word still exists.
And that circles back to what i said before.
Also, argumentum ad populum doesn't apply in this case as we are arguing about the definition of words
That's great and all, but it only amounts to saying that the most popular definitions of words are the ones that most people use, but that's tautological and doesn't really contribute anything. The definition of a word is contingent on community using the word, for example the word "theory" in a popular sense might mean a conjecture, while in the scientific community it means a well accepted body of knowledge that explains the results of experimentation. Neither definition is true, just fit for it's context.
Now, if we're talking economics we might want a more strenuous definition of "free"
if you're arguing the popularity of a definition, then it helps to look at dictionaries. If you're arguing about the fitness of a definition to a certain use, popularity means a whole heck of a lot less.
Eh. Perhaps I should have used a different word than "recognizable."
However, popular usage of words aren't always 'wrong.'
Yes, sometimes they are. But sometimes they're not.
On the topic of your bringing up scholarly sources, those can be just as biased as dictionaries.
Since dictionaries are written by scholars, usually.
I would say that the mount is not free, just in the same way that when you for example buy some product for $1 and it comes with a "free" additional product of same value, then it is more like you bought two products for $0.50 each, but with the understanding you can only buy two at once
So then should we just not use dictionaries and only what we feel is what the word means?
đ€
I agree with your premise on the definition of "free"
that's not at all what I'm suggesting, just that you should come to an understanding of what definition works best in a context through argumentation, and additionally you should use definitions fit to the context you're talking in (like scientific definitions if you're talking about scientific concepts)
Without using a dictionary
typically you would use the literature of the field you're talking about, and either way a dictionary definition is less useful than a definition you both agree on
So then just don't use the dictionary. Gotcha.
On the topic of multiple definitions tho, i'm not sure what definition of "free" means ...
You'll get this for free. Conditions may apply.
well, at the very least don't use the dictionary if you're handing in university assignments
that shit gets you laughed at
Dictionaries are bad. Alright.
sure, whatever
the only dictionary i might suggest totally not using is urban dictionary
That's what I got from the words you're telling me and I can't look them up in a dictionary cuz you said theyre bad
every other one is either okay or shitty, depending on which word we're talking about
whatever you say, Vris
not really interested in having this sort of discussion with someone who's not acting in good faith
You're the one saying to not trust the dictionary
sure, exactly as you say Vris lol
Are you not saying that?
"good faith" is irrelevant
nowhere did I say not to trust the dictionary for all words, just that often there are words with different definitions that are more important in certain contexts
if i have "good faith" that the word "free" means
here, have this. Conditions may apply.
it still means something else
but sure if you want to read that as "lol you hate the dictionary and so I can read anything into your words, those words mean you like hitler lolol" then go ahead
EdgyTroll: I mean to say that I'd prefer not to have this sort of discussion with someone who only wants to troll/will misunderstand my statements and put words into my mouth for some big gotcha moment
i'm not trying to "gotcha" you
I was talking about Vris
ah
that's a really common bit of advise you get in any course you do at university, not to use the dictionary as a source for definitions
for the previously stated reasons
you get told to use the literature of the field instead
it's not exactly a controversial statement
So then when do you use the dictionary?
but don't they provide dictionaries with the better definitions instead?
Otherwise, what's to stop the students from accidentally using a word falsely?
Where do you go for words you don't understand if not the dictionary?
English dictionaries are a mess.
well, somewhere else you can go is the literature of the field you're talking about, but if it's not a word where that matters, sure go ahead and use the dictionary
like I'm not saying you can't use dictionaries and that they're always wrong, just there are cases where they are and you should use the literature of the field in that case instead
seriously how are you reading me as saying that you can never use dictionaries??
well, you did say not to use it.
I'm with Vris on this one
well then thats wrong, I don't think you should never use a dictionary
however, you should be careful when defining things to use definitions that are well accepted in the field you're talking about, and are useful in the discussion you're having
and that looking to the literature of that field is usually the best way to do that
better to use definitions from academic articles, or specific definitions for the case you're talking about
this is what you said
better doesn't mean you can only do it
better just means that it'll result in more precise definitions closer to the field you're talking about, in this case
But you're advocating against the dictionary but not?
In Spain, we have the Royal Academy of the Language. They're in charge of all of that and what they say goes.
nobody is advocating against the dictionary, or for it - it doesn't need someone to advocate for or against it, it's a useful tool and isn't going away any time soon
cuz all we did was bring up the definition of Free in an argument about whether or not something is free
that's the only reason we brought in the dictionary
not to use the dictionary as a source for definitions
oh, you also said this
your stance on whether to use a dictionary seems conflicting.
Do you think people should use dictionaries or not?
where did I say "not to use the dictionary as a source for definitions"?
You guys have been talking about dictionaries for literally 40 minutes now
Does this mean every argument we have in here we have to look up an academic article?
Oh this is nothing Quiet
you've been in the PTR chat
like can you quote the entire thing I said?
Press ctrl f
@tropic trail Pretty sure you're just getting trolled at this point.
and search
right
so yeah, I've been in a few university courses, and you do get told not to use the dictionary
i troll a lot but not in this case
that's not me saying dictionaries are bad, just that you get told not to by lecturers because they're expecting definitions from articles
I've never heard that in my campus.
that's really weird, because I have multiple times
specifically it was for some religious studies classes - theres a long history of poor definitions of the term religion
same. same with my parents. We all went to UM.
and I was raised on lookin to that big ol Book of D' for anything I didn't already know
anyway, I think it was clear that I've said that dictionaries provide popular usage, and that sometimes there are other definitions that are more relevant
there's also a long history of poor definitions of the word "atheist" but that's a discussion for another day
wouldn't those still be in the dictionary? just not as the first definition?