Elerond

Do you really not see a difference between Not taking initiative to publicly mourn something, as long as no-one is asking you to.and Actively showing disrespect and spite for other people's mourning, like booing(!) a minute of silence.? Let's just disingenuously group both of those under "not caring enough" and equivocate away? PS: Also, it makes perfect sense for FIFA to a have a minute of silence when a major terrorist attack happened right next to its own soccer game, and the terrorists in fact tried to target that game's audience and players - while not having a minute of silence for every other unrelated tragedy around the world. The core of the problem is, that no one asked anyone to mourn for Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kenya... Some people then might come to conclusion, that some lives are not as worthy as others... Although people have been asked to mourn Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kenya, Tunisia, Nigeria (most recent victim), etc, tragedies. But ones doing the asking aren't necessary always same also stage where mourning is done changes. But tragedies in home front get always more recognition than tragedies else where. So tragedies, in west get more notice in west than tragedies that happen in somewhere else. Because not in sight not in mind is very real psychological phenomenon that effects most of the people in world. Western tragedies are often more noticeable around world because western media is so dominant compared to other medias. And of course all western countries aren't equal, like for example tragedy in Finland gets much less notice than similar tragedy in USA. But it is just reality that those with more power and influence get more notice than those with less.

Victim is always the predator, if we listen those that support the attacker. There are always things that victim did to provoke the attack at least for the attacker, because attackers very rarely accept that fault is solely in them.

Grenades are excellent in areas that are infested by feral ghouls as you can throw one every time you see ghouls starting to spawn (wake up and crawl in from windows and other holes) as they usually kill most of the spawning ghouls. But I hate fact that they are binded in same key as bash

Like this Answer is usually nothing happens. Really? http://anonhq.com/charlie-hebdo-fired-anti-semitic-cartoonist-ridiculing-judaism-2009/ As I said usually nothing, but in this case Charlie Hebdo had to pay Maurice Sinet 40000€ for wrongful termination. Meaning that his firing was against law. EDIT: Also just to point out he is also person that said this, in interview shortly after terrorist attack against Jews in Paris 1982, "Yes, I am anti-Semitic and I am not scared to admit it ... I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die." EDIT2: Also it isn't only speaks against Jews that can get you fired. As also openly speaking against Islam and Muslims can cause same reaction. http://www.dw.com/en/prominent-french-journalist-and-tv-personality-fired-for-islamophobia/a-18145516 (dated 22.12.2014) "Polarizing French journalist and writer, Eric Zemmour, has been sacked from his recurring gig on a French chat show for the iTELE channel following remarks widely seen as anti-Islamic last week."

Like this Answer is usually nothing happens.

Muslims would make so good communists if there wasn't that part of communism that say that all religions are evil and should be banned. People don't act without realizing when they are drunk, their ability to control their impulses weakens significantly, as do their ability for fine motor control over their body. So if you one might to commit murder, rape, adultery or some other nasty act when they are drunk there is high change that they also could do such acts when they aren't drunk. Bad behavior is not caused by alcohol, but those person themselves that behave badly. Alcohol may cause them act bad way in public because their ability to think consequences of their actions has been weakened, but behavior itself comes from people themselves.

They burned lots more than just books from Jews. They also burned books from communists and some other groups of people the didn't like, like for example Muslims. Germans achieved as high technology as most other nations with resources in that time. They had bit lead in military technology as they prepared to war where other nations focused to make everyday lives of their citizens better, like for example penicillin and other medical breakthroughs that have given us ability vanquish lots of deadly diseases.

That is funniest claim that I have read today. 10/10 and parrot mark. I approve. It is not a claim, watch the video, Germans was devout Catholic and practicing Catholic laws under the Nazi. True Christians don't get drunk. Today Christians are secular Christians and drunk Yeah, but I am currently drinking German beer that comes from brewery that is founded 1543 AD. And I know that there are hundreds, even thousands such old breweries in German. Also Catholic church and other major Christian religions don't ban consumption of alcoholic beverages. It should be noted that one of the miracles that Christians believe Jesus did is to change water to wine so that everybody in party can continue to drink. There are Christian religions that look badly drinking and encourage or even ban drinking alcoholic beverages, but those have been always minority within Christians and are most of the time considered to be extremist movements. But true and not so true Christians have drunk alcohol as long as Christianity has existed.

Such book would be allowed in most western countries without second glance from our governments. Private citizens would probably organize book burning events and lament how bad said book is, but that probably would be it. Because there is no point to ban such books as people could easily read same thing from internet and banning such books just give them more power. As far as i know, only in America having "burn the Quran day".....no country ever burn any books. Book banning is not book burning. Bans can be lifted, otherwise it remain in storage, or not even allowed to enter the country Most of banned books are destroyed, some time literally burning them most of time they are just recycled and paper from them is used from somewhere else. This of course don't mean that every copy of banned books are destroyed, but usually most of them. (This of course references cases where banner is government) Nazis for example burned thousands of books, and similar burnings have been actually quite common in history. USA maybe only country that has "burn the Quran day", but it is not only country which citizens have done such acts. But these are cases where private citizen burning books that they usually own themselves, not government banning and destroying them. And yes bans can be lifted and there can be new runs of said books. As said banning and burning books don't destroy/prevent content of those books.

That is funniest claim that I have read today. 10/10 and parrot mark. I approve.

Such book would be allowed in most western countries without second glance from our governments. Private citizens would probably organize book burning events and lament how bad said book is, but that probably would be it. Because there is no point to ban such books as people could easily read same thing from internet and banning such books just give them more power.

That is name that Jewry use of their god/the God (if we take idea that all Abrahamic religions worship same god). Bible if it is Christian bible should not have any specific name for the God as naming him is one of the worst sins that a Christian can do. Although I know that there are some religions that use Bible and they give name for the God, but they aren't considered to be Christians by main Christian religions.

I have never ever heard of Malaysians being called Barbarians ? We refer to murderous groups like ISIS or Boko Haram as savages but not Malaysians as we do business there Because my country is just recently become popular in USA, but back in 70s and 80s western people call us barbarians who live on trees... Hundred they called us (Finns) subhumans that are closer to monkeys than humans that should not be allowed to get citizenship in USA if that gives you any consolation.

Things that currently are counted as most evil, vicious, horrible, etc. in world history are things that our grandfathers did. Which is why such concepts as fundamental human rights, current refugee treaties etc. were created in first place.

Elerond do you really think applying some obscure EU law is necessary But something just occurred to me...I seem to debating with you guys who live in the EU about this, I thought this was what you wanted but if not then just leave it It is not EU law it is European Convention on Human Rights, which is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, article. Those are right that no individual state or even EU can change alone and all states that have signed it have promised to follow it and make sure that others follow it too. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is independent court that monitors that member states follow it, passes punishment for those who broke it and decides how things go when there aren't straightforward answer. So it is embodiment of human rights in Europe, not some obscure law.

Closing mosques is most likely illegal (as it prevents ) as France is member of European Convention on Human Rights, which article 9 promises freedom to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance (which means also freedom to establish and places of worship according to ECtHR case Manoussakis and others v. Greece , §§36-53), but of course it is possible that those mosques belong to such Islamic religion that practices things that are against law and democratic society (what those things are one needs to read cases from).

I don't think that Clinton is that keen to social and economical equality like real liberal would do, but she maybe more European in her thinking and support for moderate forms of social safety net and of environmentalism. But word like Classical Liberals, Neoliberals, Liberal Conservatives, Liberals, Conservatives, Social Liberals, Conservative liberals, Libertarian conservatives, etc. don't really have consistent meaning outside Political Science, so it is quite hard to use them in such way that two people using same words mean same thing. But in short I would say that Clinton mostly supports how things are currently run, which I would say makes her quite conservative, but also somewhat liberal as foundation and culture of USA is quite liberal. I could do more in depth analysis her views, but I don't think I have such interest in me that I could ever do it way that it would have anymore value than me saying that she is Liberal Conservative.

Leferd please tell me you at least are excited about Hilary Clinton..I am worried how no one on this forun seems to like or support her ? It is probably because her best quality is one that many people at least publicly dislike. She is full blooded career politicians that bases her agenda to what she thinks public wants and she relies heavily on experts and other interested parties to form her answers and solutions instead of her own personal thinking, which make her look a person that is cold and who don't have solid foundation to her beliefs. Although when you add her understanding of law, political process of making laws and quite long experience of foreign politics to her ability to be "sock puppet", then she makes a excellent candidate for president, especially if you are liberal conservative. But as said she appearance may give cold and calculating expression to people, meaning that her personal charisma, which is for some people much important persons efficiency in job, may cause them seek some other candidate. Of course Hillary isn't best candidate for people that seek change in how politics are played in USA. For those Sanders is much better option if they want USA to take more socialistic approach, and for those who seek something else republican candidates may be only options. What's a liberal conservative? "As the conservative ideology in democratic countries embraced typical liberal institutions such as the rule of law, private property, the market economy, and constitutional representative government, the liberal element of liberal conservatism became consensual outside of the socialist camp. This consensus has been so complete in some countries (e.g. the United States) that the term liberal conservatism came to be understood simply as conservatism in popular culture, prompting some conservatives who embraced more strongly classical liberal values to call themselves libertarians. Nevertheless, the liberal conservative tradition in the United States often combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism that emphasizes the natural inequalities between men, the irrationality of human behavior as the basis for the embrace of traditional ethics, the human drive for order and stability, and the rejection of natural rights as the basis for government." - An Introduction to Political Science. Cengage Learning, 2011

ISIS/ISIL isn't just some organization that does terrorist attacks. It leadership has lot of Iraq old leaders, those bureaucrats and local leaders that actually were responsible of day to day running of things in Iraq during Saddam's reign. So they have actually quite good knowledge how to run a country and what and how you need to establish supply and production lines. Where they get all their resources, that is quite complex question, but they control big sunk of Iraq's oil field they have control over some oil refineries (meaning that they can produce diesel and gasoline themselves), they have billions of dollars worth of money that they got during Saddam's reign. They also got lot of that money that USA give Iraq for rebuilding, their weaponry comes from Iraq's own weapons, some are given by USA for Iraq's new defense force from whom ISIS has taken them or who are actually joined with ISIS or whom ISIS has bought them. Also there is no easy way to tell who belongs in ISIS and who are peaceful Iraqis or Syrians and it is especially hard with people that support ISIS but are from other countries. Which gives them ability to buy things from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc. countries where it is easy to ship things to Iraq and Syria. And they are also able to sell that oil which they produce to get more money. So ISIS is not just bunch of raiders, but actual terrorist country (for lack of better description). They actually run such as schools, hospitals, gas stations, etc. in areas that they control, probably because their leadership has members that know that you can't run country without them. And people should not forget that one of ISIS's goals is to establish new country run be them. But the answer to question where ISIS get their resources and money is that they get it from themselves, they loot some and from trade.

Leferd please tell me you at least are excited about Hilary Clinton..I am worried how no one on this forun seems to like or support her ? It is probably because her best quality is one that many people at least publicly dislike. She is full blooded career politicians that bases her agenda to what she thinks public wants and she relies heavily on experts and other interested parties to form her answers and solutions instead of her own personal thinking, which make her look a person that is cold and who don't have solid foundation to her beliefs. Although when you add her understanding of law, political process of making laws and quite long experience of foreign politics to her ability to be "sock puppet", then she makes a excellent candidate for president, especially if you are liberal conservative. But as said she appearance may give cold and calculating expression to people, meaning that her personal charisma, which is for some people much important persons efficiency in job, may cause them seek some other candidate. Of course Hillary isn't best candidate for people that seek change in how politics are played in USA. For those Sanders is much better option if they want USA to take more socialistic approach, and for those who seek something else republican candidates may be only options.

Base building seems to have it downside in causing game run worse when you have more complex bases and lots of supply routes. I would guess that minutemen patrols also are in partial blame as their numbers rise.

Which seems to be quite common thinking process among the voters as most of the talk I hear is why somebody should not be elected to be the president and much less reasons why one should be elected. It is quite strange way to approach such elections, but maybe it is realistic point of view, as it follows thinking "everybody is awful with such much power so we need to find one that is able to do least damage" (which is quite conservative world view, but not necessary unexpected if most of the people are happy with their lives as it is now).

Like how every victory that she has leads to another catastrophe and how regardless of what she does everything seems to keep to be miserable only thing that changes is who are the abusers and the killers. And how she constantly grows thicker skin that allows her to do more drastic measures. PoE isn't as dark and cynical as you are actually able to make people start to tolerate and live peacefully together.

I guess the difference is that ASOIAF feels dark and hopeless at all times, whereas PoE feels hopeless because they are in the middle of a very grave crisis, the kind of which I don't think we've never seen in the real world. Seriously, was there ever a plague which targeted only children while leaving adults alone? There has been quite lot of diseases that target only/mostly children (mainly because people that live to adulthood had immunity by nature or by surviving the disease). But there has been times in our history when infant death percent has been near 50% if not bit over and only under 30% of people actually ever saw adulthood. So hollowborn epidemic is actually more horrible for modern people than what it probably would had been to people that actually lived in our history's darkest times.

Game has choices and consequences quite lot, but player has quite little agency over the story as player's character mostly does what they do because of flow of the story. So in other words story don't follow players decision, but instead players decision follow events in the story, which come in linear fashion. It is format that IE games, which PoE tries to mimic, use. I personally have same preference as Chris in this subject.