Guntrigger @ Guntrigger @feddit.ch

Posts

0

Comments

426

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think it's really a double standard. I was using that as an example of a negative that impacts gameplay in Starfield but doesn't make it completely unplayable like Cyberpunk was. I didn't say "Starfield is perfect, but Cyberpunk sucks".

Personally I think some issues with AI pathing and dodgy procedural generation (Bethesda style bugs) is not quite as bad as the whole world failing to load causing you to fall through the map and die, for example.

Ha, I see you didn't play on previous gen consoles. It was borderline unplayable on Xbox One at release. Terrible frame rate, massive portions of the city disappearing and/or low res, crashes everywhere...

Granted Starfield isn't even playable on Xbox One, but between low FPS and normal Bethesda style bugs, I don't think it's in a worse state than Cyberpunk was on PC/Series.

It's not just whataboutism because they said the word "what".

Please, not the ass rays!

They don't live off grass but long grass is great cover for them to move freely. My lawn is pretty wild, but I have to mow directly around the house otherwise mice and all sort of insects start taking up reaidence in the house.

All you've done here is prove that you're ignorant. I suggest you look back and see that you're arguing two different points with two different people as well as attributing words to me that I didn't write.

If you actually read my post, l already answered the difference. Everything you mentioned has widespread environmental impact, particularly if people/corporations use those materials in bad faith. Personal choice to smoke a cigarette is not equivalent to implanting a hazardous object into the environment. And I think you know that. If you honestly can't see the difference, it's willful ignorance.

It's interesting that you are digging in on this nonsensical comparison. Comparing a personal use narcotic (which is combusted and spent in seconds causing harm to the user only - for the most part) with a hazardous material (which basically doesn't degrade, huffs out cancer causing dust if you, or anyone else in the next century, work on it in any way and persists as hazardous waste if you want to dispose of it).

Lead pipes and lead paint also bleed into the environment pretty much for eternity. Why not go all the way and compare being able to buy cigarettes with being able to buy some plutonium for around the house?

I didn't know gung ho was a racist term and now I look it up I see that it is clearly not.

Like 85% of people in the UK are non-smokers, so I'm presuming it's some NIMBY-lite thinking: "I don't like smoking so I need you to make everyone stop".

So the only thing to compare itself to is basically itself. The NZ law that it is emulating is not even a year old, so it hasn't exactly given any data on that in between generation that hasn't yet been created. I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just pointing out that this is the only really comparable law.

Bad faith from me? Look inward.

There was a straight comparison banning cigarettes and asbestos. One is a recreational product, the other is a building material. You don't accidentally find tobacco in your walls when renovating and inhale a bunch of smoke.

At no point did I suggest anarchy and being anti-prohibition is not a strictly anarchist philosophy as far as I'm aware.

Probably because the vast majority of adults are also non smokers.

I wasn't aware people used asbestos recreationally.

And are you really arguing people are still unaware of the dangers of smoking?

Are there any examples that increase by one year every year?

I'm not sure what this has to do with climate scientists. What am I supposed to be looking at?

Rishi has a history of making legislation to benefit the companies run or owned by friends and family. I would be extremely surprised if this didn't also have a similar angle.

Everyone here is arguing the benefits of prohibition. I'm just interested to know how much money Rishi (and/or his family members/friends/donors) have invested in vaping and nicotine alternatives.

Are you saying that time advances at a different rate to human aging? 1 year to the earth is how many years to a human?

I think this is a typo, but I'm unsure because James Workshop could be one of his kids names.

Probably the person who asked

In theory yes, but in practice extremely rich lobbyists will buy up enough votes to not ban it. Sorry, I mean "successfully lobby against it legally".