Totally. Been a gamer for 30+ years, and none of the new stuff holds my interest. Also, my hardware being less than a full time mortgage, means most new games run poorly. So, old stuff it is.
We can disagree on that. My take is that God / author wants to tell a story that shows that he does not want human sacrifice. There's an added effect here since Isaac is the ancestor of the Hebrews. Whenever that story is told to that group of people, they would on some level realize, that if Abraham had sacrificed Isaac, none of us would be here.
We must take care to not insert our way of thinking into bronze age minds, and reversely, be critical of importing ideas from them.
Dear Andrew. You need to fill your head with stuff cause you're unable to sit in the silence of your own mind since it's shouting what an utter failure you are at being a decent person. You've hurt so many people, and deep down you know that ain't right. It's called cognitive dissonance. I want to hope you can become a whole person someday, but frankly you don't deserve that. Honestly I can't see you as anything other than a drain on society.
Useful answer: Meh. First of all there are some cool storylines and cool characters. There are also utter shit in both regards. My worst gripe is Michael "The Wailer" Burnham. She is by far, like warp 9 far, the most over-emotional character in all of Star trek history. Never mind the fact that she is a star fleet officer who should be somewhat professional, she was also raised by Spock's parents, which is utterly invented out of whole crap for discovery, on Vulcan. If she behaved the way she does on ST:D one tenth of the time she was on Vulcan, they would have put her in an asylum or shipped her back to earth. It is intolerable to watch a star fleet officer bawling in every other episode.
The spore drive. Again, no real connection to the tech of any previous trektech, and never heard of again later. I like the concept actually, but I feel it belongs in another universe, not trek.
The twists. Subverting expectations seems to have been the foundation of the series. While a few surprises are great, discovery seems to hammer the expired equine with twists until it more resembles a gory corkscrew than a horse.
Eh, the original from the 90s is a more solid game. The game is good is some ways, but flawed in many. First of all the dumbing down. In 90s version you recruit soldiers for money, then check their stats and make them snipers, grenadiers, shock troops or even suicide bombers depending on their skills. 2012 version, you get a bunch of gamified units that have set upgrade paths.
90s version you build and attack multiple bases, administrate a world wide war with great wins and painful losses. In 2012, you pretty much have to win each scenario or the game becomes unwinnable.
Old version, more units, lose one or two, the fight goes on. New version, two dead soldiers will make many fights unwinnable. Old, all aliens are on map at start. New, aliens spawn suddenly in illogical positions and often put your troops in impossible situations that you would never have wandered into if the enemy was on the field and not suddenly appeared out of thin air.
Old, no limits to equipment, give every man 2 grenades and 2 smoke grenades, no worries. New, only Carl can carry smoke grenades, because the game wants to force strategic choices.
I could go on, but long story short, yes new xcom was good, but it really was a dumber version of the original, which had small flaws, but is still an amazing game. New xcom I would just not want to play again.
Your knowledge in this field supersedes mine, I defer to you. I merely summarized the article in my simple understanding. Which, I feel is kinda the same as what you said, only simpler and less accurate. Thank you for the elaboration.
Also, grinds my gears is an expression, and so is gets my goat. Yet clichés make us all dumber so I decided to grab the readers attention with a mangled metaphor, hoping it would draw smiles and further attention.
Christianity literally said "love thy neighbor, do unto others, love thy enemy", and still its followers have fought wars and murdered people. I seem to remember that the Quran says "if you kill one person you kill the whole world". That passage apparently is not as prioritized as others. I could go on.
God / The ancient israelites knew that telling people doesn't quite do it. Ref the 10 commandments. People only seem to learn from lived experience, and in some cases, the lived experience of people they respect. Hence the story is Isaac is actually a lot smarter than we give it credit for.
God wants to make sure that the Hebrews will never commit human sacrifice. Cruel to Abraham and Isac, pretty neat for all the people who avoided being sacrificed as a result.
Or maybe just the Hebrews want to avoid human sacrifice and they tell that story to sink the point home: their own ancestor could have been killed, let's not do that to anyone.
That must be quite frustrating and difficult for your self esteem.
You may be right, but you might be putting your own insecurities on to the motivations of others. The world from other people's perspective don't always align with what we think. Could what you describe be as easily explained by something else, perhaps even your insecurity about it?
Have you discussed this issue with friends / family and gotten their honest thoughts? Do they agree that what you say could pose a problem?
Have you attempted to make yourself look older with makeup and such? Are the results the same with as without?
Do you have male friends you can ask if you are attractive?
Are there republican conventions nearby? If the men there show interest and say you're mature for your age, you may want to
A. Run
B. Conclude that your features may be a challenge.
If men don't approach and talk to you, try approaching and talking to them. Showing you're interested and available is usually a turn on. Men are simple.
He's literally wanted by the ICC!