搜索结果: *

How can we feel the authentic mount and blade experience without silly voice acting?

Happy 1000 days since teaser day.

We've already had a video, not a lot of gameplay granted but it's better than nothing. Also, the Witcher might distract us for a little while.

Man, they sure know how to hype us up. I hope they'll stick to Armagan's word and give us some blogs, I'd love to see one every month.

trueten 说:

Baerke 说:

Russia's economy has grown exponentially over the last decade. I know a lot of economists will credit it to the horrible state it was in pre-Putin

点击展开...

Ah, yes, a common Russian speculation. But here's a good chart showing how 'genius' and competent economist is was:

隐藏: WARNING: big picture

NB: Putin came to power in 1999.

It's funny though as Russian main reformer of the 90s Gaidar said:

- If oil price will be $100 per barrel or higher, even idiots could rule Russia.

点击展开...

Or a better one

- To put the economy and politics of the world's superpower depended to decisions of potential adversaries (USA) and its main competitor in the oil market (Saudi Arabia), and wait for them to agree, you'll have to have a totally incompetent people running the country for a long time.

点击展开...

点击展开...

If oil was the only thing relevant to GDP the middle-east would be a paradise.

Kobrag 说:

Bromden 说:

Kobrag 说:

For some reason Tem's got a hard on for Putin.
Corrupt, incompetent megalomanics are apparently sexy.

点击展开...

I wouldn't call him incompetent.

点击展开...

And why not? Investment is fleeing Russia, foreign ties are being cut, importers are switching to new sources and their military adventures are rather quite pathetic.

点击展开...

Russia's economy has grown exponentially over the last decade. I know a lot of economists will credit it to the horrible state it was in pre-Putin and the fact that it was already growing before Putin took office. But he surely was/is more competent than other post-soviet economies. Besides that, the fact that he has a lot of public support means he is at least somewhat of a competent politician.

Barky 说:

MadocComadrin 说:

And the problem with your issue with my statement is that it makes no concerns for locality and context, it makes a sweeping generalization based on (another sweeping generalization) that society is men dominating women at every turn. Women who commit domestic violence are NOT doing so out of self defense (which should not and cannot be confused with retaliation)--especially in the cases of non-reciprocal domestic violence. And the much stronger thing is a bunch of bull**** too. I've seen first-hand how strong the punch from multiple "average" women are. Likewise, a knife or any blunt object can do quite a bit of harm as well.  Not only that, but much of the domestic violence perpetrated by women (but also in general) is coupled with other forms of domestic abuse: emotional and economic abuse, threats to themselves or children, etc. And aside from perhaps having somewhat less severe physical injury involved, all forms of domestic abuse are generally equally as damaging and intimidating.

Not only that, you're fallaciously linking men dominating women in a societal form with a man dominating a woman because she is a woman. Even the models that focus on power and domination did not blame mysoginy or inherent reward: where domestic violence occurs, there is utility for the abuser to do so.

And even that ignores things such as psychological issues (especially personality disorders--often highlighting BPD), substance abuse, inter-generational cycles (witnessing abuse as a child can lead to abuse)--which often leads to a believe that domestic abuse and violence is acceptable, and more.

To reiterate--domestic violence is extremely far from an urge to bring societal misogynistic dominance to a personal level.

And no, you're still part of the problem. You're still ignoring problems faced by men because they're not oppressed women--that men cannot suffer in areas that women both do or do not simply because women suffer more in general (and that you view this as oppression adding to your motivation).

点击展开...

'Context'? The context is that men oppress women. That's it. Its an inescapable fact based on easily observable reality. If domestic violence is equal opportunity why are the majority of victims women, and the majority of perpetrators men? Men also carry out other forms of abuse that you list, plus they have physical power, intimidation, and society backing them up. I don't know why you have a problem with the statistical reality, backed up by multiple studies rather than the one you use to maintain your delusional thinking. (and before you accuse me of using 'biased' statistics again, bare in mind that these are from a domestic abuse charity that also has a 'help for men' section on their website)

点击展开...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ANNO33UOLE <- Male on female
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtVHnZX8E50 <- Both
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks <- Female on male
Look at society accepting all that abuse! Oh wait, no they don't. They immediately get ganked by a groups of men and women who won't take it.  And look at how unacceptable woman on male abuse is! Oh wait, the majority of people don't give a ****. And I've also gathered some sources on domestic abuse.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm Cites a lot of sources, so might be worth to be looked into. Even with a set conclusion.
''Capaldi, D. M. & Crosby, L. (1997).  Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples.  Social Development, 6, 184-206.  (A sample of 118 young men and their dating partners were surveyed regarding their own physical aggression as well as that of their partners.  Findings reveal that 31% of men and 36% of women engaged "in an act of physical aggression against their current partner.") ''
''Carlson, B. E. (1987).  Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse.  Social Casework, 68, 16-23.  (Reviews research on dating violence and finds that men and women are equally likely to aggress against their partners and that "the frequency of aggressive acts is inversely related to the likelihood of their causing physical injury.") ''
''Amendt, G. (200.  I didn’t divorce my kids!: How fathers deal with family break-ups.  Campus Verlag Publishers.  (In Chapter 5 author presents data from an internet survey of 3600 divorced German fathers.  Results reveal that 1/3 of men reported episodes of physical violence during the divorce process and 2/3 of these were initiated by ex-partners.)''
''Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004).  Adolescent dating violence.  Do adolescents follow in their friends' or their parents' footsteps?  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162-184.  (A modified version of Conflict Tactics Scale was administered on two occasions, 6 months apart, to 526 adolescents, <280 girls, 246 boys> whose median age was 13.  Results reveal that 28% of girls reported perpetrating violence with their partners <17% moderate, 11% severe> on occasion one, while 42% of girls reported perpetrating violence <25% moderate, 17% severe> on occasion two.  For boys, 11% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 5% severe> on occasion one, while 21% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 15% severe> on occasion two.  In terms of victimization, 33% of girls, and 38% of boys reported being victims of partner aggression on occasion one and 47% of girls and 49% of boys reported victimization on occasion two.''

Honestly, after skimming through their report. I've found no reason why the findings in their studies are so much different than all studies I cited. However there might be some reasons, first is the term ''domestic violence '' which to my knowledge can include cursing and screaming, so different definitions might find different things. But I did find this pretty ****ing amazing. ''On average, a woman is assaulted 35 times before her first call to the police (Jaffe, 1982)''. First of all how the **** do they measure what is done before the police is called? Obviously it's solely based on what the victims say has happened and I can't imagine they're keeping scores. And I'm starting to suspect cursing is considered assault.

Barky 说:

K-64 说:

Barky 说:

Oh no not your freedom of speech to make sexist jokes hahahaa

点击展开...

I'd rather have freedom of speech than not being able to say anything without offending overly sensitive ****wads.

点击展开...

You have freedom of speech but so do I. You can make all the sexist jokes you want and I can call you a dumb, regressive ******* for making them. There's nothing heroic or rebellious about sexism, it's been with us since time immemorial.

点击展开...

Let's get your opinion on this clear then. Do you or do you not want to ban people from saying sexist jokes?

Barky 说:

Suspicious Pilgrim 说:

Because foot binding and female genital mutilation stem from the evil white overlords. I ought to be ashamed of my race.

点击展开...

I'm not arguing that these cultures were perfect or enlightened, but there is evidence to suggest that many of then have different ideas of gender than Westerners. Wikipedia has a page detailing the different gender roles found in different cultures. It's no coincidence, however, that Western gender roles are now more prominent, which is mostly down to European empires spreading (perhaps 'spreading' is too generous) our culture around the world and thus our ideas of gender. It's not about assigning blame or saying 'omg teh white devul', its just a statement of fact.

点击展开...

Wikipedia barely addresses gender roles. It just states that gender transgression is accepted. But you'll find that nearly all cultures thought that men were supposed to be big and strong. Almost all cultures allowed only the men to fight. The very few that didn't were often in a desperate state of war.  This might hint towards men being naturally more inclined to fighting.

Barky 说:

RabbleKnight 说:

He make up bull**** and when he get called out he do this ****.

点击展开...

Native American children were taken away from their culture and forced into boarding schools, where they were beaten if they spoke their mother tongue. You don't have to agree with my interpretation, but this is a historical fact. It's a thing that happened.

点击展开...

Yeah but this was done to assimilate them. Having several different cultures in a nation can lead to a violent revolt. History is filled with minority cultures demanding self-determination from the Roman Empire to modern day Hong-Kong and Donetsk People's Republic. They weren't doing it because they wanted to destroy the Native-American gender roles. And many Empires allowed the locals to rule themselves as long as they ultimately answered to the crown and paid taxes. Most Empires didn't even provide the local populace with education, so teaching them gender roles would be a bit difficult. Even though India seems to be doing a fine job.

Barky 说:

Baerke 说:

Barky 说:

Suspicious Pilgrim 说:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029601


If there's a causal link between testosterone and aggression in biological creatures, chances are same with us.

点击展开...

I doubt it, since no conclusive evidence has been found that states increased testosterone = higher aggression. As I said, it's more likely that men are more aggressive because they are taught that aggressiveness is how a 'real man' behaves. Men who don't fit the masculine ideal face rejection and bullying (trust me) and this is a much more powerful force than hormones.

点击展开...

If men naturally aren't much more different than woman how come ''Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally'' found that in Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, England, Finland, France ,Germany, Ireland, India, Italy, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Scotland, South Africa, Trinidad, the United States, and Venezuela (all the nations that they studied) all have, to some degree, similar views on the male and female stereotype? Surely this social construct couldn't have evolved in roughly the same way in all those nations. Besides, different studies show different things.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/5/459.abstract
Finds ''testosterone administration in humans prolongs dominant staring into the eyes of threatening faces that are viewed outside of awareness, without affecting consciously experienced feelings. These findings reveal that testosterone motivates social dominance in humans in much the same ways that it does in other vertebrates: involuntarily, automatically, and unconsciously. ''
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/
Finds pretty much the same thing. Testosterone doesn't lead to violence. It does however lead to the challenging, maintaining and establishing of dominance. Which might lead to violence.

点击展开...

Because Europeans (and then Americans) imposed their ideas about gender on the rest of the world? Hmmm, wonder why these countries (which are either European, descendent from European colonies or heavily influenced by Europe) share ideas about European gender roles???

点击展开...

Open any history book on pre-colonialist Chinese, American, Indian, Islamic and Japanese cultures and be enlightened about how empowering their gender roles were. At this point, I'm starting to think you're just trolling.

Barky 说:

Suspicious Pilgrim 说:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029601


If there's a causal link between testosterone and aggression in biological creatures, chances are same with us.

点击展开...

I doubt it, since no conclusive evidence has been found that states increased testosterone = higher aggression. As I said, it's more likely that men are more aggressive because they are taught that aggressiveness is how a 'real man' behaves. Men who don't fit the masculine ideal face rejection and bullying (trust me) and this is a much more powerful force than hormones.

点击展开...

If men naturally aren't much more different than woman how come ''Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally'' found that in Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, England, Finland, France ,Germany, Ireland, India, Italy, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Scotland, South Africa, Trinidad, the United States, and Venezuela (all the nations that they studied) all have, to some degree, similar views on the male and female stereotype? Surely this social construct couldn't have evolved in roughly the same way in all those nations. Besides, different studies show different things.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/5/459.abstract
Finds ''testosterone administration in humans prolongs dominant staring into the eyes of threatening faces that are viewed outside of awareness, without affecting consciously experienced feelings. These findings reveal that testosterone motivates social dominance in humans in much the same ways that it does in other vertebrates: involuntarily, automatically, and unconsciously. ''
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/
Finds pretty much the same thing. Testosterone doesn't lead to violence. It does however lead to the challenging, maintaining and establishing of dominance. Which might lead to violence.

You thought those sausages were for eating!?

[X] Has two legs
10/10 would bang.

Some of my favourites out of Osprey men at arms.
Not sure if they've been posted before.

Femen equals feminism, amirite guys?

Úlfheðinn 说:

Baerke 说:

Úlfheðinn 说:

I'd also like to point out that "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" and his pyramid are no longer widely agreed upon as being correct or very applicable to reality by most modern psychologists/sociologists. Some of the common critiques are that the hierarchy isn't really correct, the lack of context, and that differences between societies are not taken into account (i.e. it can be seen as ethnocentric).

In the end it is an interesting theory but it lacks a good amount of empirical support or  corroboration by later studies and nowadays it's mostly something fun you teach people in high school and "introduction to psychology" courses in college.

Although, it's still an interesting historical theory and it does provide a decent framework for later theories.

点击展开...

Explain to me in what historical situation people took away a nation's security and the victims were very concerned about morals getting in the way to achieve security. In WW1 and WW2 perhaps the best examples of what happens when you take away a nation's security crimes against humanity were perpetrated by everyone, Western, Central and Eastern. Mercy or even the consideration of morals is extremely uncommon when people's security is at stake. It didn't happen in Ireland, it didn't happen in Afghanistan, it isn't happening in Iraq today, it's very unlikely to happen in Israel.

点击展开...

I'm not sure why I should explain something I'm not arguing?

What I am saying however, is that it's a bit irresponsible to use an outdated theory which has been neither empirically proven or shown to be true in later studies.

For example, if you tried to use Freudian Psychoanalysis to explain why the Israel-Palestine conflict I would find it necessary to remind you that Freud's theories were a bunch of hot air.

点击展开...

Well, that's the part of the theory applicable here. If you agree with if you take away level 2, level 5 is unlikely to happen. If you do, I'm sorry, I thought you pointing out criticism was intended to discredit that specific part of the theory I was using. Besides that, I'm not familiar on Freud's theories on anything but sexuality.

Úlfheðinn 说:

I'd also like to point out that "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" and his pyramid are no longer widely agreed upon as being correct or very applicable to reality by most modern psychologists/sociologists. Some of the common critiques are that the hierarchy isn't really correct, the lack of context, and that differences between societies are not taken into account (i.e. it can be seen as ethnocentric).

In the end it is an interesting theory but it lacks a good amount of empirical support or  corroboration by later studies and nowadays it's mostly something fun you teach people in high school and "introduction to psychology" courses in college.

Although, it's still an interesting historical theory and it does provide a decent framework for later theories.

点击展开...

Explain to me in what historical situation people took away a nation's security and the victims were very concerned about morals getting in the way to achieve security. In WW1 and WW2 perhaps the best examples of what happens when you take away a nation's security, crimes against humanity were perpetrated by everyone, Western, Central and Eastern. Mercy or even the consideration of morals is extremely uncommon when people's security is at stake. It didn't happen in Ireland, it didn't happen in Afghanistan, it isn't happening in Iraq today, it's very unlikely to happen in Israel.

Flin Flon 说:

The Pyramid of Maslow is an argument against Israël. It shows that that you cannot compare Israel to Palestine. Israel meets every level. They have the funds, the military and the technology to better the situation, but they chose not to, and it's a little late anyway. Palestinians are at the bottem, with very little to loose. They are less educated about the situation and can't even develop a "two state solution" mentality. They have been forced into poverty and they believe that Israel is responsible. This situation breeds terrorism, or however you want to call it.

点击展开...

Neither side meets all levels. Israel lacks safety, a trip around Israel/Gaza will teach you that if anything. Palestine is lacking in a lot more ways for semi-related reasons, it's not like the nations around Israel are doing much better than Palestine could do. They're not really helping Palestinian refugees. Having a lot to lose doesn't really make someone any less zealous. If Hamas gets its way they won't just stop when there's a Palestine, they'll stop as they've stated many times when all Jews are driven into the sea. It's not like Israel's neighbors/Europe have a history of helping their neighbors. Israelis have a family to lose so they zealously defend their nation in the hope of not being another victim of terrorism.

I'm gonna try to defend Israel a little here, since you know. Why not?

Now, this little thing over here

Is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The first, is a bit irrelevant in this situation. The second however definitely isn't. Now, assuming most of us live in Western countries. Say America, E.U. members, even Turkey are in most regards relatively safe places where we account for all 5 levels of needs. In Israel however where rockets fly over the border and tunnels appearing out of nowhere with hamas soldiers rushing out eager to avenge those who died in Israeli bombings are a legitimate concern. In other words, when there's a legitimate concern about YOUR family getting killed by any of those, the second level of the pyramid flies out of the window making the world's begging for the fifth a bit of a stretch.

We can criticize Israel because all 5 levels are accounted for HERE. The saying in love and war everything goes wasn't thought of by a stupid (wo)man, just an angry one. Does that mean Israel's bombing of U.N schools is in any way acceptable? No, but we must understand where Israel is coming from to understand why this is happening. They have no access to the fifth level of the pyramid while they're being bombed. Hamas is doing the exact same thing when the second or third level is gone, they start all this over and over again. They drive Israel into a homicidal rage which creates more Hamas/Israeli soldiers.

This is a hamas propaganda poster. You don't need to know Arabic to understand what it means. They want those Palestinian children to die because it's good P.R. for them.

Supporting either side is a difficult decision. Hamas wants to drive the Jews into the sea. Israeli officials want to drive Hamas out of their land. Palestinians and Israeli citizens are caught in the middle. Palestinian and Israeli fighters/soldiers are just defending/avenging their families/nation/religion/people.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm an atheist. The anti-religion crusades of fedora tippers can go on somewhere else. (Mormon) Elohim>Odin

All the people who think there are no people willing to take care of a child his/her parents don't want to take care of. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_seek.pdf

Jhessail 说:

There's some facts even if it's from tumblr. Anti-abortion folks regularly and routinely distort facts, calling fetus or embryo "an baby" or "an unborn baby", often using pictures of babies instead of ultrasound pictures, and have occasionally utilized good old photo manipulation - not to mention that pictures of emergency abortions done in the third semesters are often passed around and claimed to be pictures from routine abortions during second or first trimester.

点击展开...

Haven't claimed fetuses are babies. Lack of brain activity doesn't mean something isn't alive. Trees and insects lack brains. Are they therefore not alive? Life does begin at conception.

Jhessail 说:

Also, easily over 90% of abortions happen during the first 12 weeks and under 2% of abortions happen after 20 weeks.

点击展开...

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm
According to your source it's 88%

Pharaoh Llandy 说:

Yeah, I've sorta come to the conclusion that Baerke is simply an attention-seeking child with no respect for anybody else's point of view (unless that POV happens to coincide with his/hers). By responding to him/her as if his/her arguments have any sort of credibility beyond "This is my opinion and I'm right lalalalala" we're simply validating his/her delusions that his/her "arguments" are worth the keyboard they're typed on.

点击展开...

I've never used the word opinion, haven't stated that any opinion belonged to me. Haven't stated any arguments were false, just said counter-arguments exist out there.

I've got no facts to back this up, but I'm gonna assume you're actually an angry toddler whose sole reason to live is twinkies and circlejerking. Now this has no value to the debate whatsoever, but this is my conclusion.

Úlfheðinn 说:

Seed still has the potential for life though, if you simply use it correctly.

It seems very arbitrary to say sperm or eggs do not represent a potential life because they can't alone lead to conception, when all it requires is combining them.

What then makes one arbitrary definition better than other?

点击展开...

I need more details, tell us how you use the seed.

It's like claiming a hammer has potential for hitting a nail, well, it could be used to achieve said goal, but it'll need help. The hammer itself doesn't have the potential, there's someone who needs to use it to create said potential.

Because in my mind it seems to make more sense. Those millions of cells won't achieve jack****, they'll need an egg. The definition is better because life could happen when the two are combined. One of them won't achieve it.

Úlfheðinn 说:

On a tangent, why do anti-abortion activists focus more on the "symptoms" than the cause? If they consider abortions a problem, then they are however merely the symptoms of larger problems. If they truly wished to reduce abortion it would be far better to focus on economic and social reforms which would lead to lower rates of unwanted pregnancy or decrease the difficulties related to having children.

For example, decrease the economic inequality in the US, increase education and provide more support for parents. Of course none of these are easy tasks to achieve but they would have far greater of an effect on the number of abortions that occur in the US than even if they managed to make it illegal.

Really, it's something I don't understand about the religious right and conservatives in general. Most of the solutions to the social ills they oppose lie in a what they would consider far more "liberal" policies.

Another example would be nuclear families. Many a Christian activist is determined to bring nuclear families back in fashion, but why do so few of them talk about increasing wages or providing the support (often economic) needed to allow only one family member to work and still make a livable wage for an entire family?

点击展开...

Even though I'll agree with that there needs to be a lot of reform when it comes to that area in perhaps different ways than you described. This thread isn't for economic debate.

Dodes 说:

Baerke 说:

But when you're not going to draw the line of denying someone's right to live anywhere you're not gonna have a very civilized society, or moral one.

点击展开...

Trimesters

点击展开...

Which trimester is more desirable and why? Peoples opinion seems to be varied and the research and science regarding said topic limited

Anyways I'm off for the rest of the day folks, was a nice and civil discussion. Often a lot more than you can ask for on this subject.

Úlfheðinn 说:

Baerke 说:

a) No but it has to stop somewhere. Those wet dreams were very unlikely to become people, the chance of them coming out alive is very extremely small. The chance of the ''child'' in the belly is much higher.

点击展开...

Why?

If the argument is that all potential life is sacred, how can we draw a line at potential life?

If the argument is that abortion deprives a potential human being of life then so does masturbating, any form of contraceptive or really any technique that will ensure someone doesn't get pregnant.

点击展开...

Seed won't be life, seed is incapable of achieving life on its own. Only after conception it's capable of being life. And yes, after that it becomes really difficult on if something is the denial of one's right to live or not. But when you're not going to draw the line of denying someone's right to live anywhere you're not gonna have a very civilized society, or moral one.