-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Valsuelm
-
Why does Obsidian have physical offices?
Valsuelm replied to Malignacious's topic in Obsidian General
Why do you even care? It's not your money, after all. He's a troll. He doesn't really care. He just creates threads for the reasons trolls do. -
Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law..controversial ?
Valsuelm replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
I would imagine that given who Satan is and what he represents that most Christians would object to participating in a Satanic ritual celebrating the marriage of a man and a woman. Most certainly most Christians would object to baking a cake with an upside down cross on it, no matter what it was for. You may as well ask a Jew to bake a cake with a Swastika on it, or a devout Hindu butcher to chop up some cows for you. If you look really hard you might find some that might, but you'd probably find a lot more telling you to bugger off (moreso I would think in the latter scenario). There are many things that a Christian (or anyone else, religious or not) might morally object to and not want any part of. Why marriage is seen as good.... that would take a book to answer fully. Put simply: Marriage is generally seen as good as Christians in general celebrate life (a fundamental reason that in general Christians oppose abortion), and view marriage as the ideal and best manner in which children can be brought into the world and raised. Sex outside of marriage is frowned upon for a variety of reasons. The bond of marriage is a sacred holy bond to many Christians. Christians generally hold the love and bond between a man and woman in high regard. As for Christian views of non-Christians getting married and having kids. Most Christians don't view non-Christians as folks who will necessarily suffer eternal damnation, Certainly there are some who do. Heck there are sects of Christians (of pretty much any religion) that think if one doesn't follow their way one is going to suffer eternally, or in this life. For the most part however, people with such thoughts are not deriving them from their religion, but to their credit, most if not all of those sects do attempt to persuade others to follow their way of life, so in their minds they do try and save those that they see as being on the path to hell. Christians certainly generally do not look at a child of anyone (even Mr. and Mrs. Satan's kid) and think to themselves that the kid is going to hell because of his parents (note that Christians who protest abortions aren't saying 'we're only protesting abortions by Christians, the others can abort for all we care, in fact we hope they do'; Christians generally view all human life as sacred). If anything they'd look at it as a new opportunity to tell someone else of Christ and the Bible. This is part of the reason (though I wouldn't say the primary) that a great deal of missionary and charity work is done all over the world where Christianity is not common, by many Christian churches. Note: I'm not exactly a practicing Christian. I do know a lot about Christianity, as I'm a lifelong student of history, went to a Christian church as a kid, and find the subject of religions and spirituality very interesting. if you want better answers than what I've given, I recommend actually going to one of your local churches and attempting to talk to one of it's clergy or even some of it's members. Clergy in general are happy to talk to people about their religion and answer questions. Even to people not of their religion (this is how I learned quite a bit of what I know of Judaism). Members of course run the spectrum a bit more, from those who will happily talk to you to those who for whatever reason would rather not, and of course some will be more intelligent and knowledgeable on whatever subject you're interested in than others. I myself almost always have interesting conversations with the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses when they stop by in hopes of converting me. Believe it or not, most of them are pretty smart in my experience and aren't afraid of tough questions. I also have had some interesting conversations with an old priest turned part-time auto salesman who I run into at a local bar on occasion. And by way of a former job know more rabbis than priests at this point in my life. If one is respectful, people often are happy to talk about their religion with you. Morality and discussions about it can be quite complex. Such things are best done in person. -
He is the guy who posted the logic fail video about shooting cops. So who cares.. NM, my mistake, I was thinking off Valsuelm. Logic fail eh? Please explain logically, where any fail is.
-
Haha. Volourn uses quotations correctly for once and confuses many people.
-
Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law..controversial ?
Valsuelm replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. But if the particular sect of a Christian church doesn't recognize gay marriage, its not a marriage at all to them. So why is it important? And why is it sinful other over heretical marriages to the point that it is singled out as prohibited? I already told you, but I guess I'll repeat. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. To be more clear they see homosexuality (and other 'LGBT' behaviors) as immoral and destructive, and they want no part of celebrating what they see as immoral, destructive, and sinful. Might some people, Christian or other, have a belief that participating in a wedding ceremony of someone who holds a faith other than theirs is sinful? Possibly, there's a lot of people out there. But in general, Christians have no problem with a marriage between a man and a woman no matter what that man and woman's faith is or isn't. A marriage between a man and woman is generally seen as a good thing to Christians. -
Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law..controversial ?
Valsuelm replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
I know you said you didn't have time for this, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts on whether, conceptually, it would be different (and how) if scenario 1 read "If a Hindi couple go to a bakery and order an Hindu themed wedding cake and the owner of the bakery refuses to make them one on religious grounds" And whether that is still fine our not. The Hindu wedding is just as heretical to Christian belief as the gay one is, given that neither would be marriage in the "Eyes of God" from the Christian perspective. Christians generally don't have a problem with a man and woman of a non-Christian faith getting married. Of course they'd prefer to see them Christian as they think it's for their own good, but generally a Christian would celebrate a man and woman getting married no matter if they were Hindu, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Islamic, whatever. To put it simply, why Christians (and others) have a problem with participating in a marriage that is not between a man and a woman is that they see it as immoral and destructive. They want no part of a ceremony that is celebrating what they see as sinful. -
Best Western Strategiests are non-educated posers.
Valsuelm replied to obyknven's topic in Way Off-Topic
Oby isn't delusional, he's just trollin'.... It's rare that a troll isn't delusional.- 55 replies
-
Kaspersky detected trojan in pillarsofeternity.exe ?
Valsuelm replied to Metamega's topic in Skeeter's Junkyard
I'm pretty sure using a sample of one is what's a "load of crock" here. Not really. Keep Kaspersky. If you're going to link an AV comparison guide, use a good one, not what you linked. Could you specify what makes the AV comparison guide you linked better than the one I linked? When I read your guide, it says the same thing as the one I linked: Bitdefender 6 awards (4 Gold, 1 Bronze, Product of the year) - 18 points in my guide Kaspersky 6 awards (2 Gold, 3 Silver, Top Rated Product 2014) - 18 points in my guide Eset NOD32 4 awards (1 Gold, 2 Bronze, Top Rated Product 2014) - 15 points in my guide Bitdefender is the best, Kaspersky second and NOD32 a bit behind, in both guides. Well, first you linked an article, not the source the article is based on, but If all you're doing is look at medals and ratings I suppose it doesn't really matter. If you look a bit more into the two it should be apparent why AV-Comparatives is better than AV-Test (the article's source) . In short it does some more rigorous testing, provides quite bit more useful information, as well as better explanation behind it's findings. -
You really underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare, while your point still stands the could cripple the Southern Lands economically (Although I doubt they had the presence of mind to stick to guerrilla tactics) Well... not only can guerrilla warfare be successful, there's a number of fairly famous incidents in history where the 'rabble' soundly defeated what some considered the better organized, better equipped army. The folks that fought the war that founded the nation I live in were considered rabble by many, as were the Finnish in the Winter War, the Zulus, various Native American tribes that fought quite successfully against the U.S., Mexicans, et al for awhile, the Huns, Germans, and Barbarians of Roman times, and so on. [Note: possible minor spoilers if you haven't read the book below, but I only reference things that are revealed in the books up until the point of the Battle for Castle Black.] The situation of the Wildlings was somewhat simplified for the show. I honestly don't recall all the details of the battle where Stannis captured Mance other than that the element of surprise was crucial, Mance's army was already quite weary from fierce battle with the crows, and in the book it was not the complete rout that the TV show portrays it as (in general the TV show really glosses over some awesomely described battles, more than a couple of times; the only battle I think the show did a fair amount of justice to was the battle for King's Landing in season 2). The end result is the same though: Mance surrenders. Here's a few factors that are pertinent to the Wildlings being far more than just rabble. Had Mance been at full strength when Stannis arrived and known he was coming the outcome very well might have been much different. 1. There's a poopton of them. 2. They aren't looking to conquer really, they're looking to get beyond the wall, settle, and use the Wall as a shield against the Others (what it was meant for). Mance isn't an idiot. On the contrary he's very intelligent, insightful, and pragmatic. He's from south of the wall, he used to be a crow. He knows what he's leading and what he needs to do. Direct conflict with well organized southern armies was something he was looking to avoid if possible. 3. The Wildlings are fleeing the Others. They have no choice but to assault the Wall. it's get south of the wall and try and make a life there or remain north for certain very unpleasant death for them. 4. They've got giants, mammoths, and other allies that aren't quite human that trump your average human. In the book these forces actually do a good amount of damage to Stannis's troops. 5. Mance knows that the crows are badly outnumbered. He knows Castle Black's defenses. He knows all of the Wall's defenses. 6. The bulk of the King of the North's army is far to the south and cannot defend the Wall. And in short, no one is coming to the defense of the Wall. If Stannis didn't show up, the Wildlings would have taken the Wall and pretty much had their way with the North, for quite some time. If not indefinitely as the forces of the south are otherwise occupied. 7. Melisandre kills Varamyr's eagle, which Mance was relying on as his eyes. This is something completely unexpected (there's no indication the Wildlings are familiar with Melisandre's kind of magic, but even if they are they have no reason to believe that the crows or anyone fighting for the Seven Kingdoms has access to it), something almost no one else could do, and crucial for securing Stannis that element of surprise. This probably more than anything else lead to victory for Stannis. 8. Mance has spies south of the Wall, and he knows quite a lot of what's going on there. He even spied south of the wall himself prior to the Wildling's march on the wall. 9. While there's some rabble within the Wildling's army, they are not quite as unorganized as portrayed in the show. In the books it's made fairly clear that Mance feigns more disorganization than the Wildlings really have to Jon and the crows. Mance has a number of lieutenants that are competent and loyal to the cause if not to him. Some of which are not portrayed much if at all in the show. Anyways. In short, the Wildlings were not just rabble. Had they met Stannis on the field fresh and unsurprised evidence in the book suggests they very well may have kicked his ass right back out of the north. Remember too, that the Wildlings are in a fight or die position, most of them realize this, which a primary reason why they joined Mance to begin with. Stannis is leading an army of mostly mercenaries, fighting in lands they do not know against a foe that knows those lands. Loyal to the coin they are paid. In general I'll put my money on the man who is fighting for his and his family's life over the man who is fighting for some coin, just about any day.
-
You realize you're putting a whole bunch of spoilers out there for a lot people right? Had I not read the books I'd be hating you right now. Very big spoilers for anyone who has not read A Dance with Dragons below:
-
There's a few different theories on the subject. The place to go to read and discuss them is here.
-
Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law..controversial ?
Valsuelm replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
The great wrong was the 1964 Civil Rights act that had provisions in it that were unconstitutional. Without it, we wouldn't have the problem (at least in most places; states could pass similar laws if their Constitution allowed, discussing that is a huge 'what if' speculation scenario with many variables) of folks suing private businesses because they think they were discriminated against. Arguably the even greater wrong however was the corruption and bastardization of the Constitution in rulings such as Wickard v. Filburn, that created the infamous commerce clause loophole that has been used to justify all sorts of expansion of power and evil by the Federal government, such as parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Without FDR's packed court, decisions such as Wickard v. Filburn which entirely changed how the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution was legally interpreted (generally for the worse unless you're a socialist or fascist of some sort), we wouldn't have had the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or at least the unconstitutional provisions in it which applied to private businesses. Discussing this, the fundamentals of how we got here, is taboo in many people's eyes though, as the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a sacred cow to many, as generations have been taught for the most part that this was a only a good thing and necessary. One is generally automatically deemed a racist or some other bad thing if one comes out against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which while it had some good provisions, it also had some evil draconian tyrannical provisions. Two wrongs don't make a right and the ends don't justify the means both very much apply here. These are some the building blocks on the road of good intentions to hell. But we can't talk about them as a nation because the populace as a whole has been conditioned to reject rational discussion of the issue. In the mainstream media and the brainwashee's mind the issue is settled, cannot be revisited, and anyone questioning it is marginalized. So, we continue to keep laying bricks to hell, with this issue and others. -
Yea... companies that are essentially government sponsored monopolies in most markets, like Comcast, Time Warner, or my gas/power company tend to have the same set types of incompetent asswipe characters servicing the public as the government does. My power company's customer service is generally atrocious, though Time Warner's isn't that bad in my experience once you get past their tier one incompetents (there are tricks to do this fairly quick) who actually have always at least been friendly even if they have little to no idea what they are talking about in my experience. That there even are government sponsored monopolies is also another indicator of tyranny.
-
Indiana's Freedom of Religion Law..controversial ?
Valsuelm replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
Ed Schultz... The poster boy for what's wrong with the mainstream media news networks. He makes Bill O'Reilly look level headed, Sean Hannity look humble, Keith Olbermann look mentally well balanced, and Piers Morgan look intelligent. Fortunately the latter two are gone from 'news' for the time being, if only all the other aforementioned would follow suit. -
You've had experiences with belligerent DMV peoples? Haha. I've only had experiences with mentally slow, physically slow, uncaring, remorseless, and generally all around super incompetent yet docile DMV peoples. It's funny for me to imagine the overweight chair weights that serve as my local DMV peoples getting belligerent. I think if they did bad stuff might happen to them and the government goons (police) would need to be called because there's generally enough anger and frustration amongst the public who are at the DMV already that if they were presented with a belligerent DMV person that DMV person might get pummeled by some of the crowd. That said, it's generally only government workers that ever get away with belligerence and abuse while on the job in our society (it's also generally only government workers that get away with sustained high levels incompetence and keep their job). For the most part in any other job dealing with the public a person would be fired for doing what that cop did. That government workers so often get away with such belligerence and abuse on the public is an indicator of tyranny. Oh.. and the DMV should be abolished. So much modern government evil can be traced to it. The cons outweigh the pros like an oil freighter outweighs a kitten.
-
You can stop trolling anytime. You're essentially saying that someone who orders a hamburger in a restaurant needs to tell the waiter ahead of time that they don't want deermeat in place of the beef, cow dung mixed in with it, or anything else other than what a hamburger is, and not the waiter's job to inform the customer that what's listed on the menu isn't exactly what one will get when one sinks their teeth into their order. If you're not trolling and you actually believe that, you're a bit messed in the head, as well as fundamentally dishonest. While I'm sure it's the dream of the some of the gender confused that everyone else be gender confused, that is not the case for most people, fortunately for the human race. Trying to imply the dishonest person is in the right over the duped person is evil. That said, the arguments presented for censoring the headstone are complete nonsense as there's nothing definitive in the limerick even says there was a transanything in that bed, or even that anyone lied, it's really quite ambiguous. It does not bode well for our society and culture that such nonsense is given an ear.
-
Kaspersky detected trojan in pillarsofeternity.exe ?
Valsuelm replied to Metamega's topic in Skeeter's Junkyard
Some years back I would have recommended Spybot as a must have, and did for many people. Sadly, it's usefulness fell off a few years ago. I actually have it on my computer (it's free and doesn't take up a lot of space) and still run it every once in awhile. It hasn't found anything my AV or Malwarebytes hasn't found in years, but I keep it around just in case, though perhaps mostly out of habit at this point. A few years back I got a nasty virus (one of two I've ever gotten in ~25 years of internet/BBS use), that got through my AV (I was using Avast or AVG at the time (forget which for sure) and Spybot). After some research I found malwarebytes, and that detected and took care of my problem when the AV and Spybot didn't. Malwarebytes is free and I've been using it ever since. I picked up a lifetime license for the premium version a couple of years ago for $5 on newegg.com as part of a bundle with something. Sadly I don't think the lifetime licenses are offered anymore (looks like they became successful and then greedy like so many other companies), but the free version is just about as good (insofar as protection I'm pretty sure it is as good). Highly recommended. -
Kaspersky detected trojan in pillarsofeternity.exe ?
Valsuelm replied to Metamega's topic in Skeeter's Junkyard
Not really. Keep Kaspersky. If you're going to link an AV comparison guide, use a good one, not what you linked. Monthly reports change insofar as who is at the top in various categories. Overall NOD32 wins the 'false alarm' category as well as the impact on system resources catagory. The best overall AVs out there over the last few years in regards to protection vs other factors (like false alarms, impact on system resources, invasive/annoying notifications, etc) are (in alpha order) : Bitdefender, F-Secure, Kaspersky, and NOD32. They all offer very good protection and are about equal in this regard. Protection however isn't the only important factor in an AV for many people. If it was then I'd add AVG, Avast, and others to the list of good AVs (protection wise these are good AVs, but they fail in other factors). I've personally used all of these except Bitdefender (just haven't ever needed to as I became happy with NOD32). As someone who travels in the darker alleys of the web Kaspersky gave me far more false positives than F-Secure or NOD32 did. In fact, it was those false positives that lead me to get rid of it. I personally prefer NOD32 to F-Secure as I found F-Secure to lock down my computer a little more than I personally like (your average user probably wouldn't notice this though) as well as it's a usually quite a bit more expensive (at least in the U.S.; you can often find NOD32 or Kaspersky on sale for much less than F-Secure at newegg.com and other vendors). So again, if one finds false positives in Kaspersky to be an issue (as I once did), then I recommend NOD32. Also, no matter what AV you use, I recommend getting your hands on a copy of Malwarebytes as well, as even the best AVs sometimes fail to catch all the malware there is out there. With a good AV and Malwarebytes you've essentially got two good strong condoms on, and will be unlikely to ever catch any unwanted malware, save for the kind that you might actually give the ok to install (like some companies tool bar via another companies installer; but not everyone considers this malware). if you ever end up with crap you find hard to get off your computer and your OS, AV, or Malwarebytes doesn't do the job, then I recommend RevoUninstaller. -
Being repulsed by something =/ a fear of it. Unless you're actually afraid of cross dressers or folks who like to mutilate their genitalia and perhaps replace it with the genitalia of the opposite sex via surgery then you have no such phobia. Repulsion often leads to phobia, though, and particularly to very negative and unwarranted behaviour towards the person they irrationally find "repulsive". You make an unintelligent assumption that whatever is repulsive to the person is irrational. For the most part being repulsed by anything or anyone is a subjective thing, as is being attracted to someone or something. It's rarely a matter of being rational or irrational. Is the proverbial pig in **** irrational for loving being there, is your average human irrational for not wanting to be there? No, it's entirely subjective. Also, being repulsed by something/someone generally just leads to not wanting to be around it/them and that's about it, super rarely does it lead to a phobia (that would generally be irrational), or 'unwarranted behavior' (what's warranted or not is often subjective itself). I don't know what your first language is, guessing not English, and maybe you're mistranslating repulsion, but absolutely it is irrational. If it's rational, it's not repulsion. If you're rationalizing it after the fact, as a "survival instinct" or whatever, that's rationalizing, rather than actually being rational. The poster above you understands this. My first language is indeed English, and I'm not 'mistranslating' anything. If you think being repulsed by something is necessarily irrational then you either have a misunderstanding of what it is to be repulsed, a misunderstanding of what it is to be irrational, or have a very limited imagination.
-
Being repulsed by something =/ a fear of it. Unless you're actually afraid of cross dressers or folks who like to mutilate their genitalia and perhaps replace it with the genitalia of the opposite sex via surgery then you have no such phobia. Repulsion often leads to phobia, though, and particularly to very negative and unwarranted behaviour towards the person they irrationally find "repulsive". You make an unintelligent assumption that whatever is repulsive to the person is irrational. For the most part being repulsed by anything or anyone is a subjective thing, as is being attracted to someone or something. It's rarely a matter of being rational or irrational. Is the proverbial pig in **** irrational for loving being there? Is your average human irrational for not wanting to be there? No, it's entirely subjective. Also, being repulsed by something/someone generally just leads to not wanting to be around it/them and that's about it, super rarely does it lead to a phobia (that would generally be irrational), or 'unwarranted behavior' (what's warranted or not is often subjective itself).
-
The Weird, Random, and Interesting things that Fit Nowhere Else Thread..
Valsuelm replied to Raithe's topic in Way Off-Topic
Over my and a lot of other people's dead bodies would that ever happen.- 488 replies
-
- miscellaneous
- weird stuff
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Kaspersky detected trojan in pillarsofeternity.exe ?
Valsuelm replied to Metamega's topic in Skeeter's Junkyard
NOD32 One of the best AVs out there at detecting things, and nowhere near the number of false alarms as Kaspersky and many others.