Hearthpwn

Quote from CypherBenkes >>

Quote from Xynot >>

 

The point is still here. You're only just seeing recent activity, hence the appearance of walling. I've had now only two users inspire interactions like this, Pathod/BlueLights and NoControl. Those conversations have concluded, and only took place within the last three pages. There's nothing wrong with an extended conversation. It happens.

 Bro, there was no conversation. It was you yelling in your room like a crazy person lol.  

The fact that you get so bothered says more about you than anyone else. Go outside or something.

Quote from nocontrol1111 >>

Quote from CypherBenkes >>

Quote from Xynot >>

 

The point is still here. You're only just seeing recent activity, hence the appearance of walling. I've had now only two users inspire interactions like this, Pathod/BlueLights and NoControl. Those conversations have concluded, and only took place within the last three pages. There's nothing wrong with an extended conversation. It happens.

 Bro, there was no conversation. It was you yelling in your room like a crazy person lol.  

The fact that you get so bothered says more about you than anyone else. Go outside or something.

There was no conversation because you didn't want to involve yourself in responding to something you started. You were being shown that people pay attention to you when you say stupid shit and you decided to ignore it.

I thought you had better things to do. Here to fling more shit? You're about as smart as your lies are good.

I always queue 'Epic Sax Guy' when I get my win condition... So yes, I guess I BM.

I know this thread is about BMing in Hearthstone, but I recently started playing MtG Arena and I can't stop emoting my opponents, hehe. Even in a game like MtG Arena where emotes are only represented by text, it's fun as hell... I love it. :D :D :D

Games like this wouldn't be the same without emotes. :) I know many players dislike them with passion, but that people should probably see a doctor, because that is not normal. :(

I really wonder what kind of mental illness is related to the fact of not being able to withstand emotes in a videogame... Seriously, does anyone have any idea?

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

I know this thread is about BMing in Hearthstone, but I recently started playing MtG Arena and I can't stop emoting my opponents, hehe. Even in a game like MtG Arena where emotes are only represented by text, it's fun as hell... I love it. :D :D :D

Games like this wouldn't be the same without emotes. :) I know many players dislike them with passion, but that people should probably see a doctor, because that is not normal. :(

 So you think people who enjoy ruining the experience for other players to be more normal than people who are easily affected by BM? 

I'm not gonna lie, i hate emotes and BM in general. It's just not my type of fun, it just feels sadisitic, torturing someone for your own enjoyement - its just not my cup of tea, but i guess it can be... Fun? 
I think i'll go see a doctor, i'm totally confused by your standards of normal. Either you are crazy or i am. Hopefully we can find a shrink that will clear this up... Or Dora the Explorer. I think she might be better for situations like these. She is really good at solving difficult riddles. Do you have her number by any chance? 

Hang on a minute, you're asking 2 different questions.

I will BM when my opponent does things I find distasteful. Like purposely running the rope. I will do it at the end of the game. Also to be honest when I shut down some aggressive meta deck that goes face I BM them after they concede. 

Also sometimes I will BM if they dont say Hello or Wellplayed. 

Quote from TwoDoors>>

So you think people who enjoy ruining the experience for other players to be more normal than people who are easily affected by BM? 

Of course they are more normal. People (and any animal out there) are evil by nature, but society makes us nicer for many reasons: fear of punishment, preservation of the society for our own benefit, need to be with others for survival, etc. That is why the more social an animal is, the less dangerous is for others.

Someone that is carried away by their primary instintcts without really endangering society is clearly more normal than someone who repress them (someone who puts himself in the position of victim and doesn't react as he should), It is as simple as that. :)

And here is a video for you to enjoy (featuring Ramsay Bolton) about the human nature :P:

:D :D :D

Quote from TwoDoors >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

I know this thread is about BMing in Hearthstone, but I recently started playing MtG Arena and I can't stop emoting my opponents, hehe. Even in a game like MtG Arena where emotes are only represented by text, it's fun as hell... I love it. :D :D :D

Games like this wouldn't be the same without emotes. :) I know many players dislike them with passion, but that people should probably see a doctor, because that is not normal. :(

 So you think people who enjoy ruining the experience for other players to be more normal than people who are easily affected by BM? 

I'm not gonna lie, i hate emotes and BM in general. It's just not my type of fun, it just feels sadisitic, torturing someone for your own enjoyement - its just not my cup of tea, but i guess it can be... Fun? 

What you have to understand is that the thrill of the hunt is sometimes elevated by thoughts of necrophilia. Think about it. When you're done thinking about it, think about it some more.

would rather tab out and watch a video or something until its my turn

Please forgive me father, tho I do BM sometimes. The biggest chance I'd BM has exodia mage. However the rest of my BM's are my tries to complete quests or when I do miss lethal.

I do prefer to see full combos rather than concede even if it's enemy combo I will wait.

Quote from Kacek1996 >>

Please forgive me father, tho I do BM sometimes. The biggest chance I'd BM has exodia mage. However the rest of my BM's are my tries to complete quests or when I do miss lethal.

I do prefer to see full combos rather than concede even if it's enemy combo I will wait.

All is forgiven, son. Go now, and send them to the Shadow Realm, or something.

I'm sometimes like this too, where I play a little longer past when I have lethal to see what cards my opponent has. I do this almost exclusively with newer players.

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Of course they are more normal. People (and any animal out there) are evil by nature, but society makes us nicer for many reasons: fear of punishment, preservation of the society for our own benefit, need to be with others for survival, etc. That is why the more social an animal is, the less dangerous is for others.

Someone that is carried away by their primary instintcts without really endangering society is clearly more normal than someone who repress them (someone who puts himself in the position of victim and doesn't react as he should), It is as simple as that. :)

Are animals evil intrinsically though? There's only been documented cases of sadistic behavior in higher intelligence mammals. Most notable are dolphins (highly social animals) who have been documented torturing other animals, including humans, to death for no survival benefit to themselves. Lower intelligence animals only hurt for food, self defence or some other survival needs. Even totally solitary species don't go out of their way and expend energy for amusement, though I guess one could argue their brains simply aren't developed enough to get creative

On the other hand, the mentality to put your society ahead of yourself is instinctual. Eusocial insects such as ants don't have the brainpower to comprehend the complexity of the cooperation they do at a logistical level. They work together purely out of instinct

For mammals, the same effect is created by intrinsic empathy. Empathy makes social creatures more successful than social creatures without it and is thus hardwired into their brains through natural selection. While empathy is a negative trait at the individual level, the benefits of empathy on the society trickles down and outweigh the cons. Empathy is what held us together before advanced society and laws; before we could comprehend how helping our society could be beneficial to us in the end. For those of us born without empathy, it's easy to criticize the inconsistent logic of it never having experienced it first hand.  Emotion is often the enemy of logic, after all

TL;DR: Empathy is illogical yet normal and instinctual in humans. Evil people are those who have broken the natural bonds of empathy. Most animals are only self-preserving, that's true neutral not evil. At least that's what I believe. You have a very interesting point of view

Quote from NightCrawl3r >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Of course they are more normal. People (and any animal out there) are evil by nature, but society makes us nicer for many reasons: fear of punishment, preservation of the society for our own benefit, need to be with others for survival, etc. That is why the more social an animal is, the less dangerous is for others.

Someone that is carried away by their primary instintcts without really endangering society is clearly more normal than someone who repress them (someone who puts himself in the position of victim and doesn't react as he should), It is as simple as that. :)

Are animals evil intrinsically though? There's only been documented cases of sadistic behavior in higher intelligence mammals. Most notable are dolphins (highly social animals) who have been documented torturing other animals, including humans, to death for no survival benefit to themselves. Lower intelligence animals only hurt for food, self defence or some other survival needs. Even totally solitary species don't go out of their way and expend energy for amusement, though I guess one could argue their brains simply aren't developed enough to get creative

On the other hand, the mentality to put your society ahead of yourself is instinctual. Eusocial insects such as ants don't have the brainpower to comprehend the complexity of the cooperation they do at a logistical level. They work together purely out of instinct

For mammals, the same effect is created by intrinsic empathy. Empathy makes social creatures more successful than social creatures without it and is thus hardwired into their brains through natural selection. While empathy is a negative trait at the individual level, the benefits of empathy on the society trickles down and outweigh the cons. Empathy is what held us together before advanced society and laws; before we could comprehend how helping our society could be beneficial to us in the end. For those of us born without empathy, it's easy to criticize the inconsistent logic of it never having experienced it first hand.  Emotion is often the enemy of logic, after all

TL;DR: Empathy is illogical yet normal and instinctual in humans. Evil people are those who have broken the natural bonds of empathy. Most animals are only self-preserving, that's true neutral not evil. At least that's what I believe. You have a very interesting point of view

Honestly, I could listen to you talk for days. Impressed to find you have some knowledge of creatures like this, especially given your username and avatar. You live up to your projected personality/identity, which is nice to understand.

Question: "On the other hand, the mentality to put your society ahead of yourself is instinctual." You said this earlier. I thought survival and putting your safety and general well being was more an instinctual thing. Are both considered as such, and if so, doesn't that mean all of human behavior and reasoning is instinctual? I'm confused on what exactly qualifies in this case, given the fact that I'm currently unsure.

Beautiful commentary, my friend.

Quote from NightCrawl3r >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Of course they are more normal. People (and any animal out there) are evil by nature, but society makes us nicer for many reasons: fear of punishment, preservation of the society for our own benefit, need to be with others for survival, etc. That is why the more social an animal is, the less dangerous is for others.

Someone that is carried away by their primary instintcts without really endangering society is clearly more normal than someone who repress them (someone who puts himself in the position of victim and doesn't react as he should), It is as simple as that. :)

Are animals evil intrinsically though? There's only been documented cases of sadistic behavior in higher intelligence mammals. Most notable are dolphins (highly social animals) who have been documented torturing other animals, including humans, to death for no survival benefit to themselves. Lower intelligence animals only hurt for food, self defence or some other survival needs. Even totally solitary species don't go out of their way and expend energy for amusement, though I guess one could argue their brains simply aren't developed enough to get creative

On the other hand, the mentality to put your society ahead of yourself is instinctual. Eusocial insects such as ants don't have the brainpower to comprehend the complexity of the cooperation they do at a logistical level. They work together purely out of instinct

For mammals, the same effect is created by intrinsic empathy. Empathy makes social creatures more successful than social creatures without it and is thus hardwired into their brains through natural selection. While empathy is a negative trait at the individual level, the benefits of empathy on the society trickles down and outweigh the cons. Empathy is what held us together before advanced society and laws; before we could comprehend how helping our society could be beneficial to us in the end. For those of us born without empathy, it's easy to criticize the inconsistent logic of it never having experienced it first hand.  Emotion is often the enemy of logic, after all

TL;DR: Empathy is illogical yet normal and instinctual in humans. Evil people are those who have broken the natural bonds of empathy. Most animals are only self-preserving, that's true neutral not evil. At least that's what I believe. You have a very interesting point of view

 Well you are quite infromed in the subject and that's quite rare but you are objectively wrong on those two assumptions. Indeed just as you said, sadistic behaviour has been observed only on high intelligence mammals but emotions are not the enemy of logic. In fact it's the opposite  because as the majority studies have shown emotions are a necessary part of our intelligence. In fact it has been shown on multiple studies that individuals with higher intelligence had much "stronger" and "deeper" emmotions (stronger neurosignals and chemical reactions). Smart people are more likely to think critically though and less likely to act on impulse, so they give the false impression of "cold hearted".  

In the second part you are wrong for the reasons you said yourself. The benefit of the species>the benefit of the individual as the morality itself is hardwired in us and it's the logical desicion as well. No matter how wealthy, famous or powerfull someone becomes, in the end it's meaningless. The individual wil die and will probably be forgotten. The species however will survive and in time will colonize and dominate the galaxy or even the universe (**imperial march**). Trully evil people (which are technically rare as what is good and evil is ambiguous) are a fail product of human dna and most importantly society. They aren't freed of anything. On the contrary they are more  imprisoned by their own shortcomings and see the world through dirty lenses.

Man it's nice to have these nerdy conversations. Even with my highly educated friends whenever i start talking about science they ask me (not so) politely to shut up and buy me more beers to achieve it XD.

Quote from NightCrawl3r >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Of course they are more normal. People (and any animal out there) are evil by nature, but society makes us nicer for many reasons: fear of punishment, preservation of the society for our own benefit, need to be with others for survival, etc. That is why the more social an animal is, the less dangerous is for others.

Someone that is carried away by their primary instintcts without really endangering society is clearly more normal than someone who repress them (someone who puts himself in the position of victim and doesn't react as he should), It is as simple as that. :)

Are animals evil intrinsically though? There's only been documented cases of sadistic behavior in higher intelligence mammals. Most notable are dolphins (highly social animals) who have been documented torturing other animals, including humans, to death for no survival benefit to themselves. Lower intelligence animals only hurt for food, self defence or some other survival needs. Even totally solitary species don't go out of their way and expend energy for amusement, though I guess one could argue their brains simply aren't developed enough to get creative

On the other hand, the mentality to put your society ahead of yourself is instinctual. Eusocial insects such as ants don't have the brainpower to comprehend the complexity of the cooperation they do at a logistical level. They work together purely out of instinct

For mammals, the same effect is created by intrinsic empathy. Empathy makes social creatures more successful than social creatures without it and is thus hardwired into their brains through natural selection. While empathy is a negative trait at the individual level, the benefits of empathy on the society trickles down and outweigh the cons. Empathy is what held us together before advanced society and laws; before we could comprehend how helping our society could be beneficial to us in the end. For those of us born without empathy, it's easy to criticize the inconsistent logic of it never having experienced it first hand.  Emotion is often the enemy of logic, after all

TL;DR: Empathy is illogical yet normal and instinctual in humans. Evil people are those who have broken the natural bonds of empathy. Most animals are only self-preserving, that's true neutral not evil. At least that's what I believe. You have a very interesting point of view

Excuse me Mr. Nightcrawl3r, but please, you know me, you know I would say absolutely anything that comes to my mind in order to try to win a discussion with certain kind of people in this forum (after all, I love BMing, do you remember? :P). I had won, and now you come here to destroy everything I had achieved.

Why do you do this to me Nightcrawl3r? Why?

XD XD XD

Quote from CypherBenkes >>

Honestly, I could listen to you talk for days. Impressed to find you have some knowledge of creatures like this, especially given your username and avatar. You live up to your projected personality/identity, which is nice to understand.

Question: "On the other hand, the mentality to put your society ahead of yourself is instinctual." You said this earlier. I thought survival and putting your safety and general well being was more an instinctual thing. Are both considered as such, and if so, doesn't that mean all of human behavior and reasoning is instinctual? I'm confused on what exactly qualifies in this case, given the fact that I'm currently unsure.

Beautiful commentary, my friend.

Oh, you flatter me :) Though I'm not sure what my username and avatar tells about my personality really

As for bit on instincts, the goal of every species is to reproduce and pass on the best genes to the next generation. This usually involves not dying. Different species achieve this in different ways. Eusocial creatures will sacrifice themselves without question to protect their society, allowing other members in the group to reproduce in their stead. Solitary creatures will preserve themselves above all else, only sometimes with the exception of their own offspring. Most animals are somewhere in between. How much each of these two instincts drives you depends on the species

Being social mammals, humans fall in the last category. Our instincts tell us to be both self preserving and altruistic. However, since we are intelligent it's possible to consciously fight against these instincts if we really want to. Instincts are mostly there to guide lower intelligence creatures that can't work out how to meet their goals at a cognitive level 

Quote from jainaishot >>

 Well you are quite infromed in the subject and that's quite rare but you are objectively wrong on those two assumptions. Indeed just as you said, sadistic behaviour has been observed only on high intelligence mammals but emotions are not the enemy of logic. In fact it's the opposite  because as the majority studies have shown emotions are a necessary part of our intelligence. In fact it has been shown on multiple studies that individuals with higher intelligence had much "stronger" and "deeper" emmotions (stronger neurosignals and chemical reactions). Smart people are more likely to think critically though and less likely to act on impulse, so they give the false impression of "cold hearted".  

In the second part you are wrong for the reasons you said yourself. The benefit of the species>the benefit of the individual as the morality itself is hardwired in us and it's the logical desicion as well. No matter how wealthy, famous or powerfull someone becomes, in the end it's meaningless. The individual wil die and will probably be forgotten. The species however will survive and in time will colonize and dominate the galaxy or even the universe (**imperial march**). Trully evil people (which are technically rare as what is good and evil is ambiguous) are a fail product of human dna and most importantly society. They aren't freed of anything. On the contrary they are more  imprisoned by their own shortcomings and see the world through dirty lenses.

 Well, I've never heard about intelligent people being more developed emotionally so I'll concede to that. This said, even though people with high intelligence are able to think more logically, they can just easily ignore their own logic at will. How a person chooses between making rational or emotional decisions is not a function of intelligence

Just look at Elon Musk tanking his stock value these past months. Remember his twitter war with the pedo Thai divers? That's anger, not logic. Pot shenanigans? Not a very logical decision either, though I'm sure he had fun

As for "breaking the bonds", that was just poorly worded :P What you posted is exactly what I was trying to say, albeit perhaps too poetically

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Excuse me Mr. Nightcrawl3r, but please, you know me, you know I would say absolutely anything that comes to my mind in order to try to win a discussion with certain kind of people in this forum (after all, I love BMing, do you remember? :P). I had won, and now you come here to destroy everything I had achieved.

Why do you do this to me Nightcrawl3r? Why?

To be totally honest, I was waiting for another chump to show up and take the bait presented in your previous post. No one showed up so I had to take action. This topic is too good to die

Quote from CypherBenkes >>

Honestly, I could listen to you talk for days. Impressed to find you have some knowledge of creatures like this, especially given your username and avatar. You live up to your projected personality/identity, which is nice to understand.

 

I always wanted to know exactly what an avatar says about the personality of the person using it, especially in an internet forum. I have some theories, but never found a good scientific analysis about it on the internet (because let's be real, the internet is amazing, but it's also full of shit). Do you know any by chance?