BruceVC

Nah, Western countries are easily able to identify when something is unacceptable around bigotry like Apartheid or this Homophobic Bill based in Uganda. There is no right or wrong, there is only wrong. It may be partly based on the moral definition but the main reason for it is based on the suffering of the group that is being targeted and discriminated against. There suffering and humiliation is real, there is debate around this

I thought this was a serious Dragon Mod at first,

Good points as well, and definitely getting a nice size group of people on your side is one of those powers I was talking about previously it is especially effective if you can put enough stress on these companies that it would drastically effect the economy of the country. It would at the very least get some attention from those who legislated those laws. Also apparently as I was just typing this, the World Bank has postponed a $90 million dollar loan to Uganda's healthcare system; stating the bank itself opposes discrimination. This also follows suit from Norway and Denmark not sending any donations to Uganda due to the passing of this law. Now we get to the next topic Law vs. Morally Right By Society. This is a tough one since Laws are in place to keep the populous in check otherwise there would be nothing but chaos (I like to think of it as a Mad Max kind of dystopian world). Both matters are highly subjective depending on the time period is in and what the majority of the populous thinks on the issue. The problem with this is majority of Africa does not approve of Homosexuality so that will be the general consensus for that society group in which it can take a very long time to change that mindset. What better way to get people to stop doing something they don't like? Make a law that threatens that persons freedom, this also goes in hand with the onlookers that know about it but say nothing. You've raised a good discussion point. "majority of Africa does not approve of Homosexuality" That's mostly true but I like to raise the question "why". This generally stems from religious interpretation and old Colonial laws. But for me there is a more important consideration. The African Charter for Human Rights clearly states that you mustn't discriminate against people. And all African countries are signatories to this charter. So if individual countries choose to pass laws that enforce bigotry they are in clear contravention of the AU manifesto. So there is a legal precedent that should supersede any religious or personal view. And yet the AU seems incapable of enforcing its own rules. This is one of the major contributing factors IMO around why the AU and the continent hasn't achieved its full potential, despite the fact it is more than capable of reaching great economic and social heights

I'm sure you'll have fun, Skyrim isn't lacking in content and compared to Oblivion it almost doesn't need mods at all. I'd definitely install the Unofficial Skyrim Patch though, so many little annoyances fixed A mod to make dragon fights harder is a necessity. I can only think of two off-hand, one added a bunch of rainbow dragon otherkin garbage and 25235mb of irrelevant garbage, so I never downloaded that. The one I got took things a bit too far and gave every dragon the ability to use Alduin's meteor shower shout (with buffed damage, totally ignoring player level,) as well as summoning other dragons for support. It also causes their wingflaps and landings to make you go flying and ragdoll. It's fun when it's not ludicrously murdering every NPC in every town with a hail of meteorites. I wish there was a mod to make Delphine killable would be the ultimate 10/10 best mod ever for Skyrim. I'm planning on using several Dragon mods. I want the ones that add more dragon varieties and the ones that make the battles harder. Also there is one that adds uber- dragons to the game that looks cool.

I'm glad you mentioned "won't be true of everyone" Myself and many others like me won't forget what is happening in Uganda until this inhuman law is rescinded. There are already several activist campaigns in South Africa being discussed that will be implemented. Also some European countries have cut aid. The question you need to ask yourself about all these issues around social justice is " how strongly do you personally feel about something" and " are you just going to comment on the Internet or get more involved" I choose the latter Unfortunately believing in something isn't enough, the reality of it is you need to have some kind of power that can contest against these social injustices you also have to bear in mind of the enemies you'll make along the way since your trying to 'change' something. Good points In South Africa there are several companies that have major investments in Uganda, so there is an active campaign to put pressure on these companies to discuss internally with the Uganda authorities what they are doing is unacceptable and how this going to impact investment. Also I am active participant on a prominent South African radio station so people like me phone in to position why this homophobic legislation is abhorrent and contradicts what the African Union is suppose to stand for. You may think this is ineffective but helps change the mind set of people. So for example you hear people say things like " Uganda is a sovereign country, we need to leave them to make there own decisions" Easy to dispute "South Africa is a sovereign country but they implemented Apartheid which discriminated against people because of the colour of there skin. Just because a law is passed it doesn't make it valid or just and it certainly doesn't mean other countries can't get involved to change that law " If it wasn't for the intervention of other countries Apartheid would never have ended

I'll be honest, I never get tired of this discussion. Just when I think I need a break or I've heard every possible point someone adds a different perspective around the importance of Romance, so this discussion is almost interminable with all the possible nuances "Interminable" is definitely the right word. Unless it's "insufferable." I have an noticed an influx of new promancers lately. So its been interesting hearing all the new views

That's actually part of pretty much exactly what I am saying. The low hanging fruit has two major parts, the typical responses- "oh no, how terrible, I'll solve it by posting to the internet about it or maybe proposing a boycott that won't effect me in the slightest"- and people tending to get outraged at stuff that is fed to them by the media, ie easily available information, instead of worse stuff that is accessible with a little work. In a few weeks the media and most people will have forgotten about Uganda's laws, having never even known about or forgotten the Gulf's, or Malcador's example of Central African Republic. So in other words it has little work required to find out about it, at least in the general sense, and requires little effort in response. That is pretty much the definition of low hanging fruit. (I will freely acknowledge that that won't be true of everyone, of course; and that it is also a rather natural human response- which is self evident, since it wouldn't happen otherwise. Some people will do something practical about injustices, and remember over the long term, and do research. Most won't though, because those things are hard, and the next distraction will arrive.) I'm glad you mentioned "won't be true of everyone" Myself and many others like me won't forget what is happening in Uganda until this inhuman law is rescinded. There are already several activist campaigns in South Africa being discussed that will be implemented. Also some European countries have cut aid. The question you need to ask yourself about all these issues around social justice is " how strongly do you personally feel about something" and " are you just going to comment on the Internet or get more involved" I choose the latter

I'll be honest, I never get tired of this discussion. Just when I think I need a break or I've heard every possible point someone adds a different perspective around the importance of Romance, so this discussion is almost interminable with all the possible nuances

Yeah, that was one of my biggest gripes about both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. If you're stumbling through a wasteland of abandoned buildings and you're looking for supplies, which one would you set your sights on: the boarded up, untouched building or the building with welcoming, open doors? It was annoying that I couldn't break into the closed-up buildings since, according to my logic, those would have a greater chance of still containing something useful. I dunno, Fallout 3 had enough explorable buildings for me, I just think it needed more (questy) reasons to go inside them. New Vegas was quite frustrating on the first play through, I'd go running towards something and eventually reach a boarded up building or an empty shack...a shack with it's own map marker ffs. I got over it when I realised the game compensates with crazy levels of plot and gameplay choice but NVInteriors fills in the blanks really nicely. I get what you're saying about easily accessible ruins full of pre-war loot, it'd be pretty cool if future games had sealed buildings you needed tools and skills to enter, as well as ruins that had been picked clean and re-purposed by raiders and suchlike. Is there an NVInteriors equivalent for Skyrim? Not that I know of, Skyrim doesn't have any inaccessible buildings or a lack of dungeons, though at the time I thought it really needed more NPC houses to break into, Oblivion and Morrowind spoiled me there. Okay thanks, I'll be playing Skyrim soon for the first time and I'll be starting to plan my Mod list

Wisconsin mature cheddar rocks. Do you know you have the oldest cheddar in the world, its 30 years old. Imagine what it tastes like

I don't know if you read my post earlier, I finished Metro last night and its excellent

Yeah, that was one of my biggest gripes about both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. If you're stumbling through a wasteland of abandoned buildings and you're looking for supplies, which one would you set your sights on: the boarded up, untouched building or the building with welcoming, open doors? It was annoying that I couldn't break into the closed-up buildings since, according to my logic, those would have a greater chance of still containing something useful. I dunno, Fallout 3 had enough explorable buildings for me, I just think it needed more (questy) reasons to go inside them. New Vegas was quite frustrating on the first play through, I'd go running towards something and eventually reach a boarded up building or an empty shack...a shack with it's own map marker ffs. I got over it when I realised the game compensates with crazy levels of plot and gameplay choice but NVInteriors fills in the blanks really nicely. I get what you're saying about easily accessible ruins full of pre-war loot, it'd be pretty cool if future games had sealed buildings you needed tools and skills to enter, as well as ruins that had been picked clean and re-purposed by raiders and suchlike. Is there an NVInteriors equivalent for Skyrim?

You've raised a good point, how do we know what civil liberties to tackle? And the answer is more obvious than you realize, I'll tell you as I follow these types of events actively. So no need to worry about that one, I have it covered

It's a pleasure Ma'am. We work hard to keep it so. Dirty, dispiriting work, but good for the soul. They'll be back, but we'll be waiting. You make me laugh, I have this image of you as some sort of sheriff and the promancers (me included ) being chased out of town....it really made me laugh

This is a nice place. I'd like to see it stay that way. But Squeaky darling don't you think there is always room for improvement in life, I never settle for the status quo. I believe in constantly aspiring to great heights and looking at ways to improve my temperament. Nice is fine but we need to aim for inspiration

Kaine you making a lot of assumptions in that post and we trying to debate from a perspective of facts

You needn't say that—drawing parallels between a series of current events and events past that everyone knows about is subtly but surely laying out a slippery slope. You said: But it actually works both ways. A group takes power and decides that trait "X" is abhorrent and needs to be eradicated "for the betterment of society", though the excuses vary wildly. This trait can be religious beliefs, ethnic ties, economic status, affinity with certain political ideas, and yes, even sexual orientation; it can be pretty much anything. Backed by the majority and riding atop a self-reinforcing sense of moral righteousness, laws are passed to suppress the expression of this trait, damning the members of society targeted by these measures to an existence outside of mainstream society, as pariahs—using the power of the state to persecute people based on what they are. Once this is justified for "X", it can be justified for anything based on precedent. At this point a tyranny has effectively been enabled, and all bets are off. CAR, South Sudan, Iraq... it's old news brah. News pieces are consumption articles and nobody likes stale bread. It sounds like you are agreeing with me, Uganda is a tyranny at the moment

Interesting, so the enigma is solved. A pity you have to kill them but I understand your concerns. But do all rats have disease, isn't it the fleas on the rats that spread disease? Don't rats live in some communities peacefully. I don't know the answer to these questions? Well in theory the plague was carried by fleas (assuming its true it was the Bubonic Plague), the fleas transferring to humans as the rats died. That said even without plague, rats could damage the house, and their excrement could also create health hazards in the home. Okay good points, I guess they have to die

Arizona's barely registering on the outrage meter here, it might though. Russia was helped by the Olympics in that regard, lots of bleating on about gays an gay rights then with ads, calls for officials to boycott it and people being snarky over it. The outrage is more half-assed and temporary than picking on certain countries, I feel. Internet activism for you. I disagree, Arizona has been all over our news. Its been represented by certain prominent radio presenters as "has the world gone mad? Look what's happening in Russia, Uganda and Arizona" That's why I'm glad Jan Brewer has vetoed the bill. Its was leading to bigots in South Africa trying to justify the situation in Uganda by comments like " the Americans are using passing anti-gay laws..so why can't the Ugandans". Of course the degree of homophobia wasn't nearly on the level in the USA compared to Uganda but I'm still glad the Arizona legislation wasn't approved

I just picked up Assassins Creed 3 for $8 at my local gaming shop, that's a good price so that's the next game I'll be playing. I know there are some mixed views on this game but I'm going into it with an open mind so hopefully I'll enjoy it

I'll wait until it's on sale. Same as me, I'll only buy it when its on sale

Yeah, and that is the exact opposite to the slippery slope that "first you legalize hate" and then BAM! Treblinka. Given the subjective properties of language, hate speech laws are either extremely difficult to enforce, or an excuse to implement ideological tyranny. If you are indeed in a situation in which the particular audiences that can be convinced of whatever it is you want to suppress are large enough that their actions cannot be controlled, hate speech laws aren't going to do much good anyway. And if they are not large enough, the state already has broad powers to keep order. Hate speech laws are measures aimed at superficial symptoms of much deeper problems at best, or concealed attempts at social engineering at worst. To use your own example, the Third Wave experiment would not have infringed on any hate speech laws; it still took off no problem. I also contend that at a fundamental level, you cannot simultaneously sustain the paternalist stance that the existence of some ideas is inherently "dangerous" or "unacceptable" to society (and therefore manifesting them is in breach of the law) and also the postulate upon which democracy is based that a society can produce sensible, responsible adult individuals free to form their own opinions and exercise their political rights accordingly. Conveniently, it's always going to be those unaffected by free speech limitations that believe that it's the "others" that need their dangerous thoughts reined in, by virtue of how groupthink works in societies at large. <insert comparison in accordance to Godwin's law> I want to clarify something and I'm not sure if its relevant to your post. No one has said once you have hate speech you have a Nazi style genocide. This whole spurious assessment of what I said is actually a strawman. I explained the sequence of events that allows a country to legalize hate\dislike\animosity (whatever word you feel is applicable) towards a minority group. In order to make the point easier to understand I used an historical example, the Nazis and the treatment of the Jews. I never once said Uganda is going to end up the same as Nazi Germany. People selectively chose to put those words in my mouth. If I felt there was going to be a genocide in Uganda of all gay people I would have said " mark my words, Uganda is going to end up like Nazi Germany"

yeah that is weird

Yes, he's clearly out for you blood. Call the cops. Helz he is just joking, no need to take it seriously

kthxbye Monte I know you joking but we shouldn't want any prospective fan of PoE to want to leave, especially over a misunderstanding. We want every single person who likes RPG to be financially supportive of this new franchise. Surly you can see the advantages of this?