Page 1075 of 1085 FirstFirst ... 7557597510251065107110721073107410751076107710781079 ... LastLast
Results 26,851 to 26,875 of 27122

Thread: The Humble Abode (Thread of Randomness)

  1. #26851
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Mater Urbium
    Posts
    27,488
    Good lord, KMan, your hate for Trump and all things not-democrat is reaching new levels of ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    O'RLY?

    http://usuncut.com/news/references-c...house-website/

    So much for "softening his stance on climate change", he said on his official White House page that he wants to wipe out the Climate Action Plan.

    Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone
    U-huh because denying that man-made global warming is happening (which he isn't) and mindlessly giving in to any and all regulations -- no matter how much and unfairly they might impact the middle class -- proposed by elitist politicians who will never have to worry about the impact of climate change nor give a F about the people it will impact, is TOTALLY synonymous

    Your logic is flawed as usual, KMan. Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone, you're basically the Alex Jones of the left

    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    he nominated fellow climate change denier (Scott Pruitt) to lead the EPA, hell, filled his cabinet with climate change deniers left and right: Rick Perry, Jeff Sessions (who might I add, is also a white supremacist, coincidence?), Michael Flynn, Tom Price, Ben Carson, the list goes on and on, that should tell you everything you need to know.
    Nope, wrong again. None of this tells us anything about Trump's stance on global warming. You know what does? This

    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    Jeff Sessions (who might I add, is also a white supremacist, coincidence?)
    Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even your boy Bernie The Backstabber Sanders all associate themselves with black supremacists. Coincidence?



    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    Seriously, he doesn't believe in climate change




    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    yet he believes that hokey "vaccines cause autism" BS?
    I'll refer you to my discussion with Adobe

    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    What next, is he going to come out and say that the Holocaust didn't happen?

    Wow, really? Wow. Pathetic, dude.

    Hey KMan, Bernie Sanders believes in the BS lies that the crazies from the racist hate group BLM put out. What's next, is he going to come out and say that white people should hand over all their money to black people as reparations for slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    I'm talking about the fact that he thinks South Korea, Japan and Iran should all have access to nuclear weapons, and yes, I included Iran because Trump, against all common sense, also wants to wipe out the Iran deal. Which BTW, he himself has lied about saying (or not saying): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...said-more-cou/

    Yup, nothing to be concerned about there at all.
    Spoken like a true imperialistic world police. Yeah let's not give South Korea the means to defend itself from the constant threats coming from North Korea - an insane total dictatorship who is currently developing and testing nuclear weapons and who publicly provokes its southern counterpart on a daily basis.

    As for Japan - give me one good reason why Japan shouldn't have nukes to defend itself while your country is freaking swimming in warhead stockpiles

    Yeah nothing hypocritical about that at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    Trump, against all common sense, also wants to wipe out the Iran deal
    Oh nos Trump wants to wipe out the Iran deal, you say? NO! Not the Iran deal! Oh dear god NO!


    ....let me ask you something: do you even KNOW what the Iran deal entails? Have you even READ the Iran deal? (And no, parroting a one or two line summary from regressive news outlets opinion regurgitators like Secular Talk or TYT doesn't count. )


    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    And on that note, I just thought I'd share this:



    LMAO, you can't make this ish up. That picture (or rather, vid) is worth a thousand words.

    And that's not even the worst part. How exactly does he intend to "give back to the people"? By raising your mortgage rates first thing when he takes office!

    At least Bane was honest about giving the poor a voice: he broke up the banks, Trump filled his cabinet with them. And just screwed millions of working class folks everywhere out of owning a home. Who didn't see that coming?

    I hate to say I told you so... nah, I love doing that.

    I told you so.

    If you're going to plagiarize Batman villains, at least stick to your guns.
    OMG Trump's speech writer remembered a line from a fictional character from a silly superhero film That's it, we need to impeach this administration, NAO! Quick, someone start a change.org petition, on the double!

    Driber.net | Forum Thumbnailer | Driber Wagon™ | RAWR! | TR Ancient Legends III - Lost Chambers | -- .- .-. .. . / .. ... / -.-. ..- - . :-)

  2. #26852
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    So we should make it illegal then for parents to smoke in their own homes. Alright then, let's bring back the gestapo!
    People do have a right to smoke in their own homes. But would anyone in their right mind argue that smoking near your kids is a good thing? Even a remotely sensible thing? I'm not suggesting going the "gestapo" route, but where there isn't even a debate on the effects of second hand smoke, parents who would do that should be condemned for irresponsible parenting. Not legally, but certainly by "court of opinion", as in called out on their reckless behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    99% of climate scientists agree that global warming is being caused by things like farming, exhaust, air conditioning, coal burning, etc. This is not just a matter of opinion, but credible data. So please stop making bad choices by continuing to eat meat, stop driving cars and flying planes to comic conventions, stop having a comfortable office and home temperature, and stop spending hours every day on the internet and playing video games. Your objectively bad choices are killing the planet and endangering the health of our children!
    Actually most developed countries are implementing corrective measures on that front. Here in Canada regular emissions testing for cars older than a certain date is mandatory. Factories are regulated on chemical emissions, depending on the nature of what they manufacture. I'm pretty sure similar statutes are in effect in the US as well.

    This does NOT mean we're all expected to abandon the comforts of modern technology. Combating the ecological damage doesn't mean we must become an Amish nation. Just exercising responsible management of our resources and waste regulation. All modern countries just doing their part in a collective effort to reduce the excessive waste to decelerate the effects that have been occurring over the past decades. And this to be practiced with moderation that only minimally impacts our day to day lives, not dismantling civilization altogether. Is that so unreasonable? Isn't recycling of paper, metal, and plastics rather than just throwing them into land fills now common practice the world over?

    The real problem as that all the countries contributing to the crisis the least (those with already smaller carbon footprints) are willing to do their part, while the nation with the biggest carbon footprint, China continues running along unregulated (ffs they're still operating coal factories in 2017), where no one has the jurisdiction to get them in line with everyone else who is taking responsible action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    Using your own argumentation here, we should make it mandatory for all children under the age of 18 to be vaccinated every single year against the latest flu strain. After all, flu kills a hell of a lot more people than polio

    So tell me Adobe, are you seriously going to argue that parents who don't give their children flu shots are "objectively bad parents"?
    I guess I'll have to speak purely from a Canadian perspective here; and even for myself yeah i do get the flu shot every year. The government doesn't enforce it, but they do encourage everybody does. And to help that along distributes the latest vaccine making it readily available at any hospital, walk-in clinic, and most established pharmacies, and completely free to the public.

    OK so it might be a stretch to say parents who don't take their kids to get the flu shot are "objectively bad parents", but it is so common place, and all people I know do participate - it is seen as being irresponsible not to. I mean don't all parents take their kids to the dentist regularly, for annual check ups with the family physician? Giving your kids the flu shot is seen as just the same, as a sensible precautionary measure. At least that's how it is here.

    Though having to make my counter argument, I suppose it's made me reconsider the evaluation of personal choice, both for one's own self and the health care of children. Not that I would now be in favor of boycotting vaccines, just that my original wording isn't the best representation of my stance.

    What I'm conceding is that it's inaccurate to base either decision as "objectively good or bad", but any decision of importance should be made as an informed choice. And given all evidence, basing this decision on Jenny's crusade, founded on falsified reports, can in no way be considered an informed choice. I would easily argue that to take action from this blatant misinformation is very much the example of an uninformed choice. Maybe someone has other reasons they don't get vaccinated, but any decision not to (especially where kids are concerned) sure as hell shouldn't be influenced by that rubbish.

    But even worse, how people are basing their decision out of irrational fear, which I'm sure we'd all agree is the most senseless approach to reasoning. Because of her campaign of misinformation, making autism to be this bogeyman that targets kids who've been vaccinated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    Complete false equivalence. We know the earth isn't flat and we know where children come from; it's easily demonstrated. But we don't know that it's impossible for vaccinations to cause autism. At best you can say that there is no good evidence for it, but you can't say with certainty that it's impossible and that it has never happened.
    Oh come ON now Driber, I thought you of all people understood how the Burden of Proof works. It's not for us to disprove the claims that vaccines cause autism, it's for Jenny and what ever "doctor" who first wrote this proposition to prove it. And when all evidence is considered, let's face it, they completely failed to establish their case. There is NO tangible reason to think that vaccines cause autism, nor should we operate under the premise "well, we can't be completely sure that it doesn't, so it's safer not to..." That is failed logic right there.

    I mean really now, do you even realize that you just played into Pascal's Wager? So tell me then, even though you live in a secular country, and you've expressed your general disbelief in any god, are you perhaps going to weigh all your decisions and actions on just that possibility he/it might be out there... y'know just not to offend and have to face the holy wrath on your judgement day? I mean sure the chances may be remote, but considering the consequences, and that it would be for all eternity... can you reeeeeally afford to take that risk? Are you willing to risk it then? hmmmmmmm?
    Last edited by AdobeArtist; 24th Jan 2017 at 14:13.
    signature image

  3. #26853
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, UK
    Posts
    6,475
    Quote Originally Posted by AdobeArtist View Post
    OK so it might be a stretch to say parents who don't take their kids to get the flu shot are "objectively bad parents", but it is so common place, and all people I know do participate - it is seen as being irresponsible not to. I mean don't all parents take their kids to the dentist regularly, for annual check ups with the family physician? Giving your kids the flu shot is seen as just the same, as a sensible precautionary measure. At least that's how it is here.

    Though having to make my counter argument, I suppose it's made me reconsider the evaluation of personal choice, both for one's own self and the health care of children. Not that I would now be in favor of boycotting vaccines, just that my original wording isn't the best representation of my stance.
    The last time I had a vaccination was when I was around 6 or 7; I was physically forced to have it, in fact the school made my mother come in to make me have it. From then on, I've refused any sort of vaccination or jab that has been offered and I've been told to get - I am very rarely ill.
    Side note; I often notice that within a couple of weeks of people getting jabs, they end up suffering from the very same sickness.

    Where does the 'parental responsibility' end? My mother used to take me to the dentist; I never had issues with my teeth (even when the rest of my family did) but she still made me go, then when I was around 16, I was recommended braces. I got them, had them for a couple of years, had them removed and haven't seen a dentist or orthodontist since. I'm now at the age when I'm considered an adult, but back when I had my braces removed should my mother have made me see the dentist?

    Admittedly as a parent she didn't have much say in what I did with regards to jabs and the dentist, but that was down to me; would that have still made her irresponsible?
    As a 'potential' parent, I'll never force my child to do something they my not want to do, so that I look responsible.
    signature image

  4. #26854
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    U.S.G. Ishimura
    Posts
    2,955
    Watching my GF's son play through 'MGS5' nowadays. He's pretty bad at it. Doesn't have the patience for stealth and taking your time. Likes to run and gun, which gets him killed a lot. Anyhoo, it inspired me to start a fresh game of it. It's my 2nd time playing it through and it's a lot of fun if you play the original release and not the version that's been updated so much it's un-recognizable from it's original version. Way too many options in the iDroid and too much reliance on "online" features. I advise playing offline without any patches that've been released over the last year or so.

    Still, it does disappoint for an 'MGS' game and does make me miss what could've been with the game if the story had been fleshed out way more. Remember how awesome it looked before it's release?

    --->Winter's YouTube <--- Currently Serving 'TR:A'
    signature image

  5. #26855
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,050
    Ah, the never-ending political debates xD

    Anyways, apparently Crystal Dynamics are making an Avengers game

    Raiding tombs since 2007. tumblr | N7 #HeroOfFerelden #ChampionOfKirkwall
    signature image

  6. #26856
    ^Awesome news!

    BTW, I'm curious: has anyone else played the NieR Automata demo?
    signature image

  7. #26857
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,542
    So is anybody else gonna be playing the For Honor Beta? I have mine pre-loaded and ready to go when I'm done work today
    signature image

  8. #26858
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,768
    Another couple of vids for the Mass Effect fans awaiting Andromeda:

    signature image

  9. #26859
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,768
    Can someone tell me what the go is here? Normally, when you hold out to buy a pack of something that is more expensive, you are rewarded. Here, you lose a rare card?
    Did I miss something? Why wouldn't I just buy 2 platinum rather than a diamond pack?



    Edit: also, I think it's pretty average there's no break between the description and the 'fine print' nonsense.
    signature image

  10. #26860
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    ^Awesome news!

    BTW, I'm curious: has anyone else played the NieR Automata demo?
    I haven't played it or even know which platform it's on or what's it about but reading that title is always a bit strange as "nier" is the Dutch word for kidney.

  11. #26861
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    U.S.G. Ishimura
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    Can someone tell me what the go is here? Normally, when you hold out to buy a pack of something that is more expensive, you are rewarded. Here, you lose a rare card?
    Did I miss something? Why wouldn't I just buy 2 platinum rather than a diamond pack?

    Yeah that's incredibly odd. Borderline stupid. If anything I'd think that 'Diamond Pack' should have 9 cards. It is the most expensive one.
    --->Winter's YouTube <--- Currently Serving 'TR:A'
    signature image

  12. #26862
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,768
    Quote Originally Posted by AdobeArtist View Post
    So is anybody else gonna be playing the For Honor Beta? I have mine pre-loaded and ready to go when I'm done work today
    I didn't realise there was a beta :-/ Looks good though.
    I'm still waiting for a Ghost Recon Wildlands key, that's happening on the 3rd Feb.

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterSoldierLTE View Post
    Yeah that's incredibly odd. Borderline stupid. If anything I'd think that 'Diamond Pack' should have 9 cards. It is the most expensive one.
    Yeah. Maybe I'll suggest that in the feedback forum.
    signature image

  13. #26863
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    U.S.G. Ishimura
    Posts
    2,955
    My girlfriend & I went to see 'Split' last night in the theater. Fantastic movie. Easily the best M. Night Shymalan flick since 'Signs'. The ending is a bit odd, I heard several people in the crowd go "What the is this?!" but I personally didn't mind it. I'm not a James McAvoy fan at all, but that dude is excellent in it. I can not praise his performance enough, it alone is worth seeing the movie for. The story and everything else about it is good, don't get me wrong, but man he's just amazing in it. Go see it. It is excellent writing and again, a great performance. Highly recommend it.
    --->Winter's YouTube <--- Currently Serving 'TR:A'
    signature image

  14. #26864
    ^I was going to go see Resident Evil: The Final Chapter out of morbid curiosity, but after everything I've been hearing about how bad the cinematography and fight choreography (and, well, everything) is (how it's shaky cams galore to the point where you can't even see what's going on) from all the YouTube reviews I've seen, I think I might just go see Split tonight instead.

    I'll probably just Redbox it in a few months.
    signature image

  15. #26865
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Mater Urbium
    Posts
    27,488
    Quote Originally Posted by AdobeArtist View Post
    People do have a right to smoke in their own homes. But would anyone in their right mind argue that smoking near your kids is a good thing? Even a remotely sensible thing? I'm not suggesting going the "gestapo" route, but where there isn't even a debate on the effects of second hand smoke, parents who would do that should be condemned for irresponsible parenting. Not legally, but certainly by "court of opinion", as in called out on their reckless behavior.
    And what is the real life result of all this "court of opinion" moral outragery in today's nanny state? Children being taken from their homes by CPS.

    You smoke in front of your kid? Someone call CPS to tear your family to pieces!

    You let your kid walk to school by herself? Someone call CPS to demand you put a leash on your offspring 24/7!

    Actually most developed countries are implementing corrective measures on that front. Here in Canada regular emissions testing for cars older than a certain date is mandatory. Factories are regulated on chemical emissions, depending on the nature of what they manufacture. I'm pretty sure similar statutes are in effect in the US as well.

    This does NOT mean we're all expected to abandon the comforts of modern technology. Combating the ecological damage doesn't mean we must become an Amish nation. Just exercising responsible management of our resources and waste regulation. All modern countries just doing their part in a collective effort to reduce the excessive waste to decelerate the effects that have been occurring over the past decades. And this to be practiced with moderation that only minimally impacts our day to day lives, not dismantling civilization altogether. Is that so unreasonable? Isn't recycling of paper, metal, and plastics rather than just throwing them into land fills now common practice the world over?
    So in a nutshell, you're fine polluting our precious earth and killing the environment for future generations because you don't want to give up your luxuries during your lifetime here on the planet. Got it.

    Sounds pretty selfish of you, Adobe. Kind of like the attitudes of the anti-vaxxers you're so quick to morally condemn.

    The real problem as that all the countries contributing to the crisis the least (those with already smaller carbon footprints) are willing to do their part, while the nation with the biggest carbon footprint, China continues running along unregulated (ffs they're still operating coal factories in 2017), where no one has the jurisdiction to get them in line with everyone else who is taking responsible action.
    Come on, China, don't you dare do the exact same things we in the West used to do to build up our countries. Don't you dare turn your country into the economic powerhouses that we have become on decades of heavy industrial pollution.

    After all, it's le current year FFS!

    I guess I'll have to speak purely from a Canadian perspective here; and even for myself yeah i do get the flu shot every year. The government doesn't enforce it, but they do encourage everybody does. And to help that along distributes the latest vaccine making it readily available at any hospital, walk-in clinic, and most established pharmacies, and completely free to the public.

    OK so it might be a stretch to say parents who don't take their kids to get the flu shot are "objectively bad parents", but it is so common place, and all people I know do participate - it is seen as being irresponsible not to. I mean don't all parents take their kids to the dentist regularly, for annual check ups with the family physician? Giving your kids the flu shot is seen as just the same, as a sensible precautionary measure. At least that's how it is here.

    Though having to make my counter argument, I suppose it's made me reconsider the evaluation of personal choice, both for one's own self and the health care of children. Not that I would now be in favor of boycotting vaccines, just that my original wording isn't the best representation of my stance.

    What I'm conceding is that it's inaccurate to base either decision as "objectively good or bad", but any decision of importance should be made as an informed choice. And given all evidence, basing this decision on Jenny's crusade, founded on falsified reports, can in no way be considered an informed choice. I would easily argue that to take action from this blatant misinformation is very much the example of an uninformed choice. Maybe someone has other reasons they don't get vaccinated, but any decision not to (especially where kids are concerned) sure as hell shouldn't be influenced by that rubbish.

    But even worse, how people are basing their decision out of irrational fear, which I'm sure we'd all agree is the most senseless approach to reasoning. Because of her campaign of misinformation, making autism to be this bogeyman that targets kids who've been vaccinated.
    No, Adobe, it is certainly not "irrational fear" to be concerned about your government potentially pushing unsafe medicine onto its people in the name of profit.

    And to tarnish every single parent who is genuinely concerned for the safety of their child as crazy conspiracy nuts as you are obviously doing is offensive to say the least.

    Furthermore, if you think all these concerned parents are just ignorant rednecks who base health decisions solely on the ravings of Jenny, think again. Here, have a look at what respected, and major presidential candidates Gary Johnson and Doctor Jill Stein have put out there:

    https://twitter.com/govgaryjohnson/s...301440?lang=en

    http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_a...ence_questions

    A clear NO to mandatory vaccinations from Gary and a number of well-argued reasons to be skeptical from Jill.

    But hey, let's just point and laugh at loony Jenny and call it a day, right?

    Oh come ON now Driber, I thought you of all people understood how the Burden of Proof works. It's not for us to disprove the claims that vaccines cause autism, it's for Jenny and what ever "doctor" who first wrote this proposition to prove it. And when all evidence is considered, let's face it, they completely failed to establish their case. There is NO tangible reason to think that vaccines cause autism, nor should we operate under the premise "well, we can't be completely sure that it doesn't, so it's safer not to..." That is failed logic right there.
    Nice strawman there.

    You have incorrectly assumed that I am arguing against vaccines based on the fact that it cannot be disproven that vaccines don't cause autism. No, I was pointing out that you were making a false equivalence. You were comparing apples to freaking pitayas. You equated the notion of vaccines potentially causing autism (something that is unproven yet totally within the scope of actual reality, like lead paint causing cancer) to outright physically impossible absurdities like babies coming from storks.

    It's like listening to the whisleblower who alarmed us about the dangers of lead paint and responding with mockery "HAHA what a conspiritard, what's next, is he going to tell us that reptilians secretly rule the earth? "

    I mean really now, do you even realize that you just played into Pascal's Wager? So tell me then, even though you live in a secular country, and you've expressed your general disbelief in any god, are you perhaps going to weigh all your decisions and actions on just that possibility he/it might be out there... y'know just not to offend and have to face the holy wrath on your judgement day? I mean sure the chances may be remote, but considering the consequences, and that it would be for all eternity... can you reeeeeally afford to take that risk? Are you willing to risk it then? hmmmmmmm?
    Wow, really, dude? You're comparing my two* simple and reasonable stances on this very specific (and non-religious) issue to freaking Pascal's Wager? Wow. And I thought your false equivalence about storks and flat earths was bad

    No, what I said doesn't even come close to Pascal's Wager.



    *1: Parents should probably not be forced at gun-point to inject their children with whatever vaccine the government tells them to inject their children with. 2: Big Pharma and governments are known to do crazy in the name of the almighty dollar, so being skeptical of government issued vaccines probably shouldn't be so easily condemned as "objectively bad parenting".


    Quote Originally Posted by a_big_house View Post
    The last time I had a vaccination was when I was around 6 or 7; I was physically forced to have it, in fact the school made my mother come in to make me have it. From then on, I've refused any sort of vaccination or jab that has been offered and I've been told to get - I am very rarely ill.
    Side note; I often notice that within a couple of weeks of people getting jabs, they end up suffering from the very same sickness.

    Where does the 'parental responsibility' end? My mother used to take me to the dentist; I never had issues with my teeth (even when the rest of my family did) but she still made me go, then when I was around 16, I was recommended braces. I got them, had them for a couple of years, had them removed and haven't seen a dentist or orthodontist since. I'm now at the age when I'm considered an adult, but back when I had my braces removed should my mother have made me see the dentist?

    Admittedly as a parent she didn't have much say in what I did with regards to jabs and the dentist, but that was down to me; would that have still made her irresponsible?
    As a 'potential' parent, I'll never force my child to do something they my not want to do, so that I look responsible.
    I agree that "responsible parenting" can be highly subjective. A lot of helicopter parents and CPS agents these days will jump up and down claiming that merely letting your kid walk to school by themselves is "irresponsible parenting". Because, you know.... child molesters are "everywhere" today

    Driber.net | Forum Thumbnailer | Driber Wagon™ | RAWR! | TR Ancient Legends III - Lost Chambers | -- .- .-. .. . / .. ... / -.-. ..- - . :-)

  16. #26866
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,768
    I guess my biggest issue with Trump being elected is the rapidly degrading separation of church and state. Not that the gap was large, mind you - swearing in on a bible is a good indicator.

    I was agnostic, am now athiest, but am perilously close to active anti-theist. Religion as a whole has begun to bother me, as more and more it's used as a crutch by those who can't put forward a compelling argument.
    Apparently, humans can't change the climate and to believe so would be arrogant - only God can do that - and that the scientific evidence put forth can be invalidated by the "Lord Almighty" in the blink of an eye.
    (Paraphrased quote of James Inhofe, US Minister for Environment)

    In the first few weeks he's been in, he's decimated the right of a woman to have an abortion, begun the process of undoing gay marriage and outwardly said Christian refugees will be prioritised over all others. It's all downhill from here, I think.
    signature image

  17. #26867
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Mater Urbium
    Posts
    27,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    I guess my biggest issue with Trump being elected is the rapidly degrading separation of church and state. Not that the gap was large, mind you - swearing in on a bible is a good indicator.
    Almost all presidents swear on the bible, even those who are not (very) religious and/or are in favor of separation of church and state. It's not really an indicator I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    I was agnostic, am now athiest, but am perilously close to active anti-theist.
    Called it Welcome to the club, heh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    Religion as a whole has begun to bother me, as more and more it's used as a crutch by those who can't put forward a compelling argument.
    Apparently, humans can't change the climate and to believe so would be arrogant - only God can do that - and that the scientific evidence put forth can be invalidated by the "Lord Almighty" in the blink of an eye.
    (Paraphrased quote of James Inhofe, US Minister for Environment)
    Yeah absolutely insane.

    I sometimes wonder how many of these politicians that spew this utter garbage actually believe it themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    In the first few weeks he's been in, he's decimated the right of a woman to have an abortion, begun the process of undoing gay marriage
    What did Trump do exactly to "decimate abortion rights"?

    Also, I believe Trump said he's okay with gay marriage. How is he undoing it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    and outwardly said Christian refugees will be prioritised over all others. It's all downhill from here, I think.
    Uhm, tell me how exactly this doesn't make sense. Trump is taking measures to combat Islamic terrorism, which is a major problem right now, so a temporary ban on Muslim refugees (which imports more Islamic terrorism) while prioritizing refugees who don't pose an existential risk to your country because they are not brainwashed with a violent death cult sounds like a perfectly logical thing to do.

    Driber.net | Forum Thumbnailer | Driber Wagon™ | RAWR! | TR Ancient Legends III - Lost Chambers | -- .- .-. .. . / .. ... / -.-. ..- - . :-)

  18. #26868
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,768
    I don't know if anyone is following Horizon: Zero Dawn, but Ashly Burch has been named as the voice of Aloy - the same actor who voiced Nadia in Rise. (Also Chloe in Life is Strange)

    (click image to enlarge)

    (click image to enlarge)
    http://www.ashlyburch.com/acting/
    I've read quite a few "hands-on"s of this and all things point to it being real good.

    Also, anyone else signed up for the Ghost Recon Wildlands beta?

    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    Almost all presidents swear on the bible, even those who are not (very) religious and/or are in favor of separation of church and state. It's not really an indicator I think.
    Called it Welcome to the club, heh.
    Do we get rings with lasers in them?

    Yeah absolutely insane.

    I sometimes wonder how many of these politicians that spew this utter garbage actually believe it themselves.
    I think that's the scary part, that they actually do.
    Trump though, being a "born again Christian" (protestant, I think?) right before all this went down I'll bet was just a checkbox in the "how to become president" handbook. Frankly I think he's just doing all this for profit.

    What did Trump do exactly to "decimate abortion rights"?
    Removed all funding to any institution that offers it, and will do the same for any institution that advises on it. What I understand this to mean is that for all those who are still under state health "insurance" (care, my a**) will never be able to find a place outside of the incredibly expensive.
    As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty bad.

    Also, I believe Trump said he's okay with gay marriage. How is he undoing it?
    He used to be, or was at least indifferent to it. Every single person he has placed in a major position of power has a solid agenda against gay marriage rights based on religious extremism. Anyone who does not share in his view is being removed. Somehow I don't think this is coincidental.
    I also read that he's considering a reversal of LGBT discrimination based on religious grounds. Eg. not issuing someone a marriage licence because it's against your religion's belief that it's between a man and woman.

    Now frankly, I'm somewhat ok with private businesses choosing who to deal with, but not the state.

    Uhm, tell me how exactly this doesn't make sense. Trump is taking measures to combat Islamic terrorism, which is a major problem right now, so a temporary ban on Muslim refugees (which imports more Islamic terrorism) while prioritizing refugees who don't pose an existential risk to your country because they are not brainwashed with a violent death cult sounds like a perfectly logical thing to do.
    Simply put, it's against the constitution. He said "Christian" specifically. But he said it was because they are treated terribly. What about athiests? Or those from any other religion? Apparently they are all "unbelievers" too.
    Maybe he just misspoke, but it seems clear to me.

    I've posted it elsewhere, but this just seems to be a "shock event". While everyone is focused on this really bad thing he's done, he's almost covertly replaced the NSC with Bannon and his other "yes men", distanced the Joint Chiefs and is basically creating his own echo chamber. No checks and balances, it seems.

    It's also been pointed out to me that the documents (the authors of being dead or missing) suggesting dodgy behaviour contained details of his role in the sale of a certain oil company, that would only happen if he became POTUS and removed sanctions. Soon after the election the sale went through, via shell companies.
    I'm curious
    signature image

  19. #26869
    The Avengers game isn't the only Marvel project being worked on at the moment (keyword: at the moment). Apparently, Eidos are also working on a Guardians of the Galaxy game:



    You can tell by my Rocket Raccoon avatar I'm looking forward to both. Too bad Deus Ex is being put on hold, though, MD left a lot of hanging threads.

    I've also been playing the hell out of the RE7 Nightmares DLC. Holy shiz is this mode fun. Actually, the whole game is great, especially in VR. Holy cow.

    Here's a successful playthrough:



    I could only get to "3 hours until dawn," but man, this mode's addicting as hell. It's basically CoD Zombies except you can actually beat it if you stay alive long enough (good luck with that).
    signature image

  20. #26870
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Mater Urbium
    Posts
    27,488
    So looks like already during the first days in office Trump is getting more things done than Obama did in his entire presidency

    America is officially out of the TPP as per Trump's campaign promise, he signed an order to temporarily ban people from Islamic countries coming to America, and the infamous wall looks to actually be under way.

    You can argue about whether these things are a good thing or not, but damn, the guy is actually working to get stuff done for a change.

    Hey Obama, how is Gitmo doing?


    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    Do we get rings with lasers in them?
    No rings with lasers I'm afraid, we don't have the same budget that Christians enjoy. But we do get to eat all the human babies we can!

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    I think that's the scary part, that they actually do.
    Trump though, being a "born again Christian" (protestant, I think?) right before all this went down I'll bet was just a checkbox in the "how to become president" handbook. Frankly I think he's just doing all this for profit.
    Nah that was Hillary, lol. With Trump I don't find it that far fetched that he genuinely wants to get his country back into shape. Was him running for president partly for growing his brand and business? Sure, quite possibly, but to say that was the only reason I think is too cynical.

    Agreed on the Christian thing, though; he's definitely been playing up the religion part for votes. I don't think he himself is as religious as the party he ran for. But you probably gotta blame that on America as a whole; it's still VERY much a religious country, with most people (republican and democrat) still identifying as Christians.... unfortunately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    Removed all funding to any institution that offers it, and will do the same for any institution that advises on it. What I understand this to mean is that for all those who are still under state health "insurance" (care, my a**) will never be able to find a place outside of the incredibly expensive.
    As far as I'm concerned, this is pretty bad.
    Hmm. Well as a staunch pro choice person that doesn't sound good, no, but I must stress that having the right to have an abortion doesn't automatically translate to a "right" to have it done at no (or low) expense. Those are two different things. Plastic surgery is expensive as hell, too. I don't see anyone campaigning to have plastic surgery costs covered by tax payers.

    So unless Trump will be signing a bill to outlaw abortions in the US (and I seriously doubt he will) you can't really make the argument that he's "decimating abortion rights".

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    He used to be, or was at least indifferent to it. Every single person he has placed in a major position of power has a solid agenda against gay marriage rights based on religious extremism. Anyone who does not share in his view is being removed. Somehow I don't think this is coincidental.
    Ah so nothing actually concrete then, just speculation on what might happen based on mere assumptions. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

    Also, you really think it's religious "extremism"? Over 95% of Muslims are against gay marriage. So you would call nearly all Muslims "extreme"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    I also read that he's considering a reversal of LGBT discrimination based on religious grounds. Eg. not issuing someone a marriage licence because it's against your religion's belief that it's between a man and woman. Now frankly, I'm somewhat ok with private businesses choosing who to deal with, but not the state.
    I agree that when you're working for the state you have to follow the law of the land. If you refuse to marry a gay couple based on your personal conviction I think you should be fired, simple as that.

    Having said that, I think there might be some wiggle room to satisfy both sides. Trump could sign a bill that allows state workers to recuse themselves and pass their duty onto other state workers who are okay with marrying gays. If Trump is considering something like that then it wouldn't be all that bad I guess. Not ideal, of course, but better than leaving gays hanging altogether.

    You say you're somewhat ok with a private business doing, though. Does that mean you're tolerating the infamous Christian cake bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay couples? And the Christian pizza bakers refusing to cater at the infamous hypothetical gay wedding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    Simply put, it's against the constitution. He said "Christian" specifically. But he said it was because they are treated terribly. What about athiests? Or those from any other religion? Apparently they are all "unbelievers" too.
    Maybe he just misspoke, but it seems clear to me.
    Well yes it's a well known fact that Islamic countries treat the kafir terribly. In some you can even be put to death for simply saying you don't believe in Allah.

    Seeing as Trump lives in a Christian country it only makes sense he primarily focuses on looking after his own. It's called kinship. The most likely reason he didn't specifically mention atheists for example is that he isn't exposed to atheism the same way you and I are. If he were, I bet he would include our group as well in his rhetoric about persecution of non Muslims by Muslims.

    Is it really against the US constitution, though? The jury seems to be still out on that one, with court cases in progress as we speak.

    Whether it is or isn't, however, doesn't automatically mean it doesn't make sense. See America's obsession with the second amendment for example It makes absolutely no sense for regular citizens to be walking around with freaking AK47's


    (click image to enlarge)


    (click image to enlarge)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    I've posted it elsewhere, but this just seems to be a "shock event". While everyone is focused on this really bad thing he's done, he's almost covertly replaced the NSC with Bannon and his other "yes men", distanced the Joint Chiefs and is basically creating his own echo chamber. No checks and balances, it seems.
    lol yeah right I'm sure Trump has been publicly speaking out against terrorism for decades in a massive conspiracy to one day appoint a bunch of people who he think will be loyal to him if he ever makes president

    Occam's razor, Tihocan, occam's razor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tihocan View Post
    It's also been pointed out to me that the documents (the authors of being dead or missing) suggesting dodgy behaviour contained details of his role in the sale of a certain oil company, that would only happen if he became POTUS and removed sanctions. Soon after the election the sale went through, via shell companies.
    I'm curious
    Hmm more gossip about Trump's business deals. I can honestly say I'm as interested in it as I am in the inner workings of the Clinton Foundation. Meaning, zero

    Driber.net | Forum Thumbnailer | Driber Wagon™ | RAWR! | TR Ancient Legends III - Lost Chambers | -- .- .-. .. . / .. ... / -.-. ..- - . :-)

  21. #26871
    I will say this: for all the feminist talk of "double standards," this is some double standards BS:

    Teacher who sleeps with two students won't have to register as a sex offender.

    First off, the circumstances of this story are shady at best. The "kid's" parents went on a trip to Africa, of all places and she somehow got their blessing to come with them while she was doing their 17 year old son behind their back, what are the odds? It gets worse, though: not only will she not have to register as a sex offender, but Wey won't even have to serve any jail time. Committing sex crimes has earned her all of 10 years probation! Can you f'ing believe it? Surprising, considering it happened in Texas, they're usually anal about that kind of thing, no pun intended.

    LOL, how much do you wanna bet that if the roles were reversed and it was a 28 year old male teacher sleeping with two 17 year old girl students of his and got off with a slap on the wrist without having to register, feminists would be going apeshyt the world over? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Of course they would!

    "B-b-b-b-but they were legal age of consent"

    Doesn't matter. Teachers having sex with students is illegal whether they're "legal" or not. So since it's technically a sex crime, they're right to be angry at her not having to register. I highly doubt the teacher would've gotten off so easily if it was a dude.
    Last edited by KManX89; 7th Feb 2017 at 14:31.
    signature image

  22. #26872
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Mater Urbium
    Posts
    27,488
    Quote Originally Posted by KManX89 View Post
    I will say this: for all the feminist talk of "double standards," this is some double standards BS:

    Teacher who sleeps with two underage students won't have to register as a sex offender.

    First off, the circumstances of this story are shady at best. The "kid's" parents went on a trip to Africa, of all places and she somehow got their blessing to come with them while she was doing their 17 year old son behind their back, what are the odds? It gets worse, though: not only will she not have to register as a sex offender, but Wey won't even have to serve any jail time. Committing sex crimes has earned her all of 10 years probation! Can you f'ing believe it? Surprising, considering it happened in Texas, they're usually anal about that kind of thing, no pun intended.

    LOL, how much do you wanna bet that if the roles were reversed and it was a 28 year old male teacher sleeping with two 17 year old girl students of his and got off with a slap on the wrist without having to register, feminists would be going apeshyt the world over? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Of course they would!

    "B-b-b-b-but they were legal age of consent"

    Doesn't matter. Teachers having sex with students is illegal whether they're "legal" or not. So since it's technically a sex crime, they're right to be angry at her not having to register. I highly doubt the teacher would've gotten off so easily if it was a dude.
    lol of course feminists would be up in arms if the genders were reversed. If feminists wouldn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all

    BUT I disagree with the sex registry thing. No way should she be on the registry for having consenting sex between two adults. That's messed up. I don't care if she's a teacher or not, the sex registry system in the US is already heavily F-ed up as it is (you can get on it for merely exposing body parts in public by accident - how insane is that! ) so NO.... let's not advocate for more people to be on that crazy list.

    Should she be fired from her job? Absolutely. Perhaps even bar her from teaching forever if you want to get especially harsh. But sex registry? NO WAY. I would say the exact same thing if it was a male teacher.

    Driber.net | Forum Thumbnailer | Driber Wagon™ | RAWR! | TR Ancient Legends III - Lost Chambers | -- .- .-. .. . / .. ... / -.-. ..- - . :-)

  23. #26873
    ^Massive typo on my part, the students weren't underage.

    Either way, still illegal.
    signature image

  24. #26874
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post

    So in a nutshell, you're fine polluting our precious earth and killing the environment for future generations because you don't want to give up your luxuries during your lifetime here on the planet. Got it.

    Sounds pretty selfish of you, Adobe. Kind of like the attitudes of the anti-vaxxers you're so quick to morally condemn.

    What.... the *BLEEP* ???




    I actually said by having all members of society (or at least a majority) make small contributions towards the well being of the planet, it all adds up. Not getting just a few to make complete sacrifices, but the many in a concerted effort, taking shared responsibility to effect minimal sacrifice to each individual. Which I am willing to do my part in reasonable measures. Did you not get my car emissions testing, and recycling examples?

    Just HOW did you read anything I said as 'I'm going to live my life unhindered and pass the burden to future generations'. Seriously, just how??

    As for the main topic of vaccines themselves, I think we're at the point of running in circles here. My main point is arguing against parents not getting their kids vaccinated for the wrong reasons, namely being blinded by Jenny McCarthy's crusade of misinformation. The fear she spreads about autism is irrational and unjustified. And fear is no way to make a crucial decision on health care. But like I said, running in circles on the topic, and just really don't know what else to say on this.

    ====

    Sooooooooo, moving on to other subjects, I just recently watched Justice League Dark, the newest DC animated feature, and it turns out that Camilla Luddington did the voice work for Zatanna. And if anybody followed the short lived Constantine series, the same actor Matt Ryan voiced the animated version to the same character.

    And I've for a long time been opposed to Gamestop; I find their practices of obnoxiously pushing pre-orders, membership subcriptions, magazine subcriptions, used games over new copies, and most of all their crappy rates for taking in used games... all that stuff to be so disingenuous, underhanded, manipulative, and just overall to be really anti-consumer, and just as often screwing over the publishers. Even when I was still buying retail console games, I dropped Gamestop long ago, only getting my copies at Bestbuy, Walmart, and occasionally some small local specialty shop still around, where I'd be free of EB's usual hustle. Which I've advocated on other forums. Even for people still trying to sell and buy used, better off trading direct to other gamers via Kijiiji, Ebay, Amazon, etc... a better deal for buyer and seller alike, and cutting out the redundant middleman.

    But this newest program they brought into effect they call "The Circle of Life" really takes their douchery to a whole new level. So now stores are mandated with a quota they have to meet in 4 categories; used games, pre-orders, membership subcriptions, and magazine subscriptions. There's a quota for the entire store, as well as individual employees, which can impact their standing with the place, in other words whether or not they keep their job.

    To make matters worse, not only is there is no quota for new game sales, for each new copy that is sold (being a low profit for corporate) a certain amount of used games must be sold to balance the books, which puts more pressure on the staff. What's been reported, even confirmed by some employees (or some former employees) is while not ordered by corporate, given the pressure they're under many have resorted to lie to shoppers who ask for new copies of games, saying they have no new in stock but offering used copies that are available.

    Not all employees have been resorting to this to save their own skin, though how they fare remains to be seen. But this has been spreading like wildfire on Youtube and here's just a few examples.

    Gamestop is really out of touch with the times, operating on outdated business models, more and more they're setting themselves up to be the next Blockbuster. @Valenka it looks like your timing for getting out of this sinking ship couldn't have been better timed.










    signature image

  25. #26875
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,768
    Aaaaaaaand I'm done.
    4444 cases of abuse involving nearly 2000 priests, seven percent of all in Australia. And this is only the ones who were not to afraid to come forward.

    The Pope (JP2) knew about some of the cases and dismissed them. Now the church is in damage control, trying to apologise for what has happened.
    Destroyed truths, destroyed lives. There is seriously no credibility in organised religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Driber View Post
    So looks like already during the first days in office Trump is getting more things done than Obama did in his entire presidency
    Sure, if you want to go the route of executive order. Our previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott did the same and got his a' handed back to him by his own party.

    Also, you really think it's religious "extremism"? Over 95% of Muslims are against gay marriage. So you would call nearly all Muslims "extreme"?
    The ones that stop others doing things based on their own religion? Yes. The ones that are against it and keep that s' to themselves? No.

    I agree that when you're working for the state you have to follow the law of the land. If you refuse to marry a gay couple based on your personal conviction I think you should be fired, simple as that.

    Having said that, I think there might be some wiggle room to satisfy both sides. Trump could sign a bill that allows state workers to recuse themselves and pass their duty onto other state workers who are okay with marrying gays. If Trump is considering something like that then it wouldn't be all that bad I guess. Not ideal, of course, but better than leaving gays hanging altogether.
    Interesting perspective, it seems very accommodating to both sides of the coin.

    You say you're somewhat ok with a private business doing, though. Does that mean you're tolerating the infamous Christian cake bakers refusing to bake cakes for gay couples? And the Christian pizza bakers refusing to cater at the infamous hypothetical gay wedding?
    I'm incredibly torn by this. A Christian baker should be able to deny service to a gay couple? It's his shop... but where does that lead? Not serving people based on race? Gender?
    In the end, I guess I might be ok with it, but the public response they get is probably apt.

    lol yeah right I'm sure Trump has been publicly speaking out against terrorism for decades in a massive conspiracy to one day appoint a bunch of people who he think will be loyal to him if he ever makes president

    Occam's razor, Tihocan, occam's razor.
    I don't think so. Besides, Occam's Razor is a reductionist way of thinking so you don't have to think so much, or don't have to prove too many things.
    It makes more sense to allow all the possibilities and determine via process of elimination.

    Hmm more gossip about Trump's business deals. I can honestly say I'm as interested in it as I am in the inner workings of the Clinton Foundation. Meaning, zero
    I'm interested (in both) because if they are taking advantage of people in the name of "Liberty and Justice for all" then they should be held accountable.
    It's easy to dismiss things as gossip if you don't want to consider it, or care.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdobeArtist View Post
    What.... the *BLEEP* ???
    ...
    Just HOW did you read anything I said as 'I'm going to live my life unhindered and pass the burden to future generations'. Seriously, just how??
    Yeah, I'm with A' on this one. Lolwut.

    And I've for a long time been opposed to Gamestop; I find their practices of obnoxiously pushing pre-orders, membership subcriptions, magazine subcriptions, used games over new copies, and most of all their crappy rates for taking in used games... all that stuff to be so disingenuous, underhanded, manipulative, and just overall to be really anti-consumer, and just as often screwing over the publishers. Even when I was still buying retail console games, I dropped Gamestop long ago, only getting my copies at Bestbuy, Walmart, and occasionally some small local specialty shop still around, where I'd be free of EB's usual hustle. Which I've advocated on other forums. Even for people still trying to sell and buy used, better off trading direct to other gamers via Kijiiji, Ebay, Amazon, etc... a better deal for buyer and seller alike, and cutting out the redundant middleman.

    But this newest program they brought into effect they call "The Circle of Life" really takes their douchery to a whole new level. So now stores are mandated with a quota they have to meet in 4 categories; used games, pre-orders, membership subcriptions, and magazine subscriptions. There's a quota for the entire store, as well as individual employees, which can impact their standing with the place, in other words whether or not they keep their job.
    That's disgraceful. They are in damage control now.
    I'm glad EBGames here doesn't have that policy, other than a bit of a push on upsell and pre-owned. My local stores always treat me with honesty and respect.
    signature image

Page 1075 of 1085 FirstFirst ... 7557597510251065107110721073107410751076107710781079 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •