Yes. The Executioner imposes a cost increase on it being cast from the graveyard via its ability, the Rooftop Storm replaces the mana cost, which is only what printed in the upper right corner of the card. A spell's cost is calculated as
mana cost/alternative cost
+ additional costs
+ cost increases
- cost reductions
+ Trinisphere
in that order.
Therefore, the spell's cost here is alternative cost () plus cost increase (number of other creature cards in your graveyard).
-
- Yorutenchi
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 3 months, and 16 days
Last active Mon, May, 27 2019 00:48:24
- 4 Followers
- 3,107 Total Posts
- 57 Thanks
-
Apr 26, 20191
Rezzahan posted a message on Risen Executioner/Rooftop StormPosted in: Magic Rulings -
Mar 28, 2013
1
AmuletOfQuoz posted a message on Dealing with Thievesmake some ex-lax brownies....Posted in: Real-Life Advice -
Mar 24, 20131
Pork posted a message on GAAAHH!!!! So angry!!!!Fox news is a joke.Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
Spam warning --Senori -
Mar 13, 20133
Highroller posted a message on What did Jesus say about marriage that was SO important that...Posted in: ReligionQuote from euknemarchonThat's a bit obfuscatory. OP asked where Jesus said anything supporting the traditional Christian understanding of marriage and homosexuality; he seemed to want to draw the implication that Christians or his old church in particular were in some kind of error if they think homosexuality is wrong without an express statement by Jesus. I agreed that Jesus didn't address it expressly, and I explored the implications of that. Let me put the implications a bit differently: if Jesus agrees with the traditional Christian understanding, he doesn't have to say anything to the Jews because it's also the Second Temple Jewish understanding. If he disagrees with that understanding, I would think he would be more likely to need to say something in that direction for it to be plausible that he has a progressive understanding.
And the traditional understanding was that the sun revolved around the Earth, that there are other gods besides God, that slaves are perfectly fine to have, and (amongst the Christ movement of the first and early second century) that the world would end within the lifetime of some of Jesus' followers.
So once again: do you believe Jesus believed all of these things? Yes or no?
They are, however, cosmological beliefs, which were very much tied to religion. Also very tied on that "other gods besides God existing" point I said earlier. Do you believe this or don't you? If not, why not, considering that Jesus said nothing on this topic? And if you acknowledge that he didn't, but you still disagree with, say, Paul on the topic, why are you so insistent on this idea with regards to gay people?Astronomy beliefs aren't really analogous to ethics;
Yeah, but you know where it doesn't appear? Paul.On slavery, note that Old Testament scriptures actually did consider slavery to be undesirable and an affront to brotherly equality, and those kind of brotherly equality attitudes resurfacing in the New Testament directly influenced the anti-slavery activists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
And don't think for a second that the abolitionists had an easier time with Biblical texts than pro-slavery people did.
I see where you're going with this. My misunderstanding.I'm not sure what you're getting at. I agree that Jesus pretty clearly says that the Law's divorce rules were given because of people's "hardness of heart" and that he declares the Law's standard is less than his standard. But he's also clear that it's not a "new" standard he's giving; he's looking to the normative vision outlined in Gen 1-2. For theologically orthodox Christians, Jesus himself in some sense gave the Gen 1-2 standard.
You mean other than the fact that it's the entire purpose behind this thread?I don't know how valuable an extended argument on the merits of the traditional Christian understanding is.
Except lots of evangelicals do hate gays and Jesus didn't, among other things, say any specific condemnation of homosexuality.What I really hope people get out of the exchange is that the traditional Christian understanding can have depth and love so that they can stop saying more or less that "lots of evangelicals hate gays and Jesus didn't even say no homo." But I'll humor you.
Here's the problem with you and others who are trying to discredit homosexuality as a valid form of love: saying it's a kink doesn't address homosexuality, anymore than saying "love is all just sex urge" doesn't address heterosexual love. Homosexual people don't just have the urge to have sex with one another. They are capable of loving each other. Deep, romantic, amorous bonds with one another, just as a heterosexual man can love a heterosexual woman.
All kinds of human actions involve a complicated interplay between that person's will and their acquired or "second" nature, which may include desires and habits. Given the fluid nature we have, all kinds of triggers can become associated with the human sexual response cycle and thereby become a part of us. That's all further complicated by difficult relationships between human sexuality and other human needs like affirmation and intimacy. Because for all we know homosexuality might represent a particular acquired habit or nature, labeling homosexuality an orientation rather than another fetish is a construct of the 19th century or 20th century, and it doesn't really do that much for you. What you really want at the end of the day is a genetic basis for homosexual preferences as against heterosexual preferences so that you can say people are born that way and give your construct some privileges. But you don't have that, and as I've already mentioned in this thread, even that wouldn't get you very far in the New Testament that we have, which contemplates people naturally having evil desires.Quote from Highroller »1. Homosexuality is an orientation. Meaning that people who are gay are biologically such that they are attracted to men, in the same way that men are attracted to women. This is not a choice. It is not analogous to depraved sexual acts such as rape or incest, because those are not orientations. Rather, an orientation is such that gay men and women are predisposed to falling amorously in love with people of their sex and not the other sex, just as straight people are predisposed to falling amorously in love with people of opposite sex and not the same sex.
Now, do we agree there?
Saying it's a fetish or a construct doesn't even come close to addressing what we're talking about.
Please say "orthodox" or "traditional" Christian, or some qualifying statement. I'm Christian and I clearly do not agree with what you are saying.Quote from Highroller »4. What you are saying is that Christians should oppose such a formal declaration and recognition by society of the love gay people feel toward one another. You are saying Christians should do this because to do otherwise would violate a gay person's relationship with God and his people.
Now do we agree there?
Hold your horses. What you've quoted me on and what I've explained throughout this thread has been the Christian understanding of homosexuality in ethics.
Please clarify what you are saying in this paragraph, because I want to clearly understand what your objection is. Is your complaint that I am incorrectly attributing the Christian perspective you were talking about to you, that the posts I am quoting don't reflect your personal viewpoints?When I talked about extrapolating that to public policy, I pretty clearly said that opposition to marriage redefinition depends on the political theology the Christian endorses. The paragraph here jumbles all that up beyond confusion.
I don't think so, since it's quite clear your beliefs do intersect with the viewpoints you are describing.
So what are you objecting to exactly?
Of course I can. God is love. From God comes all love. We are to serve love. Homosexuality is love. We should not oppose those who love from loving. Easy.Quote from "Highroller" »Question: How the hell does that make any sense at all?
Or put another way: Which of these parties is actually in opposition to God, taking into consideration the fact that God is love? The party who wishes formal declaration and societal recognition of their love, or the party who opposes any idea of their love being legitimate?
Or put another way: Where do you think the love that these gay people feel that causes them to want to declare it before God and join in holy matrimony comes from? Do you really think it comes from a different source than heterosexual love?
Are you really trying to build a Christian public policy on homosexuality from one chapter that says God is love? You can't even build a Christian ethic on homosexuality from "God is love"!
Not sure how trying to muddle what love means assists you in any way.The Bible's picture of God and his vision for humans is far more rich and deep than three words. What does it even mean to say that God is love?
Exactly. And what is one of the most famous things we attribute to Jesus having said?"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
A story in which a Jewish man is dying and a priest and a Levite, two groups of people deemed holy and set aside by God, pass him by, but a Samaritan, one whose people are hated by the Jews and vice-versa, is willing to go out of his way to take care of him.
So which are you in this equation, in which you who believe yourself to be of God cast away homosexuals who wish to be accepted amongst the Christian community while atheists, agnostics, and those who do not believe what you believe promote acceptance of them? Are you the priest or the Levite, or are you the Samaritan? Clearly you are not the Samaritan.
And which did Jesus command us to follow the example of? The priest, the Levite, or the Samaritan?
So it is God's will for humanity that you mistreat homosexual people for loving who they wish to love?The Apostle John holds out as the pinnacle of God's love that despite human sin and error God has made a way to justly forgive people through Jesus Christ. John himself therefore imbues the statement that God is love with the conviction that God has a normative vision for humanity (without which there could be no sin to forgive!).
It's love to stand in love's way? Have you not read that "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand," as stated in Matthew 12:25? Why would love oppose love? Why would love put what is written in a text over the needs of people, when Jesus' entire ministry was defined by the opposite?
It doesn't look like love. It IS love. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?God's love is so often praised in the context of forgiving sin! The obvious question is, what is the normative vision that provides the basis for sin? Did Jesus say, "God is love. Any kind of sexual conduct that looks like love to you, it's okay?"
Demonstrate this.No! Jesus endorsed the Genesis 1-2 vision for marriage. The Genesis 1-2 vision for marriage includes loving intimacy, clear male-female pairing language, and reproduction.
Exactly! And what have you done? You have sought to cast an entire demographic of people out of the community of God! Why? For tradition?You know, more reading also makes us think about the relationship between love and thinking that something is wrong. Jesus said, "If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"
What was the entire point of Jesus' ministry? To tell the people who were traditionally regarded as holy to keep on doing what they were doing, and never to make any attempts to include those who were traditionally left out to the periphery or the wayside? No! His ministry was entirely about them, and not to the Pharisees who were so fixated on clinging to obeying texts by the letter that they overlooked the well-being of who they were supposed to serve.
Which of these do you think you are?
Exactly, and that which is born out of love cannot be a sin. Therefore, how could love between two men — not sex between two men, but romantic love between two men — be sinful?So we know that dealing with something in a loving way requires background information about whether the something is sinful or not.
I think it's pretty clear that you are following the Pharisees, who went against Jesus' ministry.Your question must inevitably become: which of the parties mentioned is in opposition to God, taking into account more of the Bible than three words?
You are hung up on the eroticism. What about the love? You continue to ignore the love that two homosexual men can feel for one another. Naturally so, because acknowledging its existence would undermine your points entirely, which is why you and others who have argued the same case would naturally deny this.And in general, you're on slippery ground trying to go straight from God's agape love to justifying particular human erotic practices without, like, any context.
But you are not God and facts do not budge because of your denial. Gay people are more than capable of loving one another in the very love we honor by marriage ceremonies. Your points are therefore invalid, because homosexuality is not a turning away from the love of one's soul, but rather following it.
Which is correct!'The person who thinks homosexuality is wrong must be a homophobe!'
What you're saying is exactly like objecting to the statement, "The person who opposes repealing Jim Crow laws must be racist!" That statement is 100% factual!
-
Mar 6, 20131
Blinking Spirit posted a message on Socialism is BadPosted in: Debate
NidStyles was just talking out of an inappropriate orifice, but it's no great leap to assume that Yorutenchi meant to say "totalitarianism" rather than "fascism", in which case he presents an accurate enough sketch of the trajectory of communist movements in the 20th Century. A little charity in reading never did other harm.Quote from TussNeither of you have any idea what you're talking about. First of all.
class analysis and the following observation of the class war is 100% socialist. Socialism is no different from other sorts of leftism in this way. Secondly, fascism is an ideology by itself and not a tactic that a completely opposite ideology makes use of. That's as silly an idea as saying that republicanism makes use of royalism or whatever.
Also, my mind is reeling with the implications of the claim that class analysis is "100% socialist". Does it mean that the workers' class enemies cannot have a class consciousness and work together to advance their interests as a class (contradicting other frequent claims by socialists)? Does it mean that supposed class enemies who do demonstrate awareness of the class war (such as, infamously, Mitt Romney) are actually socialist? Or does it just mean you, like Yorutenchi, chose your phrasing poorly? -
Feb 22, 20131
Captain_Morgan posted a message on March 1st, 2013 Sequester "Meat Cleaver"Posted in: DebateQuote from billydaman
You think this changes anything? People are better off than they were 100 years ago. For better or worse of government. Making a claim the
"monetary inequality" is at it's worst in several decades is nothing more liberal spin. If all the social programs did not exist, it is quite possible the "monetary inequality" would not be as dramatic.
Inequality when taken to an extreme has been seen as a problem since the time of Montisquieu who wrote the Spirit of the Laws which was one of the influential works read by the Founders. The question for "what extreme" depends upon each and every century, but the precepts remain the same and expanded in Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. Which can be surmised as people become pissy during downtrends and optimistic during uptrends.
Quote from billydaman
As you pointed out astutely, more than 50% Americans derive some sort of their subsistence from the government. That is all well and good but that money has to come from somewhere and its mostly the rich. You want them to make the most money and get the same level of assistance from the government. This makes no practical economic sense.
"Economic sense" is less economical and more philosophical, take for example the concept of food stamps. It protects property rights and lowers the cost of food in general, however libertarians and other free market advocates do not see the system working as efficiently as possible.
I agree with neo-liberalism on multiple precepts, and for the most part am against many controls on labor and capital and freedom of expression. However, redistribution of the wealth during a time whenever the velocity of money is down because the current corporations, much to their own detriment, is hoarding cash. Hoarding is rejected by some as a "not a public problem."
Hoarding tends to create artificial shortages, such as during the 1950's whenever there was supposedly a beef shortage this was countered by garbologists who had found that much beef from the 1950's was thrown away because people were hoarding and it went to waste.
Taxation is the answer to hoarding by returning it to productive capital.
Quote from billydaman
You sound just like the partisan politicians we have in this country....."the rich are hoarding all the money!". I have very good basis for this. You can disagree all you want but its the same thing liberal hacks say every day.
If you mean that 50% don't pay taxes, I'll agree with you. Corporations are also overly dependent on government hand outs and are incredibly rich. Some corporations make and produce things, others do not. I have no problem saying outright to make for transaction taxes on financial engineers.
The tax loop holes are a joke, and for the most part are in effect hoarding capital and they are even stating this openly. $3 trillion hoarded cash is a lot of money. The taxation system is a progressive system, and has traditionally always been paid for the wealthiest even when it was 2% income tax.
Quote from billydaman
And it has little to do with that "its sealed away in the top earner's bank accounts over seas" as you stated. You still have no clue to what i object to in your post which was filled with rhetoric and little substance.
Because during the 1980's and 1990's special tax banks were set up in the Cayman Islands is historical fact and well reported in business and corporate history. Shell companies and tax heavens are the name of the game. During the last major change to tax law you had men such as Trump devastated because of the change in tax law, because they took advantages of that law to exploit capital and corporate structure. When the house of cards fell, so did many real estate companies.
Quote from billydaman
Half of all Americans pay zero or no taxes while the rich pay the bulk of the nations bills. I agree tax reform is needed and the rich should pay more......but the rich are not the problem.
The question is also "which rich" we're talking about, the guy whose a multi millionaire with a company that goes to the government and says "I'll move my company unless if you give me a tax break" is extortion. There are also several other examples, including low pay for most workers and absurdly high pay for management.
This is the same cycle that made American companies in the late 70's and 80's complacent and stupid against foreign competition, because management was turned into a civil service. Nowadays middle management gets axed like everyone else, but higher up and especially the well fortified CEO very rarely.
And I'm not the only one calling bull **** on CEO pay and the like, even corporate raiders from the 1980's who today are fabulously wealthy know one thing; CEO's aren't magical people. The same with most others. They cheat investors out of possible profits that are consumed by a single person that could be better placed into the wage system to hire more talent or returned back as dividends.
The "bad rich" people who wantonly go about to create a game to support large corporations are not the friend of small business and medium sized businesses. CEO's that are mediocre and overpaid, are the enemy of the investor class. -
Dec 30, 20121
tuxdev posted a message on new gun ban billPosted in: Debate
Wrong. That is illogical. There CAN be a line drawn. You are trying to say "either ban every thing that can kill or NOTHING be banned or hell even regulated" seems to be the message. However you are wrong. We can make a line. You can kill 1-2 people with that weapon? Does it have an alternative purpose? Can't cut steak without it? Sure you can have it. NEXT. You can kill as many people as you have bullets? From hundreds of yards away? No alternative purposes? Yeah you need to sign a few documents and get insurance on that thing.
Its the same reason we have cars with insurance but you can ride a bike wherever you want.
Personally, I don't think of it as directly due to the capacity to kill (though it does play a factor), but by how much externalized risk is associated with owning and using a tool. By just capacity to kill and alternate usage, cars actually pass that metric to not need insurance (It's actually pretty awkward to try to kill a lot people with a car in a single event), but fail the metric of how much externalized risk the tool burdens on society. Why don't I think knives need insurance? Because the externalized risk is actually quite low.
It's also possible to personally mitigate whatever risk there actually is through training to disarm knife-wielders. If I'm skilled enough, I can disarm a knife-wielder without actually having a knife myself. The primary way to disarm a gunman.. is to have a gun and shoot them before they shoot you, somehow. Gun vs. Gun fights massively favor the one with initiative. By definition, that'd be the attacker, not the defender. Never mind the major danger you're putting the non-gun bystanders through. More bullets in the air means more bullets that can end up where they shouldn't. (Generic you, just to be clear)
Also it is not a tax. Where did you get that? If you don't own a gun you don't pay anything.
Unfortunately, it's a tad confusing whether we're talking about a tax like described in the OP link, or insurance. I'm not in really in favor of a tax, because it's too easily misappropriated and doesn't actually deal with the liability problem. We've got an already demonstrated system for liability-management working with automobiles, it's just not that much of a stretch to apply it to other dangerous tools with significant externalized risk.
If for the sake of getting the bill through then we made an exception for hunting guns then yeah I would support it. However I suddenly see a massive uprising of shotgun related crimes in our future.
One of the awesome things about insurance: if you own a high-risk gun, you pay high premiums. If you own a low-risk gun, you pay low premiums. -
Dec 28, 2012
2
Killane posted a message on new gun ban billPosted in: Debate
Why can you conservatives not get it into your heads that gun control DOES NOT EQUAL banning guns?
Only the craziest, most nutty left wingers want to actually fully ban guns. Canada doesn't ban guns- we have more guns per capita than you do!
What do we have- sensible controls on gun access. Rules on gun storage and safety. Stricter controls on assault style weapons. Limits on high capacity cartridges.
We also have something else conservatives despise- a social safety net. We don't have people who can't afford to take their anti-psychotic medication, or families who cannot afford voluntary inpatient care for potentially violent mentally ill individuals.
Gun Control alone is not the answer- you're absolutely right about that. But you damn conservatives are blocking the real answers- creating a safety net, preventing the crushing burden of true poverty, and enabling free universal healthcare and education. These are the answers, but you people are more concerned about your precious tax breaks and military budget. -
Oct 12, 20121
Vaclav posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election ThreadBut Yorutenchi that was showing strength and leadership or something.Posted in: Debate -
Oct 9, 20121
timothy, mimeslayer posted a message on [[Official]] 2012 US Presidential Election Threadhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9G8XREyG0Q&list=LP4qRk91tndwg&index=5&feature=plcpPosted in: Debate
Obama should spend what it takes to get this as a three minute spot aired in all the battleground states. It is a very good video that doesn't sling mud, but shows how trickle down economics haven't worked and we shouldn't elect people who believe in them. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
1
1
2
So there are really good cards but there is a significant lacking in draw, countermagic and kill spells. Also there is a MASSIVE lack of cheap sweepers. Pyroclasm, slagstorm, whipflare and the like are gone so if you wanna play sweepers play Esper control or get out.
1
1
My friend was made aware that my GF doesn't really want him there. He said he understood but we worked out a deal that we can all live with. my Friend is moving in but we have some stricter rules on how things work. I'm buing a mini fridge and new TV for our room so that we can have Television/internet/food/drink without leaving the bedroom and we don't have to interact very much. He is doing the same.
Me and my friend have desided to do the majority of our "hanging out" outside the home to keep the pressure off my GF. My BF said that its fine and he is an overly laid back person. (so am I its mainly my gf that is up tight about things).
We hammered out the bills situation. She gets a higher cut in what she has to pay which is fair since she makes far less than either me or my friend. (me like 35k, him 25k and her 12k.)
We have our eye on a new and bigger apartment so its less crowded. And we will move out in 2 years from now. I finnish school in a year. He finnishes the year after that so he moves out and then me and my gf live by ourselves for her last year of college So we have a move in and move out time. Everyone says they will be able to live with this.
My friend and I also talked that if things get hairy I will help him find a new place to live if need be.
EDIT:
Also to clear things up. My GF is not a bad person. Normally she isn't pushy or demanding. this was the exception and I did not know how to handle it since it was so unlike her.
1
A writer is someone that can pull music from their head and place it on paper in a melody that strings together meaning and envokes the emotions of the readers. "
1
1
1
Hi. I work a full time job while going to college to become an accountant. I pay rent by myself for my 2 bedroom apartment. I have two pets and pay ALL MY BILLS for both me and my fiancee(who is disabled) . I have ZERO help from the government other than grants for college and they barely cover 1/3 of the actual costs so I have had to take out several loans.
So shut your piece of crap spewing mouth about me and my work ethic. You have zero ide of exactly what I do and have zero idea of what these programs actually go for.
Why do you have to work two jobs? Is it because this "captialistic system" has encouraged your boss to actually pay you a wage that you can live off of?
I don't go against capitalism in general. Free market does work. But this horrid disfunctional "trickle down economics" is a failure and a monstrosity of a system. Socialism exists and has existed in our nation for a long time. Socialism in small bits is good. But we should focus on training our people rather than throwing money at them. This much I agree. But the healthcare system, education system, roads, police, fire department, military, post office, and court systems are all federal pooled money. Very socialistic in nature.