aluminiumtrioxid

That article comos off as more patronizing than what it wishes to be. If a culture or a group of people start to blow up airports and subways, do mass shootings and suicide bomb themselves sporadically because they are simply bored, too stupid, depressed, have high unemployment and think it is cool, then why even bother allow them to Europe to begin with if they are so fragile? *cough* scope insensitivity *cough* Estimated number of Muslims in Belgium: 320.000-450.000 Estimated number of young European Muslims who have traveled to Syria to fight alongside ISIS: 470. "A culture starts to blow up airports and subways", my ass. But that's what the article is saying and i took it to it's logical conclusion. Thus highlighting that something is greatly amiss in its reasoning. If an article states that 0,1% of a culture does something, stating that the entire culture is to be blamed for their actions isn't "taking the article to its logical conclusion", it's engaging in reductio ad absurdum. If I'm being nice.

AP was decent, but I think it can't hold a candle to the bone-chillingly cold stuff you could pull in PST, KotOR2 or MotB. Which, of course, doesn't go against the point, quite the opposite. Seriously though, there is not a single thing we've heard about this game lately that doesn't fill me with anticipation.

That's pretty arrogant coming from someone who never experienced the problem. I mean, neither did I, but I assume if the solution was that simple, people would do that. It is. Just that simple. Occam's razor says it ain't, unless your basic assumptions are made in tremendously bad faith.

That article comos off as more patronizing than what it wishes to be. If a culture or a group of people start to blow up airports and subways, do mass shootings and suicide bomb themselves sporadically because they are simply bored, too stupid, depressed, have high unemployment and think it is cool, then why even bother allow them to Europe to begin with if they are so fragile? *cough* scope insensitivity *cough* Estimated number of Muslims in Belgium: 320.000-450.000 Estimated number of young European Muslims who have traveled to Syria to fight alongside ISIS: 470. "A culture starts to blow up airports and subways", my ass.

Well damn, if the Witcher is from an Atheistic point-of-view then that completely destroys my "Atheists are intellectually lazy" argument I'm not going to make friends by saying this, but I find The Witcher to be a bit of a lazy setting overall. A lot of its stories are fairy tales with added gore, its monsters are often lifted straight from Eastern European folk tales, its different countries and nations are either stereotypes (Nilfgaard, Skellige) or undistinguishably bland (all the Northern Realms). It also abuses character archetypes; peasants are pogrom-happy and supersticious, soldiers are sociopaths who hang everything that moves, sorceresses are conniving and ambitious, kings are racist **** when they aren't just mad. Eora has shown more originality and personality in its setting that the Continent did in three games to me. In the light of the above, the writers of that series treating religion with all the maturity of an edgy teenager doesn't surprise me. Cripes, even Dragon Age did much better in Inquisition. I love the Witcher to bits, and I do think it has more nuance than you give it credit for, but indeed, its treatment of religion can be summed up by the words "edgy bull****".

That's pretty arrogant coming from someone who never experienced the problem. I mean, neither did I, but I assume if the solution was that simple, people would do that.

Because somehow those poor societal manners end up affecting women disproportionately. If the number of women and men is the same, you'd expect them to be interrupted at the same rate if the sole reason for interrupting people is poor socialization.

"Wholes" indeed. PoE is large and contains multitudes, one assumes. I have to seriously disagree. I think that the combat in IWD1/2 was good and often excellent. In a lot of ways, it was better than what's in PoE, particularly IWD2. Why do I say this? Because however nice PoE is (and I do enjoy it greatly), combat in PoE is largely the same thing over and over and over and over again. Party walks up to enemy B. B sees A. Battle starts (sometimes with a little bit of pre-battle dialog). Rinse and repeat. The combat scenarios are always the same. BTW, don't get me wrong. There was a lot of this in IWD2 as well. But in IWD2 there were a significant number of battles where the combat scenario was more interesting and complex than in PoE. The defense of Targos in act 1. The battle on Shaengarne Bridge. The battle in the fort when you first came up from the caves below. The battles in the cave where the hook horrors were dropping down all around you, constantly forcing you to fight not only the HH's in front of you but also behind you. And so on and so on. Honestly, I found the battles in IWD2 a lot more tactically challenging and interesting than those in PoE. "IWD vs PoE" is a thorny issue because the core combat engine in PoE is miles ahead of IWD, but the encounter design absolutely does suck balls. IWD2 had a lot more memorable encounters but - solely by virtue of being an exclusively combat-focused game - also a lot more of whiffy bull**** fights that posed no particular challenge, required little tactical insight to get through, served no purpose other than consuming character resources, and ****ed up pacing and story/gameplay flow simply by existing. Also worth noting that literally every single example you brought up was from IWD2, while my original post was about IWD (in which I can recall a grand total of one memorable combat encounter, which is about on par with what Pillars is offering). Why play an RPG like Pillars, then, instead of a combat-focused dungeon crawler? If you can barely remember the story, it can't possibly have been that good?

Not if Christopher Nolan or James Cameron could take the director's chair. Also, good writer is really needed for this movie to succeed. Am not sure how good writing could save the fundamental premise from sucking. Granted, I never liked Indiana Jones either. I think reboot Lara didn't have basketball-sized boobs. I also think the actress looks a bit... well... soft for the role, but it's not like I'm the target audience.

In my opinion, it's less about "payback", and more about "this is a thing that happens to women more often than it does to men, hence even if the number of women who do it doubles, things still won't be equal". The logic behind getting interrupted = shaming I do not understand, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility of it making sense in context of the actual lecture (lord knows I've seen accomplished scientists in respected fields write presentation headers and text that made absolutely no goddamn sense when read).

Now I wonder how many wars were sparked over people's insecurities about how "weak" or "strong" their country will be seen as. Many, because its an important metric. How things appear in the international arena is just or even more important than how it actually is. I'm not convinced. Could you offer examples where the perception of the appearance of things by outside actors was the source of a conflict, instead of the projection of said perception by insider decision-makers? I took the "people's" as referring to decision makers, not the masses. So did I. "Outside actors", in this case, refers to decision-makers in other countries, ready to pounce on any sign of weakness. (The question's asked in good faith, by the way. I'm fairly sure your knowledge of world history is greater than mine, hence asking for examples makes sense.) The relation is that I take issue with your framing of the deal in terms of appearing "weak" or "strong", instead of "does it produce the result it was meant to produce in an efficient manner?". The latter sounds like a meaningful venue of criticism, the former reeks of nationalistic chest-beating.

True, but I'm of the opinion that crappy behavior works both ways. BVC is of the opinion that whoever he feels is oppressed is free to do the same things to others and its totally cool. I think you're being a little harsh on him.

Earth that is, would that be the translation in Latin? That would be Terra, as Bartimaeus said. Terratus sounds like something a twelve year old would come up with, thinking it's the coolest thing ever, because he knows a word in Latin. Though, maybe I'm being a little to harsh. Well it can be Teratus with a single "r". Not that it's an improvement.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure nobody ever died of being interrupted in conversations.

It absolutely is. Did the course claim otherwise? Because what I'm seeing is that an undesirable behavior here is being saddled with a cutesy nickname intended to shame those who indulge in said behavior, which is... traditionally how societies generally tend to sanction undesirable behavior that merits no criminal punishment?

I mean...to be fair, I can do the same to you and myself and anyone else, and all of ours posts without any context all look pretty worthless and pointless. Moreover, I just did the very same thing, and outside of WOT, I think my contributions are usually fair - as in, even if you disagree with what I'm saying, you can clearly see how and why I arrived on the conclusion I did?

Now I wonder how many wars were sparked over people's insecurities about how "weak" or "strong" their country will be seen as. Many, because its an important metric. How things appear in the international arena is just or even more important than how it actually is. I'm not convinced. Could you offer examples where the perception of the appearance of things by outside actors was the source of a conflict, instead of the projection of said perception by insider decision-makers?

Irrelevant to the wider point I was trying to make, ie. that handwringing over the punishment being "excessive" because "it will result in the company going bankrupt and its employees losing their jobs" is weird. Yes, it sucks that they're gonna lose their jobs, but I'm pretty sure the criminal justice system doesn't work on the basis of "the law says [punishment] is appropriate, but this punishment would also indirectly harm people who had nothing to do with the original crime, so we're gonna ignore the law here". Also note: there is a world of difference between passive-aggressive posting and the kind of passive-aggressive bull**** that intentionally obscures the point it's trying to make in order to make meaningful engagement with the subject and an exchange of ideas impossible. Which is what you were doing - or, more importantly, are consistently doing when faced with posts you don't like. Passive-aggressiveness is tolerable. The insulting intellectual laziness of not being willing to put out the actual ideas behind that passive-aggressiveness to be engaged with, not so much.

Which I wasn't debating. I pointed out that you were mighty fine with people losing their jobs over comments made on social media, and I don't see much difference between that and this.

Now I wonder how many wars were sparked over people's insecurities about how "weak" or "strong" their country will be seen as.

Don't forget to make snidely passive-agressive comments that illuminate nothing about the particulars of your complaint. " "

So conclusion is that more homogenic ethnically state is - more safe it is, even for minorities? Whoo, doesn't work well with multiculturalism ^ Ladies and gents, here we can observe the not-so-rare confirmation bias in its natural habitat. ehh, what bias are you talking about? Gee, I wonder. Hint: (I know, asian people look all the same to the racist eye.) Another hint: correlation does not imply causation, and when one assesses how safe a country is to be while gay, the determining factor is more likely to be the dominant cultural attitude towards gay people than ethnic homogeneity. "But it was a joke!", the defendant pleads. Well I, for one, do not find egregiously faulty logic particularly funny.

No seeing how this is any different from people losing their jobs for insensitive comments. I mean, making that video public is a much more serious violation than posting stupid **** on social media, something which people have been fired for. Yes but then fire the people at the company or make the fine targeted to certain people at Gawker...but this could close the entire company down and people who have nothing to do with editing articles or selecting what is suitable or legal will lose there jobs It doesn't seem fair I'm sure the people who had nothing to do with the very thing that caused the problem in the first place will find gainful employment somewhere else. As for the others...

So conclusion is that more homogenic ethnically state is - more safe it is, even for minorities? Whoo, doesn't work well with multiculturalism ^ Ladies and gents, here we can observe the not-so-rare confirmation bias in its natural habitat.

No seeing how this is any different from people losing their jobs for insensitive comments. I mean, making that video public is a much more serious violation than posting stupid **** on social media, something which people have been fired for.