BruceVC

Now either the author is really bad at writing or they're an idiot. Okay I'm missing your point? Who is the bad writer, the gaming journalist or the writers of the game? And if its the gaming journalist why is he a bad writer

Indeed, people know not to derail important threads Orog Romance threads can't be derailed because they begin life as derails. You know I've always found most of your humour hilarious

Indeed, people know not to derail important threads Orog

But I think Hurlshot's point in the overall context of what Christians believe is also valid. For example if you google "Christians who believe the earth was created in 6 days" you will find links and websites of what I would consider are more fundamentalist views on this topic. But if you go to his church and ask the people who attend the church " do you think the earth is only 6000 years old and man lived alongside dinosaurs" I can guarantee you they will say no we don't believe that. But they still have a spiritual believe in the importance and relevance of Christianity, they just don't take everything in the bible literally. Most of the Christians I know also have this perspective For the record I am an agnostic but I also agree with what Hurlshot is saying

I don't want to hijack this thread again with another debate that isn't relevant to Random Video Games so I'll make this point and leave it. No one is saying that if you have attractive women in revealing clothes this is a sign of misogyny, this is in fact more around the objectification of women. This is not the same things as a hatred of women In respects to the game the misogyny is more around how women in the game are constantly referred to. So if you guys are going to utterly dismiss what the Eurogamer article says at least get your facts right about why you object to it. There is a pattern on these forums from some people that the moment certain social issues are raised the same dismissive argument is used without even reading what people are objecting to and this is counterproductive to the principle of understanding why certain social issues exist and are they valid

I have never wished dead upon a group of people, game journalist are making reconsider my position. You dislike gaming journalists that much? So how do you get accurate reviews on games, there must be some gaming websites you trust?

https://za.news.yahoo.com/u-deploys-surveillance-aircraft-over-nigeria-girls-064829135.html The USA has deployed spy planes to help find the missing school girls, hopefully this should narrow down the search area

Pah. I want real reptile skin. From a lizard slain by a naked Dave Gaider atop a mountain. During a full moon. The thought of that made me laugh

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt. uh...what? The American Revolution is definitely a thing. It didn't just happen in Assassin's Creed 3. It's definitely called a revolution. There's a venerable and longstanding debate among 18th century historians as to whether the term is correctly applied in this case. Obviously it depends on one's definition of revolution. Economic and social change as a result of the war of independence were very limited indeed, and a lot of historians (myself included) include society-wide changes in those areas as part of their definitions of revolution. It's also worth noting that the American system of checks and balances in government actually derives from the British system, and that the Founding Fathers, rather than seeking to revolutionize political forms, sought to correct abuses and perfect the system they already knew. Really, only the American idea of free speech and the separation of the judiciary from the legislature and executive were major departures from the existing tradition. To my mind, that's not enough for a revolution. But obviously, since the debate's been going on for decades, there's plenty of room to disagree intelligently. Thank you Bruce That's a fascinating perspective and a good post. I knew your initial comment was more multi-dimensional than what it seemed

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-13-bound-by-flame-review Bound by flame has just received a terrible review by Eurogamer, its put me right off the game. And there are issues in the game around sexism which just makes it worse

It looks defunct. The most recent blog update is from 2010. Im missing something here. What makes you go "AGH!"? I suppose you also get religious scientists and religious people who do believe in the big bang, so that may not be a very good example that the kids gave as a difference ?

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt. The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt. uh...what? The American Revolution is definitely a thing. It didn't just happen in Assassin's Creed 3. This is an interesting discussion. Now Tajerio is an intelligent person so I am looking forward to his clarification

That's because Ghost of Communism doesnt need such thing as count of posts! Name of the author is Dmitry Puchkov, he's famous russian translator and sort of famous russian public leader. He is also famous in the Internets as Goblin since he was a translator of the LOTR trilogy in russian language, hence the name of the news - Goblin News. People of my tribe call this phenomenon as "sence of humour". That sounds racist. Interesting post around Dmitry Puchkov and his credentials. Thanks for sharing

Gee, a surprise you'd agree. People investing time and effort doesn't really mean much at all. You mention debate etiquette (thanks for the laugh) and at the same time rail on about posters just being anti-Western shills (that's what you mean by 'team oby'). And either side is just spitting fire at the other. Entertaining for sure, but not exactly a serious thread. But, oh well, you can keep on with your 'duty'. Malc the intention of a debate around politics is to inform people, not to make them laugh. But I'm glad I could make you laugh. This is not the desired outcome but a positive development nonetheless

These are clearly offensive comments and inciting violence or at least hate towards gay people. Yet if I understand what you are saying the gay person has no legal recourse? that isn't what we said. review. we said no slander. we didn't speak to iied or privacy or other such stuff, in part 'cause facts is kinda shallow. now, in regards to your new questions, in the US if you can prove that the individual were attempting to incite direct and imminent lawless action and that such lawlessness were likely, the first amendment is gonna offer no protection, but again, is only in the case o' imminent violence or lawlessness. just a general hate-filled rant 'bout how all ________ should be "rounded up"? nope. sorry. keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government. the founders were quite mindful o' the notion that if laws were enacted that chill debate or curb dissent, such laws could be used to stifle any unpopular or subversive speaker. yeah, nazis and gay-bashers is kinda contemptible, but those same laws that would be used to quiet nazis and gay-bashers today coulda' been used to silence civil rights speakers back in the 50s and 60s. btw, the American Revolution were never all that popular with the local populace... is not like we had a huge anti-English sentiment here even at the time o' the Boston Tea Party. heck, the tea tax actual resulted in lower tea costs-- folks being hurt most were smugglers, like John Han****. the Founders recognized the value o' allowing unpopular speakers to have a voice. so, let the gay basher rant and rail. "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." J. Brandeis (Whitney v. California) HA! Good Fun! Okay thanks for explaining, you have answered most of my questions

This raises an interesting perspective. In the example I mentioned the person is gay, he or she is not denying this. So you cannot slander them by saying "you are gay". But the person attacking them says things like " all gays needs to rounded up and up in concentration camps, the less gays in the world the better" These are clearly offensive comments and inciting violence or at least hate towards gay people. Yet if I understand what you are saying the gay person has no legal recourse? I can apply this example to any minority group that is typically discriminated against, I am just using homophobia as an example in the USA context

Nope. The vote is actually irrelevant, that it was made under duress with a third of the members missing and with Right Sector providing security is simply the cherry on the top that would make the vote invalid under any circumstance. What makes it invalid in the first place is that it was unconstitutional and did not follow the correct procedure by any definition. Wow, I'm confused? The original vote to dispose Yanukovych was illegal but the referendum in Crimea was acceptable and constitutional ?

is no need to feel bad 'bout generalizing. as we said earlier in this thread, the way Free Speech is viewed beyond the boarders o' the USA is fascinating. Chinese Constitution protects freedoms of speech, but such freedoms don't mean anything if government can ignore such protections, yes? Sweden is very protective of freedom of the press. nevertheless, if a Swedish journalist wrote something that offended muslims he could be in trouble and freedom o' speech protections would take a backseat to the muslim's "dignity." etc. from an American pov, protecting polite speech, protecting speech that offends nobody, is kinda pointless. if nobody is offended, why would such speech need protections? we tried to explain to an individual in another thread that protecting Liberty and protecting Democracy is frequent adversarial. he didn't understand. nevertheless, in the United States we accept that, "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," and we don't let the Democratic process or current notions o' what is acceptable trample 'pon the individuals' freedom o' speech. US Constitutional protections o' speech is unique, but more important, our cultural values is different. even so, is not as if all Americans think it is ok to burn koran or crosses or flags. many Americans is disturbed by such and is often shocked that people is allowed to get away with such things. typical American has some fuzzy threshold regarding what speech is beyond the pale... which is why we don't let The People decide what is and ain't legal. also, is tough for folks outside the US to grasp that our Free Speech protections is a prohibition against government interference. say bad stuff about your boss' mother is not gonna be protected by the Constitution. free speech doesn't get you freedom from prosecution for tangential related crimes or torts. you steal documents or software or whatever, and then try to use freedom o' speech to hide and you is gonna get burned. similarly, if you write a story that is claiming that Bob has syphilis and it ain't true, you is gonna face libel... though famous people get less protection than average folks. child p0rn is considered symbolic speech, but it ain't protected. "obscene" speech isn't protected, but try and define is not easy. p0rn is not necessarily legal obscene. fighting words ain't protected, but we not got time enough to explain fully. yell "fire," in a crowded theatre is not protected. attempts to protect children get a slight lowering o' the standard... google "bong hits for jesus," and "seven dirty words" if you is genuine interested. am understanding we didn't clear up the issue at all. regardless, while it is best not to make generalizations, shady would not be making a mistake in thinking that europeans see free speech fundamental different than does Americans. HA! Good Fun! This has been a particularly interesting post, thanks for trying to explain how the whole free speech works in the USA as it is confusing for an outsider. Let me ask you something, we know in the USA you can sue someone for making slanderous comments. But can you sue and win a case for offensive comments. For example lets say I'm gay and some news presenter is very homophobic directly about me. Could I sue?

Some people are certainly trying to make it into one. No, it pretty much is. Notice how this is just a war with neither side giving much of an inch and being snide ? I mean, you've invented this "team oby" BS. Sorry Malc but I agree with Mor on this. This topic isn't a joke, some people have invested time and effort into making numerous points that position both sides of the debate. Even if I don't agree with "team oby" I do respect the effort they put into there posts. This is basic debate etiquette The reason why I still participate in this debate is there are still people who have a misinformed perspective around why Russia is doing what it is doing. I feel it is my duty to help them understand the correct context for what is happening in Ukraine

He has the skill and he won due to his talent, but its a good step in the direction for equality and recognition around people who are different to most other people

Don't you ever get tired of asking a question that has no substance?

Malc that's a complicated question but the general rule is Western based revolutionaries are the "good guys " We know this because Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life and overall citizens of Western countries are the most happy. So if you put that question in an ideological perspective than Western revolutionaries are the "good guys" But I'm not sure why you think there is a choice of good and bad revolutionaries in the Ukraine example, there is only the pro-Russian separatists which have been operating illegally since day 1 so they are the "bad guys "

"stop being a self hating man hater." Now that's trolling, I am learning how to spot it But for the record I'm not a man hater, I just believe in the absolute equality and fair representation of the genders where its logical, for example I don't think it would be fair for the men's and women's rugby team to play against each other in a full contact game

Does that include dudes who feel like they're a woman inside? Nothing wrong with that, its good to be in touch with your more feminine side as a man

Indeed you should have seen the doctor first. I always thought that it was common knowledge that anyone over the age age of 18 who starts a sport or rigorous training session should go to the doctor to ensure there are no underlying but unobvious health issues, like heart related