Orogun01

We'll continue the Girl's thread to honor your memory.

Speaking as someone who's had his ass handed to him a few times, physical strength is great bonus but it doesn't even compare to keeping a cool head and keep thinking. Above all that there is willpower, just the fact that you have made the choice beforehand to not give up no matter what makes a huge difference.

You just noticed that? Also, tiny pictures.

I think that this is a very difficult question to answer. Though to even attempt to answer it, I think, it needs to be presented as a possible problem (which is what I feel the study does). You'll get people that run with it one way or another. As for the validation of the "patriarchy," it's just one of those terms that also gets used in a variety of ways. The wiki definition of the term is pretty simple: "a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children." Looked at in a historical context, I don't find it too much of a stretch to see that that was the reality in a lot of places. Titles tended to be passed down to men, men were the only ones that could vote/own property, and so forth. I think it's gotten a lot better and much less explicit. Studies like this one examine "are there still latent influences that come from that that in general can compromise women?" Figuring out specifically what those are, is pretty hard. But then you'll get some that I think go way too far, such as that one person linked not too long ago that considered any sort of vaginal sex to be rape and to be a way that men subjugate women, but that I feel is too extreme and undermines a lot of other feminist perspectives (specifically, sex positive feminism). I probably identify as a feminist now, although the irony of it is that I do so more because the extreme "MRA" types pushed me away from their perspective more than feminists drew me in (it all started with the Anita kickstarter for me, actually. Before that I didn't really give it much thought at all). I never really became interested in the MRA platform but I was too keenly aware of the fringe elements of feminism, maybe I would be more receptive if they cleaned house and stopped selling academic concepts as current facts.

There's still some issues (I don't know about nursing, specifically) in some situations. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full Nice read, still I would had liked if they had gotten to the bottom of what their bias was specifically. Hopefully an increase in professional women on the workforce will overturn some of these opinions. Although I have a problem with studies like that, not with the study itself but with the fact that it may end up being used as proof of something delusional as a Patriarchy.

I wish your optimism was contagious; I actually think that if she didn't bother to contact the artists and ask her permission she mustn't had much respect for her. Or it could be that she just did a google search and grabbed something convenient (seems like that's her MO)

I think the fallacy is applied pretty generally across humanity, rather than to any particular side of a particular group. Like I said, just an opinion but in my experience I seem to observe that it is used more by those who assume to have the moral high ground.

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal. I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks. Woah...Columbine and Newtown never happened? It's easy to tell those who lost family, it never really happened...right? The important thing is, we can all go target shooting. That's what matters. It seem like recently an appeal to indignation has become a common tactic among social crusaders, even when it is completely misused they just seem hopeful that their opponent will be shamed into submission. Just my opinion. You are still showing an immense bias towards gun owners, reducing all of them to a few (yes, school shootings are rare you may had more luck trying to put gang violence as an example) disturbed elements which are in no way representative of the majority of gun owners. Can't you really come up with a reasonable argument against gun ownership that doesn't demonize gun owners?

That is an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. So far the only major groups campaigning to change gun legislation are the ones either for gun control or for making them illegal. I have never seen the NRA or any other pro gun group clamor that they would like to have nukes. Despite the stereotype most gun owners are not insane rednecks.

Here's the thing, are male nurses payed more than female nurses? The way that feminists word their argument would make it seem so, they seem to willfully obscure the fact that the so called gender gap is across different fields. Anyways, happy women's day and whatnot.

That in no way seems to be a retort of the point I raised; the gender pay gap is due to women choosing safe jobs instead of the high paying ones. We had one for men a long time ago, it died soon and didn't get a revive due to lack of interests. Maybe you would care to open one for ladies. Also, what's so wrong about objectifying?

Didn't we already have a thread proving that that statistic was bogus? Also what's the verdict on Insidious, real person or just another elaborate troll?

Not to the common man whose interest in a medium is just for entertainment's sake, but to the professional who needs to understand good from bad there are must. This is true for every field, whether is fashion or sports there are certain "musts" that a professional needs to be aware of, even if they don't like them. On the subject; I would also say that Gears of War and Halo should be considered a must (even though I dislike them) even though the mechanics they spawned are still being used. Namely; cover shooting and regen health, hopefully those two will become a thing of history soon.

I think Way of the Samurai is a perfect example of how to do non linear story in a single setting.

I been mulling over for while about what games should be considered a must play for game developers and aspiring game developers. I think almost everyone has an idea of what good games they like to consider, but I'm actually looking for technical reason why a game is a must play. Every film student is shown certain films that have become considered classic due to the same reason, I'm hoping this will be the game equivalent of that. Example: Shenmue changed the adventure genre by introducing free roam and QTE combined with action combat. Disclaimer: The games mentioned on this thread(the ones that meet the criteria) will likely end up on a list that I may use in the future as reference for good game mechanics and design.

I had Lords of Shadows (the first one) on my back log for quite a while and decided to give it a finish. I can say that if the second one has the same director as the first I won't be getting it. I have never seen a game be so dragged down by terrible design choices. That game should be a study case of what happens when bad choices ruin what could had otherwise been an enjoyable experience.

It's a problem with most game trailers these days, especially the big title ones. It's like they're advertising a movie, not a video game. What's the difference these days?

I think you're missing the point entirely, some people don't like competing against real players they want a experience that has been crafted for enjoyment not competition.

That's a good thing.

I'm sure the one below is doomsday, the one above seems to be a different one.

Wouldn't they be held liable financially (through fines) had they released it? Or worse.

Ughh, katanas. Posting superior girl with blade

I would counter that by saying that doesn't justify vigilantes shooting people in the streets. It's a matter of perspective, ain't it. I think you're confusing perspective with speculation; what we are doing is speculating, what your perspective *is* is actually quite subjective. For example, I know that the rates of vigilantism are not higher than the crime rates, I know that most people who carry concealed do not go around looking for criminals. But it seems that you believe differently.

The hypothetical situation that you mentioned fails to address the fact that: One, if the criminal succeeds he will continue to commit crimes. Two, that the criminal might not be inclined to let witnesses live. That situation could easily be a robbery in which 3 bystanders were killed by a gunman who feared recognition

I think there is a major misconception that civilized and peaceful somehow equate with defenseless.