MrCrowley wrote:Someone actually survived that hit? I did not expect a giant flamethrower either.
If you don't happen to be in their tiny path, shaped charge hits don't really cause that much damage. There are many stories of soldiers using bazooka type weapons in WW2 with hits that simply blew the target tank's hatches open, leaving the crew to close them and carry on regardless. The danger is when it hits either fuel or explosives, and that's what causes the "flamethrower" effect, it's the gun propellant deflagrating.
That one guy managed to get out before it was too late, the rest of the crew is clearly toast.
HMS Hood suffered pretty much the same fate:
But I can finally play Hitman Absolution, on pretty good settings too. Awesome game but I do miss not being able to pick your own weapons before each level and its a bit too linear compared to Bloodmoney with reduced re-playability IMO.
In all fairness, there are many levels where you cannot pick out weapons in most of the series, part of the challenge IMO.
However, the A.I. seems a lot better and there are a few new cool things to have fun with.
Some guy not far from me has converted his petrol Toyota Sera in to an electric car and made a documentary (with pretty cringe-worthy production) to go along with it.
Only episode 1 is available at the moment:
There are a couple of others in the video who've also done their own conversions. Must be loads of people in the US and UK who've done something similar.
jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
Also, further to the "misogynistic LEGO" video, I like this guy
[youtube] [/youtube]
Haha I forgot to link to that when he uploaded it. Thunderf00t is a pretty big name in the atheist/rational community and he's put out a few videos on feminists for reasons I'll shall do my best to explain briefly.
Remember how I said I only had contact with feminist blogs/ideas through some science bloggers who had gone a bit too feminist? Yeah, well he was a part of that group (freethoughtblogs) but was kicked out/banned because he voiced his opinion that the atheist/skeptic community was spending an unproportionate amount of time discussing feminism problems in atheist/rational communities, and pretty nuanced ones at that. So he was famously booted from a community calling itself freethoughtblogs for voicing an opinion. This only confirmed what I, and many others, had already suspected. The big wigs, "PZ Myers" for one, had gone off the deep end a bit and were completely whipped. They would encourage others to ignore atheist/rational events unless those events adopted several policies to help protect women from sexual advances... many of those policies were pretty ridiculous. I remember being told by several members that if a women is walking on the same side of the street as you at night, you should cross over because she may feel threatened by your presence. I said that's like asking a black man to cross the road because you feel threatened. Didn't take me long to get banned from their either
This was a long time in the making, going back a year or so, and even involving Richard Dawkins in what became known as 'Elevatorgate' (I hate when people slap 'gate' on to the end of controversial events).
Perhaps the funniest bit of the whole story was when Thunderf00t challenged another famous Atheist (who sided with PZ Myers et al), Matt Dillahunty, to prove that a reasonable discussion about ideas could be held on the Atheism+ forum (people were being banned for trying to discuss ideas about Atheism+ and feminism instead of just accepting what they were told). So Matt used a pseudonym and posted on the forum trying to discuss ideas and they ended up banning him!
There are so many individual events that contributed to this huge cluster fuck, many involving Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers. It's hard to fine an unbiased view of the whole thing since the accounts will either be by pro-PZ people or pro-Thunderf00t people. For now I side with Thunderf00t, because you can at least discuss things over there without being banned or labeled a misogynist.
POLAND_SPUD wrote:lol why do you even care to talk about her vids ? she disabled rating her vids and censors all the comments... want to do something constructive ?
find a site with some perverts and ask them to make a c## tribute video of her then post links to it all over the internet
Is that sort of like asking for rule 34?
Someone already did that for Rebecca Watson (google search if you must, I'm not linking it)
POLAND_SPUD wrote:well I am trying to point out the obvious - she's a feminist and an attention w####...
obviously she can't use logical reasoning - if she was intelligent she wouldn't be a feminist in the first place
so why do you waste your time on writing about her??
JSR might agree with you here but I don't agree that all feminists aren't intelligent or that parts of feminism are unintelligent beliefs to hold. A lot of the well known feminists are going to be the type that I'm not a fan of since they would have made their name writing some book with a provocative title or writing/making a misandrist blog/videos like some we've previously mentioned. There are genuinely good feminists out there and there are some legitimate opinions and beliefs held by them.
I know this is a bit of a stretch, but I'm sure back in the day civil rights supporters were looked down upon as intellectually inferior by everyone else. I'm not saying you should support all of feminism, or that you should even support parts of feminism, I'm just saying that doing the opposite (over-generalizations, i.e. that all feminists lack intelligence) is as equally foolhardy as holding hardcore feminist beliefs not based on fact.
I think we can all agree that a lot of the progress women have made in society (I mean things like getting the vote) have been positive measures. The problem we are discussing here is whether we should continue to enforce more positive measures. This means we need to decide whether there are any positive measures left to enforce or whether both genders are now 'equal' (in a rough sense, no need to go back to our discussion on innateness). I think we still have a bit further to go. You think we should stop here. Both sides need evidence for their respective positions. I think dismissing one side of the debate as unintellectual is irrational in the extreme. You can point out a few feminists and call them unintellectual (like our lego-hating youtuber) and I would agree, but you would need a mountain of evidence to have me convinced that the entire movement is the same. You could even persuade me that the majority are unintellectual, but I doubt this would be possible as it would be pretty hard to sample the target population without severe sampling errors (to say nothing of non-sampling errors).
edit:
In other news we had two small (largest measured 4.0, 15km NE, 5km deep) earthquakes in Auckland yesterday, quite a rare event. But now I finally know what one feels like (albeit a pretty minor one)
Can't imagine what it would have been like living in Christchurch the last few years. After their big one in Feb 2011, I think they've had like 30 aftershocks above 5.0 since then.
Just stumbled across a video simulating what it would be like if that big volcano island in the middle of our harbour erupted. I live about 300m from the beach...
See 3:15 onwards:
[youtube][/youtube]
MrCrowley wrote: Yeah, well he was a part of that group (freethoughtblogs) but was kicked out/banned because he voiced his opinion that the atheist/skeptic community was spending an unproportionate amount of time discussing feminism problems in atheist/rational communities, and pretty nuanced ones at that. So he was famously booted from a community calling itself freethoughtblogs for voicing an opinion.
Yeah, I saw his videos on that:
girlwriteswhat also chimed in:
I remember being told by several members that if a women is walking on the same side of the street as you at night, you should cross over because she may feel threatened by your presence.
This overemphasis on making women feel "safe" is what irks me. Girlwriteswhat goes over it in several videos, women are statistically the least likely members of society to suffer violence, but regardless they are the most concerned about violence and receive disproportionate amounts of attention and resources because of that.
I said that's like asking a black man to cross the road because you feel threatened. Didn't take me long to get banned from their either
Proud of you
This was a long time in the making, going back a year or so, and even involving Richard Dawkins in what became known as 'Elevatorgate' (I hate when people slap 'gate' on to the end of controversial events).
well I am trying to point out the obvious - she's a feminist and an attention w####...
obviously she can't use logical reasoning - if she was intelligent she wouldn't be a feminist in the first place
so why do you waste your time on writing about her??
Fair enough, by giving her attention we are playing into her hands so to speak - but demonstrating the modern feminist agenda of "professional victimhood" is worth exposing.
I think we can all agree that a lot of the progress women have made in society (I mean things like getting the vote) have been positive measures. The problem we are discussing here is whether we should continue to enforce more positive measures. This means we need to decide whether there are any positive measures left to enforce or whether both genders are now 'equal' (in a rough sense, no need to go back to our discussion on innateness). I think we still have a bit further to go. You think we should stop here.
My question is, what more do they want? They got the vote without the corresponding social obligation to be drafted in defense of their democracy. In the West we have much more women than men being churned out by the education system designed to accomodate them (and yet http://www.nber.org/papers/w17888 ), society bends over backwards to give them equal opportunities without giving them equal responsibility. The schools and workplaces that are now women-friendly serve only to alienate our own gender, I think the pendulum has already swung too far and any disadvantage women might feel, real or perceived, is their own fault.
The reason I'm so vocal about it (on this forum and in most social circles) is because it took me years to realise they're not all sugar and spice and all things nice, and I wish someone had pointed it out to me sooner.
you would need a mountain of evidence to have me convinced that the entire movement is the same
Find me a genuine issue they're addressing in the West, as opposed to going out of their way to find ways to be offended about imagined inequalities.
Women have a right to their backward reasoning and double standards in personal relationships, if individual men are willing to suffer them then it is their choise which they also have a right to. What I object to is having their hypocrisy backed by the same government that takes an annoying large slice of my income every month.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
