Michael

Yeah, essentially SMB3 for the NES was remastered in Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES. It was later ported to the GBA under the title Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3.

The graphics are much better in the ports, but the soundtrack doesn’t quite hit the same when compared to the NES version. The physics are also different in the All-Stars/SMA4 versions and some people prefer the NES version’s physics.

On a related note, there are some cool ROM hacks based off the NES SMB3 engine - Mario Adventure 3 released the other year and is a blast:

https://marioadventure3.com/

I’d pick SMB3 on the SNES/GBA vs. NES over SMW.

Maybe they are just speaking to their ADHD and living in an oversexualized, yet prude society? I just didn’t read the incel angle.

Thanks for also clearing that up. I truly appreciate it.

I mean Hillary’s lawyers also used BleachBit, right? It’s just suspicious, but I don’t want to discount from what you are saying. Thanks again for informing me.

The reason why people reacted so strongly to Hillary I feel is due to the Obama-era persecution of whistleblowers/etc.

Well if I was with you in public, I’d definitely be supporting you to feel more comfortable in your skin. Regardless of the broader topic of nudity and all that, I hope you can find someone who can help you out in that way or generally hope you can make a breakthrough somehow in this area.

I admit I’ve dealt with this myself and I had the same intense fear growing up due to bullying, but we have to learn to give ourselves a break. I feel like a lot of people forget that we are all mammals - physical beings that are occupying a space. Sometimes we do have sexual desires or interests, but as long as we aren’t intending on making things sexual or awkward - usually it’s all a-okay. If we offend someone else with our gaze or otherwise make them uncomfortable, sometimes the best thing is to just apologize and play it off.

I’m afraid to stare in the direction of a clothed woman’s boobs

Staring is generally frowned upon regardless of a person being clothed or unclothed, but one is entirely free to look in a certain direction or do what is comfortable without fear - which includes specifically looking at another person briefly. There are plenty of valid reasons to examine another person and lots of them are entirely innocent.

someone notices, and gives you comments like “go grab her by the pussy” or other disgusting shit

I can’t say I’ve ever had that experience, but you don’t have to be uncomfortable if somebody caught you in moment like that.

you would basically need intense therapy to not feel wrong seeing naked people.

People have very little reasons to be nude e.g. in modern American society, but it doesn’t have to be weird or sexual. The laws obviously need to catch up first and foremost, but I feel like there’s nothing wrong with being naked - even if a person has more ahem overt sexual characteristics that others take note of.

The thing about nudity is that people generally gradually get used to it. The differences become less impactful after a certain point. Sure it takes time, and people who have issues with their appearance and body may have greater barriers, but I don’t feel like intense therapy is needed for most.

I’d argue that the naked human body isn’t inherently sexual in nature.

Thanks!

If there are laws we shouldn’t enforce, we should just get those laws off the books.

I believe it’s a fairly sane and desirable that we hold people accountable for arguably mishandling classified information (regardless of intention to mishandle) and sidestepping established procedures to communicate in an official capacity. It’s very reckless behavior and many people were involved in enabling this behavior.

I couldn’t find a source on George W. Bush violating the same law and invite clarification, but I’d just like to say that I imagine that we can manage equitable and reasonable enforcement of the law as a society. Not all laws are made equally, but some are pretty sensible.

I mostly agree with you here.

Mike Johnson isn’t a “bad” person, but we can form a pattern from his actions and words. He’s likely a person who is using religion for his personal gain, just like many religious leaders likely are.

I’d say that a Christian is a person who follows Christ. It’s not complicated. Religion has been used by those who hold power to oppress and control the masses for centuries - this is nothing new.

Surely there are examples (of which I am aware of a few), but they do not take from his overall teachings. I’m not the devoted Christian that the other commenter mistakenly views me as, but someone who understands the gist of the New Testament because I was forced into Christian High School and studied the Bible as a whole. It was a subject that I was graded on, so I’d like to say I probably understand the general themes better than most.

Although I do repress a lot from that time and I suffered multiple TBIs, so maybe I’m completely off-base. I don’t believe that I am, though.

Dude, it isn’t a stretch to say that somebody who doesn’t follow Jesus and does the exact opposite isn’t a Christian. It takes basic critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion. Do you truly believe he hasn’t been exposed to the many verses where Jesus teaches the exact opposite of the types of polices he advocates for and the rhetoric he uses? I really find it hard to believe that, but I could see how regular people could be manipulated.

I consciously chose to not counter your arguments or “points of contention” because they were not worth my time to address and I specifically warned you that I wouldn’t engage further. You only got further engagement because you claimed bad faith on my part - which I specifically addressed and you did not sufficiently counter.

There are no shades of gray - either you are a Christian or you are not and I’m sure in his heart of hearts he is using religion as a tool for his own personal gain. I’ll trust that almost every word out of his mouth is a lie, and you are free to take him at his word that he considers himself a Christian in good faith. Have at it.

My point stands. Real Christians would pay attention to Christ - they see the source as valid. Of course the texts have been manipulated over many years - and have less than ideal takes on slavery and on women.

Fortunately, Christ’s teachings are still pretty clear and are easily quotable and digestible. It’s harder to twist Jesus to serve hateful narratives than it is to quote Jesus and the love he obviously taught.

Not a single thing I have said could possibly be read to be defending Mike Johnson, and as such I can’t read what you’ve written here as anything but the most clear evidence of bad faith.

You are defending his supposed faith and his identification as a Christian, when it couldn’t be further from the truth.

From my point of view, you are either following Christ’s teachings or you are not. A true Christian would resonate with Christ’s teachings and be demonstrating them - not demonstrating the opposite and twisting Jesus’ teachings from a position of power. I don’t believe Mike Johnson is a sheep led astray or someone has been manipulated into hate, but someone who is empowered by hate, who thrives on his authority, and is a person who literally says he believes God elevated him specifically into authority.

You assume bad faith from me and good faith from Mike Johnson (by taking him at his word that he is a Christian) - a person who has shown they are not in good faith to anybody honestly looking.

This is just “I cherry pick differently for equally arbitrary reasons and am therefor the arbiter of what qualifies as truly Christian”. The fact you say mostly really hammers that in. Like you feel you’re more “Christian” than them to a degree that matters.

I invite you to do more research on this. It’s not cherry picking, I assure you.

Yeah, like literally the leaders of every sect out there…

There are plenty of denominations and sects of Christianity out there that don’t teach hate. Why wouldn’t there be? Jesus taught love.

Doesn’t mean he isn’t Christian though, unless you also don’t think the pope is…

Anybody can claim to be whatever they want to. If somebody is doing the direct opposite of what Jesus taught while deferring to the Bible like Mike Johnson, I’d argue that they aren’t following Jesus or are like him. I’d argue that Mike Johnson is closer to the Pharisees that Jesus notably had issues with, than a Christian.

Christ + ian (from, related to, or like)

I believe that the pope is a Christian though, and clearly other people do too - otherwise he likely wouldn’t be the pope.

Why are you defending Mike Johnson? Feel free to respond with a rebuttal, but you won’t be getting anything else out of me.

It really doesn’t take many verses to convince somebody who truly believes in God and believes Jesus died for their sins.

Just because there is propaganda doesn’t mean that it is ironclad. And it’s not “Source: Trust me bro”, it’s “Source: Jesus and his disciples”.

I don’t feel that it’s a very high standard to ask that Christians follow Jesus Christ’s example and demonstrate understanding of his teachings - especially if they are truly Christians, who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Many of the practices and laws you mentioned are fulfilled in the New Testament and are no longer binding to Christians.

And there are surely many people (especially in power) who use Christianity as an accessory, as a tool to manipulate others into hate, and as a platform to grow their power. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Johnson was one such example.

If the truth is in between, it’s because we’re arguing different things.

Not necessarily! Sometimes the truth or a greater understanding can emerge even from two or more seemingly paradoxical or conflicting statements or ideas.

i.e. Dialectical reasoning

Thesis + antithesis = synthesis (which is likely still an inkling of the total truth, but nonetheless)