BruceVC

That made me laugh " because it is unwise to risk the good we already have for the evil which may occur " Its really reassuring to see the progress we have made in society

Get them to buy you drinks? That way you don't waste any money

The fact that they are SJWs is not important. The corruption is the problem, and any group is capable of being corrupt. We've already made post discussing the christian game sites, and how we approve of their methods. This situation could easily be the reverse; where zealous christian journalists were the corrupt ones and it was the SJW game sites that are the admirable model. The 3? What are they; some kind of super villains in a western fantasy? These three are just anti-gamergate critics. Their only importance is what you give them. If we win; they can attack us all they want; after all, we will have won. The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalism; is the day I (and anyone reasonable) loses interest in gamergate. From what I understand it's why *most* joined, and it's the only cause that justifies the term 'gamergate'. If gaming journalism isn't the point of gamergate; don't you think it's a misleading term? Gamergate should NOT have a political agenda. Gamergate is first and foremost a consumer revolt. This isn't about politics, or social engineering. This is about corrupt gaming journalism, and how gamers are being mistreated by these websites. If fighting SJWs is your goal; go ahead and start a movement against them rather than join a consumer revolt about journalistic ethics. Also, if gamergate even does have a battle after we win this fight; cleaning up mainstream journalism would be a better net step than going after SJWs some more. Good post Namutree, you make your posts in a very convincing and reasonable way. I admire that character trait I am just surprised you are still part of GG as its already crossed that line you stated where you said "The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalists " There are many examples of this from certain members of GG Its odd you can't seem to see it ? So far no website has been boycotted for having SJW sympathies. If any ever do, or if the anti-SJW elements get out of hand; I'm out. So far though; people like Trashman are a small minority. So I don't think GG has crossed that line, or is even headed in that direction. I feel once we win this first fight; SJWs will be off our radar, and people like Trashman will need to find another bandwagon to jump on. Maybe they'll find a movement about father's rights and try to turn that into an anti-SJW crusade. Good points but there is already a concerted effort from some at GG to close down certain websites, like Gamasutra and RPS, by getting companies to stop advertising on them. We already saw Intel pull from Gamasutra. Personally I don't think this type of belligerent campaign will amount to much but you can't deny this is direct targeting of SJ friendly websites?

My advice is have a drink at the bar, its never to late to start drinking and I honestly think it will give you a more positive outlook on life

The fact that they are SJWs is not important. The corruption is the problem, and any group is capable of being corrupt. We've already made post discussing the christian game sites, and how we approve of their methods. This situation could easily be the reverse; where zealous christian journalists were the corrupt ones and it was the SJW game sites that are the admirable model. The 3? What are they; some kind of super villains in a western fantasy? These three are just anti-gamergate critics. Their only importance is what you give them. If we win; they can attack us all they want; after all, we will have won. The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalism; is the day I (and anyone reasonable) loses interest in gamergate. From what I understand it's why *most* joined, and it's the only cause that justifies the term 'gamergate'. If gaming journalism isn't the point of gamergate; don't you think it's a misleading term? Gamergate should NOT have a political agenda. Gamergate is first and foremost a consumer revolt. This isn't about politics, or social engineering. This is about corrupt gaming journalism, and how gamers are being mistreated by these websites. If fighting SJWs is your goal; go ahead and start a movement against them rather than join a consumer revolt about journalistic ethics. Also, if gamergate even does have a battle after we win this fight; cleaning up mainstream journalism would be a better net step than going after SJWs some more. Good post Namutree, you make your posts in a very convincing and reasonable way. I admire that character trait I am just surprised you are still part of GG as its already crossed that line you stated where you said "The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalists " There are many examples of this from certain members of GG Its odd you can't seem to see it ?

Yes I did and I don't think the judge is a complete idiot There is obviously evidence we don't know about that helped make the judges decision So nothing to see here Volo... "move along now " Holy BALLS dude you are impossible. Even if you wanted to disagree....I think a reasonable person would question the integrity of the article altogether if they wanted to disagree. You? You take an article that suggests NOTHING but complete guilt from that woman and you cling to the ONE measely defense she provided and - without evidence - proclaim it must be true. As someone who studied law, let me just say this: there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she should walk away without any charges against her. Even if we were to assume - for argument's sake - that everything she said is true and that he was guilty of domestic violence, this does not excuse the fact that she was willing to hire a hitman. They could and would both probably walk away with charges against them. What makes this worse is the 19 year old girlfriend of the guy and how she said it was no problem if she gets in the way and "gets taken care of" too. No first world country's legal system, no university and no practicing lawyer is going to tell you that this is not a clear crime. You cannot excuse potentially commiting 3rd degree manslaughter (at least in Germany) with "oh I was under stress from my abusive husband." That right there? Her defense would fall through and she'd still be charged with 3rd degree manslaughter even IF she managed to get away with killing him based on defenses of abuse causing fear and desperation. And while you may sit there and say "well the judge must know something we don't!!" ....Then why was the father given full custody of their child after the trial? That right there highlights how absolutely bats*** insane that trial is and how justice wasn't served. The legal system is typically bias towards mothers, so if a father gets full custody, there's a problem. If a father accused of domestic abuse gets full custody...? This is absolutely unheard of, and while the implication would be that he never actually commited any domestic violence, this does not explain why those very same claims played a meaningful role in her defense. Finally, her father was an accomplice in all of this and he wasn't charged either. Again, her father lacks the defenses she proposed and cannot claim duress. He was never put in a situation that would allow for that. And on the subject of duress, let's talk about duress. I looked up what duress might be under American or Canadian law. Let me clarify in advance that I'm by no means an expert of Canadian law and this is a lazy wikipedia quote. All I can say is I have needed to search for legal comparisons between German and American/Canadian laws in the past, and our systems often seem very similar in how we define things and in the past lazy wikipedia quotes have led me in the right direction: Kindly tell me how the **** she qualifies for any of those circumstances. Only one she addressed is step one. This court ruling has more holes than swiss cheese. It's shocking is what it is, I mean this is stuff that you'd learn in Semester 1 or 2 about; it SHOULD be basics. And yet it happened. What the HELL. I will definitely be consulting some lawyer friends of mine to ask if they've got any input into how this could've happened, cause I got nothin'. It seems 0% justified. My best guess...? They really should've just had him testify, even though they felt (and were right) that the defendent failed to make a case for duress. Ideally it shouldn't need to happen, but apparently the judge is an idiot who'll listen to any claim made unless a counterclaim is presented. PERHAPS the prosecution got really lazy, who the hell knows. Aside from this I just wanna say two things: 1) Let's not turn this into another gender issue. This does not mean women are overprivileged and get off scot-free in society and get special treatment. This? This means a judge needs to be disbarred. IMMEDIATELY. 2) Bruce, there was a time I did not understand the wisdom or true meaning of the phrase "if you're too open-minded your brain will fall out." Then I met you. I am going to repeat what I said earlier because it doesn't seem to resonate with anyone I am not a lawyer and I wasn't involved in the case. All we have from you guys as "irrefutable " evidence that this lady lied about the abuse she suffered is what this article says. This article is not the same as the court transcripts of the actual case so we don't know what the various judges found was compelling evidence that made them decide that she was the victim of abuse I'll repeat what I said earlier, the initial court ruling dismissed the charges. The appeal court upheld the verdict and then the Supreme court decided she had suffered enough and decided to stay the proceedings and that basically exonerated her If you think that all these various Canadian institutions somehow overlooked vital evidence then you should post those links outside this article and you should be suggesting that the judges of all 3 courts that came to the same conclusions need to be disbarred But this is not a GG article that is based on emotion where I'm just going to agree that this women "definitely planned to kill her husband for money and there was no abuse " because I have more faith in the Canadian legal system and there interpretation of the evidence than I do with people on the Obsidian forums. Sorry but that's the reality of dealing with these types of events in RL

I'm surprised you have such contempt for the Canadian legal system. Two courts held the same judgement that she was a victim of sustained abuse and then the Canadian Supreme Court decided she had suffered enough and ordered a stay of proceedings, effectively exonerating her from these charges Yet you and others think all this other evidence was somehow overlooked and she " wasn't really a victim of abuse ". Wow she must be really clever to con the entire Canadian legal system so thoroughly....at least you guys can see it And people think I'm arrogant

That's why there is a "Like" button, I suspect. True that can be used in some cases but the emphasis is not the same especially if someone asked you a question that someone else responded to

So we shouldn't discriminate pedophilia, necrophilia etc.? Those aren't defined as sexual orientations, but more types of sexual aesthetic preference/attraction (similar to preference towards thin/larger individuals, or specific skin or hair color). Pedophilia is also categorized as mental disorder as pedophilic acts cause harm. Necrophilia is seen socially unacceptable because it is seen to be disrespectful for the death and their families. Nothing more to add, Elerond has responded accurately and reasonably

Yes Volo, I know charges were filled. I meant to say " the charges were dropped " And I support the idea that it is quite possible for a man or women to be driven to the point where they could want to hire a hitman to kill there partner. They do this because of the cycle of abuse and fear and divorce is just not an option

Interesting, that's some tough eating goals you have set yourselves especially if you use those things regularly I assume this is for weight loss? Do you both want to lose weight and what exercise are you incorporating into your health program? No changes in exercise. It's not specifically to lose weight, although that will most probably be a side effect. It's just a thing we wanted to do. We both know that we would not be able to fast for real, so we at least agreed to try something and we ended up with this. But why do you want to do it, there must be some objective or reason?

Yes I did and I don't think the judge is a complete idiot There is obviously evidence we don't know about that helped make the judges decision So nothing to see here Volo... "move along now "

Speaking of death threats, I was on my way to do groceries today, and I heard a conversation between a grandpa and a 6 year or so old little boy today. "Grandpa?" "Yes?" "I'm going to shoot you dead." "Oh, oh. That's... nice." They should arrest the little bugger. But that kid needs some lessons on acceptable public statements? I never use to say things like that at that age, just the thought I could shoot my grandfather dead would be inconceivable ?

Interesting, that's some tough eating goals you have set yourselves especially if you use those things regularly I assume this is for weight loss? Do you both want to lose weight and what exercise are you incorporating into your health program?

Except when you debate with SJW and feminists they generally have the moral high ground even if sometimes there intentions are misplaced Bull, Morals concern itself with righteousness which most people regurgitate the words of others with the hope that their digestion will be consumed by others. They have no idea what the moral high ground is because most people never had their morals challenged; specially those that come from echo chambers(from both ends of the spectrum) Also, who cares if they hold the moral high ground, moralist would reject a tracheotomy on the basis that is harmful when they know nothing of what is trying to accomplish. Imbeciles with self righteousness are more dangerous than those without, because they spread their stupidity. And when they enable some other law that's going to be abused by the "fairer" sex because of it, it will bring feminism closer to its self fulfilling prophecy. Is bad enough that men aren't getting married, now it seems they have to be pushed away from relationships and casual intercourse. Sure I can agree that people sometimes claim to have moral superiority but in fact they are just trying to enforce some kind of outdated dogma that is actually conservative in its belief But I'm not talking about that kind of perspective when I say SJ high ground. I mean when people say " a person should not discriminated against because of there sexual orientation"

This... No words. Only silence. I'm not shocked, it appears the husband was a violent and abusive man. No wonder no charges were filled against his wife?

I'm aware that's how you feel, thus Also, I wasn't trying to tell you they have different ideas that you think are wrong, I was trying to tell you your use of moral high ground was flawed, and that you description of how you expect us to feel about debating with sjws is like exactly the same as our description of how we expect you to feel debating about Africa, thus Volos statement is extraordinarily true and sensible. You are confusing my view on SJW to what the issues are that Africa faces, they are very different. The only thing they have in common is that some of the steps Africa needs to take are related to widely accepted SJ values Things like you cannot have a president for life. Two terms only The AU ignores its own charter when it allows member countries to flagrantly disregard certain parts of the charter, like not respecting peoples sexual orientation. We see appalling homophobia in certain African countries. How can we take the AU seriously when it cannot even follow its own rules? I can name many more issues but I think you get my point

This is a good video and an interesting response to that other video Is this proof that guys also get harassed? Or is this making another point ?

Except when you debate with SJW and feminists they generally have the moral high ground even if sometimes there intentions are misplaced I'm not so sure about that... Well think about it, most of the time the criticism against SJW is that they are only looking at one side of the debate and trying to implement change is society when its not necessarily relevant. Its not suppose to be malicious ? Having the moral high ground means being morally superior to their opponents, they don't need to be flat out malicious to not be better than the people telling them to go to hell. You could probably also say the exact same thing about the people you were debating with, I highly doubt they seek to destroy Africa, I just think they have different ideas on how to improve it than you. True, they do have different ideas. But that doesn't change the fact there ideas are wrong

Except when you debate with SJW and feminists they generally have the moral high ground even if sometimes there intentions are misplaced I'm not so sure about that... Well think about it, most of the time the criticism against SJW is that they are only looking at one side of the debate and trying to implement change is society when its not necessarily relevant. Its not suppose to be malicious ?

Just watched episode 3 of American Horror Story, it was very good. Especially the Edward Mordrake character

Wow that's an excellent link, it really makes you even more excited especially when you consider all the possible party interaction

Except when you debate with SJW and feminists they generally have the moral high ground even if sometimes there intentions are misplaced

Volo you keep saying " equalism ", whats the difference between that word and gender equality ?

As I mentioned before I love your lifestyle and the environment you live in, " listening to the coyotes" I have a real picturesque view of where you stay. I can still imagine you saying " and then huckleberry sailed past me on his raft looking for further adventures down the great river "