|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 123 OF 129 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-24-16 | | brankat: The US have so many problems (of all sorts), that it seems almost impossible to deal with them, let alone to solve the issues. Under such circumstances the usual course of "action" (not only in the States, but elsewhere too, and throughout History) is to tackle issues that are "peripheral". It may be too hard and inconvenient to grab the bull by the horns. The overall system of %5 owning %95 (I may not be quite accurate here), millions of homeless, millions of kids going to school(?) hungry, not to mention crimes rates of any conceivable kind, hardly any space left in jails, including the so-called Detention Centers around the globe (essentially illegal), corruption at every level, consumption and paper pushing instead of production, untold trillions in debt. Etc, etc. And You guys still worry about abortions? Btw, in the formal/official USA internal politics there is no such thing as the "Left". which leaves some 20-30 million people without the voice in both chambers. Democracy! |
|
Sep-25-16
 | | TheAlchemist: <brankat> Hey! Likewise, it's been a while. I hope you've been well too. I work in a hospital now, actually. As for the rest, I can only agree. I thought our discussion was mostly academic, still I guess most worry about small things that actually affect them and lose sight of the big picture. In essence most are out for themselves and try to make the best out of a @#$%ty situation. I feel the country as a whole has too much momentum to change course now. |
|
Sep-25-16
 | | Fusilli: <brankat> If I may, I find a stark pessimistic view of the world at odds with the data. Poverty has been going down worldwide, not just in China, and the progress has exceeded the Millennium Development Goals. Infant and child mortality have been going down too. Literacy has been going up and the gap between boys and girls has been declining. Improvement in access to clean water and proper sanitation has been quite significant too. And Steven Pinker has made a forceful argument that even violence has declined on a worldwide scale, and that our species has never lived in a more peaceful world. The only area where the world is worsening is the environment. Not a trivial one, but a fair overall picture is not one of a dystopian world falling apart (that's how Donald Trump, falsely, describes the US, BTW). The world is not awesome, but it is making progress nearly across the board, despite the recurrent big crises (e.g. Syria) that push us to think it is a terrible place. If you would like to check the statements I made, a good starting point is the UN report on the Millennium Development Goals (and if you want to play with data: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/data.aspx). For the decline in violence, see: https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pi..., https://ourworldindata.org/slides/w.... For a critical assessment of Pinker's claims see: http://www.factsandopinions.com/gal.... |
|
Sep-25-16
| | Fusilli: <TA> Well, I didn't suggest to ban abortion just to stop sex-selective abortion. (But you bring up the good point of genetic defects... is *that* a good reason for an abortion? If discriminating against a disabled person is illegal, is discriminating against the prospect of one fine?) Personally, I have difficulty getting over the fact that, given a pregnancy, if we do nothing, there will be a baby at the end of the process. Maybe I am influenced by my Catholic upbringing in a country that is rabidly anti-abortion (Argentina), even if I am not religious. No one is free from contextual influence. Anyway, maybe my personal views on abortion got mixed up with the ethical dilemmas we were discussing. More generally, I was arguing that, when one right exists, it should be available to everyone (as in the article on guns). |
|
Sep-25-16
| | Fusilli: <K13> What about the fact that women are the ones who carry the burden of 9-month pregnancies and thus have a disproportional responsibility in the reproduction of society? Not to mention that they do most of the work of raising children. I think that, even in patriarchal societies, the split of responsibility is not too far from 50-50 between men and women, though feminists will argue women do more and conservatives will argue men do more. |
|
| Sep-25-16 | | diceman: <brankat:
The overall system of %5 owning %95 (I may not be quite accurate here), millions of homeless, millions of kids going to school(?) hungry, not to mention crimes rates of any conceivable kind, hardly any space left in jails, including the so-called Detention Centers around the globe (essentially illegal), corruption at every level, consumption and paper pushing instead of production, untold trillions in debt.> Known as, "The Plan."
Don't overlook the politicians enriched/empowered by such maladies.
Who would have little interest in seeing them end. |
|
Sep-26-16
 | | OhioChessFan: Greetings <Alchy> <Fusi:Personally, I have difficulty getting over the fact that, given a pregnancy, if we do nothing, there will be a baby at the end of the process. > I agree with that, but even more so, the responsibility of accepting the consequences of one's actions should be foremost in the discussion, but rarely is, to wit, I learned in biology class that the baby is at the end of the process that begins with sexual activity. |
|
| Sep-29-16 | | Knight13: <TheAlchemist> Whether or not I play any Witcher game will depend on how you answer the following question: Triss, Yennefer, or neither? |
|
| Sep-29-16 | | Knight13: <Fusilli: <K13> What about the fact that women are the ones who carry the burden of 9-month pregnancies and thus have a disproportional responsibility in the reproduction of society? Not to mention that they do most of the work of raising children. I think that, even in patriarchal societies, the split of responsibility is not too far from 50-50 between men and women, though feminists will argue women do more and conservatives will argue men do more.> Technology plays a role. Let's look at the traditional gender role being played out today. Back then, housework and raising children were full-time jobs. Now, with all the advanced tech, you can finish cleaning the house in less than one hour, throw the dishes in the dishwasher and the clothes into the washer, and, if one does not want to cook that day, throw something in the microwave. Plus raising the children, of course. So, yes, back then, maybe the work was split 50-50, but now the person who stays home does disproportionately less work. Women having to do less work has freed them from domestic duties and allowed them to enter the workforce in the real world (you know, the paradise that men just didn't want to share with women--going to work was so fun, men often showed up 15 minutes early complaining about why they can't start work earlier; can't have women getting a piece of that pie. Gotta keep those women oppressed! The real world is all peaches-and-cream made for men by men! Ain't that right, feminists?) There's a reason why most of the suffragettes were from upper-middle to upper-class: they, unlike the lower-class women, had the free time to go out into the streets after they finished doing housework in record time with their fancy machines their husbands bought them (and invented by men). Women do majority of the work raising children because men were always working (since when did men have the choice not to work?? except in very rare exceptions, never; same with women until tech advancement, but even after that, men still have no choice but to work). Now things are slowly changing, but the fact remains that most women don't want a stay-at-home husband, so how are men supposed to do equal parenting? I'm not coming home from a full day's work and do 50% of housework and parenting when she's been at home all day long or has a part-time job (I'd like to live a little longer and not work myself into an early grave, if that's not too much to ask). Carrying a baby for 9 months isn't difficult--half of the world's population can do it. It's not easy, but certainly not difficult. Also, women in the West no longer have the disproportionate responsibility of reproduction, since nobody is forcing them to have children or stigmatizing single and married women who never want children, and there are birth control pills and abortions available if they don't want any. They can even leave the baby at a fire station (in the U.S.), or give up for adoption. They have children, in most cases, because they want to, not because they are selfless human beings who want to self-sacrifice time and money to contribute to the greater society. |
|
Sep-29-16
| | TheAlchemist: <Knight13> Yen :-) |
|
| Sep-29-16 | | brankat: Hopefully, the Knight will learn as he gets older. How do You like my new Avatar?
Looks better than Donald Trump :-) |
|
Sep-29-16
| | TheAlchemist: <brankat> Very good. At first I thought those were eyes, now it seems like sunglasses. Anyway, reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lb... |
|
| Sep-29-16 | | brankat: Yeah, eyeglasses, boots, a hat. A regular musketeer :-) |
|
| Nov-17-16 | | Knight13: Get Iorveth! Death to the Squirrels! |
|
| Nov-17-16 | | Knight13: <TheAlchemist> Did you kill that whoreson Henselt, the ploughing amoral Kaedwenian King who loves to wage wars. Bastard might actually be better off alive so that he can resist the Nilfgaardian invasion alongside Radovid, even though he deserves to die if only for the rapes and murders. |
|
| Nov-22-16 | | Knight13: <TheAlchemist> *Casts Axii* Would you kindly tell me whether or not you spared King Henselt? |
|
Nov-23-16
| | TheAlchemist: <Knight13> Hey! I let Roche kill him, mostly because of what happened to the Blue Stripes. I figured that in the heat of the moment neither him or Geralt would be thinking about the big picture and neither was I, to be honest. |
|
| Nov-23-16 | | Knight13: <TheAlchemist> *AXII HEX SUCCESSFUL* I think the developers prefer that you spare him, 'cause there's an achievement for sparing him but none for letting him get killed. But I watched some Witcher 3 playthrough and in the beginning it's clear that no matter what you do, the Nilfgaardians successfully invade anyway. Apparently Radovid fought a war with Henselt after The Witcher 2 (if you spared him), so Emperor Emhyr var Emreis, the White Flame Dancing on the Grave of his Foes, King of Cintra, Sovereign of Nazair and Vicovaro, Lord of Metinna, Ebbing and Gemmera, Imperator of Nilfgaard, must've been happy. |
|
Nov-24-16
| | TheAlchemist: <Knight13> I'm usually not really adept at collecting achievements, so I often miss some, maybe when (if) I do a replay some day I'll do it differently. I don't know if you imported your save from 1 to 2, but not many meaningful decisions get carried over or have much influence and the same is true for 2 to 3, as far as I could see. A lot of it is just flavour or characters appearing or not, but in a way it makes sense, a lowly Witcher wouldn't have much influence over what happens on a large scale, but it was still a bit disappointing. You can check it out here, just beware of spoilers: http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Saved...
Other franchises who did the save import were more or less successful, in Baldur's Gate you could carry over some special items and retained your level, in two recent examples like Dragon Age you had a different protagonist for each game so the import was again more flavour and cameos, while in Mass Effect you played with the same character throughout, made several important decisions and while many ended up retconned, some were executed brilliantly and very satisfyingly. There are other (some quite old) franchises that did that but I'm not familiar with all of them. |
|
| Nov-25-16 | | Knight13: <TheAlchemist> I didn't play The Witcher 1 because of the combat, and decided on playing Assassins of Kings because of the 1st's insignificant carry-over. I wouldn't have dived into Witcher 2 if the first game actually did anything for the second (unless you're playing on Insane Difficulty, then the armor helps at the beginning). The Blue Stripes tattoo carries over to The Witcher 3, apparently. That's awesome. Haven't played Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age, or Mass Effect. May go for Mass Effect because of the meaningful carry-over, though. Thanks for the info. |
|
Nov-26-16
| | TheAlchemist: <Knight13> No problem. I can confirm the tattoo carries over (on PC, I'm not sure about consoles). Regarding Mass Effect, buyers beware of the ending of the third game :-). Also, the fourth installment releases in March, so I would wait at least until then if they finally release bundles (a big if - some DLC is really good but quite expensive and pretty much never discounted, so watch out). Unfortunately, that's EA for you. |
|
| Nov-27-16 | | Knight13: <TheAlchemist> Copy that. |
|
| Jan-13-17 | | Abdel Irada: ∞
You may want to attend to the <Memorable Quotes> page again. It seems to have become a spillover pond for <Kenneth S Rogoff>, with political adversaries arguing over the quotes. ∞ |
|
Jan-14-17
| | TheAlchemist: <Abdel Irada> I know, but I guess I waited a bit too long (again) and now one of the posts is nominated for a Caissar award. So I have to leave that and the post that sparked the response alone to not destroy the context it was made in. I don't know if it was a troll nomination :-), but I guess it's on me for being lazy (again). |
|
| Jan-14-17 | | Abdel Irada: ∞
Is it possible, I wonder, for a post to both violate posting guidelines and win a Caissar? In any other year, I'd say no ....
∞ |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 123 OF 129 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
