BruceVC

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military. That Reuters article is a blatant lie. Vals thats a very serious accusation you making. You realize most people would need more evidence from you to believe it?

Community Colleges are colleges that 'service the community'. This may mean a wide degree of things, but typically they offer associate level collegiate degrees and various amounts of community/career enrichment courses. They are usually open access - particularly to those within their community. With the proper accreditation, an associates degree from one may serve as the first two years of a baccalaureate degree. The objection to the idea as I understand it is based on how it'll be paid for (federal taxes). These views are very interesting and they may have changed my initial point Are you saying that end of the day the majority of people who go through these colleagues don't end up really benefitting from them because of the subpar education and there attitude? So they effectively don't get a proper degree or they just don't complete the degree therefore making it useless?

The USA never left Iraq. That's a myth. We're sending a whole bunch more troops later this month to that place we supposedly pulled our troops out of. The USA isn't leaving Iraq anytime in the remotely foreseeable future, any more than it is leaving Saudi Arabia anytime in the remotely foreseeable future. It's quite dug in. Now this could be an interesting debate and I would like us to have it The Americans left Iraq and effectively ended their military contribution in 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218 Yes there were private contractors still doing some military work and of course some business partnerships but officailly the USA left Iraq If you don't agree they left in 2011 then can you explain exactly why you don't accept that ?

Guys I'm going to be honest I am missing what the objection to this idea is. I have tried to understand it but clearly I'm missing something..but I need to ask a very relevant question and then I'll make my main point Are these Community Colleagues the same as university? In other words you need at least your grade 12 and then you basically get a degree at the Colleague ?

In my experience its just a cynical expression. "Oil" usually representing a variable material interest. Hahaha. Come on Baro, lets try to be reasonable now Of course every single country has there own self-interest in mind when they act in the global arena But my issue is there seems to be no positive recognition to the decisions made by Western countries when they intervene in other countries affairs when the reality is its more effort for them, in other words it would much easier to not intervene I can give plenty of examples but lets just discuss one, when the Yazidi where trapped on that mountain in Iraq ISIS was quite prepared to commit genocide against them. But the USA intervened and broke the siege and allowed the majority of the Yazidi to survive. Do you really think the USA wanted to be involved in Iraq again? Of course not, this was a humanitarian mission because the reality was no one was really prepared to commit military resources unless the USA did ? Do you not think the USA deserves some credit ? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/40000-iraqis-stranded-mountain-isis-death-threat http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/20/world/meast/isis-violence/index.html

Well if every single time the West intervenes in any conflict and the reason that people give is "its because of oil " then you need to question that logic ? I have acknowledged before that certain interventions were based on economic interest, like Iraq, but sometimes the reason for intervention is humanitarian or because there is a real threat or military justification.

Serious question, how do you deal with kids that are ok with murder? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338842/Paris-attacks-Two-worlds-collide-on-street-where-terrorists-lived.html This article highlights a real social problem that many European countries are grappling with. In France you have groups of Muslims who don't feel part of mainstream French culture and feel alienated from French society despite several opportunities presented to them There is also an effective campaign of propaganda from the likes of ISIS that resonates with many disenfranchised Muslim youth, they believe that the West is truly involved in a crusade against Islam. Even this article they talk about the anger that 60 years ago 200 Algerians were killed by French police. But during the Algerian civil war several hundred thousand Algerians were killed by extremists...where is the criticism about this violence? So whats the solution? I suppose you have to work harder at getting the message across that France wants to integrate all its citizens into its society. But to be honest this will only work for some. Other people needed to be arrested and or killed as they won't be prepared to compromise But this anti-Western sentiment from the Muslim communities within countries like France really does only represent a small minority of the overall Muslim community so we shouldn't see this as a social crisis. Im confident most Muslims are very happy living in France and being part of French culture "A muslim cannot feel welcomed in a non-muslim society. If the society has the same values as islam, then the muslim will feel welcomed" <-- Arguments like that are thrown around everyday. But my point is that how do you deal with neighbourhoods where people think murder is justified when insulted? How do you deal with such alienation on a such a profound level? I sure don't know. Well no Western country will ever have the same values as a country that for example is in the Middle East because Western countries are Democracies and practice freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I don't think most Muslims expect that from Western countries, I'm sure they are aware of the difference between France and lets say Saudi Arabia ? But yes if you read how that teacher was treated in that school, its very worrying and I would think the solution has to come from within the Muslim community. Its up to the parents and respected members of the Muslim community to get the message across that France is not " un-Islamic " and French society is not your enemy? But I agree its a tough one to try to convince people who want to kill there teacher for asking people to have one minute of silence

I would love to believe that I can understand how frustrating it must seem for some European countries, all these immigrants arrive and start living off certain social services. They initially get supported by tax paying citizens of a country. Then they get jobs and start contributing towards the economy....but then you see incidents like this Paris shooting where you see all this vitriol and hatred directed towards the country that basically gave them a home and livelihood. So you almost want to say " why do we even bother letting in people who just don't appreciate what they have " But we do live in a global world and places like the EU have fairly open borders for certain citizens so you can't really stop the movement of economic migrants..and thats what most of these immigrants are . They are looking for economic opportunities, we see this in South Africa all the time with many foreigners who come to South Africa looking for work from places like Zimbabwe and Mozambique So I still think the likes of Paris shooters represent a small part of the overall French muslim community as we can see from the Unity march and the condemnation from almost all mainstream Muslim organisations in France

Serious question, how do you deal with kids that are ok with murder? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338842/Paris-attacks-Two-worlds-collide-on-street-where-terrorists-lived.html This article highlights a real social problem that many European countries are grappling with. In France you have groups of Muslims who don't feel part of mainstream French culture and feel alienated from French society despite several opportunities presented to them There is also an effective campaign of propaganda from the likes of ISIS that resonates with many disenfranchised Muslim youth, they believe that the West is truly involved in a crusade against Islam. Even this article they talk about the anger that 60 years ago 200 Algerians were killed by French police. But during the Algerian civil war several hundred thousand Algerians were killed by extremists...where is the criticism about this violence? So whats the solution? I suppose you have to work harder at getting the message across that France wants to integrate all its citizens into its society. But to be honest this will only work for some. Other people needed to be arrested and or killed as they won't be prepared to compromise But this anti-Western sentiment from the Muslim communities within countries like France really does only represent a small minority of the overall Muslim community so we shouldn't see this as a social crisis. Im confident most Muslims are very happy living in France and being part of French culture

The oil fields of Nigeria are no where near the areas that Boko Haram operates in. Also you do realize that the USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil and natural gas http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html This is a big problem for conspiracy theorists who will now need to find new reasons for justifying Western intervention because the whole point " the USA only intervenes when there is oil " becomes a moot point

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. HA! Good Fun! But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail? am trying to get You to explain in more detail. why is the conflicts in sub-saharan africa... different. you has, in the past, applauded western restraint in those geographic hotspots that had potential to become more serious conflagrations. please note that Gromnir is not actual advocating use of military force. that being said, we wishes to know why your pov regarding the possibility o' a western military solution in sub-saharan africa is different than other geographical loci o' conflict. HA! Good Fun! Okay but I'm still not clear on what conflicts in sub-saharan Africa you are talking about, can you be more specific? I have always supported Western intervention in certain conflicts, like Libya. But what I don't support is the AU doing nothing about real African issues, like Ebola and Boko Haram, and then waiting for the international community ( which translates to the West ) intervening to implement a certain change or prevent a humanitarian catastrophe

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. HA! Good Fun! To be honest Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram have been two of the most difficult, dangerous and disruptive military threats to the African region that the continent has probably seen in decades. These groups don't threaten the sub-saharan region so there seems no real interest from SADEC in trying to resolve these issues, despite the fact that this is indeed an AU problem and this shouldn't be seen in just a regional context But to answer your question there are countries in the sub-saharan region, who do have the financial means, like Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa who could contribute meaningfully towards an AU military mission or help to establish what has been called an African Reactionary Force where all countries in the AU would commit resources. This reactionary force would be used within the continent to address African conflicts, this would mean that the AU is not dependent on the UN funding or Western troops to supplement any AU force But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail?

There are plenty of very well informed, objective gaming websites. RPGCodex for me would be great but there is a lack of moderation. Too much free speech and offensive comments for someone like me RPS and Gamasutra offer excellent gaming insights. Despite what people will tell you they aren't "hardcore " SJ websites. They have the occasional article about SJ issues but there information outside of SJ issues is vast and relevant Gamebanshee, still one of the favorites. Very gamer focused and balanced articles

Thats interesting, I was always under the impression that death was inevitable in Project Zomboid. But it seems like you have found a way of long term survival ?

Mmmm....no I wouldn't say so. Romance can possibly be part of a story as your Romance arc can influence a characters actions but I don't consider the act of sex as part of the story? Its more a component of Romance

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram

As difficult as it is to believe, there are some of us who are immune to this series' charms. (I think Shamus Young encapsulates my feelings on The Witcher perfectly) With so many "old school" RPGs being released, I have little desire to play some heavily-actionised AAA RPG, especially one that embodies almost everything I hate in fantasy settings. That was an interesting read but very critical of the Witcher games in all aspects ?

This is a very insightful post. It soberly and accurately captures the current state of GG

Please show me a textbook from the 50s that says Africa never had it's own civilizations. I've got an encyclopedia from the 50s sitting a room away that's got all sorts of information on African civilizations. Vals stop nitpicking, he isn't being literal

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think? Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive. However. First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not. And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong. Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational. Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop? Questioning stops usually when answers are found. If answers are not found a question generally remains open. Have you ever stopped questioning why you're on planet earth? Or perhaps you've never questioned that? For those of us who have tackled that age old unanswered question, the question generally remains open within you unless you've found an answer. Some out there accept the answer to that question from others on faith, while others do not. This is just one example, but it's basic philosophy and applies to pretty much everything. You right, I'm an agnostic and often I question and want to understand creation and evolution and our purpose on earth. Its interminable the questioning as I obviously can't just accept things on faith, sometimes I wish I could but I just can't But if there was a finite answer I wouldn't question it anymore. And for somethings there are finite answers. For example " did Germany lose WW2" ...as far as conventional understanding goes the answer to this is an emphatic "yes "...why would you still question that?

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think? Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive. However. First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not. And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong. Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational. Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop?

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think?

I really don't like this post I'm trying to come to grips with what its exactly that I don't like about it. It may be the holier than thou tone of taking the moral high ground (correctly, I may add) on the discussion while committing the hypocrisy of failing at its own standard. I don't know who you are in RL Wals, I don't know if you actually are doing something to end global terrorism but even if you did that wouldn't a reason to shame others for their choice. I don't like to push onto others things that I wouldn't carry myself and so I tend to look upon that kind of behavior badly. I'll chalk this up to a bad temper due to a horrible situation, but I don't think shaming people in forums makes you a bloody hero either. Sorry if I offend. Geez dude, thats quite a guilt trip you putting Walsie on there I didn't think you played the " guilt trip " card, thats more a SJW function

Oh you must be relieved, you have found a justification to also jump on the " lets ignore BruceVC on this thread bandwagon " And the reason, well its very serious. He used the word censorship in the wrong context !!!! I meant to say you are avoiding/boycotting/ignoring certain websites and that means you aren't getting a balanced view of certain topics. Exactly how I cannot explain to you properly about removing the hookers in GTA, you don't understand my reason and you refuse to read the link which explains the point But I get thats not really important to most people on this thread, whats more important is a medium so you guys can vent and express outrage. But you aren't really interested in dissenting opinions, which is why you will notice that very few people outside of the normal contributors are active in this discussion But at least you found a way to ignore my posts, that pesky word " censorship ", well done Listen closely, because I am only saying this once. I do not appreciate that implication in there that I am somehow hypocritical because I am now censoring you, so here's some education: If I decide to not respond to you, but leave your posts intact, that is a boycott. If I were to remove your posting ability, which is actually well within my powers, then I would be censoring you. I would never, ever censor your opinions or those of anybody else here - I am only here to enforce forum guidelines, and in fact I am going to be letting other mods handle the occassional beef with you from now on since my extreme frustration with you constitutes a serious conflict of interest - but that doesn't mean I have to take them all seriously. As for jumping on a bandwagon, I believe I started the bandwagon since we had this discussion before. I can find the posts where I resolved not to speak to you on this subject three months back, if you want. I just changed my mind because I felt bad about ignoring you since I believed you were discussing this in good faith. Clearly, that was a mistake. It has nothing to do with your opinions, I can respect some of your opinions. In fact, I'd be the first to admit that most prostitutes are, in fact, victims of society. You don't even know how much you are understating some of that when you claim that legalizing prostitution would solve the problems. It's legalized here, but at most it mitigated some of the problems. A large share of "legal" prostitutes in Amsterdam here are foreign women who were lured here with the promise of a dance career and forced into prostitution by circumstance or threat. Not to say that it isn't a huge improvement, most of them get healthcare and fewer have drug addictions and in fact the lion's share of prostitutes are in there by choice (though whether they like it or not is up to them). You assume I, being a part of "you guys" as if we were a single unit, disagree with you on everything and that simply isn't true. Also, I read that article two threads back when it was first posted as an archived link and in fact the two of us discussed it then. At length. Again, you can literally look back and find the posts. I wasn't even participating in this discussion about prostitutes in GTA this time around since we already had it, literally you and me. In fact, we drove around in circles about it several times. We discussed the idea that adding male prostitutes might be a solution, though that probably would just add gay-bashing to the list of complaints since male prostitutes mostly service men. We argued about how GTA is an exaggerated representation of US street crime and for it to be so prostitution is a neccesity. We bandied back and forth if being a "victim of society" was a worthwhile reason to censor them in art as street gang youths are just as much victims of society and you could say that soldiers are victims of society and their PTSD means that any war game would be insensitive on the same grounds (thinking about it, war games have been shown to help soldiers deal with PTSD and there is a correlation between video game sales rising and crime rates dropping so until we have more information, the logical conclusion would be that censoring any of these could be harmful to society rather than beneficial). You didn't agree with some of the points I made, though you conceded on others yet you are making those same points again now. I am not interested in dissenting opinions? You've literally said "I haven't thought about it that way" on some of the things you said then and yet you're back now with the same points still not having thought about it, instead derailing the thread to make the same points again and again and again. It's not your use of the word censorship. It's the fact that we've explained how you're wrong about what is or isn't censorship a million times in long, drawn out discussions and you simply do not care. It's not any of your opinions that are the problem, it's your debating style, memory span, manipulation and all around acting on bad faith. There is simply nothing to gain from discussing with you. I might as well try arguing with Oby. Do you not see how frustrating you are being that in almost every thread you participate in a lot people eventually decide you are a troll that should be ignored? This thread isn't even the worst one, as it's not about RPG romance. I consider Longknife to be one of the most interesting of the newly active members, even when I disagree with him (which happens plenty of times) his posts are always interesting and he puts the sincerest effort into it - he just had the same breakdown I had with you three months ago - a breakdown of frustration because you ignore everyone that puts effort into their posts in favor of engaging with Volourn. Just three days ago, you told me "you made good points, I'll respond later since I have to respond to these other people first" and you have yet to do so. I haven't been counting, but thinking back there were at least six other instances of you doing this to me alone, and you have done it to other people too. You never end up responding to what you consider to be "good points". There's also the use of "you guys", implying this is some sort of echo chamber, when not three pages back you liked one of my posts for disagreeing with someone else here. We're constantly arguing amongst ourselves, about whether femfreq should be ignored, about how much of feminism is toxic and how much of gaming is toxic, whether male privelege is or isn't a viable reason to discount male opinions, about whether the latest GG scandal is worth attention or not, even about why we are in this (I am in it for free speech, others for taking down specific targets that offend them, and still others just hate hipsters from San Francisco and want to rant on the internet). The reason very few other people participate in this thread is because they a) don't care that much and b) they always stop by making some wild accusation, of course the pro-GG people will defend themselves. When Tale did it, I gave his arguments the time of day and responded in great detail, did I not? I responded rudely when he started in a rude manner, but once he decided to actually argue his points I respected his opinions and gave my counter argument and I'll very much agree to disagree and I've been proven wrong on certain issues in this thread and conceded several times. I am not discussing the prostitutes in GTA now and your link isn't relevant to me also because I don't see the point of discussing it with you again. What is relevant is pointing out that GG is a consumer boycott on moral grounds at it's very core and your response is "psh it's easy to make an exception, your boycott hasn't done anything anyway". I'd hate to see you actually champion a cause you believe in if that is your attitude, you'd give up in a day. Which seems about your track record, anyway, considering how highly you seem to value the victimhood of prostitutes when your male urges come a-knocking. If it's so important to you that we read that link, we told you exactly what you had to do: Provide an archived link. In the amount of time you spent writing posts about it since, you could have done that a hundred times over. It's obvious you do not want anyone to actually read the article, you just want to derail the thread (since this is the umpteenth time you posted the same article) and you find your hook to do so by judging us for not doing it on your terms. But here's a newsflash, your terms are not more important than a legitimate consumer boycott. Judging from your posts, you seem to have less respect for people using peaceful consumer means of protest than you do the people who harass, as at least you recognize their dedication. Why would I waste my time on you if you can't even respect any of my (or Nonek's, or kirottu's) peaceful means and aren't willing to use a minute of your time making an archived link? There is no reason to engage with you. There is no point to it. There is nothing to gain, nothing to learn and no way to convince you since you conveniently just forget when you changed your mind. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - I'm done. I should have stayed done three months ago. When Zorapter or Hiro or Longknife say you're a troll, a couple of months ago I would have disagreed. I enjoy some RPG romances and agree with the vast majority of SJ causes (if not the toxicity of a lot of the groups that espouse it) and because of that I'd never been on the receiving end of your bad faith, manipulative style of debate. Now? None of those guys would be able to convince me that someone else is a troll. You did. Especially when you started throwing around "whore" as a derogatory term to try and troll Volo where you perceived his weakness to be - female loved ones. You aren't here in good faith, you're here to get a rise out of people and I commend you because you're very effective at it. Thanks for explaining, I do appreciate the effort you put into responses. I dont agree with certain things you said, it would be a very different discussion if you had just said in the beginning " I've read this link " but you insisted on me either explaining it to you or posting it under the archive link I also told you I did use the word censorship in the wrong context, but you still feel the need to explain it me again, as if I still don't know what the word mean But anyway lets just move on now, I have no issue if you dont want to debate with me on any topic, thats the beauty of the of forum where we have free choice of who we speak to

What the **** are you talking about? The ancient Egyptians were as African as you can get. They spoke an Afro-Asiatic language which is distinct from the Semitic branch (which developed in the Middle East), which can be said to be wholly African in origin. The Carthaginians were Semites though, you are correct on that point. The highlands of Ethiopia is a site where you can find very ancient evidence of agriculture. It would be completely wrong to say that "civilization never developed there". And this is without delving into the civilizations which has existed at other points in time in Africa. Sure, they might have been a few hundred years behind, but it would be contradictory to not call it "civilization" since that would pretty much disqualify a great deal of other cultures I'm betting you define as "civilized". If you are interested in anthropology and the rise of civilizations I recommend the book "Guns, Germs and Steel". European civilization has only been prominent for about 400 years. The Romans and the Greeks had their time but it would be deeply unfair to say that they were clearly above the level of the Persians and the Chinese (for example). If things had turned out differently and the Chinese would have come to Europe instead of the other way around, they would also have described European medieval history as consisting of ridiculous and pointless tribal wars, religious superstition and so on. It is only because of our subconscious image of civilization that we regard living in a house of stone as inherently more civilized than living in a "hut" as you implicitly mean to say is so uncivilized. Sure, but how this is relevant to the current state of Africa? I hear the perspective often on this radio talk I participate in " Africa use to have very advanced civilizations ", I agree with that, its part of the history of the continent. But how do we get the AU to realize that the only way to uplift the continent meaningfully in an economic and social way is for the AU to actually enforce its own policies, like no fraudulent elections and no abuse of human rights that is given tacit support by many African countries. Like the rise of homophobia we see in certain African countries? Its great that Africa had previous civilisations but how does that help us now?