You sound like a hipster. "Vanilla ice cream is too mainstream." I enjoy vanilla ice cream. I also enjoy lots of other flavours. People should eat what they want based on how it tastes. Not based on whether it's boring or not. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You've gone on longer about me telling a troll about his atrocious grammar than I did about his grammar. Hypocrite much?LJS9502_basic

And you're responding to me everytime. Also, I don't see why having a debate makes me a hypocrite. We're debating about whether it's proper to judge someone's intelligence based on their grammar. Not whether it's right to have a debate. If I was debating with you because I think it's wrong to have a debate then I'd be a hypocrite. But I'm not. You, however, currently have a few people picking apart errors in your own posts after you judged someone else based on his gammar. Insulting someone else's grammar while making mistakes in your own... That's a hypocrite. 

I'm not debating opinion. I'm debating the existance of multiple intelligences. They exist. Anyone who has studied educational theory can tell you that. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Bad grammar is a serious peeve to me. If you think talking with a troll requires one to overlook poor grammar as though they will suddenly sprout something intelligent then more power to you. But I do, in fact, consideringgrammar in dealing with intelligence of individuals. If you don't like it....too bad.LJS9502_basic

And you're responding to me everytime. Also, I don't see why having a debate makes me a hypocrite. We're debating about whether it's proper to judge someone's intelligence based on their grammar. Not whether it's right to have a debate. If I was debating with you because I think it's wrong to have a debate then I'd be a hypocrite. But I'm not. You, however, currently have a few people picking apart errors in your own posts after you judged someone else based on his gammar. Insulting someone else's grammar while making mistakes in your own... That's a hypocrite. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You're welcome to your opinion. Which is all it is. And frankly it doesn't look like you were even reading the conversation.LJS9502_basic

Actually, there's plenty of evidence in favour of the multiple intelligences theory. There are brilliant physicists that can't grasp simple grammar. It's not just an opinion. And yes, I'm reading the conversation. I've read every comment in this thread. I'm only objecting to you because you decided to judge intelligence based on grammar. And that's a serious pet peeve of mine. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"] Excuse me? your one of the people that are suggesting its strange and possible sexisme, also you have mentioned gender equality a few times. Which are only a thing that exist in the PC setting. Because nature has made sure there is clear difference. Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there is no other reason in the world for Rockstar to exchange a male lead out with a female.It would be like doing a Tomb Raider game with a male Lars Croft.Jacanuk

If Batman can have a female Robin then GTA can have a female lead. 

Does having a male lead instead of a female contribute anything to the story? What if the answer is no? Then what? I vote asexual robots. Unless the story absolutely requires a male, we may as well go with asexual robots. Why include a male if it doesn't add anything to the story? 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And? It's still a gauge on intelligence...LJS9502_basic

No it's not. Plenty of intelligent people are poor at writing. It's important to understand that, otherwise you just seem ignorant. Respond according to what is being said, not how it's being said. Whenever someone insults the persons grammar in a debate, they just make themselves seem desperate. Don't do that. 

Actually, there's plenty of evidence in favour of the multiple intelligences theory. There are brilliant physicists that can't grasp simple grammar. It's not just an opinion. And yes, I'm reading the conversation. I've read every comment in this thread. I'm only objecting to you because you decided to judge intelligence based on grammar. And that's a serious pet peeve of mine. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No but it sends a message with regard to intelligence...LJS9502_basic

Only if you read too much into it. As long as the message is understood, that's all that should matter. And this is coming from a pre-service English teacher. Do you pick apart the grammatical structure of spoken language too? If I'm not in a professional setting, I'll use slang and such. I don't worry about speaking "properly." And Gamespot is not a professional setting. 

No it's not. Plenty of intelligent people are poor at writing. It's important to understand that, otherwise you just seem ignorant. Respond according to what is being said, not how it's being said. Whenever someone insults the persons grammar in a debate, they just make themselves seem desperate. Don't do that. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] The conversation is important to have because it shapes peoples entire lives, including the laws surrounding those people. Think of how many people, women and homosexuals specifically, that live under extreme oppression from a religiously supported government. It really fuels feelings of hate that would not otherwise exist if there was more of a humanistic approach to the whole situation. It's why the U.S. should (and historically has) placed great emphasis on separation of church and state.chrisrooR

And debating the existance of god with a person who isn't sexist/homophobic and lives in a country that doesn't oppress them helps how? 

I used to believe it all originated with the church as well. And I used to feel the need to argue with them about it all the time too. But like I said, I grew out of it. The beliefs in the bible reflect the times it was written. I don't think the church created the prejudice. This prejudice was likely the dominant mentality at the time and that's why it was included. Christianity would not have lasted very long if its beliefs were unpopular. If the individual express prejudice attitudes then retalliate for that reason. But don't retalliate just because they believe in God. That makes you no better than the people you claim to be fighting against. 

[QUOTE="liberalus"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Considering your lack of mastery of English grammar....you shouldn't be calling anyone dumb.;)LJS9502_basic

Only if you read too much into it. As long as the message is understood, that's all that should matter. And this is coming from a pre-service English teacher. Do you pick apart the grammatical structure of spoken language too? If I'm not in a professional setting, I'll use slang and such. I don't worry about speaking "properly." And Gamespot is not a professional setting. 

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"] It's not about holding anything against people that they did in the past, I was just responding to his point on how atheists condemn people for religion, because that seems to be the general consensus amongst the religious when their beliefs are brought into question. Most of the time, all an atheist is doing is having a conversation about the rationality of holding such beliefs. This is easily interpreted by the religious individual as an 'attack' on their beliefs, even when the conversation is harmless. It signals insecurity in their belief system when they feel 'victimized', but religious beliefs are more important than the individuals who believe in them. How? It matters because religious belief doesn't just affect themselves, it also affects public policy and the law. Also, it's important to remember our history and appreciate how easily human beings are made into in- and out-group mentality. All religious belief does is strengthen the feelings that they should have some sort of control over other peoples lives because they're on a 'divine' mission. chrisrooR

Why do these atheists feel the need to discuss the rationality of God so frequently though? The topic got old for me long ago. Someone else mentioned something about atheists growing tired of that conversation by the age of 20. I grew tired of it long before then. It's the same conversation every time. And it's pointless to debate it. Unless someone is trying to make it into a law or is otherwise directly involved in trying to change your life then there is no point in challenging their belief just for the sake of doing so. If you do then you are no better than a religious individual actively trying to convert others to their religion. 

And debating the existance of god with a person who isn't sexist/homophobic and lives in a country that doesn't oppress them helps how? Doesn't oppress them for religious reasons anyway.