Quantcast
The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

Forums - Politics Discussion - The sjw review by eurogamer on Kingdom Come: Deliverance

potato_hamster said:
Pemalite said:

Except it doesn't. Try again.

You are trying to conflate two different issues which is a logical fallacy. Try again.

I'll play your game one last time. All you're saying is"baseless drivel".

You can't have it both ways. You can't refuse to articulate why you feel your sources support your claims and simply assert they answer the issues I have with it and then expect me to go through and display the intellectual rigor that you just opted out of. It doesn't work your way.
 
 I'm done with your nonsense.

K. Thanks. Bye.

Since you have done it first, by ignoring the sources and citations on his post you can't demand that he go and look at the details of the others... seems like you have it reversed.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
potato_hamster said:

I'll play your game one last time. All you're saying is"baseless drivel".

You can't have it both ways. You can't refuse to articulate why you feel your sources support your claims and simply assert they answer the issues I have with it and then expect me to go through and display the intellectual rigor that you just opted out of. It doesn't work your way.
 
 I'm done with your nonsense.

K. Thanks. Bye.

Since you have done it first, by ignoring the sources and citations on his post you can't demand that he go and look at the details of the others... seems like you have it reversed.

And of course it isn't reasonable for me to expect him to go and look at the details of any sources I provided instead of expressing how those sources actually support my claims and citing the relevant places in the sources when people question my opinion and/or sources.

That was the fucking point.





potato_hamster said:
Pemalite said:

Except it doesn't. Try again.

You are trying to conflate two different issues which is a logical fallacy. Try again.

I'll play your game one last time. All you're saying is"baseless drivel".

You can't have it both ways. You can't refuse to articulate why you feel your sources support your claims and simply assert they answer the issues I have with it and then expect me to go through and display the intellectual rigor that you just opted out of. It doesn't work your way.
 
 I'm done with your nonsense.

K. Thanks. Bye.

A few misconceptions.
1) I can refuse anything, for any reason, whenever I desire.
2) My source doesn't contradict your claim or vice versa.
3) I am not expecting you to go through any "intellectual rigor". - The onus is on you to do it or not.

The fact is... The source that I presented is describing how skin pigmentation evolved due to geographical+UV influences, this isn't opinion, it's fact.
What you are trying to assert is how human populations disseminated across the globe. - Both can also occur at the same time, both can also be unrelated.

It's like some people who tries to assert that Evolution is trying to describe how life came to be, when it doesn't, that would be abiogenesis.

Now I ask you to go back to the start and try again or agree or move on.



Pemalite said:
potato_hamster said:

I'll play your game one last time. All you're saying is"baseless drivel".

You can't have it both ways. You can't refuse to articulate why you feel your sources support your claims and simply assert they answer the issues I have with it and then expect me to go through and display the intellectual rigor that you just opted out of. It doesn't work your way.
 
 I'm done with your nonsense.

K. Thanks. Bye.

A few misconceptions.
1) I can refuse anything, for any reason, whenever I desire.
2) My source doesn't contradict your claim or vice versa.
3) I am not expecting you to go through any "intellectual rigor". - The onus is on you to do it or not.

The fact is... The source that I presented is describing how skin pigmentation evolved due to geographical+UV influences, this isn't opinion, it's fact.
What you are trying to assert is how human populations disseminated across the globe. - Both can also occur at the same time, both can also be unrelated.

It's like some people who tries to assert that Evolution is trying to describe how life came to be, when it doesn't, that would be abiogenesis.

Now I ask you to go back to the start and try again or agree or move on.

Okay. Because I respect your contributions to this message board in the past. One last post.

1) Of course you can refuse anything for any reason, but there are consequences for refusing to do converse in a reasonable way, and that typically is opting out of the expectation for people to do for you what you refused to do for them. You claim you didn't expect me to do that, but I'll get to that.

2) Of course your source doesn't contradict my claims. That's what I've been saying the entire time. Your source is entirely irrelevant the comment you responded to. Yet, you used it to refute my point that you can't tell the country of origin of a person using a single picture of that person.  It would be like if I was discussing the evolution of some species, and you told me "but you're wrong, here's a source about abiogenesis that proves it", and then acting like a horses ass when I correctly point out that it's irrelevant. That doesn't add up, does it? Yet here you are, post after post expecting me to provide scientific evidence that proves your source doesn't in fact refute my claims when you even fucking admit it yourself!

Forget the rest. You agree with me, yet are expecting me to refute your claim. Fucking unbelievable.

P.S. Even using your chart, someone with the "medium peach?" colored skin tone could be from the USA, France, Mongolia, Korea, or Argentina to name a few. That's four different continents. The darker tone covering the Southern US is found in six different continents. You uhh... seeing a trend here? It's like you can't even tell what "region" country someone is from based on a single picture, unless "region" means "Earth". See that's the thing about sources. It doesn't matter how rock-solid the science is behind them if someone can't even interpret the meaning behind the findings.


That's it. I'm done

Last edited by potato_hamster - on 05 March 2018

In the future reviews will be scored according to a 1 - 10 scale on the following factors:

Main character gender (1 male, 5 trans, 10 female)

Main character skin tone (1 pale  5 asian like 10 clearly african)

Gender identity in main character (1 sis (identifies with body type) 5 cross dresser, 10 trans and talk about it all the time)

Actual privilege of main character (1 clearly rich 5 can pay the rent 10 clearly too poor to even buy clothes or armor)

Not including any of the points above would net you an automatic 0 score (also named ERASER score) since you erased all those people in the groups you ignore, you may also deduct random points for mis think, or mis treatment of people who are part of a victimized group, WAR IS NOT A REASON TO BE MEAN! 

so yes, this is how reviewers work from now on, don't worry about the graphics, we are looking at the game's politics!



Around the Network
potato_hamster said:

 

Of course your source doesn't contradict my claims. That's what I've been saying the entire time.

Except...

And I quote you here:

potato_hamster said:
Pemalite said:

That doesn't dispute the evidence I provided earlier. Try again.

It totally does, and I'll leave you to figure it out, since "The scientific evidence I have presented has citations. I highly suggest you peruse them as that would answer your questions in full".

K. Thanks.

So which is it?



Errorist76 said:
Tulipanzo said:

So, your "many historians" became one guy's general info page. In German...
This is just a bit sad tbh, I thought you could do better research.


Forgive me if I have better stuff to do than search the net for all the other refrences I’ve read during the last few weeks, just to please some ignorant SJW guy. Sorry, help yourself.

Mate, you responded TO ME saying comment was ignoring sources, then refused to provide any.
Just say you're making it up and save me the trouble ffs



Aeolus451 said:
Tulipanzo said:

I'm sorry the leftists are being mean to you on the internet, must be rough

I think that you're confusing right leaning and left leaning people.

Are they bullying you too by posting bad reviews?



Tulipanzo said:
Aeolus451 said:

I think that you're confusing right leaning and left leaning people.

Are they bullying you too by posting bad reviews?

I haven't seem claims of bully, but of lying... and there have been plenty of sources posted on the thread if you so much care about looking at them.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Tulipanzo said:
Aeolus451 said:

I think that you're confusing right leaning and left leaning people.

Are they bullying you too by posting bad reviews?

Again, you're confusing right leaning and left leaning people. I'm just pointing out sjws arguing for and doing stupid shit. He's literally whining about how people of color aren't in the game, women are portrayed in the game and not challenging everything in a progressive way even though progressive stupidity didn't exist then. Boo fucking hoo.