Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

ive seen how much people hate mike for hating lucy . so what you have to do here is type down what would you do to mike. kill him, torture him think of what ever you like and type it down!

EASY

me: id give him a chance to atleast to be friends with lucy if he dosent...ill bury him alive and dance on his grave MJ style.
you?

OMG I HATE MIKE SOOOOO MUCH.

I WANT TO KIDNAP HIM AND STRAP HIM TO AN OPERATING TABLE AND TORTURE HIM SLOWLY WITH A SERIES OF NEEDKES, SCAPELS, AND HOT IRONS. I'LL SHOVE A NAIL IN HIS URETHRA AND I'LL BE SURE TO MAJE SURE HIS BELOVED SANDY SEES ALL OF THE TERRIBLE THINGS I DO TO HIM.

AND THEN I'LL KILL MYSELF BECAUSE I AM ACTUALLY SANDY AND IT WAS ALL A CLEVER PLOT TO MAJE MIKE CURSE LUCY AND EVERYTHING SHE STANDS FOR WITH HIS DYING BREATH.

none

I would kill Lucy for him

That's how much I love him

paulo should punch him in the face

then we'd be cool probably

SpaceMouse, on 17 April 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Mike would beat Paulo in a fight, and he hasn't done anything to Lucy she didn't deserve.

I actually have to agree with Jerk here. I don't hate Mike at all - in fact, I think he's perfectly justified in running out of patience with Lucy's violent antics. Yes, slapstick is funny, but not so much when you're the one getting slapped.

This post has been edited by Luigifan: 17 April 2012 - 02:13 PM

Jerk, on 17 April 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

You just keep telling yourself that, buddy.

While I agree with his being justified with no longer being able to handle Lucy and her violent ways, the cruel words he said to her after declaring his hate (His "Reason You Suck" speech) just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Otherwise, both Mike and Lucy are on the fence for me.

It's word of god, you dumb faggot. Look it up on Taeshi's Formspring.

http://www.formsprin...hi/q/1965893519

oh hey look I did your work for you

I don't give a fuck, I'm not changing my answer.

all of my hates bro, all of them

Just so long as you know. I'm just an educator~

Maybe think before you post some snide, ill-informed remark next time?

I am taking the Jerk and Wacko stance on this. Mike really has gone through years of tiny annoyances from Lucy, and things just build up after awhile. There is only so much a person can take. Now that Mike has gone through this major outburst hopefully they can begin to rebuild their relationship, after they get done being mopey about what happened in the December arc.

I disagree with the answer anyway, since I don't consider ´´Strategy`` a valid argument regarding 1-on-1 fights.
If anything, strategizing during combat will waste time you could spend reacting to getting attacked or attack yourself.
But whatever, I'd hate Mike anyway.

So basically your argument is "quick wits don't matter in a fight" and "I'm going to ignore everything Lucy did and hate Mike blindly."

wow

Not really, but I don't feel like posting my reasons for disliking Mike here, since those are personal.
As for the quick wits, correct, I don't feel that those are important at all. Thinking during fighting rarely, if ever, helps. Most of the time it slows you down. (Unless of course you know exactly how your opponent is going to fight you, in which case strategy can be quite handy. That's the only exception though.)

By "personal," you mean "stupid." And you honestly do not think that the ability to think quickly, to adapt as situation demands, is a useless combat trait? Truly, you are a modern day Cicero.

Actually, I am but a pugilist.
And by personal I mean personal.

Oh my fucking god, moron of hearts, shut the fuck up. Strategy isn't "oh, i have all this shit planned out way ahead of time and i need to stop acting and think in order to come up with a plan" and quick thinking is incredibly important to any kind of fighting. NOT thinking is what leads you to do something incredibly stupid during a fight, causing you to injure yourself or people surrounding you during the fight. IF YOU REALLY WERE A FIGHTER, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.

Mhm. And you think that you don't think during a fight? That on no level you're strategizing? Seriously? That's semantic bullshit, and it makes you either an idiot or a liar. You've never had a reason for thinking or saying anything that wasn't gay or stupid.

Shush, we're having an argument here.
(Or rather, I'm trying to.)

EDIT: That wasn't what I was saying, I was saying that it wasn't an important part of fighting.
Physically outclassing your opponent is the better solution by far.

This post has been edited by mAceOfHearts: 17 April 2012 - 03:42 PM

So I make a point about why you're stupid and Jerk is right and all you retort is "shush, we're having an argument here."

That's not how this works.

EDIT

Quote

oh.

This post has been edited by Kaxbe: 17 April 2012 - 03:43 PM

You're failing and wasting our time with your dumb shit, mace.

I see no point in trying to explain myself to you, when I'm quite clearly busy arguing with Jerk.
Therefore, shush.

Are you not trying to explain yourself to me because you're "arguing with" Jerk?

Or are you not trying to explain yourself to me because you can't handle two people proving you to be a dumbass at once?

If he has a point, defend yourself with a counterpoint. Where do you think you are? It's a forum, not a private conversation. You just look pathetic when you ignore it by telling him to shush.

I mean, you usually look pathetic somehow, but now more so than usual.

I don't care about what this looks like, nor do I care about what any of you think of me.
And I generally try not to argue with more than one person at a time, unless that person has something interesting to say. Kaxbe, from what I can tell, does not. But if you, Kaxbe, seriously intend to argue with me, I'll answer your question: You don't get hurt fighting unless you either take a hit, or just didn't fight properly. You don't need strategy to fight properly, you just aren't allowed to make obivous mistakes.

This post has been edited by mAceOfHearts: 17 April 2012 - 05:30 PM

Strategy and quick-wits are different. Strategy implies a plan, as opposed to an immediate reaction. Yes, in a fight, both are useful, but strategy will normally be the lesser of the two. The problem is that Mike would never get passed the "quick-wits" stage in a normal fight.

Now, if they were trapped in an arena with racks of weapons and needed to kill each other for the pleasure of the emperor, then yeah, it might be a little more useful. But if they're swinging on each other out of anger, I doubt Mike is gonna be like: "Okay. I left hook, right jab, fake with the right, uppercut with the left, jump forward and clip him with my elbow." No, they're going to be fucking attacking each other.

I should also clarify that I'm not saying Paulo would suddenly win. I cannot argue that, since Tae has outright said otherwise. However, I think the explanation is a bit off. Yes, Mike would win. He might just be better at fighting. He might be able to take more physical pain. He might be able to take the fear or adrenaline longer. The fact is though, I highly doubt his ability to be strategical is gonna do much, since if they fought, it would be quick, angry, and most likely irrational.

Meowth, I'm deriving quick wits from "strategic" not "strategy." They don't have to be mutually exclusive because the original assumption about his mental acuity were derived from an adjective. I'm saying "strategic" implies he wouldn't make quite as many obvious mistakes. He'd be intuitive about how he fights. This whole argument has been about mace's narrow interpretation when the context clearly points to something more broad.

Plus, you're complicating the process by turning it into a narrative. You both have, really, by assuming the thought process during a fight would turn into something distracting by taking time. No matter how wild and irrational you are, you can see advantages and disadvantages without going through the whole process of elaborating on what you're going to do. It's like reading: you don't verbalized every word in your mind, do you? No. You recognize shapes and make the jump over verbalization to form a narrative. At least, anyone who can read beyond the third grade can.

And Mace: he was pointing out holes in your argument from his first response to you. Quit making excuses.

FUCK GUYS CMON, LET'S ALL GET ALONG HERE

I wasn't making excuses, please refrain from assuming things about me.
And I love how you make it clear that YOU'RE deriving quick wits from strategic.
No everyone is going to do that, and if that was the point she was trying to make, why not just post that? Posting strategic would only cause confusion.
That aside, I still stand by strength being much, much more important that quick wits. If you have any sort knowledge about fighting, you pretty much know what to do in *a* fight. How well you do it is the part that varies.

This post has been edited by mAceOfHearts: 17 April 2012 - 07:42 PM

mAceOfHearts, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

"And I generally try not to argue with more than one person at a time"
"I see no point in trying to explain myself to you, when I'm quite clearly busy arguing with Jerk."

Next?

mAceOfHearts, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

I said as much from the beginning, didn't I?

mAceOfHearts, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

She probably thought most of her readers could glean that conclusion from the context insofar as "strategic" is representative of "mental faculty" in the context of fighting.

mAceOfHearts, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Because you obviously can't read:

Quote

"Meowth, I'm deriving quick wits from "strategic" not "strategy." They don't have to be mutually exclusive because the original assumption about his mental acuity were derived from an adjective."

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

"I'm saying "strategic" implies he wouldn't make quite as many obvious mistakes. He'd be intuitive about how he fights."

The issue is that it was a bad choice of words to describe it. Strategic could just as easily mean planning, and there are many cases where it would. It would probably mean that in any sort of professional fight, as well as any fight with experienced individuals. It would mean that if you were to describe a long fight, mostly after the adrenaline wore off. Not to mention, it would imply planning coming from the mouth of someone who was under the impression that inexperienced fighting teenagers typically plan out each of their moves.
So yes, it can imply what you said, but it can easily imply what I've been saying. Thus the reason the term "quick-wits" is even around.

"You both have, really, by assuming the thought process during a fight would turn into something distracting by taking time."

I don't recall doing this. What I am saying is that you wouldn't get to the point Mace is describing - whether or not his words of it "slowing you down" are true. A fight between them would be more of a test of power - as Mace said - as opposed to a test of wit. And while yes, a quick-wit would be useful; in the end, there probably won't even be any actual "strategy."

This post has been edited by Meowth: 17 April 2012 - 08:05 PM

Quote

mAceOfHearts, on 17 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

That's why quick wits aren't really needed.

This post has been edited by mAceOfHearts: 17 April 2012 - 08:02 PM

Mace I hope you realize you have quickly turned this thread into one about how much of an idiot you are, and the more you try to defend your asinine statements the worse you look.

Just

stop, dude, just stop it. Please.

No way in hell.

@ Mace: Quick wits are the application of "any sort knowledge about fighting" to the act of fighting. Taeshi says it trumps Paulo's superiority in strength; Mike's durability grants him more time to exploit advantages during the fight. There is no slowing process.

@ Meowth: You validate my first quote in your second response by allowing my interpretation; you assumed my application of the adjective would slow him down by interpreting it as something more elaborate than it really is; I'm saying that this whole time I've been arguing the interpretation based on the context of the conclusion, Paulo getting his ass beat, as opposed to downplaying the kind of quick thinking we've been arguing this whole time. A better interpretation is that Paulo would try blindly swinging and that Mike would take it more as a martial artist in a way that would allow him to exploit the faults in his approach. I don't think either of you imagine it that way, though you probably should as it's likely closer to a correct interpretation of the circumstances.

@ CBM: I don't mind. This is actually pretty fun.

@ SmashFiles: Shut up.

As I told you before, I still say physical strength is far superior.
And I don't care how quick-witted you are. It's either completely natural, or it's slowing you down.

No seriously, what the hell is with all of the fighting guys? Everyone has their own opinions on things, and there are so many different types of fighting. If you get into a fight where you both know Taekwondo then yeah, there's definitely going to be strategy there, and the one with the best battle plan is going to walk away the victor. However if you have a fight where one guy throws a random punch out of nowhere, and then they just start wailing on each other, there's very little to no strategy there.

When it comes to the Mike and Paulo thing, Mike (along with what Taeshi has said) has shown he has very fast reflexes as shown here along with the comment that Taeshi makes in the comment box. Just another reason why Taeshi is saying that Mike would probably come out the victor.

Now, can we please all stop ganging up on one person and bashing each other? Yeah, we get it, he has a different opinion then you. As for mace, you dont have to be so brash and blunt about your opinions. Be more open minded. If you all just drop it, we can just go along our merry way.

And there is absolutely no room in your imagination for a scenario where it can tip the scales in one's favor? That's pretty narrow-minded if true.

Smash, shut the fuck up about getting along. Nobody has to get along, it's not necessary to the conversation.

That's what I've been taught.
Don't think, just do it.

You're letting your interpretation of the phrase limit you. You don't "just do" anything. There's a built-in decision-making process to fighting; it's the very nature of the act to take in information, interpret and react with a judgment. A simple example is that you see an opponent favoring one hand over the other, you come to the conclusion that's his dominant hand and the one he's more likely to swing with and you know it'd be a good idea to keep an eye out for swings from that direction. But it happens so fast a lot of people don't consider it a kind of quick-wittedness when it really is. Mike would come at the more clever solution based on things like body language.

Be that as it may, I still stand by everything I've said so far.
EDIT: That can also work against you.
If you're expecting a right hook, a sudden change of tactic could easily throw you off guard.

This post has been edited by mAceOfHearts: 17 April 2012 - 08:54 PM

Jerk, on 17 April 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Christ, did you not pay attention to anything else I said? Or just that I thought we could just move on instead of the constant shitstorm of "You need tactics" "No you dont" "Why?" "Because". Sorry I look at all sides of the story, I could just be close minded if that better suits your needs?

"You validate my first quote in your second response by allowing my interpretation"

Actually, no, I didn't. My point was that is was possible, but mine was just as possible. Therefore, quick-wit is a better way to describe it, as opposed to "strategy." For example, she could have said "quicker" in replacement of either of those words, but that is vague.

"you assumed my application of the adjective would slow him down by interpreting it as something more elaborate than it really is"

Allow me to repeat myself, it is not a matter of it slowing him down. It is a matter of him never getting to that thought process at all. Also, it is less about me trying to be elaborate, and more about me trying to be specific.

"A better interpretation is that Paulo would try blindly swinging and that Mike would take it more as a martial artist in a way that would allow him to exploit the faults in his approach. I don't think either of you imagine it that way, though you probably should as it's likely closer to a correct interpretation of the circumstances."

Now this, I will admit, made me think for a few moments, but after a brief consideration, my feelings on this didn't change much. Chances are, the person swinging blindly is gonna win. Unless you have some sort of experience with fighting or you have been doing martial arts for a number of years, a bunch of fists flying at you will probably be superior to any amount of blocking or "quick-wits." Which comes down to what I said earlier, if Mike was to win, it wouldn't be for strategy or quick-wits or any of the like. He would win because he could simply take more, or he would react faster and quickly gain an upper-hand. Or maybe he would win because Paulo is really a pussy. It is all the same, really.

The fact is, there just isn't enough time for quick-wits to really make an impact here. Chances are, somebody would be on the ground in seconds. I doubt they would be duking it out like two pissed off high-school gang members that have been fighting their whole lives.

@ Mace: That tactical shift would be something you read in body language, and still comes back to quick wits.

@ Meowth: You say it's not a matter of it slowing him down, but you're still defining it as an action too slow to be of any use.

@ Smash: We don't have to be civil as long as we're contributing to the conversation, which is pretty interesting at this point. Your whining isn't doing anything but causing background noise. But you're right: I didn't read the rest of what you said. You have a valid point on the subject of the fight but not on civility. Aside from that one line, everything else is shit.

Jerk, on 17 April 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

The actual speed of the action itself is irrelevant. I'm saying there would be hardly any strategy or quick-wittedness going on. Mike and Paulo aren't exactly quick to start beating each other, so I'm sure if it happened, it is going to be an anger-fueled, irrational molestation. Probably a rather quick one, too.

This post has been edited by Meowth: 17 April 2012 - 09:17 PM

I'm saying it happens whether you think it does or not and that the clever aspect of it is so subconscious it's hard to even acknowledge that it happens at all. No matter how wild it is, they are going to read each other and act on how they interpret that movement in an attempt to knock the other out.

Let me rephrase this: would you not consider it quick-witted, clever OR strategic if Mike could read Paulo's body language, interpret it and react to it significantly faster than Paulo could do the same to him? Or in ways that allow him to maximize the damage in the trajectory of his swing? If you think about it, you know these are all things that happen in a split-second but still happen nonetheless.