Gromnir

It seems they don't feel that the equal protection clause requires a protected class to be valid. And it is seems the opinion of the majority that marriage, same-sex or otherwise, falls somewhere under "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," "liberty," or "the equal protection of the laws." If you have to be a protected class to avoid discrimination in marriage, that would be even sillier than the idea that stupid people could be protected against discrimination in applying for jobs. "it would be sillier" is not an argument o' legal merits. you aren't discussing law. am sorry, but you simple ain't. there is a long line o' cases that tells us what Constitutional equal protection and due process means. trying to discuss using tale logic or your understanding o' english meanings is misplaced. equal protection does not mean that everybody is treated the same... as hard as that concept is to grasp. if there is a rational basis for treating folks different (and rational basis is likely not what you think it means neither-- is an extreme low threshold) then government can treat you different w/o fear o' Constitutional repercussions. gonna repeat: rational basis is an extreme low threshold... is pretty much "Government Wins." we has a definition o' marriage that has, as even the majority concedes, endured for millennia. can anybody reasonable suggest that same-sex marriage has always been a fundamental right and we only just realized that today, thanks to the enlightened guidance o' 5 lawyers? or has the growing support o' same-sex marriage been a slow evolution, advancing in fits and starts as community opinions has changed? those seeking special consideration in the present case is not part o' a suspect class deserving heightened scrutiny-- period. same-sex marriage were not a fundamental right at time o' bill o' rights or with the adoption o' amendment iv. so, what changed and when? point out when and how the Constitution changed. with Loving we can easily identify the Civil War Amendments as having brought about a sea change in the law, though the definition o' marriage itself were still the millennia old one that were repeated in case law and law dictionaries. so, show us the Constitutional change that makes a Loving kinda paradigm shift possible? SCOTUS came up with a wacky four principles argument (the reasoning o' which even Gromnir don't fully understand) to excuse their "new insights" related to Constitutional protections regarding marriage. ... Justices is not elected. even so, they can stymie the Executive and Congress. WE, The People, allow SCOTUS to have so much power over democratic elected representatives because o' the belief that these wise men will do no more than interpret the law. again, we believe that same-sex marriage should be a right, but it ain't granted in the Constitution. perhaps it SHOULD be in the Constitution, and we would happily advocate adding it to the Constitution, though change individual state law strikes us as the easier route. bad law is not made less repugnant 'cause the Justices seek to bring about what we personal believe is a good change. ps am aware we already mentioned, but is worth repeating that the SCOTUS majority opinion does not primarily use equal protection reasoning to makes same-sex marriage the law o' the land. for lay folks, is understandable that you is gonna gravitate to a phrase such as "equal protection" but if you wanna defend the decision o' the Court, you gotta start mentioning due process. is our last post in this thread. no good can come o' further dialogue. is so very difficult to explain how we can be disappointed by the Court in spite o' the fact that we is in favor o' same-sex marriage. to Gromnir, the majority opinion is a mess o' tortured legal reasoning, which is why it offends. nevertheless, to any casual observer it would appear that we is some kinda bigot that hates homosexuals, minorities and puppies. no good can come o' further explanation.

interesting list. Gromnir top 3: 1) P-51 2) Sopwith Camel 3) F-15 edit in honorable mentions: A) SR-71 would deserve our #1 overall spot if we compiled list based on kewl points alone B) P-26 Peashooter-- best name HA! Good Fun!

your understanding is flawed, because the Constitution does not protect same sex marriage. we got civil war amendments that specific mention race, color, and previous condition and those classes (a term o' art and not some kinda spurious label) 'mongst others, get special protections. btw, we had already had same sex couples make this attempt shortly after Loving. failed. brought up through Minnesota Courts. not all classes get the same constitutional protection, which makes sense, no? after all, do you want stoopid people to claim that they is being unfairly discriminated 'gainst when seeking a job and cannot pass a mandatory test? how 'bout obese firemen or Rich people... can't forget them. imagine all the laws that target wealthy folks that would need be expunged 'cause wealth need survive heightened scrutiny. oh, and is perhaps amusing that the solicitor general tried your tack, 'cause substantive due process o' the US Constitution were a doomed option based on considerable precedent. due process has been used to uphold same sex marriage in State courts, but that is 'cause those courts used the State Constitution's due process laws and not US Constitution. color us surprised then when SCOTUS largely ignored oral arguments and instead used due process... with some kinda equal protection "synergy" as J.Roberts called it, seeming as confused as Gromnir when trying to explain the majority decision. is bad law. that is not good law and it ain't good history. shame on those who believe otherwise. SCOTUS is not s'posed to dress up the due process clause as if it were some kinda $25 whore and let her pleasure the Justices new friends. the Constitution, not the Court, protects minorities from the tyranny o' the majority. is a terrible fact that if you ain't identified by the Constitution as deserving protection, then you don't get any special treatment, but that is Democracy. change the Constitution or change the laws if you wanna give new protections to those who deserve but don't receive the kinda love you thinks they deserve. use the process. HA! Good Fun!

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process you can read J. Robert's dissent if you wish. like it or not, the question that came before the Court is not a new one. marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage. it is o' course, perfectly reasonable that as society changes, the People may change such definitions, but that is the role of legislators and not Justices. "The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become. "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer." the Justices of the Court decided that their will and wisdom were greater than that o' The People. perhaps the wisdom o' 5 Justices is more admirable than that o' the people o' the United States of America, but the Constitution does not grant the Court the power to subvert the will o' the people in a case such as this. there were no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage before today. 5 Justices thought that there should be such a right so now there is such a right. the process were subverted.

this were the job o' legislators and not judges. is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference. applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

hk were not gimmicky 'cause o' being a droid. his gimmick were that he were a droid doing the meat-bag schtick. heck, even Gaider conceded that hk-47 were a shallow character and the rogue assassin droid in marko ragnos' tomb were added to kotor in part 'cause o' what he could not do with hk-47. HA! Good Fun!

the only surprise we got were from kennedy. some similar issues were addressed in NFIB, wherein kennedy joined the dissent which observed that redefining a mandate-with-penalty as a tax to save legislation from itself were beyond the scope o' judicial authority. "we must, if "fairly possible", construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). but we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not." (pardon us if we misquote) today, the Court, or perhaps the solicitor general, were allowed to fix otherwise broken legislation. is the kinda thing that is gonna make any textualist scream in fury, but right or wrong, the Justices all acted consistent with previous opinions, save for kennedy... who is notoriously unpredictable. HA! Good Fun!

it is indeed possible that the folks at bethesda is insane, as we believe most game developers and publishers is loopy. however, as to pricing o' the pre-order, it ain't crazy to charge 60 euros if folks is actual willing to pay 60 euros. that you wouldn't pay 60 euros is complete inconsequential. HA! Good Fun!

... we had never considered that recognition o' civil war era southern slavery were somehow lessening or eradicating other instances o' American failures related to live up to promises made in our Constitution. converse, Gromnir sharing links 'bout the current conditions at Pine Ridge, conditions which is significantly worse than gaza AFTER the recent israeli-gaza conflict, doesn't change the history o' the American south. blame game is kinda childish. little kid gets caught stealing a cookie and then observes that his sister and/or brother also stole a cookie. is the ploy o' a pre-teen. am thinking we should expect more from each other, yes? HA! Good Fun!

chis avellone, god rest his soul (we joke 'course as chrisA is not dead but merely departed) observed that the initial character hook were the most important aspect o' character development in a crpg. we disagree, but am not thinking he were too far off the mark. the initial hook is not dialogue content alone as visual and voice acting contribute much in a modern crpg. would hk-47 have been embraced same by folks if the voice actor were different? dunno. chrisA went to extremes and created rainbow bears, but we suspect that he were justified in his belief that the initial hook were pivotal. unfortunately, far too often, obsidian companions don't get developed beyond the hook. fit the entirety o' character development on the back o' a ****tail napkin? there needs be more. is the initial hook for devil gimmicky? sure. so what? if character is initial intriguing AND gets the development it requires to grow beyond the gimmick, then we approve. if the gimmick is the entirety o' the character, then we will be disappointed... again. aside: is not as if chrisA were the only writer who saw importance o' the initial hook. heck, tolkien thought the character name were mostest important aspect o' character development... which explains a few things. HA! Good Fun!

as can be seen from osvir links, if one wishes to wade through such murk and muck, Gromnir has always been in favor o' a single respec opportunity, with the potential for that opportunity to be reset following a major patch that changes gameplay... such as 2.0 will. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70370-option-to-respec/?p=1566871 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70370-option-to-respec/?p=1568555 http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/71211-can-you-respec/?p=1586759 now, you can all be astounded by our prescience... or not. not take a carnac to have predicted the state o' poe at release or the likelihood o' significant developer changes thereafter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=263eG7HfwBM regardless, we has always requested a single respec option. HA! Good Fun! ps is worth repeating that our post o' 18 march 2015 identified our continuing befuddlement regarding the interrupting blows talent. took multiple patches for obsidian to recognize that the talent in question were not modifying anything. more than a few folks chose a complete impotent talent. their role-play choice were cheapened through no fault o' their own. a limited respec option makes such inevitabilities less painful and affords the developers more time to fix such oversights as the player has a way to mitigate the developer's unintentional cheapening o' the player's character development choices.

Not humorous, just got reminded about some old ideas and some old discussions on the matter after reading the discussion about respeccing here. What I mean is not that your character "transforms" into something (be it werewolf or undead), but rather, taken out of their own body, and put in another body. That new body, that other body, will have other traits, other physique, another brain maybe even. Respecialization could become a mechanical feature this way, and a narrative short story at the same time. am not sure what is the point of your distinction. your new undead, lycanthrope, or, we-kid-you-not half-golem body from 3.5 d&d, (half-golem? Half?) is gonna have other traits and other physique, and possibly no brain whatsoever given we are talking 'bout a magical world where anything is possible. is unnecessary sophistry. *shrug* regardless,the golemization bit doesn't strike us as Necessarily a respec opportunity. moreover, if this is some kinda Serious attempt to avoid view 619's sarcastic immersion break, we believe it is wholly unnecessary and potentially counter-productive. one use o' respec is that given changes made by the developers, intentional or otherwise, respec allows the player a chance to recraft his character so that it more close matches his intended character design. for folks who built their fighter tank character with perception being their primary defensive attribute, their post 2.0 character will, through no fault o' their own, sudden become more efficacious in a dps role as 'posed to tank. developer changes with 2.0 is gonna invalidate more than a few individual role-play choices. force an additional change on the player, golemization, if they wanna see their character more close match their intended design strikes us as counter-productive and manifest unfair. now, if you wanna add a golimization opion complete separate o' respec, that would not offend our delicate role-play sensibilities. "Yes, it cheapens the decisions regarding character advancement and the interaction between the characters as characters in their own right, and the mechanical representation thereof." talk 'bout unclear on the concept. if you are arguing that bob's use o' respec, or an opportunity to respec that you never use and never plan to use nevertheless cheapens Your gameplay, then you are not offering an alternative to matt's point. you are agreeing w/o realizing. and you still ain't shown any kinda grasp o' what is strawman. we did not invent a weak argument and attribute it to you. ... is genuine surreal when dealing with luckman on this issue. is why we bring in old threads 'cause otherwise is just spam... been there and done that many times. HA! Good Fun!

we lived south o' buffalo for awhile. leafs were, at the time, kanadas' team... all the more so in the geographic area near to Gromnir. and we thought it were obvious that Gromnir were no more serious than you. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna, for the nonce, assume you is being humorous. nevertheless, there is obvious analogous rpg situations for exactly the kinda thing you speak of in your post. d&d 3.5 addressed the application o' templates to a player character. becoming undead or a lycanthrope (or dozens o' other template options) resulted in gains/ losses o' abilities, changes to saves and alteration o' level progression... if the dm allowed such. your example strikes us as fodder for template as 'posed to respec. HA! Good Fun!

Oh, Strawnir, as usual, no-one has made that argument. Actually there has been some that have made that argument in some threads concerning topic of respec in PoE, which was bit strange to me. I don't see what other argument there could be against respec, Luckmann, other than the aforementioned resource hog issue. What's your reasoning, then? What's wrong with them offering a respec option when changing core game systems that affect character builds? Does that impact your enjoyment of the game? "Immersion breaking" /sarcasm *chuckle* oh well, is gonna go off the rails quick, but luckman, as seen from the link, has some difficulty grasping strawman regardless. on-topic, we will once again observe that a change to companion paladins and faiths and convictions would be worth consideration. oh, and cassowary animal companions for rangers. HA! Good Fun!

That is an election. not necessarily. formal, organized and vote is typical inherent qualities o' an election... 'least 'ccording to basic dictionary definitions. HA! Good Fun!

*insert eye-roll here* as to your continued confusion 'bout strawman: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/79911-the-all-priest-challenge/?p=1699870 HA! Good Fun! ps elerond is correct. every time we see such, we is mystified. other than a resource argument (which luckman did not proffer here) there don't appear to be a rational argument 'gainst respec.

you guys have elections? we always kinda figured that once a year y'all agreed to go to the same bar after a leaf's game to kinda decide stuff. HA! Good Fun!

well, to be fair, in the south they has done considerable scrubbing where the civil war is more frequent called the war between the states, and the slavery angle is significantly downplayed even in some school textbooks. the revisionist brand o' history made the war 'bout tariffs in spite o' the fact that the current tariff scheme in place at the time o' the war were actually authored by southern states. calhoun and others in the south promoted an idea o' state nullification, but the need for nullification were precisely 'cause o' disagreements 'bout slavery. the southern state declarations o' cessation invariably mentioned slavery as a fundamental point o' irreconcilable disagreement, but in the south, many kids is still taught that slavery were a propaganda issue cooked up in the north. still, removal o' civil war computer games and apps is silly... 'course we think that the whole approach to flag removal has been counter-productive, so am perhaps not the most neutral observer. HA! Good Fun!

additional link... mostly retread. http://wccftech.com/pillars-eternity-white-march-part-1-adds-characters-higher-level-cap/ HA! Good Fun!

folks being resistant to respec 'cause players other than themselves might actual use the respec is wholly irrational. think respec is a waste o' resources? sure, we get that, but whenever we hear the bass-ackwards philosophy o' the crpg purists who is offended by the indignity that a person they will never meet will possibly use respec in a game such as poe... well, we weep for future generations when we needs must read through such complaints. HA! Good Fun!

much o' Gromnir's complaints 'bout setting exposition from the companions is unfair but genuine nevertheless. you gotta ask kana or sagani 'bout their homeland and culture to get that info-- is all optional. developers have durance give us all kinda details o' saint's war, but am admitting we were less annoyed by his exposition 'cause the info were given more natural than did sagani or kana. grieving mother also had info-dumpitis but it were much more limited to the hollowborn. part o' the problem with the setting exposition from the joinables is that even though such stuff is optional, we don't necessarily know which bits is genuine and true optional. gotta dig through all dialogue options regardless to make certain we didn't miss an important quest trigger. may sound like a silly meta-game solution, but if the developers were more clear 'bout which companion dialogue options were pure setting exposition, we could then feel as if skipping such, or at least delaying, were not hampering companion quest advancement. make us feel that delaying is not hampering companion quest advancement would actual go far in mitigating the impression that companions is in auto-exposition mode. regardless, we gotta admit that is not as if the companions is forcing 'pon us ridiculous details 'bout how the coriolis effect is real in the poe world. we gotta ask for such details 'fore they give. however, given the gameplay aspect o' companion quests, we never feel as if companion dialogues is functional optional. our complaints is thus unfair, but genuine. as an aside, we wanted to like grieving mother, but it were hard. well, like is wrong word as she were a deeply disturbed lady. the initial hook were sufficient. the creepy wrist windchimes, and the mind-bending midwife angle were all working to make us want more from grieving mother. unfortunately, she never got past the gimmick stage for us. she had her crisis o' faith, which were overcome simple 'cause Gromnir told her that her soul were strong? grieving mother were a particular fail for us 'cause we were initial intrigued, but became less so. anybody seen the tv show called deadwood? a character named swearengen had a fun kinda relationship with a prostitute named trixie. warning: the following is sweary and crude, but it sums up the dialogue option we wished we woulda' had available to us after the fifth or sixth time we had to deal with grieving mother's alter-state nonsense... is sweary. is extreme sweary. if moderators remove, we complete understand, but am warning again, jic. durance were equal as loopy as grieving mother, but he were far more real to us. the frothing zealot ultimately learns that he is betrayed by his goddess. his rage is believable. as ridiculous as durance frequent is, given that he is developed as a sweaty-toothed religious maniac, his excess o' color is curiously reasonable. his eventual choice, as played in Gromnir games, is wholly understandable given that the context that durance is a deranged fanatic who sees much o' the world as a decayed old-growth forest in need o' a firestorm cleansing and rebirth, with durance gleeful starting the blaze. grieving mother and durance is both broken creatures, but we get durance's rage where we never connected with grieving mother's... loopiness. perhaps if we had ever taken lsd, grieving mother and Gromnir woulda connected. HA! Good Fun!

is arguably spoilery (yes, we said spoilery) so consider yourself warned. http://nichegamer.com/2015/06/latest-pillars-of-eternity-update-reveals-new-character-details/ HA! Good Fun!

am actually gonna suggest the opposite. a large % of possible foes ignore engagement altogether. some others have rational ai, but the ai is a bit too simple-- go straight for your squishies. given how predictable the ai is, it is easy to position your off-tank to exploit hold the line. for the most part, enemies will engage your tank whether the tank has hold the line or not. if your tank is first to engage, poe enemies will attack the tank regardless o' whether it is a paladin w/o hold the line, or a fighter in defender mode. we typical end up taking hold the line for our paladin tanks, and we give 'em a weapon that increases engagement by 1, but based on considerable paladin tank gameplay, doing so is not actual necessary to hold enemies. a doorway is a far better option for holding foes, and there is no shortage o' doorways in poe. HA! Good Fun! ps is easy to see when engagement doesn't hold a foe. converse, is much harder to determine if engagement actual is what held an enemy. with eder playing the off-tank role, we get far too many free disengagement attacks for hold the line to be working particular well as a defensive ability/talent.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/pillars-of-eternity-the-white-march-reveals-new-companions-updated-features-485242.shtml not much new save for a few details 'bout the companions. HA! Good Fun!