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 - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 205206207 208209 ... 243
6181
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:57:07 PM »
inb4 The Joker and Tyler Durden.
We all know you have a dark side to yourselves guys.
6182
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:55:40 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.
MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge utter falsehoods.
Actually taking everything in such a black and white manner is the antithesis of good journalism. Reputable journalism is supposed to analyze, investigate and consider two sides of the argument in an egalitarian manner. That's why I respect David Pakman on his reporting on Gamergate despite him being relatively left leaning. He remains non partisan and neutral.
Not sure why you're trying to compare Gamergate with ISIS anyway.
Because you did.
No I brought up an example of poor journalistic practices within MSNBC and multiple major discrepancies within their reports to bring attention to the fact that they're just as bad, if not perhaps worse, than Breitbart.
It was you that conflated the two together, actually.
If you're going to compare two news sources, you have to compare the facts themselves, or else what's the point? We can't have some invisible boundary that's like 'let's look at these separately and give them equal negative value' because that's dishonest.
Exactly. Which is why I linked multiple controversies for MSNBC whereas you linked one for Breitbart. If you'd like to find a different way to quantify Breitbart and MSNBC's bias then you're more than welcome to try.
6183
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:46:13 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.
MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge utter falsehoods.
Actually taking everything in such a black and white manner is the antithesis of good journalism. Reputable journalism is supposed to analyze, investigate and consider two sides of the argument in an egalitarian manner. That's why I respect David Pakman on his reporting on Gamergate despite him being relatively left leaning. He remains non partisan and neutral.
Not sure why you're trying to compare Gamergate with ISIS anyway.
Because you did.
No I brought up an example of poor journalistic practices within MSNBC and multiple major discrepancies within their reports to bring attention to the fact that they're just as bad, if not perhaps worse, than Breitbart. It was you that conflated the two together, actually.
6184
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:41:52 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies
Yeah I don't know about that.
MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
Not being open to debate on Gamergate is hardly as bad as believing in a fictional terrorist organization. You have failed your readers if you refuse to acknowledge utter falsehoods.
Actually taking everything in such a black and white manner is the antithesis of good journalism. Reputable journalism is supposed to analyze, investigate and consider two sides of the argument in an egalitarian manner. That's why I respect David Pakman on his reporting on Gamergate despite him being relatively left leaning. He remains non partisan and neutral. Not sure why you're trying to compare Gamergate with ISIS anyway.
6185
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:35:18 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Breitbart.com is objectively worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversiesYeah I don't know about that. MSNBC was also the news outlet that had the cumnugget Matt Binder on air and took everything he had to say as the gospel truth and refused to give any credence to gamergate arguments. Top notch journalistic practices right there.
6186
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:26:48 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote
Hell, why use them?
Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!"
He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.
That's not why you originally attacked the source though, was it? You specifically said citing something like Breitbart is unreliable because Breitbart is known to cater to conservative audiences.
Yes, because the interview Breitbart is reporting on is minced up to cater to the Conservative audience. It's a shit story on a somewhat decent interview, that is what is the problem.
No, what actually happened is that you saw the name which immediately raised your liberal heckles, so now you're backpedaling.
Not at all.
I'm not going to get caught up in a semantics argument, but all I'm going to say is that you never mentioned or addressed the credibility of the interview in your initial posts until I called you out.
6187
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:02:45 PM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased?[/quote
Hell, why use them?
Because he's not just citing a "oh hey, daily news article, Congress is shit, praise Obama!"
He's citing an interview, not a news story, done on a reporter who spent time with ISIS, by a far less biased news source which is even mentioned in the first sentence. The Breitbart article proceedings to do what every great source (Including MSNBC, Fox News, etc) does with interview, and pick five sentences and leave the rest - when the entire thing is an important read.
That's not why you originally attacked the source though, was it? You specifically said citing something like Breitbart is unreliable because Breitbart is known to cater to conservative audiences. Which in and of itself isn't wrong, but it's nothing short of hypocritical when you continue to post news articles and stories from partisan news outlets, as was aforementioned. A little consistency goes a long way. No, what actually happened is that you saw the name which immediately raised your liberal heckles, so now you're backpedaling.
6188
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:48:28 AM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
Not saying I haven't. I've even cited Fox News a couple times.
So why question the authenticity of a source when you know the ones you use are just as equally biased? Hell, why use them?
6189
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:37:19 AM »
not /fa/ yet
6190
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:31:30 AM »
He might be a furry faggot But he's still a patrician furry faggot
6191
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:28:13 AM »
First off, allow me to take a moment to laugh at linking "Breitbart" It is pretty hilarious considering you've linked MSNBC and HuffPost innumerable times in the past.
6192
« on: January 20, 2015, 11:24:33 AM »
As someone who hasn't been online in just under 24 hours I have no idea what's going on.
6193
« on: January 19, 2015, 02:27:04 PM »
6194
« on: January 19, 2015, 02:19:41 PM »
It's not over..
The fire rises
lol
OH BABY A TRIPLE
INSPEC
SHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN
I'm crashing this thread
With no survivors
 GROND GROND GROND
6195
« on: January 19, 2015, 02:14:24 PM »
It's not over..
The fire rises
lol
OH BABY A TRIPLE
INSPEC SHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN
6196
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:49:16 PM »
Really?
Well do you feel in charge?
 THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING I'M IN CHARGE HERE
6197
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:47:48 PM »
FINALLY, SHITPOSTING I CAN GET BEHIND!
 LOOKS LIKE SHITPOSTING'S BACK ON THE MENU BOYS
6198
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:43:09 PM »
 THE TIME OF ORCPOSTING HAS COME
6199
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:39:02 PM »
Ryle, RC and Ember are like the shitposting triumvirate.
But only Ember is actually funny.
we're all the same user so...
stick to embers alt then you cock jockey
6200
« on: January 19, 2015, 01:36:58 PM »
Ryle, RC and Ember are like the shitposting triumvirate.
But only Ember is actually funny.
6201
« on: January 19, 2015, 12:17:11 PM »
If this were directed at Kyle I'd agree with him. Shooting civilians to up your kill count is pretty cowardly.
Sorry?
Are you referring to the woman he shot who was armed with a hand grenade in one hand and a baby in the other intent on killing a group of marines?
Because if you are, I'd have to strongly disagree with you there. But please by all means, clarify all the "innocent" civilians he's murdered.
So? Does she not have a right to attack people who invade her country?
A country that was controlled by one of the most sadistic dictators in history? The "invasion" that toppled that very government as well? Yeah she was totally within her right to do that.
Continue to be an insurgent apologist if you want, and continue to revere the woman who intended on killing a group of people and an infant all at once. I think the rest of us know who has the moral high ground here.
Yeah Saddam was crazy but life for the majority was much better with him in power and I'll agree obviously that taking a child with her was absolutely idiotic but she's completely justified in attacking the marines.
No. No she wasn't.
6202
« on: January 19, 2015, 11:39:14 AM »
If this were directed at Kyle I'd agree with him. Shooting civilians to up your kill count is pretty cowardly.
Sorry?
Are you referring to the woman he shot who was armed with a hand grenade in one hand and a baby in the other intent on killing a group of marines?
Because if you are, I'd have to strongly disagree with you there. But please by all means, clarify all the "innocent" civilians he's murdered.
I'm referring to how he apparently laid weapons on the ground and then shot anyone who went near them to boost his kill count.
Id have to go find one of doors threads on the subject of this guy. Everything on him seems to have been buried by this recent movie nonsense.
Yeah I would appreciate a credible source on that. I'm not claiming the guy's a military Jesus, but I can't find anything extremely dodgy about him.
6203
« on: January 19, 2015, 11:20:09 AM »
If this were directed at Kyle I'd agree with him. Shooting civilians to up your kill count is pretty cowardly.
Sorry?
Are you referring to the woman he shot who was armed with a hand grenade in one hand and a baby in the other intent on killing a group of marines?
Because if you are, I'd have to strongly disagree with you there. But please by all means, clarify all the "innocent" civilians he's murdered.
So? Does she not have a right to attack people who invade her country?
A country that was controlled by one of the most sadistic dictators in history? The "invasion" that toppled that very government as well? Yeah she was totally within her right to do that. Continue to be an insurgent apologist if you want, and continue to revere the woman who intended on killing a group of people and an infant all at once. I think the rest of us know who has the moral high ground here.
6204
« on: January 19, 2015, 11:15:42 AM »
For what must be the fifth time in this thread, my post specifically included games as art. Admittedly I stopped to reply a couple minutes into the video, but do any of you seriously see video games necessarily as art? I mean, the designs are art. The music is art. The story is probably artful, and clearly the creative process of making a game is an act of artistry, but the typical video game itself is hardly art You dun goof'd m9.
6205
« on: January 19, 2015, 11:12:12 AM »
If this were directed at Kyle I'd agree with him. Shooting civilians to up your kill count is pretty cowardly.
Sorry? Are you referring to the woman he shot who was armed with a hand grenade in one hand and a baby in the other intent on killing a group of marines? Because if you are, I'd have to strongly disagree with you there. But please by all means, clarify all the "innocent" civilians he's murdered.
6207
« on: January 19, 2015, 10:44:42 AM »
Either you're illiterate or being purposefully ignorant of what I'm actually saying, but if you're going to act like a toddler feel free to do so elsewhere. What are you actually saying anyway? All I got from your post is that you think that art is solely confined to paintings, theater and movies, or anything that falls under the guise of classical. Art covers an immensely broad range of human based creative activities, which yes, does include videogames. Seriously, I always laugh my ass off when the "videogames aren't art" argument is brought up. It's essentially just a subjective semantics based argument with no substantiated backing to support it. "Everything that has been input into a videogame is art, but the actual game itself is not because it's not eloquent enough lol" Yeah, no. If anyone's being infantile here, it's you.
6208
« on: January 18, 2015, 08:13:15 PM »
6209
« on: January 18, 2015, 08:11:23 PM »
Admittedly I stopped to reply a couple minutes into the video, but do any of you seriously see video games necessarily as art? I mean, the designs are art. The music is art. The story is probably artful, and clearly the creative process of making a game is an act of artistry, but the typical video game itself is hardly art. A museum isn't art just because it exists to showcase artistic projects. This always seems like such a weak argument to offense taken at the violence seen in some games, as if shooting up a city is somehow less tasteless because it's animated.
And this isn't a slam against those games -- Saints Row IV, a game largely focused around beating aliens to death with dildo-themed weaponry in bondage outfits -- is one of the most enjoyable games I've played, but it's hardly in the same category of media as The Starry Night.
"hurr if it's not classical or doesn't represent some moral abstract concept, it isn't art" lol
6210
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:16:26 PM »
A light spank to teach a kid that what they're doing is wrong is not child abuse, it's used to shock the child into realizing that what they are doing is wrong. there's a difference between beating a kid with a god damn belt and a spanking once in a while when a kid does wrong.
Is there actually any empirical evidence to back up what you're saying? I hear the spanking argument from users here all the time, and I never see anything more substantial than anecdotal evidence and personal belief.
Pages: 1 ... 205206207 208209 ... 243
|
Show Posts
