Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Servant Corps

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 285
631
...29 people are about to die, and no comments? At all? What is wrong with us?!

When the deaths of individuals merits no response at all, almost as if they do not exist as real "persons", then this is real oppression.

VVV Oh, huh. My bad then.

632
General Discussion / Re: UN declares killing homosexuals acceptable
« on: November 22, 2010, 06:26:01 pm »
Some time ago, the UN decided to make a draft resolution called A/C.3/65/L.29 about extrajudicial killings, but then the African Group comes in and suggest an amendment to this draft resolution [they likely didn't support the text which singled out homosexuality specifically] (which was called A/C.3/65/L.29/Rev.1). The amendment was accepted, with 79 Yes, 70 No, and 17 Abstain (US voted No).

The resolution, with the amendment text, was then passed overwhelmingly (165 Yes-10 Abstain, US Abstained). So it wasn't as if the UN actually voted to change law, all they did was revised a draft resolution (basically a bill) before actually approving of it.

In context, here is Operative Paragraph 6 (b)...in all its glory, with the original draft of the resolution.

Quote
6. Urges all States:

b)To ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons, such as racially motivated violence leading to the death of the victim, killings of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, killings of persons affected by terrorism or hostage-taking or living under foreign occupation, killings of refugees, internally displaced persons, migrants, street children or members of indigenous communities, killings of persons for reasons related to their activities as human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists or demonstrators, killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation, as well as all other cases where a person’s right to life has been violated, and to bring those responsible to justice before a competent, independent and impartial judiciary at the national or, where appropriate, international level, and to ensure that such killings, including those committed by security forces, police and law enforcement agents, paramilitary groups or private forces, are neither condoned nor sanctioned by State officials or personnel;

Full Text

633
General Discussion / Re: UN declares killing homosexuals acceptable
« on: November 22, 2010, 06:05:49 pm »
Funny you can tell who is readding the thread and who is just reading the title.

Well, Jackrabbit's already been asked to change the title, but he doesn't believe the clarifying information anyway, so the thread's doomed to be a revolving door made of hardened shit.

I can always create a new thread that states, "African Group Successfully Campaigned To Change A Sentence In Meaningless UN Resolution For Potentially Dubious Reasons, People Freak Out".

634
Other Games / Re: SimCorps
« on: November 22, 2010, 12:58:08 pm »
It's less that it's trying to get you to play games, but it is trying to get you to do certain activities so that you compete against other groups. It's not "You're awesome!"...it's "You're better than [INSERTFACTIONHERE]."

635
General Discussion / Re: UN declares killing homosexuals acceptable
« on: November 22, 2010, 09:25:32 am »
Here's the actual amendment.

Here's the relevant change made:

"In operative paragraph 6 (b), replace any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation with discriminatory reasons on any basis"

In case it isn't obvious, "on any basis" covers sexual orientation.  Every single piece of "journalism" I've seen on the subject glosses over this fact entirely, because "journalism" these days amounts to a dick-swinging contest based around who can write the most stupidly sensationalist headline.

...

This isn't sensationalist. Sensationalism at least have some measure of truth. This is outright lying.

Quote
American Hegomony Talk
Why the United States? If you just want a liberal hegemony, why wouldn't Pax Britannca serve just as well? (Or is it because you're still sore after that Revolution business?)

636
Other Games / Re: SimCorps
« on: November 22, 2010, 09:17:22 am »

SimCorps was a very special kind of game.  It was a meta-game, really.  A game about games, and a game about time travel and good against evil, fighting to keep the timeline the way it ought to be.  I think they tried to run it as an actual business, like, trying to make real money out of it...but it briefly failed to be popular and, after about a year, completely and utterly vanished.  Almost like they disappeared from the timeline itself.

Code: [Select]
Important Notice

We are sad to inform you that, due to recent economic
conditions, the SimCorps.com website and interactive game
application has ceased operation.

We would like to thank everyone who visited SimCorps.com
and participated in our interactive campaigns. Your support
and kind words have been much appreciated.

       SimCorps.com Management Team

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20011127172632/http://simcorps.com/

637
Curses / Re: An idea for liberal disobedience (inciting riots)
« on: November 21, 2010, 12:08:02 am »
HELL YES

The Police Should Also Use Different Weaponry Dependent on the Crowd's Agression and Lethality , No Police Force would Bring Pepper Spray Into a Riot with The Crowd Armed with AKs or Carry .50 Cal's into a Riot where the Crowd is Throwing Stones

That would be absurd and silly. Clearly...The Police needs to first hold an instant referendum to decide if they need to deploy any units into the area, and then once it is approved, they need to send only moderate Police Negotiators to bring up the Wisdom of any violent rioters and get them to surrender peacefully. To do anything else would be to become just like the Liberal Scum you're fighting.

638
Bioware releases response to EALouse, suggesting that he may be real.

639
Curses / Re: Most ridiculous thing you've gotten away with
« on: November 17, 2010, 01:46:10 pm »
Put simply, what's the most ridiculous action that you've ever committed in LCS, and gotten away with? Be it shooting up a building and racking up about 40 kills with a team of paraplegic hippies armed with flamethrowers, or kung-fu kicking your way through the police HQ. While naked.

What you posted is far more ridiculous than anything we could ever do.

640
Disunion is a new blog by the New York Times producing historical articles about the American Civil War. I especially liked this slave-owner diary, and the bloggers' argument for why the South seceded.

641
Other Games / Re: WoW Cataclsym
« on: November 10, 2010, 07:50:14 am »
I have been playing this version of WoW which eliminates the need to run around, instead focusing on the PROGRESS.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/Abra24/grindquest
Bit like progress quest that.

Except with PvP. By the way, my duel-id is 9956v19r9165d55hLfgus~, if you're interested.

642
General Discussion / Re: California's Mysterious Missile
« on: November 10, 2010, 12:11:42 am »
And we are receiving more news reports about jetliner contrails being responsible.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/09/california.contrails/?hpt=C1

It's not important.

643
General Discussion / Re: Studying Theist Atheism
« on: November 09, 2010, 04:53:54 pm »
This might also be a good study in how inaccurate research surveys generally are :P

As well as the main limitations of surveys in general: you are forcing individuals to compartmentalize their beliefs (that they may not have even thought about seriously or systemically) into categories that you might be able to understand and generalize from, and won't be able to learn anything more about these individuals other than what you have asked them. I have likely learnt more useful information about theist atheism from Dome and Eagleon than I did from looking at the data (for now, at any event).

644
General Discussion / Re: California's Mysterious Missile
« on: November 09, 2010, 03:31:05 pm »
Don't worry about it. It's just a jetliner, according to MSNBC. And NORAD said that whatever object it is, it did not pose a threat to the US.

645
General Discussion / Re: Studying Theist Atheism
« on: November 09, 2010, 03:11:31 pm »
Many people were wondering the reason why I want to use the word "Theist Atheist" to describe this 21% sub-group when the commonly accepted definition of atheism and theism makes it a contradiction. The reason is Steven Waldman.

Steven Waldman is the co-founder of Beliefnet, "a multi-faith spirituality website" that is best known for spamming my email account with junk. Steven Waldman became very influential, and in fact has currently landed himself a job in the federal government, advising the FCC.

When Steven Waldman encountered the Pew Survey, this was his response:
Quote from: Steven Waldman
21% of Atheists believe in god. What this means is that Atheism has become a cultural designation, rather than a theological statement. Some are likely declaring themselves atheists as a statement of hostility to organized religion, rather than to God. This might help explain polls showing rising numbers of Atheists.

Dome, the Theist Atheist I quoted earlier, also seemed to support Steven Waldman's hypothesis, arguing that the common definition of atheism is just wrong: "Atheism is the rejection not of God, but of theism–or, to put it another way, the rejection of the God of theism."

Because of this "cultural atheism" designation hypothesis raised Mr. Waldman, I did not wish to use words that would describe this subgroup without getting rid of the 'atheist' part, lest this becomes true.

But now that I have the hard data, I can test this hypothesis. If "theist atheists" are declaring themselves as hostile to organized religion, then their views on organized religions should stay relatively similar to that of "atheist atheists". There are four questions in this survey that could help to determine hostility to organized religion. My goal is to determine the correlation between belief in god and views on religion. If there is no correlation between the two, then Mr. Waldman's hypothesis has been supported by the data.

There was one problem though...the Rē value for each experiment is very, VERY low, indicating that the correlations that I find are invalid. I'll put in the correlations anyway though, relating belief in god to pro-religious sentiment (I excluded "don't know" for all correlations except for Q10D).

Q.5a.    Now I’m going to read you a few pairs of statements. For each pair, tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views — even if neither is exactly right.  The first pair is... (READ AND RANDOMIZE ITEMS) 
1 - The government should do more to protect morality in society
OR
2 - I worry the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality

Rē = 0.0102
Correlation = 0.0625

Q9:
In your opinion, should churches and other houses of worship keep out of political matters - or should they express their views on day-to-day social and political questions?

Rē = 0.0009
Correlation = 0.0238

Q.10d    When it comes to questions of right and wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance?  Would you say (READ AND RANDOMIZE)

   1   Religious teachings and beliefs
   2   Philosophy and reason
   3   Practical experience and common sense (or)
   4   Scientific information
   9   Don’t know/refused (VOL)

Rē = 0.0497
Correlation = 0.085

Q39C:
   Here are a few statements.  For each one, please tell me if you completely agree with it, mostly agree with it, mostly disagree with it, or completely disagree with it. The first/next one is [INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE]. 
Religion causes more problems in society than it solves.
Do you completely agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or completely disagree?
(I combined completely agree/mostly agree as "agree" and mostly disagree/completly disagree as "disagree. If you feel you would rather have the breakdown in opinion, I'll create a separate graph.)

Rē = 0.0371
Correlation = = 0.1835

If you look only at the graphs, Q5A, Q10D, and Q39C appears as though theist atheists are more pro-religious than atheist atheists, with varying degrees of effect (Q10D showing the least effect). If you look at Q9 though, theist atheists appear as if their views are very similar to that of atheist atheists.

If you look at correlation, you find that the correlation between belief in God and views towards religion is very, very small, with the highest correlation being seen in Q39C and the lowest correlation being seen in Q9.

Rē is so low though that you cannot trust the correlation coexistent that I was able to come up with, however, in IRC:
Quote
<Blacken> if r!=0, then you cannot definitively say there is no correlation

...
<Blacken> there is a low probability of correlative effect
<Blacken> but that's getting a bit fancy, "it's not strongly correlated" is probably enough

...

<Warrigal> Corporation: a correlation coefficient can tell you that a correlation exists; it cannot tell you that no correlation exists.

...

<Warrigal> Corporation: if you have a low R^2, that means there's no significant effect.

...

<Warrigal> Corporation: a correlation coefficient can tell you that a correlation exists; it cannot tell you that no correlation exists.

Knowing what IRC said (and that correlation does not imply causation), I am going to make the conclusion that the lack of a significant correlation or of Rē suggests that there is no correlation between theistic beliefs and religious views, but does not actually prove that no correlation exist. Therefore, I'm going to side with Steven Waldman's hypothesis: atheism has likely became a "cultural designation".
----
Quote from: Muz
Turn the question around the other way. Ask how many theists don't believe in God. If you play your methodologies and spin it right, you'd probably get like 21% of Christians, Muslims, etc not believing in a God (or at least unsure and admitting that there's not enough evidence).

Here's the data for all people who said that they believe in God and a universal spirit, and a breakdown of their "unsureness". (Chart came from this PDF.)

(I was planning on examining the theists who do disbelieve in God, however, I decided that focusing on Theist Atheists first would help me give a better understanding for theists who do disbelieve in God.)

And since people are going to wonder what was the question that was asked in the Poll:
Quote
Now we have some questions about people’s religious beliefs.  First…

Q.30    Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?

1   Yes
2   No
3   Other (VOL)
9   Don’t know/refused (VOL.)
 
IF BELIEVE IN GOD/UNIVERSAL SPIRIT (Q.30=1), ASK:
Q.31     How certain are you about this belief? Are you absolutely certain, fairly certain, not too certain, or not at all certain?
 
   1   Absolutely certain
   2   Fairly certain
   3   Not too certain
   4   Not at all certain
   9   Don’t know/refused (VOL.)

IF BELIEVE IN GOD/UNIVERSAL SPIRIT (Q.30=1), ASK:
Q.32     Which comes closest to your view of God? God is a person with whom people can have a relationship or God is an impersonal force?

1   God is a person
2   God is an impersonal force
3   Both/Neither/Other (VOL.)
9   Don’t know/refused (VOL.)

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 285