Jimquisition: The Sh*tiest Games of 2012

Oskuro

New member
Nov 18, 2009
235
0
0
Darkja1 said:
I wasn't going to post again but explain to me how commenting that someones mocking comment equals intolerance. By the very definition that does not equal intolerance. I respect peoples right to believe what they will WITHOUT mocking all I expect is the decency for them to do the same.
And you fail to realize that monotheistic religions, like the Abrahamic ones (Judaism, Christian Sects and Islam), by virtue of claiming their God is the One True God, are, by definition, overtly intolerant of all other religions or beliefs (or lack thereof).

Thus you are demanding that your beliefs are respected, so they can keep disrespecting everyone else's in peace. Beautiful doublethink there.
 

Socdemparty

New member
Jan 31, 2012
5
0
0
dakkster said:
Are you serious?

The Pope himself has spoken out against condom use in Africa.

Condom use is the most no-brainer thing in the world to bring down the number of HIV/AIDS cases. It's proven to work and why in the world WOULDN'T you promote condom use? People WILL have sex. It's in our nature. Even trying to make the argument that you should know someone's clean before you sleep with them WHEN TALKING ABOUT A 3RD WORLD SOCIETY is stupid beyond measure.

It's like you are completely oblivious about the HIV/AIDS and condom problem in Africa. I would suggest that you educate yourself before making completely ignorant posts like the one you did.

Edit: Also, abstinence programs have an efficiency rate of nothing. They're a joke.
Well, I'm going to be honest with you, I have no problem with condoms or the use of them. I don't think much of many of the policies of the Catholic church, being more of a Protestant myself, not that I tend to support any official church at all.

However, blaming the church for the problem? I do not agree with that. In fact, I do believe the present pope has even taken steps to allow the use of condoms in fighting AIDS (yes, they haven't said they're completely okay, but it's a start). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html But even then, there's nothing stopping them from using them if they want to. There isn't a single Catholic theocracy in all of Africa that's preventing their citizens from making use of condoms at gunpoint. However, if it's so simple and "no-brained", then why haven't they? I'm sure you'd agree that following the church's policy is silly and should be ignored, no? And anyone that would not use a condom on the grounds of what the church tells them ought to be some kind of christian. And if they're a christian, then sleeping with anyone bar their own wife is meant to be a sin. If they don't choose to believe that, then why pay any heed to a ban on condoms?

If the problem is education, as I have read, then what makes you think they even know a condom would help? If they're being told to practise abstinence, yet aren't listening, then why would they listen to anyone telling them about a condom? And if they aren't being told to practise abstinence, then either their local priest is a joke or they aren't Catholic to begin with and therefore a ban on condoms should mean absolutely nothing to them. And again on education, that's what they do in Africa, the church teaches them. And not solely religious teachings, either. Of course, a religious education would inevitably lead to them being slanted against condom use, but once again, it should also mean they are instructed not to engage in casual sexual intercourse. But if they will not adhere to that, why adhere to a ban on condoms?

I'm talking in circles, but my fundamental point here is the church cannot be blamed for this. If they are privy to the knowledge they shouldn't use condoms as part of their faith, then they should also know monogamy is a virtue and lust is a sin. If they will not, or cannot as you claim, take this to heart, why forbid themselves from using condoms? If they know what they do is wrong in the eyes of the church, why would they even care about something else the church believes is wrong? If they do not understand how a condom could help them, then it is because the states of Africa have failed to educate them, not because the church didn't. And if they choose to indulge in sin, which would never be encouraged by any christian institution, let alone the Catholic church, then that is their failure, and not that of the church.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
Darkja1 said:
If you look in the post I even said none of which apply in this instance. The point I was making was that freedom of speech does NOT give you the right to say anything without consequence although in this case I suppose the speech is protected. Yet still no on has answered why someone should be able to say one minute this game is horrible because it singles out a specific group and the next minute mock a specific group. it's hypocrisy by definition. Oh and by the way I don't have doubt in my own Lord to defend other people's right to worship as they choose without ridicule I just don't think a public forum where everyone is defending someone who claims they're God while swinging around a plastic phalus is a great place to express why I believe what I do. And for the hundreth time I get it's satire. I also get that it crossed the line into inappropriate.

There's a huge difference between calling out Revelations 2012 for its questionable potrayal of the Mayan indians Jim's claim to have replaced an unnamed God in what is clearly an extension of the charicature of himself that he has created for the purposes of humour.

Clearly he does not think that he is God nor does he think that he has replaced your God.

If the simple declaration that one is and had done so upsets you so then you need to swap you skin for something thicker. While you're not as bad as muslims who call for the death of writers and cartoonists you are on that spectrum and like them if you see something that offends your delicate sensibilities so you should vote with your feet.

If some one claiming in jest to be God is the most offensive thing you've seen today then you should be thankful.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
Darkja1 said:
I wasn't going to post again but explain to me how commenting that someones mocking comment equals intolerance. By the very definition that does not equal intolerance. I respect peoples right to believe what they will WITHOUT mocking all I expect is the decency for them to do the same.
I don't. If you choose to believe in something as inherently mockable as any religion then if mockery comes your way then that is on your own head.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
I don't consider Resistance: Burning Skies to be anywhere near worst game of the year. Big letdown, yes, but nothing less than mediocre. I can list at least 2 Vita games that were worse i.e. Army Corps from Hell, Modnation.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
TAdamson said:
Therumancer said:
Your kidding right?

Let's be honest here, this is a game about a real prophecy, or an interpetation thereof, in which the world is being ended. These "ancient brown skinned people" are coming back to kill everyone and everything like they promised to do thousands of years ago. That is why they are being met with force... and actually it's magical weapons being used on them, not machine guns. Their magic makes them immune to conventional force as part of the "plot". :)
If you think that the Mayan "End of World" idiocy is based on a real Mayan prophecy then you are doubly ignorant.

It's racist. Mildly so but still. It demonstrates no knowledge of actual Mayan culture and instead riffs on a moronic believe that Mayans predicted the end of the world so to provide an bullshit excuse for 4 white-bread Americans to come kill them.
Err, no. It just shows your ignorant, buying into a lot of the current attempts to "debunk" the legend which were complete BS. This is something that has been aroung for a loooong time, and it's only due to the attention it was getting due to it's arrival that people started trying to say "It doesn't meant what you all think it does!". There have been TV shows and such going back decades about it.

Also, the Mayan End Of The World prophecy is famous in part because of both the astrological predictions involved, and because it intersected with prophecies made by other soothsayers and prophets who were isolated from knowlege of them. Again, you might want to educated yourself on why it was a big deal, long befor the date approached.

Besides the term is "based on" it wasn't trying to be educational, but fun.

There is nothing racist here, just people looking for excuses to call something racist to get attention. I think half the problem is that people like Jim and others have never encountered real racism, and only heard arguements about it by policial interests that have a reason to want it to exist as a uniting force. Thus when someone fits that concocted description (which almost anything could fit into) it's a reason to go on the warpath.

There ARE racist games out there, created by the tiny, non-mainsteam fringes that are racist. This is not one of them.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
TAdamson said:
Back on topic.

Therumancer said:
. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior
No. That's the definition of supremacism.

If you want a completely shallow definition that leaves out the types of racism that you prefer to not include, probably because you exhibit at least some of them, then I guess that works for you.

But you are leaving out social-xenophobia, cultural-xenophobia, aversive-racism, social-racism, and institutionalised discrimination. These are lesser forms of discrimination or racism than outright supremacist notions or the "white man's burden" type of racism but they do exist.

But Therumancer will probably claim that these terms are invented by liberal academics suffering from "white-guilt" and that his "training" to "spy on people" (I call bullshit.) gives him access to information far in advance of what us mere mortals who post less than 1000 words at a time can comprehend.
They ARE liberal academic garbage though. There is only one form of racism... period. If you do not believe in the inherant superiority or inferiority of people based on race, your not a racist.

The thing to understand is that cultural bigotry is an entirely differant animal, it DOES exist, but has nothing to do with racism since race isn't a concern. It all comes down to societies and how people behave which is something that can be changed, unlike racism, which is by definition something that a person cannot change.

Entirely differant discussions, and not understanding that (or trying to blend the two to avoid getting ones tail kicked in debate, as is a liberal forte) is probably hurting your abillity to discuss this.

In the end cultural bigotry comes down to the belief that one culture, or way of living, is inherantly superior to another. An undeniably fact, as cultures based on science and technology that provide medicine, high standards of living, and similar things are far superior to a group of barbarians. Say comparing the modern first world to say cave dwelling savages from hundreds of thousands of years ago. It becomes more contreversial when you start comparing societies and lifestyles that exist today, along with arguements about social darwinism, and whether or not there is
a moral duty to uplift people to a higher level, and similar things. It can also get into cultures vs. counter cultures and discussions about the differance between a healthy counter-culture, and an unhealthy one, etc...

See if you ever studied socilology propely you'd know this, but that's one of the other problems that feeds into this: education becoming a political battleground. Something that goes well beyond this discussion.

In the end though this discussion doesn't involve any kind of cultural bigotry, this revolves around accusations of racism and the idea that this game is racist because it presents brown skinned peoples (who represent an ethnic minority in the first world) as being villainous antagonists. Something that is inherantly foolish as by definition if this was racist, the bad guys would be inferior and thus not present a credible threat for there to be a video game. If anything you could argue that if the game is racist it's anti-white (and well anti- everyone not brown skinned) because only a handfull of people out of untold billions can even approach their uberness, being rare exceptions, and even then only by using the brown-skinned people's own achievements since they have effectively rendered everything else on the planet irrelevent. :)

Basically you, Jim, and others, are making a pretty ridiculous statement. There is a point where you might just want to admit that I'm right, there is nothing even remotely racist about this, at least not in the direction your argueing in, and let it drop. Nobody is disagreeing that the game sucks.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
Therumancer said:
TAdamson said:
Back on topic.

Therumancer said:
. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior

No. That's the definition of supremacism.

If you want a completely shallow definition that leaves out the types of racism that you prefer to not include, probably because you exhibit at least some of them, then I guess that works for you.

But you are leaving out social-xenophobia, cultural-xenophobia, aversive-racism, social-racism, and institutionalised discrimination. These are lesser forms of discrimination or racism than outright supremacist notions or the "white man's burden" type of racism but they do exist.

But Therumancer will probably claim that these terms are invented by liberal academics suffering from "white-guilt" and that his "training" to "spy on people" (I call bullshit.) gives him access to information far in advance of what us mere mortals who post less than 1000 words at a time can comprehend.
They ARE liberal academic garbage though.
Way to prove my point. Spoken like a true chauvinist trying to justify his own thoughts and feelings.

Aversive racism does exist. It's what makes people change what side of the road they walk on when they encounter a person from a background they fear.

It's what makes cops predominantly target young blacks and hispanics for stop and searches in NY.



There is only one form of racism... period. If you do not believe in the inherant superiority or inferiority of people based on race, your not a racist.
Fair enough. If you insist on an erroneous absolutist dictionary definition of racism (that is actually the definition of supremacism) and don't want to include xenophobia under the term then fine.

But it's still xenophobia. And xenophobia is still strongly linked to racism and I think being semantic about definitions is just a way to cloud your barely disguised prejudice.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
TAdamson said:
[

I've challenged you before to provide evidence beyond your anecdotal rubbish and you've failed to come through. As such you're just another person perpetuating dangerous myths about perfectly normal people.


If you're claiming experience because you are "a trained observer" (What ever the fuck that means, are you a cop? A social worker? Private investigator? Vigilante?) I think you're probably suffering from exposure bias.


Regardless previous statements you've made have been fundamentally disgusting and in no way "middle of the road".
You want to claim that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, provide statistical evidence from peer reviewed research or fuck off. Your creepy claims that your "experience and training" (Care to name the organisation?) and being "enabled to spy on people"(?????????) provided you with knowledge about the "truth" about homosexuals do not fucking wash and are pretty horrific in and of themselves.

You make it sound like you spy on homosexuals appropo of nothing. What I'm assuming is that you've been asked (or you do it off your own back for fucked up reasons of your own.) to watch those accused or convicted of child sex offences against boys. This is selection bias which you've turned to bigotry.

Or you're making the scientificcally fallaceous argument that because 3% of men are gay and 33% of child sexual offenders target boys, that homosexuals are more likely to offend. This disregards the evidence that the mechanics in the psychology between homosexual and hetrosexual paedophilia and that of androphilia and gynophilia are completely different and that.

It also ignores the massive body of evidence that paedophiles do not display erectile response when shown pictures of adults of the same sex as their preferred child gender.
In cases like this it's not my job to provide "evidence" for you, especially seeing as the truth is out there and easily obtainable. As someone I've done this dance with before apparently, it's pretty obvious that anything I provide will just be called bigoted or debunked, so there is no point. You'll either find the truth and accept it, or you won't.

That said, I don't need evidence, as again, I'm speaking from personal experience and observation. I'm exactly the kind of source someone doing any real research on this topic would use.

Oddly, I find it funny that you claim to have gone down this road with me before, and be oh-so familiar with me and my arguements, and yet you don't even know where this experience comes from? Despite me having just laid it out for you in the previous post? Really, are you serious?

Okay, again. I'm a criminal justice/forensics major who for financial reasons had to drop out of school. I wound up working as security for two of the three largest casinos in the world (Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods). In addition to just working floor security I wound up working their monitoring systems, and being effectively used as one of their investigators. While working these jobs I was regularly assigned to do training with both state and federal groups for the sake of their paperwork (in reality it was a dog and pony show). I've done everything from anti-terrorism training with homeland security, to emergency fire and rescue (including how to work tribal fire's decontamination equipment), to small unit tactics, and was required to attend "Code Adam" training on numerous occasions. "Code Adam" training deals specificially with child predators and child protection and such.

Despite being fairly disgruntled there are some things I won't say about what I did, and how, for obvious reasons, but the bottom line is I followed people, I watched people with cameras, I even had special cameras rigged up sometimes to watch specific people. I've dealth with rapes, assaults, car accidents, and pretty much anything you can think of, I've done security for dressing rooms, I've been in vaults with millions upon millions of dollars, and done VIP and celebrity escorts, and perhaps most relevent to cases like this I've run security for children's arcades and actually had to identfy and chase the real freaks, as well as deal with the problems of a few "misses" when we didn't stop something in time. Understand also, that unlike the movies, gamblers are not a refined crowd, most are obsessive sleazebuckets who care about nothing but stuffing coins into slots. They tend to drag their children to the casinos and then abandon them on the concourse, and then in many cases go out and totally lose track of the time gambling. They aren't supposed to do this, but really casino management doesn't give a crap if you have kids running around out there, all they care about is how much money they are making, and it was our job to make sure nothing happened to those kids (lol) despite being little more than a dog and pony show for the most part.

To say that casinos are pedo hunting grounds is a bloody understatement, and as someone who acts largely as a deterrant and who can only watch so many people at once, guess who trips our flags.... and you know, gay men trying to lure young boys, outnumbers just about everything else when it comes to this area of crime. Both from personal experience, from training (and warnings about NAMBLA given their legal support), and as well as from what the State Police and FBI will tell you when your sitting down for Code Adam updates.

Now yes, I understand, you find this all politically offensive, you don't want to believe it. The differance is I've actually seen it. What's more anyone telling you otherwise is pretty much full of it, because anyone who is in a position to know any better, and has done a job like this, pretty much agrees with me having wound up in the same place due to experience. In training they tell you the same basic thing "when you do it, you'll understand". Even so they are all concerned about the political correctness brigade, with liberal politics basically being a barrier to getting the job done properly.

In short, what you might have heard or read, or feel has been debunked is irrelevent before real experience, and someone who has actually met and worked with real experts (having become one myself). Let's just say that the nicest and safest seeming people in the world will show you an entirely differant side if you dig through thir bags (was an anti-terrorism protocol at casino entrances), shadow them and eavesdrop on them, or follow them around with cameras. Oppertunity, or someone believing they have it, is key. The guy whose going to try and get a little boy to go into a stairwell with him, or leave the casino with him, or whatever else, isn'g going to do it like an out of control dog, but because they believe they can get away with it. The thing is that unless your looking for that kind of thing constantly your not going to know. Your typical guy with a "gay friend" for example could never tell you with authority that they aren't a pedophille or would never do something like this, as by definition you aren't going to be around when an oppertunity presented itself, or was manufactured. That's the problem, and why only people in very specific situations like mine have any right to an opinion as only someone who has done this kind of thing can possibly have the nessicary breadth of experience.

On a side note it's also why I've argued a minimum of 4 years of non-administrative police experience should be required to hold public office or be in any kind of position to have say on domestic or social policy. This would omit me of course given that I was NOT a cop (though in a purely hypothetical sense, if the Security was ever used as anything other than a dog and pony show, and scapegoat, in theory I might have had more power than most cops. Acting as the represntitive of a property owner on an Indian Reservation where the tribe had great latitude to set laws and policies...), but basically I feel someone needs to be able to see the world the way a cop or someone trained to observe and experience things that way does before they can make any desicians about people. You need to know not what people say and show you, but what they do when they think nobody is watching, know what they keep in their bags, and how the subject of private conversations is not always entirely innocent, and set policies accordingly, based on what people actually are going to be like.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
Therumancer said:
That said, I don't need evidence, as again, I'm speaking from personal experience and observation. I'm exactly the kind of source someone doing any real research on this topic would use.
Which makes everything you say heresay and anecdotal.

Unless you are involved with a psychology or criminology department then the value of your "research" is exactly nil.

But it's nice to know that because you've been a Casino security guard that you think think that you've got the experience to declare that gay men are potential paedophiles.

Unless you are doing this sort of research:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789475801432
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796795000704
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022063214826?LI=true
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00849718?LI=true


Then there is not way, shape, form or reason for you to make such vile claims.

We're done here.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
Therumancer said:
If you think that the Mayan "End of World" idiocy is based on a real Mayan prophecy then you are doubly ignorant.

It's racist. Mildly so but still. It demonstrates no knowledge of actual Mayan culture and instead riffs on a moronic believe that Mayans predicted the end of the world so to provide an bullshit excuse for 4 white-bread Americans to come kill them.
Err, no. It just shows your ignorant, buying into a lot of the current attempts to "debunk" the legend which were complete BS. This is something that has been aroung for a loooong time, and it's only due to the attention it was getting due to it's arrival that people started trying to say "It doesn't meant what you all think it does!". There have been TV shows and such going back decades about it.

Also, the Mayan End Of The World prophecy is famous in part because of both the astrological predictions involved, and because it intersected with prophecies made by other soothsayers and prophets who were isolated from knowlege of them. Again, you might want to educated yourself on why it was a big deal, long befor the date approached.
[/quote]

Err, no.

The Mayan "End of the World" prophecy is based on erroneous work done by Meso-American anthropologist Michael D. Coe and didn't even predict 2012.

There is no suggestion in Mayan culture that the world would come to an end in 2012. The only thing relevant to the Maya that occurred in 2012 was a new B'ak'tun which according to their writings held some significance in their religious practice.

The idea that the arrival 13th b'ak'tun in 2012 would herald the end of the world is the invention of New Age hippie idiots.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
Or how about this?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030105119490037X

I'm glad to see you think that your experience as casino security is more valid than actual scientific research.

Okay, now we're done.

By your spurious definitions you might not be racist but you're definitely culturally xenophobic and generally homophobic.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
TAdamson said:
Therumancer said:
TAdamson said:
Back on topic.

Therumancer said:
. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior

No. That's the definition of supremacism.

If you want a completely shallow definition that leaves out the types of racism that you prefer to not include, probably because you exhibit at least some of them, then I guess that works for you.

But you are leaving out social-xenophobia, cultural-xenophobia, aversive-racism, social-racism, and institutionalised discrimination. These are lesser forms of discrimination or racism than outright supremacist notions or the "white man's burden" type of racism but they do exist.

But Therumancer will probably claim that these terms are invented by liberal academics suffering from "white-guilt" and that his "training" to "spy on people" (I call bullshit.) gives him access to information far in advance of what us mere mortals who post less than 1000 words at a time can comprehend.
They ARE liberal academic garbage though.
Way to prove my point. Spoken like a true chauvinist trying to justify his own thoughts and feelings.

Aversive racism does exist. It's what makes people change what side of the road they walk on when they encounter a person from a background they fear.

It's what makes cops predominantly target young blacks and hispanics for stop and searches in NY.



There is only one form of racism... period. If you do not believe in the inherant superiority or inferiority of people based on race, your not a racist.
Fair enough. If you insist on an erroneous absolutist dictionary definition of racism (that is actually the definition of supremacism) and don't want to include xenophobia under the term then fine.

But it's still xenophobia. And xenophobia is still strongly linked to racism and I think being semantic about definitions is just a way to cloud your barely disguised prejudice.

Actually young blacks and hispanics get targeted for searches and such due to minority counter-cultures. It's a situation where the counter cultures have created so much criminal and anti-societal behavior, oftentimes justified by the belief in non-existant racism, that profiles have begun to crop up that have nothing to do with anything close to racism or belief in the inferiority of the people being searched.

Hence why people like me and Bill Cosby, have spent a lot of time talking about the need to take action against those counter cultures as the actual problem facing black america rather than some nebulous threat by "whitey". It's the height of irony... a real catch-22, but really if minorities stopped trying to use racism to justify their behavior and just blended into the rest of society as ordinary people, these problems would stop.

As someone whose done searches, I'll also point out that a lot of these statistics are complete BS. Let's say your doing bag checks at a hotel, everyone who enters gets their bags searched before they can enter the hotel. Guests are of course pissed, but it's due to the latest terrorist threat, and as a good dog and pony show security is out to make a scene and piss people off so we can be seen doing something. In this case we search everyone, but it's the minorities that make the biggest stink about it, and do so screaming "Racism" because for them it gets attention. At the end of
the day though the embarassing crap in their bag (if they have any) gets outed just like everyone else's.

See, that's the thing that a lot of people don't "get". Those in positions of authority don't get off on harassing people for no good reason. Whether your a cop, or security (and I've worked with the police) when you do something it's because your told to do it, and it's usually pretty general. People screaming that blacks and hispanics are more likely to be searched (and I've met them) might make a scene to the media, but in general there is no way to tell what's going on from their complaints because you'd need to track everything going on. I know, I've been there, I've done the searches, I've fielded the complaints, I've filed reports sometimes while working with police (Tribal or State, depending on who we were working with). The actual truth is that "racism" gives a tool for people to get lippy with because people pay attention when that word is dropped, even if it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if we've searched everyone in line, someone accuses us of racism, they might get to see a supervisor, and make us do paperwork due to their complaint, the people doing it who are pissed you searched them, do it just because they can and figure they can get a little bit of payback for the inconveinence. Truthfully, my general attitude is it should just be ignored, or if people push it to make a scene should be arrested for disturbing the peace or kicked off property by security out of hand just for suggesting it.

Also there is no "absolutist" version compared to another version, there is another one.

Also Xenophobia is again differant from racism, it's a fear of anything alien, that doesn't come with any pretension of superiority or inferiority. A Xenophobe might even be that way out of an inferiority complex in fact, depends on the situation. Mostly it tends to be one of those fancy terms that is misused as it's something so rare that it might as well not exist. Genocide, racism, xenophobia, all terms overused due to their intristic power, and almost never within an appropriate context. I blame sensationalist media.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
TAdamson said:
Therumancer said:
That said, I don't need evidence, as again, I'm speaking from personal experience and observation. I'm exactly the kind of source someone doing any real research on this topic would use.
Which makes everything you say heresay and anecdotal.

Unless you are involved with a psychology or criminology department then the value of your "research" is exactly nil.

But it's nice to know that because you've been a Casino security guard that you think think that you've got the experience to declare that gay men are potential paedophiles.

Unless you are doing this sort of research:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789475801432
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796795000704
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022063214826?LI=true
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00849718?LI=true


Then there is not way, shape, form or reason for you to make such vile claims.

We're done here.
Not vile claims, the truth which you can't handle apparently. You could just say "I surrender, I might not agree with you, but I can't dispute this".

Again, I won't get into another "link war" because when I do it just leads to more QQing about my sources. The bottom line is anything that supports what you say (and it exists, your opinion is directly from the left wing media) is by definition wrong.

Also for the record, hearsay is when you report something that someone else told you. That's differant from speaking from first hand experience, as I am relaying things I've actually done. Working entirely off of the word of my instructors had I never actually done the job, would be hearsay, but that's not the case.

Right now you have exactly ONE source on this subject that is anywhere near credible, and that's me. Now being the internet you can of course fall back on claiming I'm a liar. Someone who has spend years telling the same lies for years just for the sake of screwing with you, and thus probably worthy of the title "universes greatest troll". That isn't the case of course, but really it's your only real recorse here, and if you think I'm lying to that extent, why the heck even bother to start discussions with me?

We can pretty much consider this over I guess. Feel free to post another final word if you feel the need to, but keep in mind I've been extremely civil with you. I get tired of you, and others, being insulting in your responses. I have yet to report anyone on these forums, but understand that there is no such thing as an exception for someone's views being "so offensive". Simply put if you can't remain civil on the subject and to the person, you should stay out of discussions like this at all. This last bit not just directed at you, but to others I have these discussions with as well. Understand what you've been saying is just as ignorant to me as what you claim I've been saying is to you.
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
A spade is a spade. And a bigot is a bigot. You have no experience to make the sort of claims that you make on this site. Being a casino security guard is subjective, anecdotal experience. Code Adam is a safety response that rightly errs on the side of caution not scientifically based scientific research.

Paedophiles do not respond to androphilic (or gynophilic) stimuli. Your "experience" is not evidence.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
TAdamson said:
Therumancer said:
If you think that the Mayan "End of World" idiocy is based on a real Mayan prophecy then you are doubly ignorant.

It's racist. Mildly so but still. It demonstrates no knowledge of actual Mayan culture and instead riffs on a moronic believe that Mayans predicted the end of the world so to provide an bullshit excuse for 4 white-bread Americans to come kill them.
Err, no. It just shows your ignorant, buying into a lot of the current attempts to "debunk" the legend which were complete BS. This is something that has been aroung for a loooong time, and it's only due to the attention it was getting due to it's arrival that people started trying to say "It doesn't meant what you all think it does!". There have been TV shows and such going back decades about it.

Also, the Mayan End Of The World prophecy is famous in part because of both the astrological predictions involved, and because it intersected with prophecies made by other soothsayers and prophets who were isolated from knowlege of them. Again, you might want to educated yourself on why it was a big deal, long befor the date approached.
Err, no.

The Mayan "End of the World" prophecy is based on erroneous work done by Meso-American anthropologist Michael D. Coe and didn't even predict 2012.

There is no suggestion in Mayan culture that the world would come to an end in 2012. The only thing relevant to the Maya that occurred in 2012 was a new B'ak'tun which according to their writings held some significance in their religious practice.

The idea that the arrival 13th b'ak'tun in 2012 would herald the end of the world is the invention of New Age hippie idiots.[/quote]


Wrong again actually. The New Age Hippie Idiots actually co-opted this for the same thing that they always do, claiming it would be a new dawn of peace and understanding. Another "Age Of Aquarious" so to speak.

The problem with your entire arguement is that this prophecy has been understood for far longer than it's been a current subject of scruity. It's been a staple of late night TV and "edutainment" programs for a really long time, oftentimes linked in with other doomsday prophecies. A "mistake" by any one expert is a matter of opinion at this point, and kind of irrelevent given all of the various differant theories at this point.

To be honest the whole "the calander just ends" thing is pretty recent and hokey. According to everything I've run into it seems to be tied to people claiming to be descendants of the ancient mayans, aztecs, incas, and other groups who have taken claim to a lot of the sites where valuable ruins are located. A highly contreversial move because all of these paticular people were dead/vanished which is part of the entire mythology and why this got so much attention to begin with. The claims to the lineage being extremely teneous but ultimatly upheld for political reasons. Among them have come claims of revivals of the old religious practices in the old sites, which are about as authentic as Schemitzun. It provides an excuse for a lot of things, in paticular keeping people out of those areas without paying the tribe (and the goverments more specifically) a lot of money, under a more politically correct guise, as well as being used to conceal goverment assets, which is a tactic other goverments are beginning to crib from the US. Not to mention they can ue our own policies of "oh be careful of the indigious peoples" which we were beating them over the head with, right back on us.

They all vanished, or were wiped out by the spanish! Nope, they are alive and well and telling us we got it all wrong. :/

At any rate the bottom line is pretty much that the whole apocolypse thing wouldn't have worked for the long term so they had a vested interest in down playing that, especially when it was right here.

Also, as you seem to have overlooked, 12/21/12 was a conflux of multiple prophecies where people believed they were able to tie the date into everything from Nostradamus, to Numeralogy, to astrology (given a solar eclipse), and numerous other things, minor and major. This is why if you bothered to follow the "wierd news" you'd notice you had people running off to specific mountains in the Himalayas and such where they believed they would be safe. It's because all these seperate sources came to the same basic date, with minor variations on what happened.

To be honest with you, I find it kind of hilarious to find so many people argueing that this was interpeted wrong, because really, it's pretty much the Mayan's one enduring claim to fame. :)
 

TAdamson

New member
Jun 20, 2012
284
0
0
Therumancer said:
A highly contreversial move because all of these paticular people were dead/vanished which is part of the entire mythology and why this got so much attention to begin with. The claims to the lineage being extremely teneous but ultimatly upheld for political reasons. Among them have come claims of revivals of the old religious practices in the old sites, which are about as authentic as Schemitzun. It provides an excuse for a lot of things, in paticular keeping people out of those areas without paying the tribe (and the goverments more specifically) a lot of money, under a more politically correct guise, as well as being used to conceal goverment assets, which is a tactic other goverments are beginning to crib from the US. Not to mention they can ue our own policies of "oh be careful of the indigious peoples" which we were beating them over the head with, right back on us.

They all vanished, or were wiped out by the spanish! Nope, they are alive and well and telling us we got it all wrong. :/
Nice to know you can inject your right-wing invective against the horrors "political correctness" into the question of whether the Mayan People still exist.

I guess the continued existence of Mayan language and most of Mayan culture in large sections (40% of the population) of Guatamala , mostly due to Spanish segregation, means anything to you?

In anycase the Maya do still exist. Still have a language and have specifically stated that there is nothing in their culture that states that the beginning of the 13 B'ak'tun signifies the end of the world.

Such ideas are the invention of wags and hoax sites on the internet and have been turned into quasi-documentary entertainment by cable edutainment channels for consumption by credulous morons.





Also, as you seem to have overlooked, 12/21/12 was a conflux of multiple prophecies where people believed they were able to tie the date into everything from Nostradamus, to Numeralogy, to astrology (given a solar eclipse), and numerous other things, minor and major.


So 12/21/12 was a confluence of prophecies that were all wrong? I think once again you been watching a bit too much of that TV "edutainment" nonsense that seems to have corrupted the History and Discovery channels.


The only mentions of the 13th B'ak'tun in existing Maya texts are as follows:

Tortuguero:

It will be completed the 13th b'ak'tun.
It is 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in
and it will happen a 'seeing'[?].
It is the display of B'olon-Yokte'
in a great "investiture".

La Corona:

An inscription, on what is known as Hieroglyphic Stairway 12, describes the establishment of a royal court in Calakmul in 635 AD, and compares the then-recent completion of 13 k'atuns with the future completion of the 13th b'ak'tun. It contains no speculation or prophecy as to what the scribes believed would happen at that time.


Nothing particular here about the end of the world.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
TAdamson said:
Or how about this?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030105119490037X

I'm glad to see you think that your experience as casino security is more valid than actual scientific research.

Okay, now we're done.

By your spurious definitions you might not be racist but you're definitely culturally xenophobic and generally homophobic.
Actually, yes it is more valid. You can come up with all the theories and tests you want but at the end of the day it comes down to what people are actually doing out there in the real world. Proper scientific research on the subject would involve conferring with people who actually have experience like me, and those who handled a lot of my training and such to begin with.

In the end it's like this, you want to know about Gorillas. You capture one, put it in a cage, and then examine it in a controlled enviroment. In the end any hypothosis you might come to or prove about them and how they behave in the wild is totally irrelevent compared to the word from someone who goes out into the woods and watches them from hiding for a few years. The guy doing the covert observation might not have the fancy lab, but he's going to wind up knowing a heck of a lot about Gorillas.

The problem with most research on subjects like homosexuality is simply the human factor. Those who get involved in doing it, set out to prove a specific point. The guys making cases that gay men are harmless are generally though with a liberal agenda who are out to prove that point to begin with. The same way that someone from an anti-gay type group might do the same thing from the opposite perspective. The results reinforce what they set out to prove to begin with. Both sides claim they debunked each other, and who you take more seriously depends on what you want to believe to begin with. The two sides laugh at each other's research, and who is considered "right" more often in discussions depends on what forum your in when you make the referance. That's why I don't bother to play the "link game".

The thing is that my conclusions came after long experience, I didn't set out to be anti-gay men despite what you might think from my early life experiences. Actually, it's easiest in life to just let and let live, and assume the best of everyone as long as they leave you alone. Ignorance is bliss and all of that. Rather, I wound up in a position where I was out there with the right training, watching human behavior over a prolonged period of time. Patterns of behavior developed, reinforced by training, logs, etc... which all pointed in this direction. It's sort of like the guy observing the gorillas. The guys doing this research by definitition just don't have the training, or time invested, to do what I did, since nobody was going to pay them, nor are they neutral since they set out to do research to begin with.

I get that you don't want to accept this, and that's fine, but the point remains that I, and people like me, are the only real sources you could possibly have for something like this. To argue the point we'd need to find someone with a similar backround, with an entirely differant set of experiences. That would provide a counter-source to it. I'm pretty confident though that you won't find anyone in the same kind of position covertly watching/protecting children as part of a job who will disagree with me.

See, you keep using the term "homophobic" but that really isn't accurate, since I'm not against homosexuals, just gay men. The reason for this is simple. You know my standards come down to a tendency towards pedophillia. My reason is that I've seen a lot of gay men try and go after kids/lurk around/etc, caught them with kiddie porn in bags (which the casino doesn't prosecute being more interested in the money spent at games than anything else), and similar things, enough to have noticed a massive trend. I have not seen ONE case of a lesbian trying to do the same thing to a little girl in ten years on the job. I won't say it hasn't happened, it probably has, but not on my watch, and certainly not frequently enough to form a pattern. As a result, I could give a crap what lesbians do. This is a trend you'll also find in the media in general, you do a check for sexual assaults on little girls by adult women and while they do exists, how many will you find compared to little boys being attacked by men? Let's just say the gay men pull waaay ahead here. Contrary to what some people imply, that I am not anti-lesbian because I like lesbian porn (which is funny since porn has so little bearing on reality), or whatever else, for me it's a very simple situation.

I'll also go so far as to say that even the ridiculous "but what about straight guys attacking girls" peanut gallery crack really doesn't matter. You don't generally see the same kind of hunting/stalking behavior. It's to the point where I'm far less likely to be concerned about a little girl with some strange guy, than some strange guy following little boys around. To be honest there have been far more incidents (mostly "close calls"... again the casino just wants to prevent incidents for it's own liability, it doesn't care what people do in most cases that don't involve it's money, since it wants everyone, including the real scum, to gamble) with men going after little boys than with guys going
after little girls, which happened in a blue moon comparitively. It's something you learn from watching patterns, and responding to incidents over a period of time.

In short, I am exactly what I portray myself as... anti-gay men. I'm actually quite blunt and up front about it. "Homophobe" is a nice, left wing attack, that tries to imply there is something wrong with the person who dislike gays, but it really doesn't work in my case since the problem isn't homosexuality, just one paticular side of it. It's also pointless to attack me on the case, I'm hardly ashamed of it, I think what I do from a long period of time. Running around screaming "Therumancer doesn't gays" is kind of funny on a lot of levels, like it's something I hide if the subject comes up. :p


Also I myself have said before that I'm a cultural bigot, something which actually comes from not being racist. Simply put I believe that as all people are pretty much the same, they can be held to the same standards, and can be expected to learn and change. When I'm critical of nations like The Middle East, China, etc... it's because of their behavior and what they do. I do not consider "well we've been doing it this way for thousands of years" to be an excuse not to grow up and progress. There is no intristic, genetic, barrier, compelling these people to be a specific way. That's why when I go on my militant rants about breakin cultures and killing hundreds of millions of people or whatever, it ultimatly comes down to putting an end to an ingrained set of behaviors with a lot of inertia behind it. I genuinely believe people can be made to change, and a lot of the backwards craziness we see going on is the result of a self perpetuating cultural cycle that cannot be broken internally, which is why exterior force (extreme given that it's a society) is nessicary. There is no racism or genocide involved, since I believe in the final equasion everyone can be held to the same standards. There is no genetic imperative making islamic tribes stone women to death, or keep these endless cycles of human trafficking throughout that region as well as asia and south and central america going.

In the final equasion what I believe in amounts to social darwinism. Yes I am a bigot, because I happen to believe that what I think, and what my society standards for IS better than civilizations that promote human trafficking, intergrated sexism, racism, and other assorted behaviors. I believe that the greater good can be measured in terms of future generations, killing hundreds of millions now is a small price for untold trillions that will not effectively be born into one form of ownership and slavery or another accross future generations. If you break a culture, people can be taught to live a better way. Of course this is the height of bigotry as people from those same cultures fully believe in their theocracies, stonings, human ownership schemes, sweatshops, and whatever.

The point of this rant. I don't like gay men, and I'm a pro-western bigot, primarily American, but I tend to see proper civilization being represented by a triumverate of the USA, UK, and Australia... or simply put The British Empire and it's two greatest children. As I've ranted before, while I disagree with a lot of their current politics, I think the three of us are far more alike than differant at the end of the day due to our shared origins, and that I believe this basic style of values and morality (seperation of church and state, no slavery or human ownership of other humans) is the best possible future for humanity.