Report Bamibal's Profile

Would you like to join us? :3

LOL

I think it's one of those movies that you relate to more as you get older. After a while all you want are the simple pleasures in life, and none of the hassles :)

Digimon dubs are kinda old so the words they use and the way they say things are poison to them ears

yeah going through them digimons. hard say heck to find them subs batch =.="

LOL

That he is.

Yeah, the ghost fish were annoying, but I was able to find out a way to take care of them really easily without having to waste spamming Ninpo magic. It was a certain air combo that you could just with the flails or nunchaku which always killed any of the ghost fish that got close to you from any direction. ;)

The soundtrack is good. I especially liked that first OP. But the song positioning was so bad. Everytime that drum beat plays, the opponent is gonna score. When 2nd Stage plays, Jyoyo will score. That was why I rated the sound section badly.

I play football the high school club level. Other sports..hmm..not much. As for anime, I don't have any particular taste. If the show's good, it's good. I've watched a few other mainstream sports anime (Slam Dunk, Tsubasa etc.) There have been only a few soccer anime ever to release. You watched Giant Killing?

My eyes must be decieving me. Someone with a Kanou Kyosuke profile picture?! Impossible!

Hard to find soccer-anime fans, let alone soccer anime. Welcome to the (tiny) club :D

Heh, Well, I do like challenging games, personally. Though what I liked about NG on the XBOX was that it was fair difficulty for the most part and I gradually got better at it. I ended up playing the harder difficulties and my best experience with the game was by far on Very Hard mode. It gets very intense but for me it was a very rewarding experience to finally beat the game on its hardest difficulty setting.

Oh, that's just Genshin, one of the main villains/bosses from Ninja Gaiden II (from the newer 3D games, not the classic NES ones).

Hungry Heart Wild Striker is the best!!!!
Yes i'm a girl but I do love these kinds of Anime and I even watched Hokuto no ken XD

I don't think that the killing will rise to a far greater number than it is now.
And I think that over half of laws are worth breaking and don't deserve to be there.

Society itself is the most natural border and law. The major deterrent to crime in Japan is not law, but shame. I know some people try to peg this as an East Asian thing, but it's in actuality a very culturally universal thing and it would work quite efficiently I believe for promoting utilitarian behavior in a more anarchistic society.

An Anarchist society by nature engenders a form of different further collectivism that is the goal of Communism. That is that people work together on an equal scale because it benefits them, much like the tribalistic societies and most people simply won't have the means and desire to do much harm in such a society.

I believe the anarchism and collectivism will cure the ill that causes most people to want to commit crime in the first place. And instead of widespread cruelty going up, society will actually become more mutual and egalitarian.

As a person who has both criminal and non-criminal friends, and mental ill and mentally stable friends, I believe that the greatest creator of crime is poverty and hierarchy. And that for the most part the greatest criminal is actually the system itself that causes so much alienation and strife.

Among my friends the criminals and mental disabled tend to be poor and mistreated, and the system does little to fix the problem. Because they are punished and distraught crime feels a part of their life. All the children in special ed classes I have known were poor, and the majority of the excelling students were rich.

And I must be honest, in a world where wars are still spurred by the rich, and the poor in my rich country are still living in such conditions, I'm more worried about the plight of the poor and oppressed by law than a few border conflicts. I think that the death would actually go down and the suffering would go far down.

A few murders is nothing in comparison to the multitude starving. It doesn't matter how people die and suffer, they are, everyday. And if borders protect a few from murder and the like, it's still allow far more people to die over impoverished starvation.

I'm not asking everybody to be a bleeding heart for the poor like scares some people off from leftism. But if one is going to care about the life's of innocents they should care more about the dying poor than upholding laws which are largely ineffective at stopping suffering and create much bondage and a lack of liberty. If a person is cold hearted toward killing and suffering, again that's them. But if a person is going to be moralistic about matters, they should do it properly and uphold real international poverty control instead of stupid laws that more often than not benefit the interests of the rich.

Kakashi from naruto :D

I'm not sure exactly how to explain this tactfully, as it's complicated and comes with a lot of ideas that could potentially offend people or sound unreasonable if not boxed properly.

I think that with border there will be even still cultural conflicts and atrocities. War still happens even with borders and often the desire for a secure one has led to demonization of the other, fascism, and invasion and countless millions of deaths.

There will indeed if that happens be a bit of turmoil in the beginning if borders were to go away right here right now. Though even if that worse is there I find it far greater to be small conflicts that get resolved than the large scale cruelty our planet has seen even with larger borders.

The ends will be that there will be more getting along after small cultural conflicts. And of course this will be a larger good than just some petty "the ends justify the means" thing.

Borders often tend to maintain economy and those who are living in third world would live in far greater numbers instead of starving to death as opposed to maybe a few less murders I think would be far more humane. Either way people are dying every day. A tradeoff for far less starvation and a bit more violence I think would be a fair and ethical shift.

And people then would be able to deal with problems of poverty and violence as a world instead of as an individual nation. And although unlikely efficiently in the beginning, it is a step in the right direction. And I don't think the immediate gains will be fewer than the immediate sufferings.

Because, I think that centralized governments backed by Corporate and National interests are far stronger people killers than xenophobic tribes of different cultures bound by different languages, religions and so forth.

Furthermore, When there is racism and outsiderism, people can maintain borders so to speak maintained by something greater than law, but natural society. If society doesn't want to let people in, they won't. They don't need a government to enforce that. And I don't think not having a government there to help enforce an "us" and "them" through law will reduce harm.

Essentially, I think that the immediate skirmishes can be afforded and the world would have far less death than it even does now.

Also, for the borders to be done away with, you would either have to have a one world government enforce it, or have the people decide it. I'm for promoting the people decide it, as a person who is NOT for lots of government, which would be a society in a state of tolerance I believe far prepared for a lack of border. A country that is considering opening a border is highly unlikely to move into a state of high violence with the country it borders.

Furthermore most conflicts in the world could be solved right now with this problem. We don't have Nazi Germany right now we have Zionist Israel. And the middle east would not suffer from this idea. Germany's power would not have gained from a lack of borders, in fact it was Germany's control of country that was such the problem. It it was nothing more than a group of uncontrolled Germans pouring into Eastern Europe the holocaust would have been far smaller.

I don't know if I've adequately gotten off what is on my mind about the issue right now. But I think I've done a well enough job for the moment. If anything, it can be remembered and brought up upon a later response of yours.