BruceVC

You sound like a Neo-Nazi Jadedmeister, are you a Neo-Nazi? It wouldn't surprise me considering how much you hate minorities and don't want them to be represented in games

I've decided to treat myself today and get an Eisbein for lunch, I know its unhealthy but I have been fairly consistent at gym so it should be okay

Says who? I know several Christian churches that openly allow gay people as part of there congregation. For them the most important message in the bible is one of peace, being a good person and loving your neighbour. They don't practice intolerance They may not be intolerant, but the religion is. Christianity is very clear on homosexuality; it is forbidden. As I already said though; the religion is dying so it doesn't really matter. Sure I hear you about parts of the bible that clearly say " homosexuality is wrong " but there are also parts of the bible that say "slavery is fine " and " anyone who works on the Sabbath must be killed ", it doesn't mean modern Christians follow every part of the bible. Many churches use there own interpretation for certain things IMO there is no reason this same understanding can't be applied to the view on homosexuality? In other words its fine if someone is gay despite what the bible says?

Yes, if there's any information on mainstream Christian groups wanting to kill homosexuals, I do want you to post links, since that is what you implied. Obviously, you can find any kind of lunatic on the internet, like Westboro Baptist Church. I take that back, I used the wrong words. Certain mainstream Conservative Christian groups in the USA don't say " gay people must die". I apologize for saying that. But they are brazenly and vociferously opposed to homosexuality and consider it an aberration. So they encourage homophobia as they refuse to accept it as part of the normal Christian lifestyle. And as I mentioned this is not all Christian groups in the USA Homosexuality can never be a part of the normal christian lifestyle. Christianity is on it's way out though so it doesn't really matter. Says who? I know several Christian churches that openly allow gay people as part of there congregation. For them the most important message in the bible is one of peace, being a good person and loving your neighbour. They don't practice intolerance

Okay I see what you are saying, well what's interesting is there many expats that work in Middle East companies and in senior positions. I have several good friends who are in 5-7 year contracts in the ME

I'm not getting your point? Etihad is the airline that flies from Abu Dhabi, its a excellent airline and very well priced. Are you surprised an Italian would work for a Middle East airline?

Yes, if there's any information on mainstream Christian groups wanting to kill homosexuals, I do want you to post links, since that is what you implied. Obviously, you can find any kind of lunatic on the internet, like Westboro Baptist Church. I take that back, I used the wrong words. Certain mainstream Conservative Christian groups in the USA don't say " gay people must die". I apologize for saying that. But they are brazenly and vociferously opposed to homosexuality and consider it an aberration. So they encourage homophobia as they refuse to accept it as part of the normal Christian lifestyle. And as I mentioned this is not all Christian groups in the USA

These are probably the same people pushing for governments to have Haram and Sharia laws within the countries that they emigrate to. You could imagine the issue of they take to stoning homosexuals. Christianity is not under scrutiny because is mostly flexible, even the Pope has changed the stance on homosexuality and Muslims seem still stuck to the "Let's do Holy war" stage. If these men are truly the moderate ones I would say that Islam still has about 100 years of evolving to do. I agree with almost everything you are saying. The one issue I have with some Muslims who immigrate to Western countries is that there is an expectation of certain religious rights. Now Western countries generally respect religious freedom but as someone who travels to the Middle East for work I can promise you that there is almost no religious freedom in those countries and your demands for such freedom will be generally ignored And finally I understand why some religions have certain conservative views, like considering homosexuality a cardinal sin. I don't necessarily expect those religions to change but they also mustn't try to force that view on people that live in Western countries who are tolerant of human rights like your sexual orientation

Also what you guys need to understand is that the purpose of this particular conference we are seeing in the video is misplaced IMO The speaker is trying to make a point that in Western countries we object to what we consider " radical or fundamentalist " Islam . So he is saying " you guys are normal Muslims and you believe that men and women need to worship separately ". So now that most people in the room would obviously agree with that he is making the connection " so who are these so called radical Muslims that Western society talks about" But he is misunderstanding that the main objective to fundamentalist Islam is not the fact that Muslims believe men and women need to worship separately but rather the violence that gets perpetuated in the name of Islamic by groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda Also there is a valid argument that if you live in Western countries you need to respect there laws which generally protect human rights like your sexual orientation, so there is a reasonable view that if you live in a Western country you are entitled to practice your religion but you also need to respect the laws of that country and this can create a dichotomy within some Muslim communities as they grapple with the interpretation of there faith within the boundaries of the laws of that country

No evidence, or evidence you intentionally ignore? http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/canadian-pm-blasts-cair-ties-hamas There's much more about CAIR on that website. If you claim that's a widespread believe among conservative Christians, you better back that up. Come now WOD, there are Christian groups in the USA that believe that the earth is 6000 years old. I'm not trying to attack Christianity but people often say " look how radical Muslims are" . But to suggest that there aren't radical Christians with very conservative views is just not true. Radical elements exist on all sides of aisle, do you really need me to post links around blatant homophobia that exists in the USA due to religious belief?

To be honest its not such a bad video and I think you have misunderstood the context, obviously the conference was held because Sunni Muslims in Norway are concerned with the characterisation around the word "extremist " that they feel they are being labelled in the same way that Al-Qaeda is. What you need to realise about Muslims is that they take the Koran literally, so for example if you ask a group of Muslims in a mosque " do you believe in this part of the Koran" of course they will say "yes " which is exactly what happened in the video But there types of response is no different to conservative Christians in some parts of the USA, they also believe for example that homosexuality is mortal sign that can never be forgiven and that gay people should be killed

Well get better and I hope its nothing serious

@ Sensuki I've said this before but the commitment that you and others have shown towards the PoE franchise is nothing short of very admirable I will be very surprised if anyone at Obsidian doesn't think that end of the day your intentions and efforts are really to make PoE a better game for everyone Now we just need to you make a few new videos explaining and highlighting how important a Romance implementation will in the PoE 2 and you will truly be my hero

The Hitlers? Did some one make a bunch of Hitler clones? That's not good. I don't know what the expectations are for citizens in Canada, but here in the US a mugging is everyone's business. Not sure how that would apply to conflict between nations. Funny enough I do share Volos view on this The reality is we live in a world where despite the best intentions to want peace there are countries and organisation that believe a military option is the best way to achieve a certain result. And if you believe that then you need to accept that there are countries that will need to be prepared to intervene to prevent this. Now you may say "yes that's fine but the USA should only get involved militarily if we are attacked directly " but that's just not realistic if you think of the political alliances like NATO that the USA is involved in and its responsibilities to its partners in certain regions

But you need to consider the context of what he is saying and the quotes he uses from social media. The comments from some people are appalling and deserve the title 'troglodyte " Its the constant crude sexual attacks that gets to me with references to Zoe. I don't think anyone on this forum would ever say that is acceptable

You make some reasonable points in this post, nice one

You did call it, you little prognosticator you

Okay so you really feel that the most powerful and influential economic and military country in the world, that can intervene in a particular conflict to prevent something like a genocide, should just allow the genocide to happen? What if USA economic interests were threatened in a conflict, so for example American corporations like oil companies would be effected if a conflict was allowed to continue. Would you support military intervention then because you are concerned with the economic impact ? The US should not be determining who wins and who loses in the world. Nor should we even have the worlds largest military. Why do we need it? It's just a big waste of resources. Even if it were free; it's unseemly for a capitalist country to have such a military. I would prefer that our military reflect our best ideals. We should never partake in the offensive use of force. If they don't attack us; we shouldn't attack them. If the US's economic interest are in danger; oh well. Profit does not justify violence. I will not support any US action outside of our borders unless we have been attacked. I believe America can better influence the world by creating a good example to follow. Not that changing other countries is a concern of mine, but if we MUST do something; I'll take the peaceful route. You make some good points, I understand what you are saying even if I don't necessarily agree with it

I am watching the results on Sky and its official, Scotland will stay part of the UK. I have to be honest seeing some of the No voters in tears due to the relief creates an emotional experience. You can't help but feel really happy for them

I haven't played this game yet but I am liking what you are saying about it

Good point raised about being "weak " rather than broke But here is a consideration and its more about the humanitarian imperative. If you go back to the Rwanda genocide and a way through intervention that the USA could have intervened militarily to prevent that would you say they should have ? And I don't mean boots on the ground, nowadays military intervention can be about airstrikes, drones and special forces like we have seen in Libya and the campaign against ISIS So in other words the financial cost for the USA to prevent that type of genocide is relatively negligible We live in a very flawed world, but it isn't our job to fix all the ills in the world; especially since our intervention tends to create new problems. I would not intervene in foreign affairs; even in cases of genocide. That would be beyond hypocritical considering our own history. We aren't the world's police. We don't have a right to dictate certain outcomes outside of our borders. Boycott is as far as we can ethically go in terms of shaping the world. I will not support anything beyond that. Okay so you really feel that the most powerful and influential economic and military country in the world, that can intervene in a particular conflict to prevent something like a genocide, should just allow the genocide to happen? What if USA economic interests were threatened in a conflict, so for example American corporations like oil companies would be effected if a conflict was allowed to continue. Would you support military intervention then because you are concerned with the economic impact ?

Okay look I am trying to be more understanding towards the offense you guys feel around how you feel gaming journalists have treated you But I'll be honest I am battling with it for two main reasons You guys have never cared about gaming journalists before and what they thought. You guys have always basically felt that gaming journalist are corrupt and there opinions don't matter. In the past I have used various gaming websites as a source of information and been told " LOL...why would you take that website seriously " I have been told numerous times that words don't matter on the Internet and people musn't get offended and people must grow think skins. How many times have I posted links about bigotry on the Internet and expected people to be horrified and the normal response is "its the Internet, deal with it" So I see a weird inconsistency with how some of you apply this feeling of being outraged, and I don't understand it. Maybe you can explain to me now why there is such discussion about what gaming journalists have said...surly they are just words that can be ignored?Comprehension isn't your strong suit. 1. There has always been a distrust of gamnng journalists, see doritopope. The difference between doritopope and catching a journalist having a personal relationship with a developer is that there wasn't a concentrated effort by the whole of gaming press to deny corruption and silence/discredit detractors after one of those instances. 2. There is a difference between "I0wnZU" the anonymous douchebag making empty threats and harassing someone than game journalists using their press as a means to attack people. One is an anonymous being that you can not stop or even identify, the other is in a position of authority to ok influence and inform. Reading about what a terrible misogynist dinosaur gamers are from a gaming website is going to carry a little more weight and authority than some anon in a CoD match calling me a **** bitch and informing me that he would like to **** my fat pimply ass after he uses up my dirty whore mother. Well I am trying to comprehend your perspective but as I said I am finding it inconsistent. But thanks for responding. In response That's a fallacy, no gaming journalist is saying there isn't an issue with the gaming journalist industry. Even the cracked article you posted mentions this. But once again the point is that the focus around this corruption is on Zoe Quinn and her sex life instead of the real issues, see this link from 2012http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/ There was very little said about this type of issue in the gaming industry, in fact it went under the radar without you guys giving it a second glance Okay the whole "gamers are white, male misogynists " insult from gaming journalists was a badly conceived marketing strategy which seems to have done more harm than good in the greater cause of gender equality. I don't see it like that but I accept that you guys see it like that. Point taken Zoe Quinn's sex life brought attention to this, but to claim that it is the central focus is wrong. People aren't trying to shame her because she cheated on her boyfriend, they're upset that a gaming journalist was having a relationship with someone who the site he worked for covered. Even if he would've never wrote an article even mentioning her, the fact that there is some relationship between a journalistic entity and a subject they are supposed to be covering creates a potential conflict of interest. The focus is not on Zoe, it is on Gaming Journalism. Okay fair enough, I am surprised that's what you genuinely feel. But I am not so arrogant to tell you what you should be thinking. If you say to me this is really about corruption in the gaming industry and the whole Zoe incident was just a catalyst to effectively raise awareness then I believe you Its interesting because we see this whole furore from a very different perspective. I don't really care what gaming journalists say about me. They are just gaming journalists who comment on a recreational hobby of mine. All I care about is there opinions on games. I am much more concerned with RL issues around societal discrimination and bigotry. So the way Zoe was treated is more relevant to me than the perceived corruption within the gaming journalist industry But I respect your opinion and what you consider is important around this development

Just to be clear do you mean feminists like Anita or gaming journalists and there stand on this whole issue?

That's not possible and its not something we actually want from a Western perspective because despite the fact that some countries criticize the USA for imperialism and "interfering in there sovereignty " the world expects the USA to get involved when it comes to perceived military action. Just look at how "weak " Obama has been accused of for not attacking Iran and Syria IMO its important that the USA continues to provide the military capability to intervene militarily in various conflicts because there are valid cases for it. The world expects us to intervene all the time because we do. If we didn't; that expectation would disappear. Some people have accused Obama of being weak, but they're fools. It's not true, and even if Obama was "weak" I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I'd rather be weak than broke. The level of military spending we do isn't sustainable, and I'd rather we get out of this terrible business of intervention sooner rather than later. Good point raised about being "weak " rather than broke But here is a consideration and its more about the humanitarian imperative. If you go back to the Rwanda genocide and a way through intervention that the USA could have intervened militarily to prevent that would you say they should have ? And I don't mean boots on the ground, nowadays military intervention can be about airstrikes, drones and special forces like we have seen in Libya and the campaign against ISIS So in other words the financial cost for the USA to prevent that type of genocide is relatively negligible

Okay look I am trying to be more understanding towards the offense you guys feel around how you feel gaming journalists have treated you But I'll be honest I am battling with it for two main reasons You guys have never cared about gaming journalists before and what they thought. You guys have always basically felt that gaming journalist are corrupt and there opinions don't matter. In the past I have used various gaming websites as a source of information and been told " LOL...why would you take that website seriously " I have been told numerous times that words don't matter on the Internet and people musn't get offended and people must grow think skins. How many times have I posted links about bigotry on the Internet and expected people to be horrified and the normal response is "its the Internet, deal with it" So I see a weird inconsistency with how some of you apply this feeling of being outraged, and I don't understand it. Maybe you can explain to me now why there is such discussion about what gaming journalists have said...surly they are just words that can be ignored? It bothers me because I could have never imagined the extend of their influence, it bothers me because every reputable website is printing their side of the story. Even though by the own admission there was no story and only ran after they became the target. It bothers me because on the face of so much corruption there are still people nitpicking about the matter, saying that this isn't like Dorito-Gate or that this is just how things get done. It bothers me because this has actual repercussions that are clearly visible and everyone is ignoring it. For me this is something from a conspiracy movie, because I've seen how most of the events went down. I've shown interest since day one and now I'm seeing how they get to write the story and keep on doing the same ****. If there was a moment to oust them and to bring some measure of dignity to the field it is now. So you might say that i'm a bit more emotionally invested than usual as I consider this to be important. I'm sure you know how that's like. Good post, and I do understand what its like to be emotionally invested in a particular topic. That's how I feel about almost all the topics I discuss or raise, for me its almost impossible to separate the emotion from the facts when you want to discuss something