BruceVC

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/17/politics/north-korea-donald-trump/index.html I may not be too fond of Trump but North Korea officials criticizing him is ....laughable and hypocritical

What an insufferable a-hole. It's basically him saying "I don't like what these people are doing, so let me sink down to their level and wallow around." I'm 100% positive that is a ridiculously dumb tactic and will only make things worse. Take the fricken' high road. You obviously didn't watch the video to completion, or what Whittle ultimately said is very lost on you. I watched to the end and it just gets more difficult to watch ...for example what difference does it make if someone doesn't know who invented the jet engine?I didn't know that and so what,...does this make Bill Whittle clever than me and somehow a better person ? Why ..because I dont know some historical fact like that? *sigh* The point is that he uses the very same logic these bozos are using against them and thus showing how crypto-racists the SJWs really are with their compartmentalization of culture and race. So what is the example that SJW are using that is the equivalent to " who created the jet engine" ?

But even in Bioware games, and I've played and participated in almost all Bioware Romance games except for DA:I ( havent played it yet ), the Romance options are still optional and not intrusive...meaning if you don't want Romance you just ignore those choices during the dialogue I still find hard to believe you guys can have such a serious contention with them...I would understand if Romance was forced on you in the game ? In their last three or four games BioWare's romances have been very intrusive. Off the top of my head, DA 2 and Mass Effect 3 actually force you into romantic dialog even if you've barely spoken with characters (DA2 Anders tries to hit on you five minutes after meeting you, and every ME3 who is romanceable will eventually ask you if you want to go out back for a quickie). DAI companions don't try to corner you like DA2 and ME3, but still managed to be even worse because while not romancing anyone all the party dialog while you're just walking around is about how horny all the companions are, and that's not hyperbole. I honesty didnt have that experience with Romance being intrusive I always follow Romance arcs but they with characters that I feel some connection to like Isabela, Viconia,, Ashley Williams, Fall from Grace or Annah ( and the last 2 weren't a real Romance arc) ..so I never Romanced Anders but in the beginning of DA2 he started flirting and I just politely explained it wasnt going to happen ( I cant remember the exact options but thats more or less what happened and yes I did play DA 2 a while ago so my recollection may be incorrect )

What an insufferable a-hole. It's basically him saying "I don't like what these people are doing, so let me sink down to their level and wallow around." I'm 100% positive that is a ridiculously dumb tactic and will only make things worse. Take the fricken' high road. You obviously didn't watch the video to completion, or what Whittle ultimately said is very lost on you. I watched to the end and it just gets more difficult to watch ...for example what difference does it make if someone doesn't know who invented the jet engine?I didn't know that and so what,...does this make Bill Whittle clever than me and somehow a better person ? Why ..because I dont know some historical fact like that?

What an insufferable a-hole. It's basically him saying "I don't like what these people are doing, so let me sink down to their level and wallow around." I'm 100% positive that is a ridiculously dumb tactic and will only make things worse. Take the fricken' high road. I also find the video racist ...he makes some very concerning comments and generalizations about " people of color " as he calls them. He goes on and on about what hypocrites SJW are and he throws around the terms " cultural appropriation " and how serious accusations of this is in society....and then his example is the white guy being criticized for dreadlocks? That video looks staged to me ..like the people are actors Sorry Vals but unless I'm missing something this video is going to be another one of your videos that I will moving to my list of " offensive and unhelpful "

Guys you mustn't be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more memorable Also isn't Romance optional? Romance? Never said anything about romance. This will be the first IE game I drop. Mainly because of the developers' overbearing arrogance, snickering attitude and slight disdain for the whole thing. It's as if they're too old for this stuff, and can't be bothered to take it seriously anymore. I was chastised a year ago on the PoE boards for praising Trent and his EE series. Obsidian fanbois told me he was a hack cashing in on the IE series. You know what? They were right. I know my $20 won't be missed as they'll probably cash in on this travesty anyway. If only they lost a bit on this, they'd realize they can't take a dump on the customers and still make money. It's not a big deal. I was hoping for a little IE snack, instead I am to be schooled in liberalism by leftist US activists who suddenly feel the Scandinavian Bern. Someone once called me a socialist nincompoop. I must say I find it a bit amusing to hear him support some bra-burning socialist. Maybe he has a heart after all. I apologize , I misunderstood your view around Romance and some of your criticisms towards SOD

Guys you mustn't be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more memorable Also isn't Romance optional? Romances in a pick-one-out-of-a-lineup does not add realism. The only video game romances I've ever seen actually work were the kind where you aren't playing as a blank-slate character and all cut scenes are cinematic with no or little player input. Such romances can be good or bad, just like a movie romance, but when the character is entirely left up to player control and there's a list of a dozen girls, guys, aliens, and poorly rendered giant grey gumbies not only does it not feel realistic, it also feels pandering, lazy, and like a porn game they put a handful of combat scenarios onto last minute. (And yes, I'm digging on BioRomance.) But even in Bioware games, and I've played and participated in almost all Bioware Romance games except for DA:I ( havent played it yet ), the Romance options are still optional and not intrusive...meaning if you don't want Romance you just ignore those choices during the dialogue I still find hard to believe you guys can have such a serious contention with them...I would understand if Romance was forced on you in the game ?

I'll be honest, I normally dont buy games that are either set in respects to the narrative before a previous game or in the middle because for me I know how it ends, I much prefer sequels because the ending is unknown But I think I'll be supporting this game exactly because I feel much of the criticism is unreasonable and driven more from emotion due to certain design choices than logical and objective

Guys you mustn't be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more memorable Also isn't Romance optional?

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species. A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua. When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre. Some dogs certainly do appreciate symphonies. One of mine loves classical music, not so much most other music. The other isn't really phased either way, at least not obviously, other than I can tell he'd like me to turn it down sometimes. My mother has a dog that absolutely loves to watch TV. Dogs aren't going to write them though, you're right on that. But neither will the vast majority of other humans out there. Also, hypothetical symphony writer might be an all around ugly human in every other way. Some dogs have abilities humans do not, and vice versa. And as for providing insight into the nature of reality, one of my dogs did once, though not in a manner where he said 'yo Vals, here's the thing'. I learned something important by watching him. One can learn important things by watching people, animals, and other things, then reflecting. Truth is, the vast majority of people are just as incapable of providing me with any more insight on reality via conversation as my dog is. Humans are not equal. That's a culturally Marxist aberrant contortion of the idea of equal rights under the law (something I agree that humans should have). Dogs are not equal either. Both species comes in all shapes, sizes, levels of intelligence, qualities of being, etc.. Some dogs should be put down. So should some humans. At the very heart of the definition of a 'stranger' is one does not know what one is dealing with. And when one does not know, humans on average by far pose a greater potential threat than dogs on average. So, in light of that, in a generic situation where I'm faced with saving 6 strange humans or a dog I know, I'm more than likely going to go with the dog I know. It'd really be a situational thing though. It'd have to be a judgement call on the fly, and perhaps said strange humans might give me a compelling reason where I'd want to save them. I can also say that I'd probably save one strange human over six strange dogs, though again, I'd have to be in the situation, and read the individual as best I could as well as the dogs. I may try and save everyone, but as I said in a previous post, depending on the situation, I may try and save no one. There is no self loathing involved in such thinking, at least for most. On the contrary, self love and self preservation are likely involved in such thinking for most. Valuing individuals of one species, particularly one where a relationship exists, over individuals of another, where a relationship does not exist, is not the same as valuing the whole of one over the whole of another. You're making a correlation where one does not exist for most. Also, you're a fool if you think that dogs are as simplistic as plants, or equate much to them. There might be some individuals that do, as there might be some humans that do as well, but overall, no. And that said, there's been studies that show apparently even some plants like music. This is an interesting post and I agree with some of the points you raise

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not This sort of statement causes me to reflect on what has gone awry with our species. A dog will never write a symphony, let alone appreciate one. They will never provide insight into the nature of reality. Its capacity to produce, appreciate, and relate are so comparatively inferior, yet somehow humans will frequently elevate them beyond their own kind. I don't understand this. Dogs have been selectively bred for social compatibility with humans for hundreds of years. Their affection has been cultivated the same way grapes have been selectively evolved by humans for enjoyment. Pinot Nior vs. Sauvengion Blanc. Doberman vs. Chihuahua. When people start valuing another species more than their own--let alone something as simplistic and inferior as a dog, I begin to suspect projection of a cognitively dissonant self-loathing. Somehow tossing human survivors overboard to their deaths is a sane statement, yet making an equivalent statement like, "I would murder half a dozen innocent sapient beings and feed them to my demonstrably inferior emotional toy should I deem it necessary" would be considered psychopathic. Bizarre. I dont know dude, dogs may not be able to write a symphony but they also not condescending, unfaithful, cruel, malicious or judgmental? You dont think that is a fair trade?

Yeah, thats probably the best way to determine peoples intentions I very much appreciate the potential lost in translation aspects of text. However, If sarcasm/satire/humor wasn't gleaned from the link I provided, I deem thee immeasurably dense (no sarcasm here at all). Vals thats NO way to make friends

Yeah, thats probably the best way to determine peoples intentions

I'd probably be inclined to kill the other 6. The dog is one of my own, they're not I'm glad some people are saying " they would save there dog ", its not a ridiculous question as there are numerous examples of people leaving there inheritances to there pets and not to any members of there families. I'm fairly sure people who would consider there pets more important than there families would definitely throw a stranger out a boat instead of there pets http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/stories/pets-that-inherited-a-fortune http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11354682/Woman-leaves-1m-to-pet-dog-in-will-instead-of-her-two-sons.html

Good insights GD In my experience people tend to equate human thoughts and why humans behave a certain way to the way any animal reacts or responds to a situation Even though there often are perceived similarities in behavior an animal thinks like an animal and we think like humans. And its different

I can only throw one person overboard? Come on man, me and Doggie will have a much better chance with just the two of us. You make me laugh " I can only throw one person overboard "

I noticed that...certain explicate words were blocked out. I assumed it was just a South African thing but I also noticed you did sometimes hear the f-word so the censorship wasn't comprehensive

Here is another question you guys can ruminate on, in SA people love there pets. In fact many people will say they care more about there pets than some human beings as people on this thread mentioned . In SA a common criticism you hear is " people spend more money on animals than addressing the appalling levels of poverty ...its immoral " Personally I dont like to pass any judgement or critique on peoples attachments to any animal....its there business and even if I may not sometimes understand the bond some people have with animals thats fine..I dont need to understand it. If it makes them happy thats all that matters But now the hypothetical question.." a ship is sinking and you and 6 strangers are in a lifeboat with your beloved dog. The lifeboat cannot carry all the weight and its your choice who gets thrown overboard. Your dog who you truly love or one of the strangers. Who do you throw overboard" So the question aligns to the whole " is the life of an animal ever worth more than the life of a human ? "

Tell that to the thousands of pregnant women who have Zika and either do have babies with birth defects or whose babies may have birth defects Here is some information on the virus http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregnancy/question-answers.html To a degree I was jesting. I had hoped that was obvious. That said, I don't really consider the CDC all that reliable a source. They've cried wolf far too many times, have been caught falsifying studies, done more than their fair share of just plain evil, and are way too politicized to be a reliably believed. I very much support the scrapping of the agency all together. My bad, its hard for me to determine when someone is joking without an emoticon..so I normally assume people are being serious unless its someone like Oby Did you not click on the link I provided? Yes I did but as you know one of the symptoms of Zika is malformed heads So I thought you were just making light of the whole Zika condition

Wowzers but Magicians is getting good, I know its not many peoples preference but episode 13 rocked Summoning of deviant and depraved gods and the initial realization of who The Beast is makes this series gripping stuff and exciting

Tell that to the thousands of pregnant women who have Zika and either do have babies with birth defects or whose babies may have birth defects Here is some information on the virus http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregnancy/question-answers.html To a degree I was jesting. I had hoped that was obvious. That said, I don't really consider the CDC all that reliable a source. They've cried wolf far too many times, have been caught falsifying studies, done more than their fair share of just plain evil, and are way too politicized to be a reliably believed. I very much support the scrapping of the agency all together. My bad, its hard for me to determine when someone is joking without an emoticon..so I normally assume people are being serious unless its someone like Oby

This is probably old for most people but it made me laugh

Tell that to the thousands of pregnant women who have Zika and either do have babies with birth defects or whose babies may have birth defects Here is some information on the virus http://www.cdc.gov/zika/pregnancy/question-answers.html

In South Africa we have 9 main African tribes and each tribe has its own king who are subsidized by taxpayers money, I dont mind paying for there lifestyles because for many black South Africans there kings are part of there culture. Many people in SA both white and black think the concept of taxpayers paying for kings is outdated and a waste of money but for me as I mentioned if its of cultural importance then its fine Anyway the Zulu king represents the Zulu people who are one of SA most important tribes, unfortunately he is notorious for saying embarrassing things and he doesnt always understand he needs to realize his words can influence people and he fails sometimes to take responsibility for his words, for example http://www.npr.org/2015/04/26/402400958/south-africas-xenophobic-attacks-vile-says-zulu-king-accused-of-inciting-them This lead to an increase on attack on black people from other African countries living in SA which we call Xenophobia He probably did say something like what you mentioned which is ironic because he lives in a life of luxury but more importantly what he is saying is factually inaccurate and doesn't represent the historical reality of the country as during Apartheid only white people and the tribal leaders, like the Zulu king, benefited economically or had respect or rights under the law So most people just ignore a person, whether they black or white, who thinks things were better under Apartheid....they could never be realistically better because only 10 % of the country lived under a semblance of a normal life So in summary despite our current social, political and economic challengers things will always be better than the Apartheid days

One of my brothers was married yesterday so I flew to the coast on Thursday to attend the gathering, my brother decided to get married in court and skip any religious ceremony but we had a great long lunch at at restaurant that overlooks the beach called Bel Punto ..so of course the general scenery during lunch was amazing http://belpunto.co.za/ I had rabbit for my main meal and it was prepared the Sicilian way as the owners are Sicilian by heritage. It was delicious as was to be expected. We consumed loads of alchohol and the whole day was really memorable I'll be staying at the coast till Sunday and I plan to catch-up with some friends and go on a drive through the Midlands and have lunch later today at some rustic farmhouse restaurant So its been a good weekend