Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Bhruic

Real Name Bhruic   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 14, 2004, 23:07
Total Comments 3146 (Veteran)
User ID 22304
User comment history
< Newer [ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Older >

News Comments > etc.
185. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 20:25 Bhruic
The ol' disagree and I'll ignore you...


Well, in my case I'll admit I baited him just a little, but I was getting rather tired of his "Well, I'm not going to talk anymore, but I'm going to make a snide comment about how superior I am on my way out" routine. If you don't want to debate anymore, you can just quit posting - it's what I do.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
179. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 18:02 Bhruic
Aside from Draugr, there's no reason or rational thought to be found here.

And this folks, is your daily dose of "Tolerance and Respect" from Prez. Don't forget to check back next week when he steals candy from a baby, and kicks a handicapped person in the butt!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Mass Effect 3 Voice Cast Revealed
9. Re: Mass Effect 3 Voice Cast Revealed Feb 1, 2012, 17:42 Bhruic
Why Jessica Chobot... eugh. She's actually in the game, too.

Though, I wasn't getting ME3 anyway... but I don't understand why she's in it.

My guess is:
She was named the 88th most desirable woman of 2008 by AskMen magazine and 14th hottest woman of business 2009 by Business Pundit.
had something to do with it.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
172. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 16:39 Bhruic
Jesus Christ you're melodramatic.

And this is why I have a problem with you. You're the first to preach about tolerance and respect, but you're also the first to resort to insults and labelling. So far decided to call me "intolerant", having a "superiority complex", being "condescending", and now "melodramatic". How about you stick to the actual discussion rather than trying to attack my character?

Aside from the decidedly anti-Christian slant this thread and board has, no one is attacking anyone.

Saying "aside from" seems to imply that you think people have been attacking Christians here? You think anything said here has been worse than what Perkins said?

From the beginning of my involvement I've simply been trying to ensure that Christians are represented fairly, especially since people here have no interest in tempering their emotional response to harmless religious activism.

No, some people here don't subscribe to your description of this as "harmless religious activism".

You use terms like "attack on gays" because you know it stirs up thoughts of oppression and violence, making your point seem more salient.

I use "attack on gays" because he is attacking gays. When you call someone "the biggest threat" and describe them as "Warped", that is an attack on them and their way of life.

If he were calling for violence in response to this (something you probably wish he'd do so you could feel better about despising him and his followers)

Seriously, a dick move man. A really dick move. Talk about fucking condescension. Way to demonstrate your tolerance and respect. You are a fucking role model.

He is advocating peaceful opposition, nothing more.

Acting as if words have no power is just wishful thinking. Furthermore, while you apparently are looking at this as a completely isolated incident, you might well look at Perkins and the FRC beyond what they've said in this one article - it's clear that the attack examples from above are part of a pattern, not benign as you seem to want them to be.

You say you respect free speech, but what I'm getting is that you only respect speech that you agree with. All else must be demonized and destroyed.

Everyone is perfectly free to whatever speech they desire, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to call them on their speech. You seem to believe that not only are people free to say whatever they want, but you can't even argue against what they are saying - unless you do it on a forum, apparently.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Mass Effect 3 Voice Cast Revealed
6. Re: Mass Effect 3 Voice Cast Revealed Feb 1, 2012, 15:08 Bhruic

Complete waste of money, they could have hired out of work actors on the cheap and no one would have known the difference

True for ME1, but not by this point. Not having Seth Green for Joker, or Tricia Helfer for EDI, for example, would definitely be noticable.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
166. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 14:18 Bhruic
Call me crazy, but if all he is asking his people to do is show Bioware/ EA that they're unhappy about the addition of same-sex relationships by avoiding the game and writing a letter or email explaining why, that hardly sounds worthy of the rage and gnashing of teeth on display here.

If that's all he were doing, I'd have no problem with it. But when he starts spouting stuff like "the biggest threat to the empire may be homosexual activists", he's no longer just asking people to indicate they are unhappy, he's attacking gays. Same with "a lot of them expressing anger that their kids will be exposed to this Star Warped way of thinking". Hell, even the line you quoted from the Bible is an attack on gays.

Now I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to speak out, free speech and all that, but that also doesn't mean other people don't have the right to call him out on his speech. If you want to attack other groups because you perceive them as terrible sinners, don't be surprised when you get attacked in return for being douchebags.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Rovio Positive About Piracy
34. Re: Rovio Positive About Piracy Feb 1, 2012, 08:30 Bhruic
But publishers tend to not want to enable that themselves. It's one thing to make people work for it, it's another to just hand it to them and say "hey, pay if you'd like, whatever, it's all good."

Oh please, that's not how it'd be accomplished and you know it. Steam already has free weekends, how do you think they pull that off? If they can manage that, then allowing free trials in general wouldn't be much more challenging.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Rovio Positive About Piracy
33. Re: Rovio Positive About Piracy Feb 1, 2012, 08:28 Bhruic
Hey, real quick, what other industries let us try something at no risk, particularly when they actually bear an enormous amount of risk?

Books - Libraries.
Music - Radio.

And since you brought physical products into it...

Physical products - Almost every store you can think of.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Rovio Positive About Piracy
31. Re: Rovio Positive About Piracy Feb 1, 2012, 08:09 Bhruic
I kind of dig the idea of a limited time Steam return, or even better, a limited time trial, but it couldn't really work: people would be very quick to find a way to use offline mode to get the full game for free.

So what? You're acting as if there weren't already a really easy and convenient way for people to get the full game for free.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Timothee Besset Leaves id
18. Re: Timothee Besset Leaves id Feb 1, 2012, 08:04 Bhruic
Anyone can follow up a mediocre game with a good game, or vice-versa

Sure, but when's the last time id put out a good game? Discounting re-releases, that'd be Quake 3, way back in 1999. So they haven't released a good game in almost 13 years now.

That doesn't mean they're incapable of releasing something decent, but it sure doesn't give much evidence that it's likely to happen.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
164. Re: etc. Feb 1, 2012, 07:56 Bhruic
He's not trying to draw that comparison with regard to their actions, he's just trying to illustrate that not all beliefs are worthy of respect, however earnestly you may believe them. Often extreme examples are used to show that a line must actually exist, and it's then just a matter of determining where it should be drawn.

Yup, that's it exactly. Sadly, Prez is being the condescending he accuses me of, and somehow missed that analysis.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
148. Re: etc. Jan 31, 2012, 21:00 Bhruic
Can't prove a negative? Oh you mean the lack of evidence, right? So You think this big thing we are in, that we call the universe, isn't evidence?

It's evidence that the universe exists. It's not evidence of some entity creating it.

You don't know that. THAT is my point. You seem to get this to a degree, but you still deny it. That's fine, but don't act like you've finally nailed the case, because you are far from that.

I haven't denied it at all. I don't know if there is or isn't a "god". I'm not going to believe there is one, however, unless someone can give good evidence for the existence of such a being.

Actually, fuck that last paragraph, here's a link:

The first line from that page:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Yes, I'm aware of the definition. That's why I used it correctly. Someone (like myself for example) can be an agnostic atheist. That would mean they don't know if there's a "god", but they don't believe there is one. Someone could be a gnostic atheist, and believe that they know for certain there is not a god. Someone could be a gnostic theist, and think there's certainly a god, or someone could be an agnostic theist, and not know for certain there's a god, but believe there is one regardless.

Claiming to be an agnostic doesn't remove you from the debate over atheism vs theism, it just means you aren't claiming certain knowledge. Do you believe there is a god? If so, you are a theist. Do you not believe there is a god? Then you're an atheist. It's belief that determines, not knowledge.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
144. Re: etc. Jan 31, 2012, 16:57 Bhruic
However you want to rationalize your superiority complex is okay. It doesn't really change anything.

Really? That's what you come back with? Well, if you want to be tolerant of those who throw girls back into burning buildings because they tried to flee without a male "chaperone", those who stone women for being raped, those who throw acid into women's faces for daring to get an education, be my guest. If not respecting such bullshit means I have a "superiority complex", then I'm damn proud to have one.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Rovio Positive About Piracy
9. Re: Rovio Positive About Piracy Jan 31, 2012, 14:55 Bhruic
There are ripoffs and there are blatant ripoffs. Angry Birds was a blatant ripoff.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BF3 Patch Plans Summary
13. Re: BF3 Patch Plans Summary Jan 31, 2012, 14:54 Bhruic
Except no one actually uses the speed perk unless you are on a new account and it's the only one you have. Extra ammo/cover/flak vest/extra explosives is a much bigger advantage.

Um, yeah, about that "no one"... Plenty of people use the speed perk. It's quite handy in numerous circumstances. The other perks you mention are situationally useful too, but there are lots of times that they are effectively useless (extra ammo for light machine guns, for example).
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > BF3 Patch Plans Summary
8. Re: BF3 Patch Plans Summary Jan 31, 2012, 13:54 Bhruic
I'm glad to see the MAV riding and random deaths are being fixed, but honestly, that seems like a pretty small patch list, considering some of the issues remaining in the game.

Which isn't to say I don't enjoy the game, but I'd hope they were working on it more than it looks like they are working on it.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
142. Re: etc. Jan 31, 2012, 13:29 Bhruic
Neither can explain or prove either of those things, and they know it, yet Atheists seem to think burden of proof is ONLY on the religious.

Well guess what? As an Agnostic, I am under no such burden. So when I say, "prove there is no god(s)" then the burden BECOMES yours. So prove it or SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

Burden of proof applies to anyone making a claim. If someone is claiming to know absolutely that there is no god, then yes, they'd need to prove it (which you can't, as you can't prove a negative).

However, most atheists make no such claim. The default state is the non-existence of something. For example, should you claim there is an invisible pink unicorn standing behind me, you'd need to prove it's really there. Without proof, I'd be justified in not believing that it exists.

The same applies to "god". There's insufficient evidence to suggest such a being exists, so I don't choose to believe in one.

Oh, and you really should look up the definitions of the words you are using - an agnostic is in opposition to a gnostic. One can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. Saying "I'm an agnostic" doesn't affect your beliefs (or lack thereof) in any fashion.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
141. Re: etc. Jan 31, 2012, 13:23 Bhruic
Suffice it to say that, in my mind, your post is indicative of the same kind of intolerance that everyone here, you included, bashes Christians for, which I find ironic.

Again, there is no absolute when it comes to tolerance. Or, to put it differently, a radical Muslim fundamentalist who believes that he needs to strap a bomb to his chest, go into a crowded market place and explode it, is not worthy of my tolerance. Were you to consider even for a second being tolerant of his beliefs would make you an apologist for any sort of action that one would be willing to undertake.

Irrational beliefs do not deserve tolerance or respect. Period.

This comment was edited on Jan 31, 2012, 13:30.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
124. Re: etc. Jan 30, 2012, 18:28 Bhruic
Still, I respect her (and other Christians') beliefs, even if I don't agree with them. It's a shame so few people can do this nowadays.

It's really not. There's no valid reason to respect irrational beliefs. Someone who believes that the Earth is flat, for example, believes something that is just so plainly stupid that there's no way I could possibly respect it.

If you can't come up with a rational argument for why you believe something, then expecting others to respect you for your belief is, imo, asking too much.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
15. Re: Ron Paul seeks to unmask YouTube user who uploaded offensive Huntsman ad. Post Comment Jan 30, 2012, 17:18 Bhruic
Furthermore, what laws do you think corporations are breaking right now? What law did the banks break leading up to 2008? Point me to one.

Exactly. Lots of people were complaining that no one on Wall Street has been prosecuted over the financial crisis, and how unfair that is when compared to case X. But the reality is that they (for the most part) didn't break any laws - there weren't any laws in this area for them to have to break. If you remove regulations, and just let the corporations do what they want, claiming you are "enforcing the law" is pretty pointless.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
3146 Comments. 158 pages. Viewing page 48.
< Newer [ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Older >


Blue's News logo