BruceVC

I really think my posting etiquette is getting better....I think I'm far less condescending , you know what I was going to ask you? " Malc from the stories you have told me about your work its not the place I would want to work " But I see how that might be seen as rude and dismissive

Would you say you work in a company that has a good sense of ethos and decorum that resonates with the staff?

Dentists are just going to charge you money, you dont need to go A good piece of string tied to a door handle is the best way to remove problematic teeth

Er...to be fair, if God exists (and prohibits something) then surely His authority would actually be more important and relevant than any state or federal authority? Whats your personal view on this matter? Do you think she has a right to defy Federal law due to religious convictions ? Sure, I am well aware she doesn't represent the majority of Christians as it has been well established that the majority of Americans are supportive of same sex marriage and all the legal rights this gives couples

Good grief. Do you feel guilty Baro...this is what happens when you guys promote transgenderphobia

I wonder how many other rules that are in the bible she strictly follows. Scant few probably. Indeed, for example the old Testament says anyone who works on the Sabbath needs to be put to death...does she advocate the death penalty for people who work on a Sunday? Probably not I guess " Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. "

Hm. I used to be that annoying guy that would challenge christians on their beliefs all the time (a side effect of being one of the few atheists in a christian high school I suppose) and there was this one guy who I'm still friends with to this day because of a mutual respect in belief - he was always able to provide a satisfactory answer to everything I grilled him with and he grilled me right back (he introduced me to the convergent evolution conundrum). He's the only Christian I know that really knows his bible and really follows the doctrine of forgiveness rather than judgement, so I once asked him how it affects christians that gay marriage is legal. He pointed me towards Matthew 18:18 - "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (This specific quotation is from the New English Standard) The way he explained this verse (and several similar verses in Matthew) to me was that Jesus gave his disciples reign to make decisions about law, and if the disciples feel that law should be changed on earth then it will change also in heaven. Now, obviously he only had few specific disciples then but the common interpretation is that any christian is a disciple of Jesus, so the law has changed based on what christian society has accepted. It's why christians are now allowed to wear clothing made of two different fabrics, or eat pork, or don't have to stone their entire city to death if it has a single non-believer. If good people accept homosexuality (the law being a symbol of that acceptance) and homosexuals live good, full lives they will be accepted into heaven just like anyone else who doesn't follow archaic old testament rules. Now the jury is out on whether or not believers have accepted homosexuality, but considering the amount of christian homosexuals I'd say the silent majority has. To be fair, Matthew is also the book in which Jesus himself has a temper tantrum and kills a tree because it didn't happen to have any fruit for him that day. The entire book is nonsensical to me. Anyway, just thought it was an interesting perspective from the only Christian I have ever respected (not to say I don't respect Christians as people, but the only one I have respected in their belief). Personally, I think all those old school bible belt Christians who deny homosexuals rights should also follow all the other rules in their little book. Considering how many rules the good book has and how little of it gets followed, I'd say that 99% of them will be stoned to death within a week. I mean, if they find the rules of Leviticus to be so important, they better never have shaved because that book condemns that about as much as it does a man lying with a man as he does with a woman. I hope they've never eaten lobster or calamari. And if they ever, even once disobeyed their daddies? Stoned to death! The problem would solve itself. But I'm cynical. EDIT: It would be fun to get a tattoo of the specific sentence in Leviticus forbidding tattoos. Good post Something else I feel relevant to this discussion is that Christianity has generally always seen a separation between the church and state, at least in the last 500 years. So Jesus for example said " "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". The common interpretation to this is "people should obey the laws of the land...in this case it was the paying of taxes which some people at the time of Jesus questioned as why should Jews pay a tax to a foreign country " Muslim countries typically don't believe in a separation of religious and governmental laws, there religious doctrine is normally inextricably linked to how there governments function...which IMO is one of the huge issues why many countries in the Middle East are so conservative and have laws that many of us consider anathema

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/01/will-clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-court-ruling/ Here are some more details around the clerks view, what is particularly interesting is the text below “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage,” Davis said in the statement. “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience.” So for her she clearly feels she faces eternal damnation if she issues these gay marriage licenses...mmmm...

That's a reasonable and informative post, I get what you are saying So in this example she clearly feels she is being judged by a higher power do you agree she should then step down?

Interesting response, I never realized she can't be fired. What would happen to her if she was guilty of lets say theft or sexual misconduct? I understand that gay couples could just get married in another state, would you feel that is an appropriate solution if an African American couple were receiving really bad treatment at a certain restaurant and this was clearly due to the racial element. Would you feel the solution is also for them to just go eat at another restaurant ? I am not trying to catch you out, I am just interested in how a person differentiates between racism and homophobia. And I know you have liberal views so this isn't a personal attack on you

http://www.lex18.com/story/29929988/rowan-county-clerk-defies-judge-refuses-to-issue-marriage-license This story interests me, despite the US supreme court ruling that all states cannot refuse to provide marriage licenses to gay couples there are still some people in the US who refuse to abide by the law There primary argument is that it is against there religious belief, for example this lady in this example says she is refusing to issue the license under " the authority of god " ...she obviously feels this is more important or relevant than federal authority? So what do you think should happen to her and others who simply refuse to provide marriage licenses to gay couples, I say just keep it simple, you just fire people who refuse to do there jobs

Uh, you can a bit of decorum without being a tyrant. ...which isn't my point either. Being "offended" is a smokescreen for controlling speech no matter how you spin it. No its not that people don't understand, its your premise that is questionable You basically making excuses or trying to justify offensive\rude\crude\derogatory comments

Interesting, so you don't think his comment about...lets say the Mexican community are offensive? http://www.latinpost.com/articles/66043/20150714/rupert-murdoch-slams-donald-trumps-remarks-about-mexican-immigrants.htm http://www.latinospost.com/articles/65207/20150626/latin-celebrities-responds-to-donald-trumps-hateful-comments-about-mexican-immigrants.htm

Do you not think it is possible for a presidential candidate to have a honest debate without offending people ?

"Sins" eh? These people are really starting to be indistinguishable from old school right wing religious nut jubs. I suppose the point is the game is about oversexualization of characters and scenes...its similar to an accusation of objectification of women characters in a game Not sure how valid it is because I haven't played the game but it could be true ?

I don't understand your point and I think it looks interesting? Are you saying Destructoid needs to be more sympathetic towards Thompson health? And if so why should they ?

Wow...what a busy weekend. I was partying on Thursday and Friday with a girl I met. Then today I was suppose to fly to the coast for my Dads birthday but I was delayed at the parking area and missed the flight by 3 minutes....so I have changed my flight for 2 weeks time. Obviously I was disappointed because most of family would have been there but I will see them in 2 weeks Then my mother phoned to lecture me about not getting to airports in time and how I " need to sort my life out " and " how my dad doesn't have many birthdays left " (and they not even married ) This of course annoyed me as the reality is I am an independent, grown man who has a good job in the private sector, his own house, pays all his bills and has numerous SJ activities I am involved in...I don't think my mother needs to tell me about proper decorum She means well but in her world birthdays are REALLY significant ...well for me the actual day is not as important as time I could spend with my dad in two weeks Also there is this new video exposing "systemic racism in a certain South African university ". Its an emotional video but the conclusion now people are drawing is there is a " culture of prevalent racism in all South African universities and all White Afrikaans males are unrepentant racists" Obviously I can't accept these types of uninformed generalizations so I have been busy on various radio stations disputing this I would like to see if anyone can give me an opinion on this video and tell me what they think?

So who do you call the Nazi? Decisions, decisions ....people don't appreciate all the stress you under Volo

Really? I have admitted that my initial assessment of GG was wrong. I never understood the outrage from white, male gamers because I didn't understand how white, male gamers could think they were being victimized because in my world white, heterosexual males dominate most aspects of society But for the majority of people on this thread you guys aren't bigots, you are not sexist and you are not opposed to meaningful transformation in the gaming industry What really irks you is how this entire sector of gaming, white male gamers, has suddenly become " sexist, misogynists who lack a progressive view " ...this accusation has become the standard mantra of anti-GG and in many cases its unfair and doesn't represent the reality I realize that now, the reality being in its quest to achieve true equality anti-GG has in fact alienated an important demographic and created this environment where people have become intransigent on both sides. Anita and others mean well but I fail to see how attacking white, male gamers is actually helpful in the long term So maybe you guys think GG is about "ethics " amongst gaming journalists but for me that is just a distraction and for many people this is just a way to articulate there frustration ...but lets be honest isn't the real frustration this perceived invective and attack on white gamers from certain quarters? And I get that, who wants to be told they are bigots when in fact they definitely aren't So words like " harassment" actually are very relevant to the core debate we see as much of the protest from white, male gamers is a manifestation of understandable frustration at being told " you guys are the problem because you are opposed to transformation " I hope this makes sense

Guys this is a very important point, I hope everyone understands and recognizes its value And what value is that point, really ? Other than the usual ersatz wit. Still rather surprised that given how awful this harassment is, no one's killed themselves yet. Has been useful to elevate people's standing, so to speak, though. I have a better idea. Why deal with any of those things when we can fight windmills instead. None of them are fighting harassment and never were. And I don't think they care about it, the "fight against harassment" is just a tool. Well I hope you understand how utterly that's missing the point. Guys I am not going to get into another debate on this thread about why " harassment " is relevant and a real societal problem. I am too focused on RL issues of harassment which in almost cases come from a foundation of bigotry,ignorance and discrimination...and I don't think its necessary to raise why that is relevant I just will say this, for anyone who thinks " harassment " is a red herring when it comes to the Internet or for example how it pertains to GG or anti-GG seems to be missing a fundamental point The problem with the original Leigh Alexander article is actually a question of harassment ...you guys just don't see it. White, male gamers were harassed and vilified due to a certain narrative. So its ironic that some of you guys seem to dismiss this term when in fact you are victims of it Food for thought guys, food for thought

Guys this is a very important point, I hope everyone understands and recognizes its value

Sorry...its just some people really do believe that economic prophecies made many years ago are real. And I live in a country where that becomes a real part of the narrative...and its frustrating because in South Africa our economy is being impacted by the Chinese slowdown and there own economic issues and we should be discussing the real economic changes we need to make in South Africa and not relying on the " wisdom" of soothsayers

I reject conspiracy theorists, especially when the reasons for market fluctuation is clearly documented and understood Its unhelpful to say things like " there is a cycle of economic pressure on global markets which is known to people who follow Judean Calendars " The global economy is not defined and impacted by mysticism and superstition or the Illuminati, we cannot always predict market sentiment or how governments choose to manage there economies. So for example what is happening in China at the moment was not 100 % predicted but possible but it also isn't something that was inevitable For me its simple, you cannot prevent the free market from being the best arbitrator of determining the health of a countries economy. The Chinese still think government intervention in there stock market is a viable option to ensure sustainability. They seem to be now realizing this will not work in the long term

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-25/china-said-to-halt-stock-market-support-amid-intervention-debate-idr2sxku Here is a updated link to get an understanding of what the Chinese have been doing around intervention in there Stock Market