butterfly
-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by butterfly
-
-
I have all Yoko Tsuno comics.
Nah....thats Japanese child porn....remember we discussed this and I said it would be offensive in my country
Euh, Yoko Tsuno is a Belgian comic, not Japanese.
-
1
-
-
To be fair to Brimsurfer. The lead designer is an atheist with an interest in religion (specifically medieval christianity). I'm sure the writing staff included both believers and sceptics.
But I don't think the story is cliché, or biased towards atheism. Full disclosure I'm also an atheist.
I was actually surprised to find out "the gods are false" was just one of several story beats that got pitched; I'd have bet big bucks that that was one of the first things Sawyer came up with when designing this setting.
In the recent Fenstermaker interview. He states that the Gods concept was added in the last draft of the story, and since he was mostly writing that I'm assuming it was his idea. Altough one can't be certain.
-
To be fair to Brimsurfer. The lead designer is an atheist with an interest in religion (specifically medieval christianity). I'm sure the writing staff included both believers and sceptics.
But I don't think the story is cliché, or biased towards atheism. Full disclosure I'm also an atheist.
-
1
-
-
Yea and the game also states that even those religions were false..........and you are right in this game druidic faith is the same, as it also talks about believing in things other than deities.........
'Every force has an equal and opposite reaction', is my reaction to the game's story is really a bias to you?
The bias remark was just a jokey remark about your use of the singular for 'deity'. If you want to go in to it, even insisting that the 'divine' must be incarnated in some 'being' is actually biased. There are religions on our own Earth that don't do that.
And to be clear the game only has characters tell you they believed that they were false. Most of that story conveyed by two very biased people.
-
It also specifically says that even those gods very false.........
It really doesn't.
-
2
-
-
Where does it even hint that there might be an actual deity, in the whole game or even in lore ?
The evidence is about the same as in our own world? The game does state that before the creation of the new gods there were existing religions. In fact some of those may in fact still survive somewhere in Eora. Hell, the druidic faiths could be categorized as such.
Also 'actual deities', your own bias is showing.
-
1
-
-
I got this
Personality: INFP ("The Mediator")
Variant: Assertive
Role: Diplomat
Strategy: Confident Individualism
Which is not correct actually, the test put me as more feeling than thinking, and that's not even remotely true. I wouldn't call myself assertive either, but it's opposed by turbulent so maybe the word has a different meaning than usual? I think I usually get INTP on these kind of tests.
-
I'd give an example of the kind of loose and dangerous thinking that Monte is talking about - I assume.
A colleague who is perfectly smart remarked that he thought the Left had some good ideas. I asked for an example, and he said "Well, some people earn far too much money."
I agreed that some people do earn a lot more money than they know what to do with. I know quite a few, and grew up with more, thanks to my education.
However, my questions to my colleague were:
- How much is too much money? Precisely how much.
- How would one calculate how much money was too much money? And what powers would regulating it entail?
- Would the approach be magisterial, or legal? If legal, then how would you handle persons able to spend money to hire experts to explain why the laws didn't apply in their special case?
- Who would you pick to adjudicate and enforce the system? _Is it because you like them personally, and what would happen to people who don't know them personally?_
I'll continue the point if anyone's interested.
It's just a 'populist' framing of the problem that is indeed somewhat unproductive. The actual problem should be framed in terms of wealth inequality. i.e That the current wealth inequality is to great and growing and that a smaller gap would be better for society. Note that this doesn't advocate a state of no wealth inequality.
-
-
And once again even now the situation is not clear that the shooting was justified. People don't trust that the investigation was done in good faith and not without reason.
What people? Can you give me an exact estimate how much of the country thinks that?
The rioters just want to blow off some steam, break and steal some stuff.
politicians who directly benefits from stating that black minority is oppressed?
Come on.
If there is so much distrust in the whole police and justice system then USA have a real problem. When people back up criminals against policeman and judges it's just sad.
No I cannot give an
exactestimate, I'm not a polling agency. But how about the people who were protesting peacefully, how about discourse about discrimination going back decades. None of this is new.I haven't been talking about rioters. I don't have much respect for looters and vandals actually. When a large group of marginalized people get angry looting can occur yes. Saying that doesn't invalidate the issues nor is it defending rioting.
I think the point is the whole police and justice system in the USA does have real problems.
-
So what exactly are you saying? That most of black people in USA jails and prisons are innocent and as a result of oppressive system? Anything to back this up? Any proof that there is a higher percentage of black people being misjudged?
Well there is this piece by John Oliver on Last week Tonight. And once again you don't need to be innocent to be treated unjustly.
-
No one in this thread is arguing whether police acting perfectly lawfully in a scenario where violent criminals threaten their lives are entitled to use deadly force. That is not really what's happening here and elsewhere.
Well butterfly is arguing exactly that. That police shoots black people because they are white, and that every white policeman catching or shooting black people is racist regardless of what the black person committed.
I'm not arguing that police is not exceeding the law, ever. When they do, they need to be prosecuted for it. But the fact that white policeman shots black criminal is not a cause for prosecution.
I'm not. I don't believe Wilson is racist nor that he shot brown in cold blooded murder. I believe he probably wasn't thinking all that much. You seem to believe discrimination is something wilfully done by racist people. While that is sometimes true it mostly is a case of subtle unconscious prejudices shaping a policy that turns out to be discriminatory. Suppose that a police officer is 0.001 % procent more likely to judge a situation to be life threatening if the assailant is black. Now multiply that by thousands of incidents.
-
If you feel this is "turning things upside down" then you're not really getting this discussion, sorry to say. Everyone agrees that the criminal got caught and that the rioters are criminals. We're discussing why it's happening and what the implications of that is..
What? Please check what I was discussing with butterfly. We were definitely not discussing what you just wrote and my response had nothing to do with rioters.
Statistics are a little more complicated than "blacks commit more crime" - " more blacks get shot by police" = 1-1 =0. It's actually a very complicated problem compiling and analysing all the data.
You're caricature shows to me that you're not really listening. Law enforcement is more than "see crime, arrest criminal".
What i'm advocating is that when there are doubts about police behaviour, those are investigated thoroughly. And that people don't say, like you do, "oh a police officer shot a criminal, that's OK then".
And could you explain to me why criminals should never be defended from the Police. There are in fact many such protections enshrined in law, do you disapprove of these?
Let's not change statistics into rocket science. It's fairly simple if black people commit more crimes then white people then more black people gets arrested statistically. If this do not happen then we have a deviation from statistic and other factors are in play.
Where did I say that if there are doubts the situation should not be investigated? All I said is that white policeman shooting black criminal is not a reasonable case "because racism". it's like I said in the very first post the case is simple "was the shooting justified", the color of skin is not a factor in proving that.
Stop turning things upside down. We are talking about convicted criminals or criminals caught in the act. If the police do not exceed the limits of the law then I don't see any reason to defend them, especially "because they black, and racism" argument.
Everyone have the right for a lawyer in court that is obvious. SWJ defending criminals because of the color of the skin are not necessary.
Doing statistics correct IS a rocket science. How are you going to measure crime levels vs arrest levels. You can't use arrest levels obviously 'cause that would be circular. Data can be incomplete or manipulated. This link by example discusses the incompleteness of the record on police killings, with unjustifiable shootings not even being recorded.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/
An unarmed man was shot to dead at a considerable distance from the policeman who sustained no serious injury. How was this justifed again, and how is this it so clear that nobody could have reasonable even serious doubts about it?
I'm not DOING statistics. I'm using the ones already done, and comparing them.
You claim that police shooting black people are higher than shooting white people and that this is disproportionate. According to the statistics, it's not. If not on statistic then on what grounds you claim those things? Maybe back up your statement before attacking others that have solid grounds for theirs.
I don't know the specifics. From what info was published I see that the killed person was attacking the policeman. The situation WASN'T clear from the start and the policeman WAS investigated. So the doubts were cleared before the jury. Again the reasonable doubt wasn't the color of the skin of the policeman and criminal, but the shooting itself.
I've actually been looking for clear and concise stats to use here. I'm glad you found them could you please link the or give a summary.
Anyway here is a link to a story about disproportionately shootings of black people.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/police-shootings-michael-brown-ferguson-black-men
And once again even now the situation is not clear that the shooting was justified. People don't trust that the investigation was done in good faith and not without reason.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/allegations-of-police-misconduct-rarely-result-in-charges/
If this was an isolated case you're point about race not being an issue would be valid. But it's not an isolated case. You're not even saying that race doesn't have an impact , you're saying nobody reasonable could think it did. And sorry but that's just delusional because obvious a large group of people do.
-
Statistics are a little more complicated than "blacks commit more crime" - " more blacks get shot by police" = 1-1 =0. It's actually a very complicated problem compiling and analysing all the data.
You're caricature shows to me that you're not really listening. Law enforcement is more than "see crime, arrest criminal".
What i'm advocating is that when there are doubts about police behaviour, those are investigated thoroughly. And that people don't say, like you do, "oh a police officer shot a criminal, that's OK then".
And could you explain to me why criminals should never be defended from the Police. There are in fact many such protections enshrined in law, do you disapprove of these?
Let's not change statistics into rocket science. It's fairly simple if black people commit more crimes then white people then more black people gets arrested statistically. If this do not happen then we have a deviation from statistic and other factors are in play.
Where did I say that if there are doubts the situation should not be investigated? All I said is that white policeman shooting black criminal is not a reasonable case "because racism". it's like I said in the very first post the case is simple "was the shooting justified", the color of skin is not a factor in proving that.
Stop turning things upside down. We are talking about convicted criminals or criminals caught in the act. If the police do not exceed the limits of the law then I don't see any reason to defend them, especially "because they black, and racism" argument.
Everyone have the right for a lawyer in court that is obvious. SWJ defending criminals because of the color of the skin are not necessary.
Doing statistics correct IS a rocket science. How are you going to measure crime levels vs arrest levels. You can't use arrest levels obviously 'cause that would be circular. Data can be incomplete or manipulated. This link by example discusses the incompleteness of the record on police killings, with unjustifiable shootings not even being recorded.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-many-americans-the-police-kill-each-year/
An unarmed man was shot to dead at a considerable distance from the policeman who sustained no serious injury. How was this justifed again, and how is this it so clear that nobody could have reasonable even serious doubts about it?
-
I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.
Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.
Here is how I would describe.
1. Policeman shot a man.
2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.
That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?
The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.
As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.
The reason to involve race is the fact that when the police shoot and kill an unarmed man in the USA that person is disproportionately black. Like 21 times more than whites.
Ok, I should just make a funny comment about person being disproportionately black and leave it at that.
Instead I just ask: was those shootings unjustified?
Because if they were not then the race doesn't matter and the police should answer for unjustified shooting.
And if they were justified then sorry, but you are defending criminals.
Also, according to statistics black people commit crimes 21 times more than whites, so the proportion of shooting white crimnals to black criminals is anything but disproportionate.
Looking at isolated cases is very different from looking at patterns. Each case might look OK in isolation, but when taken in context there definitely is a problem.
You're insistence that race shouldn't be an issue is ignoring the pattern. I can understand that you think there is no problem, i can't understand that you think there isn't even anything to discuss.
Defending criminals is a totally OK thing to, they are people too. It's crime and criminal behaviour which is the problem.
There is no pattern. If more black people commit crime then more black people get shot during police intervention. If it was other way around then we could say about pattern or intentional shooting of black people. Right now the police is simply doing their job. What do you propose, they shouldn't catch black criminals?
- There is a shooting on Elm Street
- Copy that, we are on our way
- No, sorry false alarm. The criminal is black we passed the limit on black people, we need to catch 2 more white criminals before we catch another black.
This is what you advocating for?
Also, defending criminals from police is ok? Really?
Statistics are a little more complicated than "blacks commit more crime" - " more blacks get shot by police" = 1-1 =0. It's actually a very complicated problem compiling and analysing all the data.
You're caricature shows to me that you're not really listening. Law enforcement is more than "see crime, arrest criminal".
What i'm advocating is that when there are doubts about police behaviour, those are investigated thoroughly. And that people don't say, like you do, "oh a police officer shot a criminal, that's OK then".
And could you explain to me why criminals should never be defended from the Police. There are in fact many such protections enshrined in law, do you disapprove of these?
-
1
-
-
I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.
Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.
Here is how I would describe.
1. Policeman shot a man.
2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.
That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?
The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.
As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.
The reason to involve race is the fact that when the police shoot and kill an unarmed man in the USA that person is disproportionately black. Like 21 times more than whites.
Ok, I should just make a funny comment about person being disproportionately black and leave it at that.
Instead I just ask: was those shootings unjustified?
Because if they were not then the race doesn't matter and the police should answer for unjustified shooting.
And if they were justified then sorry, but you are defending criminals.
Also, according to statistics black people commit crimes 21 times more than whites, so the proportion of shooting white crimnals to black criminals is anything but disproportionate.
Looking at isolated cases is very different from looking at patterns. Each case might look OK in isolation, but when taken in context there definitely is a problem.
You're insistence that race shouldn't be an issue is ignoring the pattern. I can understand that you think there is no problem, i can't understand that you think there isn't even anything to discuss.
Defending criminals is a totally OK thing to, they are people too. It's crime and criminal behaviour which is the problem.
-
2
-
-
I find this protesters to be racists along with the media.
Why is there such emphasis on race? Stop talking about the race. The race of people involved is irrelevant.
Here is how I would describe.
1. Policeman shot a man.
2. Was the policeman justified by LAW to use such extreme method when dealing with a citizen.
That's it, that is all the story. Why involve race at this point?
The jury decided the policeman was justified. From all the info I got I think it was a right decision.
As for the protesters, well ******* always will look for opportunity for stealing instead of finding a decent job.
The reason to involve race is the fact that when the police shoot and kill an unarmed man in the USA that person is disproportionately black. Like 21 times more than whites.
-
For humans you will be limited to three in universe ethnicities corresponding roughly to white, black and mestizo.
-
Another kay-less kickstarter backer here.
-
He's also working on the FTL expansion, by the way.
-
1
-
-
Keep the system as is and rename stength to body/constitution/endurance. Problem fixed.
-
What effect would renaming a stat have on it's use in dialog checks. If we had to move a statue would you check the Power stat?
-
If I had to guess I would say the damage governing stat was power/might. Renaming the stat might however alleviate some of the dissonance people feel with Strength not governing damage.
I don't really mind the fact that the damage bonus is universal, it's elegant.
-
2
-
-
There's enough information to make solid predictions about some things. By example speculation about attributes working different for wizards than warriors doesn't jive with design philosophy they have maintained up till today. A wizard wielding a sword will get same boni from attributes as the fighter does.
There is however room to speculate about how important each attribute will be for each class or build. One attribute may increase accuracy but if you're build doesn't focus on hitting things it may be a bad investment, i.e a wizard specialising in aoe effects vs magic misile caster, a fighter focusing on controlling the battlefield vs damage dealer.
Soul two places at once WM1 Spoiler
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted · Edited by butterfly
Souls in Pillars of Eternity are like atoms in that they aren't atomic. Meaning they can be split.