So, I've decided to ask the Americans here to give me some info.
Please?
I just want to know the basics, how it works, it's history, how it differs from the systems of other countries, etc.
But seriously, does anybody have anything I could use in a Power Point presentation?
Oh, and Capntastic, thanks for the offer, but I'll rather do it myself.
Two vaguely similar candidates are picked seemingly at random from their platforms, or sponsor groups, also known as the only two political parties in the US. Repuclicans and Democrats, as opposed to the swedish system where we have over 14 parties at any one given time of various goods and bads for the rich and poor.
Irregardless, these two thrashtalk eachother and depending on the quality of it earn voter points in the various regions, or states of the US. Once a region has reached a conclusive vote, they side with one candidate and net him bonus votes. The battles for these votes can become rather intense and even propagate scandals, such as Watergate. Which is odd since Presidency is more than flinging missiles at people you don't like. You have a insane population of people to care for, some even dumber and accident prone than the dwarves we know and love.
So pleasing them all is akin to filling a colander to the brim. In a desert.
Once a candidate has enough votes before the voting period is up, (having gotten 50% of the population to actually BOTHER to vote is a amazing achievement by these standards) he can look forward to being nagged, berated, dumbfounded and insulted by a quarter of the globe just for being in office, everything you say, do, do not do will be taken out of context and thrashed by the medias for the next four years. Just as the olympics. And if you royally mess up, or manage a semblance of "being good at it" you get another four years in office. But no more, you could be the god Emperor of Man for all we care but the words in the holy constitution is law. Unless you change it. And get the senate to agree to it.
If you loose, well you can always demand a recount, until you win. Because sweet nellie there are a lot of ballots to double-check.
Failing that, the supreme court will pick a president by picking a name out of a hat worn by J.F.Rosewelt.
Now, how the president senate and supreme court work in tandem to bring a semblance of goverment to all these semi-independent states, that's another topíc I refuse to touch. Good luck on your powerpoint
Also, where did you find out what you did, Cajoes?
Some Swedish nation-wide information web, eh? EH?
Jag måste veta!
quote:
Originally posted by Cajoes:
<STRONG>US Elections are easy. And bollocks, at the same time.Two vaguely similar candidates are picked seemingly at random from their platforms, or sponsor groups, also known as the only two political parties in the US. Repuclicans and Democrats, as opposed to the swedish system where we have over 14 parties at any one given time of various goods and bads for the rich and poor.
Irregardless, these two thrashtalk eachother and depending on the quality of it earn voter points in the various regions, or states of the US. Once a region has reached a conclusive vote, they side with one candidate and net him bonus votes. The battles for these votes can become rather intense and even propagate scandals, such as Watergate. Which is odd since Presidency is more than flinging missiles at people you don't like. You have a insane population of people to care for, some even dumber and accident prone than the dwarves we know and love.
So pleasing them all is akin to filling a colander to the brim. In a desert.Once a candidate has enough votes before the voting period is up, (having gotten 50% of the population to actually BOTHER to vote is a amazing achievement by these standards) he can look forward to being nagged, berated, dumbfounded and insulted by a quarter of the globe just for being in office, everything you say, do, do not do will be taken out of context and thrashed by the medias for the next four years. Just as the olympics. And if you royally mess up, or manage a semblance of "being good at it" you get another four years in office. But no more, you could be the god Emperor of Man for all we care but the words in the holy constitution is law. Unless you change it. And get the senate to agree to it.
If you loose, well you can always demand a recount, until you win. Because sweet nellie there are a lot of ballots to double-check.
Failing that, the supreme court will pick a president by picking a name out of a hat worn by J.F.Rosewelt.
Now, how the president senate and supreme court work in tandem to bring a semblance of goverment to all these semi-independent states, that's another topíc I refuse to touch. Good luck on your powerpoint</STRONG>
It's sad how much of that is true. I suggest America (The Book) as a good place to start further research. The biggest problem with the Presidency is that, unlike all other positions and decisions made by the governmental system, it's the electoral college. When the candidate wins the popular vote in a state the electoral college of that state (just to be clear here; the E.C. is just an organization, it is not higher education) then selects the winner; They don't have to choose the same person as was voted for, although they have never gone straight against the people. This winner gets the 'electoral votes' for that state. These are the votes that count for the presidency and there are a number of these relitive to the population of the state. Now, in most states (these tend to be the republican, conservative states (Republicans are one of the two primary parties, because most of us can't count to higher than two anyway) these votes all go to the winning candidate, while in some territories, the votes are split according to the percentage of votes that the candidate won.
And that's how we choose who gets to have the Big Red Button!
But don't look at me, I live in the Great Republic of California. We Secede in 2009.
quote:
Originally posted by Cajoes:
<STRONG>...the words in the holy constitution is law. </STRONG>
Fun fact: Any state at any time could ban voting on the/a president. Seriously.
Fun Fact: Civilian votes only count as a "Popular Vote".
[ January 29, 2008: Message edited by: Torak ]
[ January 29, 2008: Message edited by: Fenrir ]
quote:
Two vaguely similar candidates are picked seemingly at random from their platforms, or sponsor groups, also known as the only two political parties in the US.
Eh, really ? Its more like two branch offices of a single party. I've asked around, and no one can actually explain to me whats the difference between the two, apart from simply having a legitimate (and silly) reason to hate your republican neighbours. Red Drazi fight Green Drazi...idiotic. Besides, it doesnt matter anyway, the policies stay the same no matter who you choose.
Also, is it me, or all US presidents in the last 60 years were either scum or stupid, or sometimes even both ?
quote:
Originally posted by karnot:
<STRONG>Eh, really ? Its more like two branch offices of a single party. I've asked around, and no one can actually explain to me whats the difference between the two, apart from simply having a legitimate (and silly) reason to hate your republican neighbours.</STRONG>
Learning hasnt been a sin for about 300 years, try it out.
quote:
Originally posted by karnot:
<STRONG>Eh, really ? Its more like two branch offices of a single party. I've asked around, and no one can actually explain to me whats the difference between the two, apart from simply having a legitimate (and silly) reason to hate your republican neighbours. Red Drazi fight Green Drazi...idiotic. Besides, it doesnt matter anyway, the policies stay the same no matter who you choose.
Also, is it me, or all US presidents in the last 60 years were either scum or stupid, or sometimes even both ?</STRONG>
Well, really, they have changed from what they where when they formed. Originaly, the republicans represented the 'powerful national government' side, and the democrats supported states rights. This was true even during the civil war, meaning that the party that now has the significantly greater portion of the african-american and woman-american population today was both pro-slavery and against women's right to vote. Now, due to gradual shifting, much like plate tectonics, these views are held by the republicans (not seriously)(I think). Today, the parties are more distinguished by religion, sadly. The republicans are representing fundamentalist Christians (why is it that whenever people read the holy books, it always turns out god wants them to kill somebody?), and the democrats represent not-fundamentalist Christians. The third parties all represent the scientologists.
Be sure you have that all down correctly, because this is just what you need for your project. Also, make sure to start your powerpoint with an ethic slur, so you can get everybodies' attention.
[ January 31, 2008: Message edited by: PTTG?? ]
quote:
Learning hasnt been a sin for about 300 years, try it out.
quote:
Originally posted by karnot:
<STRONG>
If that is true - why cant the USians learn to live in peace with other nations and mind their own business ?</STRONG>
Im not even going to justify your foolish views with a response.
quote:
Originally posted by Torak:
<STRONG>Im not even going to justify your foolish views with a response.</STRONG>
quote:
Originally posted by Dwarfaholic:
<STRONG>Thanks for the post, it's a real big help.
But does the system have any sort of history? I mean, has it always been like this?Also, where did you find out what you did, Cajoes?
Some Swedish nation-wide information web, eh? EH?
Jag måste veta!</STRONG>
Dwarfaholic, I have your answer for you.
May I delight you in a ... little South Park? ;)
US Politics
quote:
Originally posted by Fenrir:
<STRONG>
Uhhh... You just did! :p</STRONG>
With a politically motivated response, of which he could come back with another stereotype-skewed opinion.
It starts off with all of the various parties. Of all those parties, ranging from the Neo-Nazis (no, seriously) to the New Communist Party (that's what they call themselves, I believe) you have this huge range of political ideals. The Political Compass site is a good place to get a bit of info on the political spectrum (not just left vs right, there's also an up/down).
Now, smack dab in the near (relatively) middle of that compass is the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. The Republican Party is considered to be more up and to the right (Socially and Economically Authoritarian) even though in the past they were the part of "small government". The Democrat Party is considered to be more up and to the left (of the Republican Party) even though they have become more focused on controlling personal decisions.
Even though there are hundreds of political parties, these two get the most press because they've been around for so long. This is both wrong and right, as the way the system here is designed tends to favor a two party election (more on that later) but it excludes many viable options due to old habits.
Before the election even starts, MONTHS before if not at least a year, members of the parties begin to campaign to become the representative of their party. Let's say 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans start to compete for representation of their respective parties. So they start to send out campaign stuff, slogans, fundraisers, etc. Slowly the number of candidates for each party drop off (maybe because of lack of funding or lack of support or whatever). Now, caucus time approaches.
The candidates remaining are trying to win the nomination of their party. They want to be the ones on the Presidential ballot. For way more detail, go to Wikipedia (for US Primaries), but the gist is that a bunch of smaller votes are held and the candidate with the most votes of his party gets to be the representative (theorectically).
So, election time rolls around and it's time for them to take out the big guns. The "two" parties start to compete for the office of the president. I saw "two" because all those other parties go through mostly the same process as the big two, but people don't seem to care about them (more on that later). The elections hit and all the various people who vote go out and do so.
Who do they vote for? Well, this is a big problem (at least to me an many others). With our current "two party" system, the media likes to pick out who is "electable" (based on whatever twisted standards they hold, most likely self serving) and only report on them. Now, I'm going to pull a name here that might be getting old to many on the internet, but a good example of this is Ron Paul, a current candidate for the Republicans. He's been running on the idea that government should NEVER do ANYTHING that isn't EXPLICITLY granted in the Constitution. But the media has deemed him "unelectable", so they don't cover him. He has a HUGE internet following (set records for online fundraising, like $5 million in one day all from individuals), and always does well in online polls. But in phone polls he's sometimes completely excluded from the list (sometime listed as the 5th option "other" even though there are only 5 candidates!) or downplayed. Media-run debates, which are where the majority of the population get their "politics" from almost completely ignore him (I believe he was able to speak a total of 8 minutes in an hour long debate, even though there were only 4 candidates involved). They focus on other candidates, and so the majority of the US only hears about those candidates because their only sources of politics are those biased media sources. So when it comes time to vote for a person they'll say (John McCain: saw him, he seemed nice. Mitt Romney: oh, he says good things too, I suppose. Ron Paul: Hmm, never heard of him, must be local. Mike Huckabee: Oh, he's such a passionate speaker, etc)
Now, in theory the United States is a Representative Republic, a democracy where the people don't directly effect legal decisions, they vote for people to represent their ideals. In theory, the US is made up of a bunch of States that are like little democracy experiments. If one State has particularly good things going for it, it'll become more populated in a "free market" sort of way, causing the other states to adapt so as to gain population (and their tax money with them). All of those states are controlled by an umbrella Federal system, which is controlled (in theory) by the Constitution. Why is this important? Well...
When the "Founding Fathers" (the group of gents who drafted the Constitution and led the rebellion) were setting up the election system, they had to make sure that all the states were represented equally. Some small states, like New Jersey, had HUGE amounts of population relative to large states, like South Carolina. So what if one state has a population of 25 million people and another has a population of 10 thousand people? Since the states are like mini-democracies with different laws and different ways of doing things, the ideals of those in the smaller state could be very different than those in the larger states.
So it was decided that every state would get 2 senators, and every state would get a number of representatives based on their population. The number of senators is set at 100 right now (2 per state) but the number of representatives is fixed at 435. That means that larger states get a larger portion of the representatives, but all states have equal representation in the senate.
What does this have to do with elections? Each state is given a number of electoral votes. The number of votes given to each states is the number of senators + the number of representatives, meaning a total of 538 (535 from Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and 3 from DC (the US Capitol, not technically part of it's state)
So, the way it works is that the people go out and vote for who they like. The counties of each state (different numbers for each state, though usually similar numbers) are won for a particular party, and the overall % of the states support gives the electoral voters an idea of who to vote for.
Wait, what? That's right. The people of the United States do NOT directly elect ANYBODY in the Presidential election. The states electoral "points" are each comprised of voters. So, California had 55 "votes" (a large amount), and those "voters" usually decide to vote based on their region in the state (their area votes Republican, they vote Republican) but they don't HAVE to.
So if a majority of the electoral votes from a particular state go to a particular candidate, that candidate gets ALL the votes (electoral) from that state. This means that if 51% of the electoral votes of California went to a Democrat (not unlikely in California), that Democrat just gained a 55 point boost to his total.
As the numbers add up, the totals of each candidate are watched closely. If a candidate gets the majority of the States' electoral "points" (270 of 538), he/she wins.
Problems with this system? There are many. In 2000, Al Gore actually received more popular votes from people (51% of the votes), but George Bush received more electoral votes (271, I believe). He (Bush) was able to win because of a single state (Florida). Some argued that this made 51% of the popular votes instantly meaningless, but the system is set up like that to prevent a lot of problems with direct elections (mob rule, smaller states squashed, etc).
Also, because a candidate HAS to get a certain number of "points" and because the winner of a state gets ALL it's votes, three or more parties becomes crowded.
Why is being President a big deal? Well, the President doesn't make laws, he just signs them. The President doesn't make Supreme Court decisions, the President doesn't make treaties or control the economy or raise taxes or lower theme. BUT, the President can veto laws he doesn't agree with. The President appoints Supreme Court Justices who rule for life, the President appoints high level positions with large amounts of influence, and the President is arguably the most public figure in US politics. The President is (in theory, not so much practice recently) NOT a king, emperor, or other kind of supreme ruler. He is just another branch of the balanced (in theory) three branch government system of the US (Legislative - Congress, Judicial - Supreme Court, and Executive - President).
And THAT is the deal with the US elections.
Don't use ANYTHING here in your report without doing 30 seconds of fact checking with Wikipedia at least. This is almost ALL from memory of my US Government class about 4 years ago. The only things I verified (sort of) were numbers. I repeat, don't just use what I said here, look it up. I didn't post this with the intention of doing your report FOR you. ;)
[ February 01, 2008: Message edited by: wallish ]
Informationen skrapade jag ihop från wiki, internet, skolböcker och 9 års utbildning som tills idag inte har varit mig till hjälp överhuvudtaget.
As far as contrasts with other countries go, from where I'm standing, the major American political parties in theory have relatively similar goals and ideologies, but in practice are almost opposite ends of the political spectrum- largely, it seems, because the Republican party and its supporters would rather have a media dirt-flinging contest than any kind of political discourse. As opposed to Britain, where the two main parties and nearest runner up historically and theoretically have comletely different outlooks, but in practice all huddle close to the middle ground in order to get votes, to the point where it's difficult to distinguish between them at times.
Also, and this bit might actually be useful, since we don't have states the nation is divided into 600-odd 'constituencies'- areas generally surrounding a town or city- and the people of each constituency vote for who they want to govern them, locally. As well as being in charge of running their constituency for the term, the winners get a seat in Parliament, where they can vote on laws, and the Prime Minister is actually elected by them- which in practice means the leader of the party that won the most constituencies.
Incidentally, I'm informed by my American fiancee that there's actually nothing whatsoever in the Constitution or laws to say that a president can only run for two terms in office. It's just a custom, that no-one dares break.
Kind of like how the Queen has the power to stop any law that Parliament passes, on the unspoken condition that she never actually uses it.
"Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. "
To clarify, your fiancee would have been correct before 1951 (when the 22nd was passed), as before then most presidents followed George Washington's example of only two terms. FDR was actually elected for FOUR terms which at the time caused a bit o' controversy that he was becoming a sort of dictator.
[ February 04, 2008: Message edited by: wallish ]
[ February 04, 2008: Message edited by: Karlito ]
quote:
If that is true - why cant the USians learn to live in peace with other nations and mind their own business?
quote:
The Republican Party is considered to be more up and to the right (Socially and Economically Authoritarian) even though in the past they were the part of "small government".
quote:
pro-slavery ... Republican
Women's suffrage was another overwhelmingly Republican issue. Susan B. Anthony and all her colleagues were Republicans. Most suffragettes were ultra-right-wing social conservatives whose main agenda was to ban alcohol (Prohibition).
Up until Ted Nugent joined the party you could always count on Republicans to be insufferable prudes.
quote:
We've learned enough to know better. Terrorists with a safe place to harbor and train will eventually find a crack in our defenses. Faced with this problem, peace is not the answer.
I'm afraid I have to take exception to that. You speak as though everything except war has been tried. By that logic, the only way to end the terrorist threat is to eradicate every safe place for terrorism, which would amount to little less than the US dominating the entire globe by force or the threat thereof. No, thank you. If anything is most definitely not the answer, I contend that it is war.
Wars will never stop terrorism, because it is an ideology rather than a nation or a single group, and therefore cannot be conquered, hunted down, vanquished or destroyed- rather it is like a hydra, for every head you cut off, more will grow back to replace it. War might buy temporary safety but also creates martyrs, grudges, fears. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq- no longer under the control of the Taliban and Saddam, but Afghanistan is now something like the 3rd poorest nation on earth, and Iraq, years later, is still a bloody, war-torn mess where both the Iraquis and western troops are still being killed every day. Don't these people have a reason to hate the western world? They had nothing to do with 9/11, the only successful attack on US soil so far, but their entire lives are ruined.
The only realstic way to end the fear of terrorism is to extend the hand of peace and understanding. Not to the terrorists themselves- you can't reason or argue with a fanatic. But so long as we react to violence with violence, and the sad loss of innocent lives by destroying more, there will be people sympathetic to the terrorist cause. We have to take responsibility for the ghastly messes we have created in the middle east and concentrate on showing the people there that we need not be enemies, in the hopes that one day there will be no-one left for the fanatics to recruit.
Yes, "why can't the US just leave everyone alone?" is simplistic and unrealistic. The situation in Iraq is now very delicate and complex (although I don't think it need have become so). There will always be extremists. But at the moment fighting them with arms can only create more.
quote:
so long as we react to violence with violence, and the sad loss of innocent lives by destroying more, there will be people sympathetic to the terrorist cause.
What's missing from your analysis is the effect of not reacting to violence with violence, of Osama bin Laden's "Strong Horse Theory" and its successful application to the recruitment of terrorists.
Once you understand that both violence and nonviolence create more terrorists and that our military's low casualty rate permits sustained operations in perpetuity, the cost-benefit analysis simplifies to a comparison of two equilibrium equations, one balanced by terrorist deaths from natural causes, the other by terrorists killed by U.S. and Coalition Armed Forces.
Given the efficacy of our military it almost doesn't matter what the input disparities might be.
Even assuming an unfavorable recruitment ratio, say if appeasement provokes 100 new terrorists per year and war provokes 1000, if we kill 50% of terrorists per year we still break even in roughly 11 years.
If we get 80% we break even in less than 4.
quote:
The only realstic way to end the fear of terrorism is to extend the hand of peace and understanding. Not to the terrorists themselves ...
quote:
Originally posted by Helmaroc:
<STRONG>I thought on most forums political (and religion) related discussions were not allowed or frowned upon. ;)</STRONG>
That leaves two possibilities open: Either you're mistaken or this isn't "most forums." I'm leaning toward the latter.
But seriously, there's no reason to vote anyway, nowadays the Diebold machines do it for us. Yes the US is now run by some behind the scenes group, and yes our media is entirely focused on making us a brutish war-loving people, and yes a lot of people are buying it hook-line-sinker.
It's not pretty, and so a lot of people don't want to look at it, but there it is.
But nothing or not much can be done about it, the top 1% have us by the balls, as far as I can tell. yay progress.
quote:
our media is entirely focused on making us a brutish war-loving people
Ridiculous. Here's your homework assignment: can you tell me what the media reactions were to the Wounded Knee Massacre and the firebombing of Tokyo?
Now can you tell me what the media reactions were to Abu Ghraib and Operation Linebacker?
Final question: can you really not tell the difference?
The ethics of the two bombing campaigns are too complicated to go into, but Wounded Knee and Abu Ghraib were both clear-cut atrocities reported very differently.
Imagine Abu Ghraib reported like this:
"Man's Best Friend Is Terrorist's Worst Enemy"
"Meet Sparky, lovable 3-year-old Rottweiler and our newest secret weapon in the War on Terror ..."
It might be something out of Starship Troopers, but no article like that was ever written in America. The media of America's past treated Colonel Forsyth and his men as heroes. Wouldn't a brutal, war-loving media have done the same to the guards at Abu Ghraib?
quote:No, our media is focused on scaring the shit out of us so we'll be more controllable.
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>our media is entirely focused on making us a brutish war-loving people </STRONG>
Television and movies were nothing 40 years ago like they are today. By media I mean the companies that produce the mass media that we consume, which only maybe a total of 20 white guys way up high have control over.
We have no choice of what is be presented to us to consume, and the vast majority of it is stuff which desensitizes us to violence. Why do you think the US has so many domestic problems? Why do you think so many of our citizens are in prison? Why do you think all these kids have shot each other up in high schools, and now in colleges (not to mention the fact that they've been warped by psych meds all their lives) -- could consuming endless gluts of media where people are fucking each other up for glory have something to do with it?
Now, why would they present this type of media? These same people who are running the most war-mongering and controlling country on the planet?
edit for grammar
[ February 26, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>Why do you think so many of our citizens are in prison?</STRONG>
Drug policies?
quote:I have an entire conspiracy theory about this. However, I've no concrete evidence to support it, nor do I think myself capable of presenting it in any sort of intelligent and believable way, so I'll keep it to myself.
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>Now, why would they present this type of media? These same people who are running the most war-mongering and controlling country on the planet?</STRONG>
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>could consuming endless gluts of media where people are fucking each other up for glory have something to do with it?
[ February 26, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]</STRONG>
No.
quote:
Originally posted by Fenrir:
<STRONG>I have an entire conspiracy theory about this. However, I've no concrete evidence to support it, nor do I think myself capable of presenting it in any sort of intelligent and believable way, so I'll keep it to myself.</STRONG>
... which suggests you may want to rethink your theory. :p
quote:
Originally posted by Fenrir:
<STRONG> I have an entire conspiracy theory about this. However, I've no concrete evidence to support it, nor do I think myself capable of presenting it in any sort of intelligent and believable way, so I'll keep it to myself.</STRONG>
Hehe.. pretty much the same boat I'm in. No way to know what's really going on, but damn sure that something's up. A lot of people accept the official line on everything and don't give anything any thought beyond that, which is unfortunate; because of this those who have 'bought in' expect those who see something's up to be burdened with the burden of proof, but it's really an unreasonable expectation.
But you can't ask someone to think beyond the surface, they can only look deeper on their own.
Check out this site: I'll call the link An Explanation of Current Day American Dogmatism . This guy's able to clearly state some of what's going on in a very lucid way, and he does get below the surface quite a ways, at least he lets you know what's going on, but he doesn't seem to know why anymore than anyone else does.
Edit: I Grammar'd wrong.
[ February 26, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]
quote:
Shows about investigating crime scenes?
quote:
Television and movies were nothing 40 years ago like they are today.
quote:
We have no choice of what is be presented to us to consume
quote:
and the vast majority of it is stuff which desensitizes us to violence.
quote:
Why do you think the US has so many domestic problems? Why do you think so many of our citizens are in prison? Why do you think all these kids have shot each other up in high schools, and now in colleges
quote:
could consuming endless gluts of media where people are fucking each other up for glory have something to do with it?
quote:
the most war-mongering and controlling country on the planet?
Hey Forumsdwarf, does a tree falling in the forest with no one around make a sound?
If everything in a room is painted blackest black of inky black blackness, and an invisible object begins emitting light, can you see anything?
What about the same room, but everything is mirrored?
Share your infinite knowledge with us!
It's interesting that you bring up nukes, and our "good" country is the only one that ever killed 40,000 innocent civilians (or was it more?) in a blink of a second with one.. and to say that the good ole USA isn't that way anymore is just not true. What other country sodomizes prisoners and waterboards people to death without any solid evidence, and then acts like it's no big deal? We're a bunch of brutes here. You can try to dismiss these statements as much as you want, but a witty reply only serves to take the issue out of sight, and that's exactly the kind of thing that is making americans completely blind to what our country is doing.
I saw an ad for an american musician that had written on a chalkboard in the background "we are the cause of a world that's gone wrong";... that pretty much sums it up.
Republicans, Democrats, all part of the same corporate web which is encircling the world; it's almost considered heresy among most people to have a political view which is opposed to the corporatization of the globe, and gee, perhaps the reason is that corporations own the media, and the media influences our ways of thinking more than anything else ever could.
A witty comment or dismissal doesn't make it any less true.
quote:
Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>Hey Forumsdwarf, does a tree falling in the forest with no one around make a sound?
If everything in a room is painted blackest black of inky black blackness, and an invisible object begins emitting light, can you see anything?
What about the same room, but everything is mirrored?
Share your infinite knowledge with us!</STRONG>
I can answer those.
1. The tree makes a sound if you consider the wave itself "sound." If you call "sound" the act of hearing that wave, then it doesn't.
2. If the object is invisible, it does not emit light you can see. If it emits light you can see, it's not invisible. If it emits light you can't see but causes the walls to emit light you can see, via fluorescence, then yes, you can see something.
3. If by mirrored you mean the room's surfaces are mirrors, then the only way you'd see anything is if you or your possessions (e.g. clothes) emitted visible light via fluorescence. I think that's fluorescence, anyway. I could be using the wrong word.
Yes, I'm retarded enough to answer silly questions that have nothing to do with the forum topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>It's interesting that you bring up nukes, and our "good" country is the only one that ever killed 40,000 innocent civilians (or was it more?) in a blink of a second with one.. and to say that the good ole USA isn't that way anymore is just not true.</STRONG>
We're not the only ones to kill 40k or more innocents during a war. I do agree, however, that yes, we are a pack of bastards. We're not alone, though.
quote:
What other country sodomizes prisoners and waterboards people to death without any solid evidence, and then acts like it's no big deal?
Those specific acts? I don't know that anyone else has (not that's been recorded anyway). Human rights abuses, especially with respect to prisoners? I'm sure you'll find history is ripe with that, even modern history, and it's not just the US. Again, we're bastards, but we're not alone. We're just the big kids on the block in world politics (for the moment), so everything we do is visible.
quote:
I saw an ad for an american musician that had written on a chalkboard in the background "we are the cause of a world that's gone wrong";... that pretty much sums it up.
That's like one random soldier trying to take credit for the army's victory, or one football player claiming he won the Super Bowl. We are one factor among many. Significant? Sure, why not. The sole factor? Not a chance in hell. To claim such trivializes the rest of the world.
[ February 26, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]
quote:
Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>He doesn't even know Forumsdwarf never answered his question.</STRONG>
Clearly he saw a long post and assumed it was "yet another Forumsdwarf post" and, tired of the argument, decided to leave rather than read and respond.
quote:
all part of the same corporate web
quote:
Share your infinite knowledge with us!
quote:
somehow I agree with Forumsdwarf as well, in an informed way.
quote:
Does a tree falling in the forest with no one around make a sound?
quote:
If everything in a room is painted blackest black of inky black blackness, and an invisible object begins emitting light, can you see anything?
quote:
What about the same room, but everything is mirrored?
quote:
You have an answer for everything, don't you?
Makes me wish I'd been born when there were 5,000 people on the earth and the only thing to think about was "Now, just how can I catch that antelope over there and roast him up good?".
Nowadays there's just too many of us bastages around, we're all competing for the same piece of pie, and it seems the system is biased towards people having to do things that they do not enjoy to survive.
(ie serving a large corporation just piling and unpiling papers all day in the same monotonous way ad infinitum week by week, and having to say every week "Oh joy, it's thursday again, soon it will be friday, and then once that's over I can pretend for a brief blink of a second that I am really free")
Something about that really irks me, and the alternative, that being wearing a loincloth and foraging for berries while outrunning cave bears and singing war songs seems quite pleasant in comparison.
Why are people so afraid to have an opinion today which isn't gov'mt certified, and why is it that everytime the television is turned on I feel a building anger at the entire bullshit that streams out of the speakers and screen.
Our country is basically mirroring the arc that Germany took circa 1935+, but people just seem to want to accept their dismal fate as corporate tool/slave and not actually stand up for anything anymore.
The declaration of independence took balls to sign when it was signed, we say that our country is the "home of the brave", but it really seems to be the home of the weak and limp, who are ruled by the avaricious tyrannical evil mothafuckers.
Yet somehow people are willing to show allegiance to this system. Maybe there's not enough forest and berries to go around, or maybe it just would not be an easy enough existence for most of the overweight Mcdonald's eating tools that live in this country.
Clearly this planet has too many of us on it.
Edit: Take out bad grammar! Me did Gud!
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]
quote:Agreed. Maybe everyone clicked on the link in Muffles' sig. All their brain are belong to him.
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>That's the problem with having an open mind, new information makes its way in quite often and then you have to rethink a million other things.Makes me wish I'd been born when there were 5,000 people on the earth and the only thing to think about was "Now, just how can I catch that antelope over there and roast him up good?".
Nowadays there's just too many of us bastages around, we're all competing for the same piece of pie, and it seems the system is biased towards people having to do things that they do not enjoy to survive.
(ie serving a large corporation just piling and unpiling papers all day in the same monotonous way ad infinitum week by week, and having to say every week "Oh joy, it's thursday again, soon it will be friday, and then once that's over I can pretend for a brief blink of a second that I am really free")
Something about that really irks me, and the alternative, that being wearing a loincloth and foraging for berries while outrunning cave bears and singing war songs seems quite pleasant in comparison.
Why are people so afraid to have an opinion today which isn't gov'mt certified, and why is it that everytime the television is turned on I feel a building anger at the entire bullshit that streams out of the speakers and screen.
Our country is basically mirroring the arc that Germany took circa 1935+, but people just seem to want to accept their dismal fate as corporate tool/slave and not actually stand up for anything anymore.
The declaration of independence took balls to sign when it was signed, we say that our country is the "home of the brave", but it really seems to be the home of the weak and limp, who are ruled by the avaricious tyrannical evil mothafuckers.
Yet somehow people are willing to show allegiance to this system. Maybe there's not enough forest and berries to go around, or maybe it just would not be an easy enough existence for most of the overweight Mcdonald's eating tools that live in this country.
Clearly this planet has too many of us on it.
Edit: Take out bad grammar! Me did Gud!
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]</STRONG>
I used to be a pacifist, but around 9/11 I came to learn that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death and realized that the freedom to choose ones own ideas was worth killing to preserve.
Theo van Gogh's death almost meant more to me than 9/11 ... almost. They've been after Salman Rushdie for years because he wrote a book. 9/11 was just an extension of an impulse of brutal suppression of freedom of thought which has existed ever since human beings first looked up at the sky and saw God instead of fusing hydrogen ... then thought that what they saw was so compelling others must be forced to see it, too.
Many of our ancestors starting with the 30 Years' War shed a lot of blood to give us the gift of freedom of conscience. I cannot abide their freeing us from the tyranny of one religion just so we could surrender to another.
In Canada it has already begun: under Section 13 of their Human Rights Code it is a hate crime to criticize Islam. Martin Luther is turning in his grave.
America stands for something else. We don't have a Section 13 ... we have the First Amendment. We will kill for it -- and some will die for it. If you find that appalling, I suggest you pray for peace -- you'll need the practice for the day when prayer is no longer optional.
quote:
Why are people so afraid to have an opinion today which isn't gov'mt certified ...
Our country is basically mirroring the arc that Germany took circa 1935+
Edit: spelling
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Forumsdwarf ]
quote:
In Canada it has already begun: under Section 13 of their Human Rights Code it is a hate crime to criticize Islam. Martin Luther is turning in his grave.
Holy paraphrasing, Batman!
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>In Canada it has already begun: under Section 13 of their Human Rights Code it is a hate crime to criticize Islam. Martin Luther is turning in his grave.</STRONG>
A brief Wikipedia search suggests Section 13 states instead that an employer cannot discriminate by religion and similar things (things which, I should add, are familiar to US citizens). The blurb is about three lines long and contains no direct quotes, though.
Excerpt please.
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Wiles ]
The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation, which is part of why it can survive despite being so large -- many of the functions of government are not handled by the national government, or are only partially dealt with by it, with other important issues decided on a regional level by fifty different lower level States that have their own Constitutions and governments act like small countries, just without foreign policy (though they often have local military of sorts through the National Guard), and with restrictions preventing any particular State from taking actions that would be considered either oppressive towards its own people or overly disruptive to the economy or well-being of the rest of the country. The States are prohibited from negotiating independently with foreign countries or from enacting any sort of trade barriers, so that the States have a unified foreign policy and military stance through the Federal Government, and a high level of domestic stability and economic diversification.
The people of the United States are fairly religious, nationalistic, and (on the balance) tend to be more ideologically capitalist than those in Europe. Economic regulations are seen as suspicious and economically dangerous, while strong national patriotism and concern for freedom and liberty are considered to be very "American". The people regard the military as noble public servants, and generals and other military figures are extremely highly respected, though the usage of the military -- that is, the actions of civilian leadership over the military -- is not as enshrined, and the military is traditionally politically neutral, a practice which has been respected since the country's founding. Tolerance and free speech are highly held principles, but the extent of their application varies.
Due to a high level of religious freedom, and a prohibition on government interference in religious matters, the US is one of, if not the single most religiously diverse country in the entire world. Religious lobbies that use secular arguments to back their viewpoint are well respected, but purely religious arguments are frowned upon due to the principle of separation of church and state.
The political culture of the United States holds the government as a useful and necessary evil, but not to be trusted too far. Public television and radio are known and popular with a limited audience but are much weaker than in many other countries; government-funded media are considered highly suspect, as they are potential outlets for propaganda. The US private media corporations are among the most well-financed, independent, and diverse in the world. Private media corporations regularly broadcast public debates and interviews involving commentators, academics, and politicians of every color of political viewpoint, and frequently give voice to protests and criticism of the government. This all takes place without receiving threats of censorship from the government being criticized -- even hatred and prejudice are considered protected speech. Media bias is totally legal, but at the same time, the people of the United States expect an unbiased media. The interpretation of "unbiased" varies widely, depending on the viewer; the media is widely criticized by those who feel their viewpoints are underrepresented, and even journalists participate in the habitual introspection about whether the media is properly serving the public good. Many people see the media as an ally of the government against the public, while just as many or more see it as an ally of the public against the government.
Entertainment in the United States is a huge and extremely varied industry. It varies from lurid pornography to religious music and almost anything imaginable in between. (Dwarf Fortress, incidentally, comes from the United States.) In general, the broadcast media is fast paced, exciting, and inundated in advertising by private companies, nonprofit corporations, political causes. Reality TV and game shows handing out vast amounts of money to common people are very popular, as are sitcoms about seemingly normal people in everyday situations. Other popular themes vary from gruesome horror films to violent and heroic war stories to educational children's shows. The diversity of the US media has been a driving force behind an immense degree of "cultural imperialism", not driven by the government at all, as American media artifacts are exported to every corner of the globe.
Many people around the world find employment and are lifted from abject poverty by the manufacture of cheap trinkets or other consumer goods that the people of the US don't need and wouldn't miss, but buy anyway, much to the benefit of those making them. Others find the wealth of American investors to be the infusion needed to establish companies in impoverished places in the globe. The US government and its people donate immense amounts of money, food, and medicine to less well-off places around the world.
The United States is a country of tremendous wealth, knowledge, and power, supported by democratic traditions and domestic freedoms. Its military history is sometimes checkered, and other bad things have come from it, but these are reigned in by free criticism of the government and an intense desire by its people to be the "good guys" in the world, plus an easily inflamed public anti-government sentiment that the government does more to protect than to suppress. Public desire for a just government, freedom for its people, and a respect for human rights, in a federation where diverse States let you just move to pick your government through what part of the country you live in -- some have the death penalty, others ban it, some allow gays to marry, others ban it, some have great education systems, others give a lower tax burden -- all in all, the USA is a Pretty Good Country, where you can be what you want to be, the government doesn't breathe down your neck, and hard work and smarts are rewarded.
I know that a lot of people around the world and even in this thread think the current government of the USA is absolutely abhorrent, through its military policies and practices in Iraq and the War on Terror in particular. Luckily, the USA is a democracy that allows criticism of the government.
Today, a large majority of the people of the United States regret that the government decided to invade Iraq, and both of the two dominant political parties are on the verge of nominating candidates for the Presidency that have vehemently opposed what is widely seen as inhumane torture on the part of their government in the prosecution of the "War on Terror".
It's not been the brightest eight years of US history, but there's more to the USA than just its government. Even so, may the next four be better.
Edit: Grumble grumble "ubb code" bleh...
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
People know about it, but the information control which the gubmint has over us essentially keeps the populace sedated and completely controlled.
There is an emergence of many 'lone voices', because no one else will pick up the chorus.
So yeah, we're all fucked, and essentially we americans will have done nothing to stop it when it arrives. I personally believe that it has nothing to do with ability, because we have been so masterfully conned that there is no doing that can be done to fix it.
We're mostly uneducated morons anyway, they've made a point to educate us only as far as we're then able to run factories and push paper, which is part of the overall plan.
For awhile now, it's been the political elite turning the majority into a weak feeble and cowardly mass of thralls to do their bidding. They've done it well, I'll give them that. But it's impossible now to convince the majority of anything other than what is presented as correct by the television.
We are plugged in to mass media, we have an addiction to it as a nation, and as a result we do a whole hell of a lot of sitting, and absolutely no doing.
Go out and protest on a streetcorner here, you'll get a lot of funny looks, some honks, and then you'll go home and wonder what you did it for. You will get harassed by the police as well, and if there is a large gathering for protest, it will surely be squashed by masses of officers who think they are doing the right thing.
So that is the situation. This is why you hear americans pronouncing things like this in various forums, but not doing anything. You can't ask a lethargic populace to make anything of themselves other than what they already are.
My grammar here is pretty horrible, but it's good enough to write emails to whatever boss I'll ever have in whatever corporate office I work in, so I suppose I'm properly government certified.
There is that problem of my own and other lone voices' disbelief in the government however, but that will no doubt be taken care of in due time. Welcome to 2008.
Edit: I should note here too, that in the debates in our current 'election', there has been absolutely no mention of these behind the scenes laws which are being passed; the 'issues' as they've been planted into the american social consciousness are supposedly health care, the war on iraq, and a few other things.
The behind the scenes laws are called
presidential directives (link).
Some of the laws that have been passed in this way since 2001 have made it so that anti-war protest is a crime, have set up the initial framework for an agency to decide just how 'american' each american is, and have files on every american, among a bevy of other heinous shit. This absolutely, positively is exactly the same thing that Germany was doing in the 30's under Hitler. The comparison is drawn so much, because there are people who recognize that history repeats itself, and that it is repeating itself here.
Edit #2: If you have the DISH satellite network, check out the deeply buried in shit channels channel 9410 and 9415; free speech tv and link tv. They'll give you a much more thorough explanation of what's going on. And check out
indymedia.org -- holy crap, independent media? it can't be!
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]
quote:
I don't have a link
MacLean's article on a pending Section 13 case.
Note the magazine's lawyers aren't defending the editor on the basis of free speech, a right Canadians don't explicitly have, but on the grounds that the category of speech doesn't fall under Section 13, i.e. guilt or innocence rests on what a Canadian human rights tribunal decides is "hate speech".
Here's an excerpt of Ezra Levant, editor of "The Western Standard", defending himself at his Section 13 hearing: Entitled to my opinion? I wish that were a fact.
The Calgary Herald doesn't like Section 13. Not all Canadians do.
There's another important recent case of Canadian censorship relating to the Sponsorship Scandal. The censorship imposed by government officials to cover it up proved more outrageous than the scandal itself. It's not relevant to this topic -- it's a "scandal" precisely because it doesn't reflect Canadian values as Section 13 presumably does -- but if you're Canadian it's worth a Google.
Censorship (excepting self-censorship, of which the world needs a great deal more) is almost always more dangerous than the ideas the censors claim to be protecting us from, and its potential for misuse and corruption by those who wield it should be self-evident from its history.
quote:
we're all rolling over for a coming dictatorship of some kind here, in whatever garb it arrives in
I'd guess dictatorship would come looking something like that.
[ February 28, 2008: Message edited by: Forumsdwarf ]
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>Fact is, we're all rolling over for a coming dictatorship of some kind here, in whatever garb it arrives in. There are laws being passed behind the scenes to cut off every right that we have, etc.</STRONG>
Laws cannot be passed "behind the scenes" in this country. Everything that happens in both legislative chambers is broadcast live on cable television, and witnesses and journalists from the general public and the media attend lawmaking session daily.
Executive orders (of which presidential directives are a (sometimes) secret subset) are not laws. The President of the United States is prohibited from attempting to use an executive order to make law. Executive orders are just instructions for how Federal agencies should carry out their duties. For example, you can review the list of presidential directives issued by George W. Bush. Executive orders, and presidential directives by extension, are expressly unable to "cut off" rights guaranteed by the Constitution or even by normal law.
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>People know about it, but the information control which the gubmint has over us essentially keeps the populace sedated and completely controlled.</STRONG>
So get off your butt and go to a library. You can find everything here, from bomb recipes, instructions for hacking, manufacturing drugs, and modding guns into automatics to radical conspiracy theories, hateful propaganda, and Hitler's Mein Kampf.
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>We're mostly uneducated morons anyway, they've made a point to educate us only as far as we're then able to run factories and push paper, which is part of the overall plan.</STRONG>
Even elementary school education in the USA covers citizen actions and criticism of the current government and the historic actions of the US, lionizing those who spoke out and transformed the nation for freedom and human justice, fighting against government tyranny in the past. If you only know how to push paper or run a factory, and not how to be a thoughtful and active citizen, then do something right for yourself and enroll in a liberal arts college. It's not even that expensive if you attend a local State school, and if you're poor you can get scholarships and subsidized loans. Even a local community college will do a half-decent job of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>For awhile now, it's been the political elite turning the majority into a weak feeble and cowardly mass of thralls to do their bidding. They've done it well, I'll give them that. But it's impossible now to convince the majority of anything other than what is presented as correct by the television.</STRONG>
People won't believe things other than what they see on television, or the internet, or libraries, or what they can witness themselves. Primarily because to believe what goes against every shred of reality around them is absurd. If you can't stand CNN and MSNBC, then watch the BBC for something not from the United States, or even Al Jazeera if you can't stomach a western media source and want something highly critical of the United States. You can probably get BBC Radio on late night public radio, but Al Jazeera will probably require going to the Internet. Regardless, you might find that in most cases there's a pretty good consensus about what is going on in the world, other than those handful of isolated people who grumble incessantly about conspiracies no matter what.
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>We are plugged in to mass media, we have an addiction to it as a nation, and as a result we do a whole hell of a lot of sitting, and absolutely no doing.</STRONG>
If all you want to do is sit around, you owe it to yourself to stand up and walk out your door. Voter turnout in the elections this year is historic, unsurpassed in the history of the nation, with interest in politics higher than ever before. When the Iraq war began, protesters stood up and poured out in cities across the country, their arguments and complaints covered by the media. Rallies are being held across the nation to challenge the government, and by the end of the year, a new leadership will be in charge. Others are taking action. You sound like you want to get left behind.
quote:
Originally posted by Old School Gamer:
<STRONG>Go out and protest on a streetcorner here, you'll get a lot of funny looks, some honks, and then you'll go home and wonder what you did it for. You will get harassed by the police as well, and if there is a large gathering for protest, it will surely be squashed by masses of officers who think they are doing the right thing.</STRONG>
Yes, you'll get funny looks for being a lone kook on a streetcorner, and if you're bothering people the police will harass you. If you think protests are regularly squashed, then you really have to get out of the house and off of Indymedia. (Ironically, I wrote that sentence before you edited in the link to Indymedia in your post.) Do an experiment. Stop practicing the lethargy you ascribe to your countrymen, and get out and try it. Participate in a vigorous street protest, with a serious cause. Not a riot, or an illegal protest that runs out and starts disrupting bridges and cutting off streets, as that will get suppressed (and rightly so), but a real protest.
I have marched and protested. I have voted and spoken out. I have volunteered, campaigned, donated, worked in a campaign office, helped a reformer win an election, I've seen the passion and democracy at work. I have spoken out, influenced people's ideas, and won elections. It's because I'm not lethargic that I'm not deluded into thinking that everyone else is.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>
S'ok. I have a couple.</STRONG>
The only point I've been trying to make is that your original statement on the matter is misleading. If you read Section 13 it's about stopping hate propaganda, as they put it. Which does leave room for interpretation, which is why there is trouble with it. I don't think some of the cases involving Section 13 are in the spirit of what the law was made for.
I'm not a supporter of Section 13, I was just bothered by your oversimplification of the matter.
If the rest of Section 13 saved kittens from trees and puppies from the pound it doesn't make its provisions for censorship any less egregious, at least from an American point-of-view.
It sounds like you're just as turned off by it as I am but don't wish to appear unpatriotic by criticizing your government too strongly to a foreigner. I can respect that.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I don't see how editing out the non-toxic aspects of Section 13 constitute a misrepresentation of the toxic part, particularly since Section 13 has already been used more than once to censor the press.If the rest of Section 13 saved kittens from trees and puppies from the pound it doesn't make its provisions for censorship any less egregious, at least from an American point-of-view.
It sounds like you're just as turned off by it as I am but don't wish to appear unpatriotic by criticizing your government too strongly to a foreigner. I can respect that.</STRONG>
That's not what it sounds like to me at all.
Look, I'm an American. I've read Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's like four, maybe six lines long. It's not a matter of the "non-toxic" versus the "toxic" parts. There's only one part. And interpreting it to say that "it is a hate crime to criticize Islam" is hyperbolic at best.
quote:
And interpreting it to say that "it is a hate crime to criticize Islam" is hyperbolic at best.
Agreed. We can't say for sure it's a crime until someone is actually found guilty.
What is true is that journalists who criticize Islam are forced to lawyer up and defend themselves from charges which carry a prison sentence if they're found in violation. So it is entirely accurate to say, "Canadian hate crime laws make it dangerous and expensive to criticize Islam." Dangerous because it could land you in jail, expensive because you need a lawyer to do it. That's censorship.
My apologies for the exaggeration. The truth is bad enough in its own right. Once the CHRC actually makes a ruling on one of these cases we'll know if it's really a crime or just dangerous and expensive to criticize Islam in Canada.
The focus of the law is on addressing specific cases with targeted censorship, only after it's found to be hate propaganda. You aren't required to stop spreading the messages until they decide you broke the law, or if the commission investigating decides it looks bad enough to tell you to pull the material down until they're done investigating. In either case, the instruction to stop takes the form of a cease and desist order -- "Take that garbage off your website and stop putting it up." There can be a punitive fine, at the discretion of the court, but that's worst of it.
The only people who go to jail over section 13 are those who decide to "be a hero" and ignore the instruction to stop. But that's not a result of section 13 or any other part of that law, it's just plain old contempt of court. It's common sense that if you're issued a cease and desist order by the courts, you can't expect to get off free if you just flagrantly defy it.
The point of section 13 is just to give the government the power to engage in targeted censorship against people or groups that habitually spread hate propaganda over telephone banks or the internet. It's not designed to scare people into holding back legitimate speech, and the law is structured accordingly. If it were harsher, it would likely have been struck down before this as being too bold in its infringement on freedom of expression laws.
[ February 29, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
We're all learning every day, it's good to keep an open mind and not be thinking in a reactionary or limited way. Peace, I've got nothing more to add here.
[ February 29, 2008: Message edited by: Old School Gamer ]
quote:
The only people who go to jail over section 13 are those who decide to "be a hero" and ignore the instruction to stop.
The CHRC has found every defendant guilty that has ever come before it. A 100% conviction rate, no kidding. There's a first time for everything, so maybe MacLean's magazine will win its case. But if it doesn't, if it ever mentions Islam again journalists go to jail for criticising Islam.
Your "punitive fine" is also willfully ignoring the cost of legal defense. The complainant has their legal expenses paid for by the government, but the defendent is left with huge legal bills. If you need a lawyer to criticise Islam, that's censorship. If the people trying to shut you up get all their expenses paid by the government but you don't, that's censorship.
Then there's the fact that the proceedings themselves are "quasi-legal", run by star chambers with no judges of law, no jury, and no clearly defined standards -- except for one, that is: every defendant ever brought up on charges under Section 13 has been found guilty.
So we're back to the toxic portion of Section 13, part 1, the part that's being used to censor MacLean's. You mentioned Section 13 protecting women from discrimination in the workplace. Here we go again: if the rest of Section 13 rescues kittens from trees and puppies from the pound, it doesn't mitigate part 1's provisions for censorship of the press, both the monetary censorship already realized and the gag orders enforceable by threats of incarceration that may yet come.
Ezra Levant is free today because the complainant dropped his complaint. The case of Maclean's magazine is still pending. If they're found guilty -- as EVERY DEFENDENT has been since Section 13 was written -- then it becomes a crime, punishable by hard time, for Maclean's to criticise Islam. They'll have used up their one strike. The money they paid for legal defenses is gone for good.
It is already expensive to criticise Islam, thanks to Section 13(1). Time and a 100% conviction rate will tell whether criticising religion comes with hard time as well.
Ritalin is not a foreign policy.
If you're interested, you can go here to read the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It deals with the facts of the law as it really is, but it's a bit older, prior to being amended to broaden the scope to the internet. Personally, I agree with the minority opinion that would strike it down.
The Maclean's case will be the first time the tribunal has ever ruled on a case involving a major media outlet and a journalist. If they decide against the magazine, I wouldn't be surprised if the law is amended or section 13 re-evaluated by the Supreme Court and struck down.
quote:
Nazi
:roll:
You're all class.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I don't even know who he is. That didn't stop you from comparing me to a Nazi because I'm opposed to censorship.You're all class.</STRONG>
I hardly see how you not knowing something is going to stop me from making the comparison. I compared the tone of your arguments on free speech to his, as "the other Mark" fighting the same fight, relative to the arguments of the journalist Mark Steyn. You could take that as a complement, if you'd seen his sites about the issue, which is why I clarified that he's a neo-Nazi loon. But I did not compare you arguments to his on racial matters, which would have been groundless and absurd, as we aren't even talking about that.
Mark Steyn is acerbic but well-researched -- when he uses exaggeration for effect, he doesn't feel the need to abuse the facts or craft a fantasy world to construct his arguments in. Marc Lemire acts like the sky is falling and he's the victim of the cruel oppression of some kind of Canadian Third Reich (ironic in his case, but that's beside the point) -- much as you've wrongly claimed that Canadians don't have a right to free speech*, that if you mention Islam twice in Canada you go to jail, and that people are "defendants" who are "convicted" and "found guilty" (despite being corrected already on that). At least Marc Lemire has some concept of grounding himself in the real world when he's making his arguments, rather than becoming more disconnected over time. So yes, I compared your arguments to his. I was tempted to point out that he actually comes across as having a better understanding of the Canadian Human Rights Act than you do**, but I decided otherwise.
You'll live.
And do I have to mention again that I agree with the minority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that would have struck down section 13 if it were my choice? Not that it matters. My whole dispute with you is that I find it offensive to see you backhandedly insult Wiles as being clouded by nationalist sentiment for trying to correct to your false statements about his country. And when I try to clarify where you're screwing up after he gives up, you just go into a tailspin of presenting a complex -- and pointless, since I never said I disagree with you in principle -- construction of more inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
This is Marc Lemire:
http://www.freedomsite.org/
His website is a pleasant combination of white nationalism and a free speech/legal defense crusade. I particularly like the cake on the front page that smoothly combines the red, black, and white motif with a free speech slogan. But again, that side of things is not why I made the comparison. He can be applauded for fighting on the issue of free speech, but he's still a fool.
------
*the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Constitutional bill of rights): "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication."
**it's really obvious when you keep talking about "other parts" of section 13, even after I've told you there's no other parts to it (technically, there are a few sentences clarifying its scope; it only applies to telephones and internet, and not broadcast or print media, but that's not what we're talking about) -- what you mean is other parts of the CHRA, with different section numbers within the legislation. Does it matter? Not really, in this specific case. But if you actually knew the law you're trying to criticize, or would even take in the concept when you're being corrected on it, it would not just help you with not just trivial matters, but with other problems -- like your "one strike" eye-roller argument that totally misses the fact that the law only applies to patterns of repeated behavior (which Macleans is indeed accused of), not isolated postings.
Or start your own darned thread. :P
The Monstrous Wolf bites Muffles in the right wrist.
Muffles loses hold of the -iron chainsaw-.
It is mangled!
The Monstrous Wolf latches on firmly!
quote:
Originally posted by Cajoes:
<STRONG>Unless you can prove that this has squat to do with the United States of Awesomia Electoral System I advise you simply zip it.Or start your own darned thread. :P</STRONG>
It's not about electoral system, but this is supposedly about contrasting Canadian law with the First Amendment in the US Constitution. Since Canada has a parallel to the First Amendment anyway, it's actually totally irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>I think all arguments should have their own thread, we can call it the I Don't Approve of Other People's Choices, and Do Not Want Them to Be Allowed to Make Choices I Disagree With thread.</STRONG>
You'd get a few takers, but alas, too many wouldn't fit... remarkably few arguments are about the choices people make and whether they should be allowed to make them. Maybe something similar though -- perhaps the You Are Wrong If You Are Not Me thread?
Or maybe I Am Right About Everything, Let Me Tell You About It.
[ March 02, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
quote:
Originally posted by Torak:
<STRONG>I dont know why, but now I want to play Warhammer 40,000 after reading this page.</STRONG>
Chainswords and powerfists?
quote:
Originally posted by Earthquake Damage:
<STRONG>Aww. The thread got a little more interesting then suddenly degenerated into "I'm not listening" with a chorus of "kill it [the thread] with fire!"</STRONG>
I find it really odd when people who aren't posting productively in a thread decide to attack it. But I'm used to LiveJournal, not forums (which have the complication of thread bumping), so I'm not one to protest too much.
(Edit: To clarify, I'm not criticizing your complaint, I'm puzzling over the "kill it with fire" movement.)
[ March 02, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
quote:
Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>I only have the demo for WH40k, it's pretty neat, but is it really worth all the money of the four or so games?</STRONG>
Well, Warhammer 40k is originally a tabletop game, and it's struggled with making the transition. All the computer games I've played based on it vary between "horrible" and "not very good". I've heard Dawn of War is pretty sweet, but that's second hand information.
quote:
Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>There's more than DoF and Space Hulk? Space Hulk looked pretty cool, but it's still copyrighted, so I can't download it on Abandonia.</STRONG>
Wikipedia has a huge list of them. I've only played a handful.
quote:
I hardly see how you not knowing something is going to stop me from making the comparison.
Of course not. Nothing was going to stop you making the comparison. You were destined to drop the other shoe and compare me to a Nazi from the moment this conversation began. Nothing I said short of, "Section 13 is great because it only censors bad people!" would've stopped you. The temptation was too powerful.
You could as easily have compared me to Ezra Levant, who in his testimony -- which I linked to in this very thread -- makes the same central arguments I did. But comparing me to a Jewish conservative journalist just doesn't pack the same rhetorical punch as comparing me to a Nazi.
"Hitler was a vegetarian" is an argument of similar intellectual heft against vegetarianism which just doesn't work if you substitute "Srinivasa Ramanujan".
To address your quibbles over semantics, if it waddles and quacks it's a duck. If the government can punish you for it, it's a crime. I'm the one who introduced the term "quasi-legal" to our discussion and I know what it means. I also refuse to go poking through the dictionary looking for quasi-legalistic terms to substitute for the real things just because these kangaroo courts are quasi-judicial. Whether "guilty" or some synonym thereof you're still just as censored by Section 13.
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 takes precedence over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No help there.
Finally, as to what about Section 13 is toxic, I've read it, you've read it, we both saw different things, and by using "toxic" and "non-toxic" I'm simply dividing what I'm seeing from what you're seeing -- without rejecting what you're seeing. You didn't understand what I was getting at, so I clarified: whatever part of Section 13 censors the press is toxic. You still didn't get it; I tried again: whatever part of Section 13 is being used against MacClean's, an actual case, is toxic. You still don't get it. Whatever else Section 13 might do, rescuing kittens etc., that part of it which censors criticism of religion is toxic.
I'm going to anticipate your response being something along the lines of, "Well if you'd read Section 13 like I have you'd know it doesn't have two parts!" Yes, it does. You just can't see them.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Of course not. Nothing was going to stop you making the comparison. You were destined to drop the other shoe and compare me to a Nazi from the moment this conversation began. Nothing I said short of, "Section 13 is great because it only censors bad people!" would've stopped you. The temptation was too powerful.</STRONG>
Good grief. You can make arguments out of fantasy land all day, but if you're going to try to accuse me of something, at least try not to have it disproven twice over before you even post. This is exactly the kind of absurdity that caused me to make the comparison in the first place.
To wit: What part of...
quote:
If you're interested, you can go here to read the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It deals with the facts of the law as it really is, but it's a bit older, prior to being amended to broaden the scope to the internet. Personally, I agree with the minority opinion that would strike it down.
...and...
quote:
And do I have to mention again that I agree with the minority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that would have struck down section 13 if it were my choice? Not that it matters. My whole dispute with you is that I find it offensive to see you backhandedly insult Wiles as being clouded by nationalist sentiment for trying to correct to your false statements about his country. And when I try to clarify where you're screwing up after he gives up, you just go into a tailspin of presenting a complex -- and pointless, since I never said I disagree with you in principle -- construction of more inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
...do you need me to explain again?
Let me hold your hand like a baby.
1. I don't agree with section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
2. I don't care what your opinion on it is, I never cared, and I didn't share my own opinion prior to your decision to start arguing with me. In fact, nobody in this entire discussion has ever disagreed with you in principle on this matter. Really, it's kind of sad. Both of the people you've argued against are on your side but take objection to your acting like a fool in your defense of that position.
3. I replied to you because you were rude to another person for correcting you on a matter of fact in which you were wrong, and I endeavored to make clear to you what those factual problems with your case are.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>You could as easily have compared me to Ezra Levant, who in his testimony -- which I linked to in this very thread -- makes the same central arguments I did. But comparing me to a Jewish conservative journalist just doesn't pack the same rhetorical punch as comparing me to a Nazi.</STRONG>
Why would I do that? Your arguments don't sound like Ezra Levant's. He makes a vastly superior case for himself. Hell, he cites the Constitution up and down, while you've claimed Canada has no freedom of speech provision. His arguments come out of insistence on principle. Your arguments seem to come out of somewhere between planet spin and your own ass, which is the reason I'm responding to you in the first place. Maybe you mean you agree with his central arguments, and indeed, I do too, but you sound nothing like him.
That aside, Ezra Levant's first name isn't a homophone with Mark Steyn's, which, truth be told, played a much bigger role in my decision to use the comparison than the fact that Marc Lemire is a neo-Nazi. That was just a convenient way to make it clear it wasn't a complement.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>To address your quibbles over semantics, if it waddles and quacks it's a duck. If the government can punish you for it, it's a crime. I'm the one who introduced the term "quasi-legal" to our discussion and I know what it means. I also refuse to go poking through the dictionary looking for quasi-legalistic terms to substitute for the real things just because these kangaroo courts are quasi-judicial. Whether "guilty" or some synonym thereof you're still just as censored by Section 13.</STRONG>
Give yourself a break. It's not semantics according to the Supreme Court of Canada, and if you were arguing against somebody who actually disagreed with you, you would be shooting yourself in the foot for claiming it is, unless you're willing and able to make an eloquent case about that matter. I'll believe that when I see it. And I am well aware that you don't care about being correct, you've made that abundantly clear. Really, you're still stuck on the idea that I disagree with you. No -- and I'll say again, since you need frequent reminders -- I'm responding to correct you, because you have a problem with the facts. And indeed, it's your "call a spade a spade" attitude, where you have your own version of reality that you're going to base your arguments on, that gets you compared to Marc Lemire instead of Mark Steyn or Erza Levant like you would like to. You want to make an argument, make it based on the reality of the world around you. It's not semantics when the distinction forms the basis of a Constitutional decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 takes precedence over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No help there.</STRONG>
Technically, a federal statue doesn't "take precedence" over the Constitution, and the Supreme Court didn't say it does. What happened is that by a 4-3 ruling they determined that it was narrow and precise enough with a reasonable enough goal that, although infringing, it can be permitted, as it posed minimal risk of causing negative effects beyond its scope. As a reminder, since you seem to need them frequently, I have said I disagree with that decision, and it should have been struck down. Mark Steyn argues that with the attack against Maclean's magazine, they have been proven wrong about the minimal risk and that the decision was therefore in error. I have predicted that if the decision goes against Maclean's, the Supreme Court likely will strike down the law.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Finally, as to what about Section 13 is toxic, I've read it, you've read it, we both saw different things, and by using "toxic" and "non-toxic" I'm simply dividing what I'm seeing from what you're seeing -- without rejecting what you're seeing. You didn't understand what I was getting at, so I clarified: whatever part of Section 13 censors the press is toxic. You still didn't get it; I tried again: whatever part of Section 13 is being used against MacClean's, an actual case, is toxic. You still don't get it. Whatever else Section 13 might do, rescuing kittens etc., that part of it which censors criticism of religion is toxic.</STRONG>
You are totally obsessed with kittens, toxicity, and parts. As I've said, I'm responding to you to straighten you out on factual accuracy. We saw the same thing, you just didn't understand it. Really, you claim to know what you're talking about, but if that were the case I wouldn't have responded. I can quote you saying garbage about the act:
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I don't see how editing out the non-toxic aspects of Section 13 constitute a misrepresentation of the toxic part, particularly since Section 13 has already been used more than once to censor the press.</STRONG>
Why is this garbage? 1. You didn't edit out non-toxic aspects, you portrayed incorrectly the one thing it does. 2. Nobody in the press has ever been censored (at least yet) by section 13 -- they haven't decided the Maclean's case yet, and the other never made it to tribunal. Both have the offending material online and out there. To your credit, you conceded this point. Then you did some Marc Lemire BS when you tried to use the argument again anyway. The sad thing is that I'm giving him a bad shake by making that comparison, as I don't know that he's ever sunk that low.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>So we're back to the toxic portion of Section 13, part 1, the part that's being used to censor MacLean's. You mentioned Section 13 protecting women from discrimination in the workplace. Here we go again: if the rest of Section 13 rescues kittens from trees and puppies from the pound, it doesn't mitigate part 1's provisions for censorship of the press</STRONG>
And this? Let me be clear -- again! -- CHRA section 13 does only one thing -- it censors! There are no kittens and puppies and you are the only one who thinks there are. The problem with your argument is not that you're "cutting out" the "non-toxic" parts like you innocently claimed was your own infraction -- no, they are inaccurate about the entire thing -- you were exaggerating excessively, and you were getting corrected, and you were being rude to the person correcting you. That's the point of my first response. But you replied under the misconception that it's criminal hate crimes legislation, so I politely corrected you on that too.
So much for getting the point. Instead you appear to have gotten the misconception that I thought there's something in section 13 that protects women from discrimination in the workplace! An amazing feat of confusion, as that not only is not what I said, but if you'd read section 13, you'd realize that there's nothing that I or anyone else could even remotely mistake for that in it. And the fact that you seemed to think so and continue to talk about the first subsection like it's some part isolated from discrimination in the workplace, with the implication that this would be some later subsection of section 13, indicates you clearly hadn't read it at that point. Or maybe you read an excerpt (subsection 1, which is really the only relevant bit, as the rest is part of that and only serves as clarification for when it's applied), and just didn't understand it ("mention Islam twice and serve hard time"). I believe you have read it now, because regardless of the carelessness you have toward factual accuracy in your arguments, I don't believe you'd tell me straight out that you'd read it without being careful to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I'm going to anticipate your response being something along the lines of, "Well if you'd read Section 13 like I have you'd know it doesn't have two parts!" Yes, it does. You just can't see them.</STRONG>
Bingo. And I've refrained from saying "it has one part" in so many words until the end for this purpose. Here's where we really are getting into the semantics. If you decide to count subsections as parts, it doesn't have two parts. It has -- wow! -- three. But to make that argument is pointless. The other two are guidelines for interpreting the rule about censorship -- it has no bearing on any argument about your inaccuracies being merely editing out non-toxic parts about hypothetical kittens or non-hypothetical women's employment. There is nothing to edit out, there's only one part -- or maybe you prefer there's two parts, maybe the rule, and the two clarifications are part two -- we can divide it up however you want. The underlying point remains: There is no "non-toxic" part to cut out. There is only the "toxic" part you're criticizing. And I'm trying to -- okay, I was trying to, before you went on your "I don't care about the facts and am going to rant using arguments generated from delusion" thing -- help you understand what it actually says. Too bad.
My prediction then would be that despite the fact that I've said in three different posts now that I oppose section 13, and despite the fact that I said so repeatedly here, you're going to reply indignantly accusing me of comparing you with a neo-Nazi making similarly toned arguments on the same issue out of a passion to smear you for your viewpoint because the word Nazi is so juicy. Even though I don't even care about your viewpoint, and I just wish you wouldn't act like a fool when arguing it.
If you continue to obsess over the unflattering comparison between Marc Lemire's arguments and your own, I will simply ignore you. Because -- and I feel I really should remind you, given that you conveniently (for your indignation) either forgot or overlooked this twice now -- I don't even disagree with you in the first place. I have nothing to persuade you of, and I'm only here now to defend my comparison which are so upset over. And that's getting a little old.
quote:
false statements
quote:
Your arguments don't sound like Ezra Levant's.
quote:
you've claimed Canada has no freedom of speech provision.
quote:
you have your own version of reality that you're going to base your arguments on
quote:
Nobody in the press has ever been censored (at least yet) by section 13
quote:
It's a victim protection legislation that handles things like not hiring someone because they're a woman ...
Instead you appear to have gotten the misconception that I thought there's something in section 13 that protects women from discrimination in the workplace!
quote:
My whole dispute with you is that I find it offensive to see you backhandedly insult Wiles
What a waste.
@Wiles:
I apologize. I was rude and condescending. I meant no disrespect.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I made one: I wasn't aware you got "one strike" before you could be sent to prison. The rest is just you arguing semantics.</STRONG>
One? Let's count.
1. "In Canada it has already begun: under Section 13 of their Human Rights Code it is a hate crime to criticize Islam. Martin Luther is turning in his grave."
- This got you corrected by Wiles.
2. "Section 13 has already been used more than once to censor the press."
- If you want to point out where Ezra says it's censorship to have to answer, you're welcome to. He argues he shouldn't have to answer for publishing cartoons. But even if he did argue that being forced to answer and censorship mean the same thing, even when he's continuing to republish them while under investigation, the fact that those words came out of his mouth wouldn't make that false argument more right.
3. "Note the magazine's lawyers aren't defending the editor on the basis of free speech, a right Canadians don't explicitly have"
- Yes they do. It's in their Constitution. They also have a right to free press, an argument the Supreme Court of Canada didn't have to consider when they upheld section 13 before, but would have to here.
4. "Mention Islam once, free pass. Mention it twice, do hard time."
- The one strike thing is almost a distraction from your "Mention Islam" exaggeration, one post after apologizing for exaggerating.
5. "The CHRC has found every defendant guilty that has ever come before it. A 100% conviction rate, no kidding."
- First, CHRC isn't a trial. It investigates. Second, many cases it looks into don't even make it to tribunal. This is like Marc Lemire posting "We beat the rap!" and "Nobody ever beats the rap!" on the same page.
I'm not going to go on, I've made my point. You've made a lot more than one false statement. You just haven't admitted to most of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Maybe from your own words? I'm not the only one whose understanding of Section 13 has "evolved" since the discussion began. You suspect I hadn't read Section 13 when I wrote about it. In fact I had, but your notions of what it meant were so far removed from the MacClean's and Levant cases I figured there were other sections I had missed. It turns out I was far more accurate in my understanding than you were.For my own part my suspicion of you is that you hadn't researched Section 13's actual case histories when you floated your theory that Section 13 was all about victim protection and workplace discrimination. When it turns out Section 13 didn't mean what you thought it meant you tried to make it look like I was the one who didn't get it.</STRONG>
Let me help you there:
"I think what the biggest gap here is that it should be understood that the Canadian Human Rights Act, of which section 13 is a part, isn't hate crimes legislation, and is totally separate from any decision about whether you're committing a crime. It's a victim protection legislation that handles things like not hiring someone because they're a woman -- it doesn't throw the employer in jail, it proscribes remedies, like making the employer develop an action plan to stop discrimination in their company."
Women in the workplace isn't section 13, it's another part of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That it's section 13 was a construction you dreamed up out of my words.
The sad thing is, that came after I told you there's only one part to section 13. You do yourself no favors by imagining my words to be self-contradictory and then groundlessly asserting so.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Now I know you don't understand Ezra Levant's argument (or mine).
If one is forced to defend oneself in quasi-court, forced to spend money on a lawyer or risk penalties and sanctions up to and including jail time if one chooses to ignore the proceedings, then censorship has already taken place just from the CHRC accepting the case.</STRONG>
Has he argued that? He complains he shouldn't have to defend his actions, a complaint I agree with. I've never heard him say he's already censored, even as he continues to exercise his rights. Like I said, you're welcome to prove me wrong. But it won't make the statement more right.
I've never fundamentally disputed the argument underlying here, and like I said, I agree with his arguments. I disagree with you trying to make it and making a fool of yourself because you can't stick to the facts.
Ignoring what I said I'd ignore...
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>@Wiles:
I apologize. I was rude and condescending. I meant no disrespect.</STRONG>
Thank you.
quote:"YOU'RE WRONG!"
Ignoring what I said I'd ignore...
"I'm not listening!"
:roll:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenrir:
<STRONG>"YOU'RE WRONG!"
The spinning left finger strikes to Impossible optimist in the left ear.
It is plugged!
The spinning right finger strikes to Impossible optimist in the right ear.
It is plugged!"I'm not listening!"
:roll:</STRONG>
Damn right. I'm not going to go back and forth for twenty posts as he goes into some endless rant about how I compared his arguments to those of a guy who happens to be neo-Nazi.
quote:
Originally posted by Fenrir:
<STRONG>"YOU'RE WRONG!"
...</STRONG>
The mental image I got from this was very Phoenix Wright-ish.
quote:
Originally posted by Earthquake Damage:
<STRONG>The mental image I got from this was very Phoenix Wright-ish.</STRONG>
Phoenix Wright, Ace Forum-Arguer!
There should be a youtube about that. :D
quote:
Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>Who's Phoenix Wright?</STRONG>
He's the hero of a popular Nintendo DS game series. You play as him as he investigates cases, interviews people, and then goes to court. It involves extreme, anime poses and dramatics to play out courtroom scenes. There are probably some pretty funny videos you can find on it if you're interested.
quote:
a right Canadians don't explicitly have
quote:
The one strike thing is almost a distraction from your "Mention Islam" exaggeration
quote:
First, CHRC isn't a trial
quote:
many cases it looks into don't even make it to tribunal
quote:
I'm not going to go on, I've made my point. You've made a lot more than one false statement. You just haven't admitted to most of them.
quote:
of which section 13 is a part
quote:
Has he argued that?
quote:
I've never fundamentally disputed the argument underlying here
quote:
endless rant
quote:
that gets you compared to Marc Lemire instead of Mark Steyn or Erza Levant like you would like to
quote:
Well, Warhammer 40k is originally a tabletop game, and it's struggled with making the transition.
Ooh, conversations on parallel [de]-rails!
One of the advantages of pen-and-paper-to-computer-game transitions are the clearly-defined specifications for the various machinery.
I guess I'm thinking about the "fighting robot" video games. The tabletop (or I guess they were pen-and-paper?) were kind of silly, but they were extremely detailed, so the game designers had a lot of the unit design, world-creation, scope, and mission design issues all worked out.
Divide the "round" of a pen-and-paper game into 24 frames a second, dividing all the other reload and recharge and cooldown times to match, and you have a video game.
Then you find out that a few hours' practice with whatever weapon has the longest range turns even a novice robot wrangler into the pen-and-paper equivalent of Mecha-Godzilla ... eh, it was a good start.
[ March 04, 2008: Message edited by: Forumsdwarf ]
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I was referring to the case striking down freedom of speech where it conflicts with Section 13</STRONG>
Forgive me if I'm irrationally skeptical that your broad and plainly false statement was really meant to mean something other than what you said.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>You can slip in a few extra mentions before you're found guilty; otherwise if you criticize honor killings today, are told at your Section 13 tribunal to never use hate speech against Islam again, then next month you run a scathing attack on Islamic death Fatwahs against authors and artists, it's off to the slammer for mentioning Islam twice. That hasn't happened yet, but it easily could. Western Weekly and Macleans might just be the tip of the iceburg.</STRONG>
The substance of your argument is not something you need to convince me of. My point is that there's no point, even rhetorical, in using words that exaggerate to the point of misrepresentation. If you need to claim that you're punished for "mentioning" Islam in order to make your argument, don't you have a problem with your argument itself? You don't need to make false statements to pose your argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Semantics. Participation isn't voluntary, nor are the injuctions and penalties issued by the CHRC. If "tribunal" is the right word I'll use it, but it's not the end of the world to use "trial", as that's mostly what a tribunal is -- minus the jury of peers or thusfar any chance of aquittal..</STRONG>
Not semantics, technicalities, and I don't disagree that they are so, but they make your argument false. The Canadian Human Rights Commission investigates, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a separate body, holds the public hearing if the Canadian Human Rights Commission decides to take it to that stage. Not everyone that goes up under the Canadian Human Rights Commission ends up going before the Tribunal. You make it sound like if somebody files a complaint, you're screwed. That's not the case. There's a two step process. Now, I don't think I've even brought this up about your argument until my last post where I'm listing off places where you've said things that are wrong, since you thought you didn't. That's because -- really -- I know what you meant, or what you were citing. But it's still a mistake to the point that you're wrong on the face of your words. I'm not really criticizing you here, I don't even disagree with your fundamental argument. But your argument will be much more effective if you make it accurately.
As an aside, you may or may not know that people who dispute a decision made by the Tribunal have the right to appeal to a federal appeals court. Don't, like, bother arguing why this doesn't matter, since I really have already mentioned that I don't care about your opinion one way or the other, it's really not why I'm here to discuss this.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Yes. His argument is that requiring magazines to lawyer up when they criticize religion is censorship whether they're found guilty or not because it costs the magazine money.</STRONG>
If you have a citation, I'd like to see it. Not because I question the veracity of your statement, but I'd like to see how he tries to pull that off.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I've been close enough. Your goal was to avenge Wiles, not engage in a good-faith discussion, hence the pointless nitpicking and belaboring of semantics. If you're a lawyer then feel free to attach accurate legal jargon to all the sloppy wording, and in that way we can all learn something here, but just browbeating me because I used the word "crime" to imprecisely describe an action for which the government punishes you is pointless and unhelpful to anyone reading the conversation....
Right, you jumped in because I was rude to Wiles and it pissed you off. A couple of details I had wrong and the rest were nitpicks: "Technically it doesn't take precedence," when effectively it does, etc. I do appreciate learning the correct terminology, but your playing "gotcha" with de facto terminology because it isn't de jure is just childish.</STRONG>
You seem determined to believe that I have this deep, unrestrainable desire to shank you in the back, and I just showed up out of nowhere with it, determined to go through with my nefarious shanking. So far, you've come up with explanations for this hostility being that you're opposed to censorship (boo, hiss), that you don't think section 13 is great (take him down!), because I don't like your style (beat him with the manual of style!), because I want to play "gotcha" (aren't I clever!), becasue I have mistakes that I need to pawn off on you (shit, I'm not clever after all!), and because I need to take you down with my fist of vigilante justice (for great justice).
I appreciate the humor of it, and can understand your presumptions, but you've yet to get mine right, despite several creative and novel attempts across the past few days, so you might as well give up guessing and just go with the ones I've expressed. If you review my first two responses, you'll see that I responded initially with a rather terse disagreement of your rude dismissal toward Wiles, and I responded further to correct you on your misconceptions about it being a piece of criminal hate crimes legislation. My third response actually contained an explanation of my motivation inside itself -- after all, any time you get your arguments compared to those of a neo-Nazi activist, you deserve to receive and explanation :p -- but that was clearly not sufficient for you.
I just find it rather difficult to think you can take your accusations seriously when you project some vast antipathy I supposedly had reserved for you all along when my second post had the tone of kittens and puppies. I could quote it again, but I think I've quoted old posts enough here. You can go back and read it if you'd like, of course. There's not one criticism of you or your arguments in the entire thing -- the goal is genuinely to help you to understand the law better, since your criticisms were not grounded in fact.
My disgust with you came when you decided that getting corrected about the law was not only time for you to spoil for an argument against me, as if correcting you on a matter of fact where you are demonstrably wrong constitutes a challenge to you, but when you decided that you were going to execute this argument by 1) willfully ignoring the entire content of the correction as if I pulled it out of my ass, 2) going back on your apology for exaggeration, and 3) taking your arguments to the heights of rhetorical absurdity usually reserved for, uhm, well, unfortunately Marc Lemire is the only high profile person who I know of who does that on the issue of section 13. We'll call him an "unpleasantly off-kilter free speech activist" to spare his feelings.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Ahh ... okay, I get it now. Lemme try again with the kittens:
"Regardless of whether the rest of the CHR Act rescues kittens from trees and puppies from the pound, Section 13 is toxic."
All fixed. I'll assume this controversy's been entirely cleared up.</STRONG>
Fair enough, and I don't disagree with that. But that was never my argument; I was just pointing out that the CHRA isn't hate crimes legislation, isn't a criminal code. The process for section 13 is the same as any other in the legislation, and those aren't designed to be a cruel system of punishment, they're designed to correct situations in which people were targeted by discrimination. Do I think that's an appropriate place to put anything related to censorship? No, no, not really. But I think you should understand the function of the law and its context if you're going to attack it.
Alas, the rest of your post is "un-answerable", since I am under a self-imposed code of silence.
Edit: Requested citation on Ezra twice in the same post with the same quote. :roll:
[ March 04, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Ooh, conversations on parallel [de]-rails!
One of the advantages of pen-and-paper-to-computer-game transitions are the clearly-defined specifications for the various machinery.
I guess I'm thinking about the "fighting robot" video games. The tabletop (or I guess they were pen-and-paper?) were kind of silly, but they were extremely detailed, so the game designers had a lot of the unit design, world-creation, scope, and mission design issues all worked out.Divide the "round" of a pen-and-paper game into 24 frames a second, dividing all the other reload and recharge and cooldown times to match, and you have a video game.
Then you find out that a few hours' practice with whatever weapon has the longest range turns even a novice robot wrangler into the pen-and-paper equivalent of Mecha-Godzilla ... eh, it was a good start.
[ March 04, 2008: Message edited by: Forumsdwarf ]</STRONG>
It does help to have those rulesets, yeah. I think the biggest difficulty they've had is that Games Workshop games (like Warhammer 40k) are traditionally social games; you stand around with your dice and your figurines and your measuring stick, you chat and laugh and play with people as your little dudes march over the tabletop and take over the puff of cotton. Taken down to just the rules, much of the fun is sapped away from it. Most developers haven't been very good at finding the formula for replacing that human element with something that makes it better. There are advantages to the computer medium, but they need to really harness them well to do justice to games that have thrived so much in the tabletop format.
But then again, I've never played the tabletop variations, and I have no intention of buying overly expensive figurines to do so.
I've garnered most of my knowledge of the WH40k universe from playing those computer games, and I find it fascinating. The over-the-top aspect that Blizzard attempted to replicate with its Warcraft series is intensely enjoyable, and I consider the Dawn of War games to be some of the best RTS games that I've played. That, plus I seem to be better at them than I am at most other RTS games.
A computer game isn't just boiling down a social tabletop game to its base components. It blocks the ability to just sit around and chat with your buds somewhat, yes. But it also allows you to add a more cinematic feels to your otherwise inanimate troops as they march across deserts planets and fire off massive caliber explosive rounds at the charging orks, who then proceed to give off copious amounts of blood.
And then there are the killing animations. I'm sure that people have attempted to demonstrate the complicated movements of disembowling an enemy troop with the tabletop figurines, but it's just so much easier when you've got a disposable game model to do it with instead. I mean, do you know how hard it is to poke wraith claws through a space marine figure's armor?
One is not necessarily better than the other. Tabletop and computer games are simply different creatures, and must be prepared and treated as such.
If this post is completely out of context, it's because I only bothered to read the last post in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>Personally, I've found the Warhammer 40k computer games that I've played (essentially just Dawn of War and the expansion) to be quite enjoyable....
A computer game isn't just boiling down a social tabletop game to its base components. It blocks the ability to just sit around and chat with your buds somewhat, yes. But it also allows you to add a more cinematic feels to your otherwise inanimate troops as they march across deserts planets and fire off massive caliber explosive rounds at the charging orks, who then proceed to give off copious amounts of blood
...
One is not necessarily better than the other. Tabletop and computer games are simply different creatures, and must be prepared and treated as such.</STRONG>
I haven't played Dawn of War, but I've heard it's very good, which would be a big change. Most of the games they've made based on the universe before now have been flops. And they've made many attempts; it's a good setting and a popular game offline.
Really, I agree. It's up to games when making the transition to utilize their strengths to do justice to the game. If they don't capture that epic feel that you describe, or have some other advantage that justifies playing the game on the computer instead of with your buddies, people just won't care much, even if it's loyal to the source material. That's the job the computer game conversion has to do -- action, graphics, smooth interface, everything plays a role in ensuring that the transition is graceful. It has to surpass the expected and justify the effort that went into putting the game into a new medium. I've seen them try many times to do just that, without great success. It's hard to do. But yeah, apparently Dawn of War is pretty good.
Provided, of course, that those are actually elements of the orignal.
Also, considering the graphics and the massive battles, it can run quite well with top settings on a mediocre machine. Relic really is a very good company.
EDIT: Demo(s). There's a seperate demo each for Dawn of War, DoW: Winter Assault, and DoW: Dark Crusade (stand-alone expansion pack, has seven races to play as, a freeform campaign, and all the goodies of the other two, if you're willing to only play as the two new races in multiplayer games. This is the one I've got), and they're all worth playing. Download one, play it for all it's worth, and move onto the next one. Repeat until you've done every damned thing possible in the demo versions.
[ March 04, 2008: Message edited by: Kagus ]
quote:
Taken down to just the rules, much of the fun is sapped away from it.
Action games have a certain immersive quality when they're based on pen-and-paper games. You can't convert the rules of the game without making what is in effect a simulator, a cockpit window into another world which you have to manage as if it were real. When the interface is clunky the game sucks, but when the interface is efficient and well thought-out you're on another planet.
The best game to ever do that was never pen-and-paper, it was a space game called "Independence War II". It used Newtonian physics (mostly) and required you to get really, really good on the stick to play it right.
It wasn't just about learning lots of buttons. To rake a superfreighter with a cutting beam without hitting the cargo containers required finesse.
I think maybe information overload is key to immersion. Having characters talking to you while you're monitoring and adjusting systems, dogfighting, maneuvering, evading enemy fire, and trying to keep track of your mission-critical objectives leaves little room to reflect on how none of it is real. Then when the fight's over there's this moment of serenity where you re-enter reality, wipe the sweat off your palms and think to yourself, "This game kicks ass."
quote:
people who dispute a decision made by the Tribunal have the right to appeal to a federal appeals court.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Has anyone ever actually won?</STRONG>
I don't know for sure, but to the best of my knowledge, only one person has ever tried, and they lost as the Supreme Court level. Most of the people involved have been radical, isolated figures though, and only a few are really willing to go the distance to fight for their right to say what they will; on the other hand, I don't think the media would take censorship laying down.
quote:
I don't think the media would take censorship laying down.
By the way, here are some Ezra Levant quotes:
quote:
[The United States'] robust First Amendment means that U.S. defamation law is not an effective censorship tool, and that country does not -- yet, at least -- have anything as pernicious as Canada's various thought crimes laws.
quote:
kangaroo court
quote:
The CHRC has a 100% conviction rate under its section 13 thought crimes section
quote:
people dragged before the commission have to pay for their own lawyers, and often are ordered to pay fines to the commission and to the person who brought the complaint
quote:
My "support" for Lemire is my support for his fight against the human rights commissions, which are procedurally and substantively unCanadian.
quote:
Even if he does drop it the Edmonton complaint proceeds.
And for the grand finale, the quote you asked for:
quote:
... the process has become the punishment.
... That's what censorship and fascism and government political correctness looks like in the 21st century.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>I trust "thought crimes" are an acceptable synonym to "hate crimes"?</STRONG>
They're very distinct actually, and though some would argue that hate crimes laws are thought crime laws, they're making a very substantial rhetorical leap. "Thought crimes" is a reference to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which it is a thoughtcrime to not even say certain things, not even do certain things, but merely to think certain things is punishable in and itself. "Hate crimes" is completely different -- it refers to an existing crime for which, after conviction, the sentence is increased due to the aggravating factor that the victim was intentionally targeted not out of a personal hatred or randomness or greed, but due to the victim's identification with a certain group, be it race, gender, or sexual orientation.
If it's a crime to think about swastikas, that is thought crime.
If it's a crime to spray paint swastikas on pieces of fabric and fly them in public, it's censorship.
If it's a crime to vandalize the front door of a Jewish family with spray painted swastikas, or a black family with a spray painted noose, and those crimes are treated as more severe than just spray painting your name in the same place, it's a hate crime.
Indeed, if Ezra Levant were to use the words "hate crime" in the quote you give, he would be very wrong; the United States has many hate crime laws. They do not cover speaking out in public to incite hatred, however -- speaking in public is not a crime, so there's nothing to be aggrivated.
Hate crimes usually entail extra long prison sentences and public condemnation. Censorship laws, at least in non-dictatorships, are generally much less heavy handed. If a censorship law was under hate crimes code, it would imply a very brutal level of censorship, especially if it were a hate crime merely to present a criticism of another religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Censored is censored whether it happened in court or tribunal. Either way the means don't justify the ends.</STRONG>
Agreed, but it is not censored if the speech is not restricted. Until a decision is made by the tribunal, or if the CHRC demands so beforehand (which they have not in the Maclean's case), no such restriction is in place. While being investigated, Ezra Levant continued to publish the cartoons on his web site without punishment; while being investigated, Maclean's has continued to publish the articles under contention online, and indeed, I've read Mark Steyn's article that caused this whole debacle on their website. No restriction on speech is in play yet.
Edit: To clarify, the "Supreme Court" the quotation that follows refers to is the United States Supreme Court, not the Canadian Supreme Court.
quote:
Oxford University Press:
<STRONG>The Supreme Court has found censorship to be an especially intolerable restriction on freedom of expression. The term censorship might encompass almost any restriction on the dissemination or content of expression, but most fundamentally it means prior restraint—any government scheme for screening either who may speak or the content of what people wish to say before the utterance. Although the Court has never held prior restraint to be inherently unconstitutional, it has emphasized that “any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity” (Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan 1963, p. 70)....
In recent years, spirited scholarly debate has arisen over the question of whether the evil of prior restraint might be overstated. Some have argued that judicially imposed restraints are less serious than administrative censorship, that freedom of expression may be served better by the use of prior restraint than by severely punishing expression after the fact. Fear of severe subsequent punishment, they assert, may have a far greater “chilling effect” on speech than narrowly focused, judicially supervised prior restraint.The Supreme Court appears thus far not to have been swayed by such argument. It appears to remain committed to the view that censorship, whether imposed by administrators or by judges, is presumptively unconstitutional and the most deplorable way of restricting freedom of expression.</STRONG>
Note the distinction that is made by the US Supreme Court between post-speech punishment and prior restraint when concerning the constitutionality of censorship. The US Supreme Court would be extremely unlikely to hold legal defense fees alone to be a great burden on free speech; but they would very likely hold the cease and desist order that follows this under section 13 to be unconstitutional.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Sound familiar?</STRONG>
Familiarly horrible. I would not have made this comparison because I didn't know Ezra made such false arguments. It's no greater of a complement to him that he said it than it is to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>And if you don't pay you do hard time.</STRONG>
That extension of his argument would never fly in a court of law, which is probably why doesn't make it. You could falsely argue that every crime is punishable by a life sentence. After all, if they order you to do community service for littering, and you don't show up, they might fine you, if you don't pay the fine, they take you to jail, you resist arrest and then escape from prison (because the law was wrong and they're infringing your rights!), next thing you know you're on a life sentence in a maximum security prison... "for littering". But that's nonsense. You can't take it to even one step. Any court will uphold the legality of applying a stricter punishment if you simply refuse to obey the lighter one, as long as the lighter one was appropriate. The crime is not the original crime anymore, your problem at that point is that you have flagrantly defied the judicial system.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Ezra Levant mentions Lemire.</STRONG>
And he does so in a way that I agree with. Similarly, he qualifies his support to be limited to Lemire's free speech activism, just as my comparison is and always was (even if you read the original post!) a qualified comparison to his arguments in his fight with the human rights commissions. The only time I've mentioned his other propaganda specifically was as trivia, when I linked his site.
Edit 2: Clarification: I'm specifically referring to my description or comparison to his white nationalist arguments/propaganda, which would not have been relevant. I certainly called him a neo-Nazi with a chip on his shoulder over his site getting hit, but the comparison was with his arguments over free speech, in which he sounds like he's hyperventilating behind the keyboard sometimes.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Something I definitely got wrong: I thought Ezra Levant was completely off the hook. Levant is still in kangaroo court.</STRONG>
I believe that he may be under pressure under provincial laws similar to section 13, but not on the federal level. I haven't looked into it.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>... the process has become the punishment.
... That's what censorship and fascism and government political correctness looks like in the 21st century.</STRONG>
I'm specifically looking for an argument that the process of defense constitutes censorship in and of itself, which is what you've attributed to him. This doesn't say that -- it shows that he's calling the action under the law censorship (agreed) and that he feels that being forced to defend himself constitutes punishment (reasonable). But he's not saying here that the punishment of defending himself is the censorship he's referring to, as opposed to the perfectly correct suggestion that if the tribunal rules against him, he will be subjected to censorship. To merge these two statements the way you're implying takes two otherwise reasonable arguments and merges them in a way that produces an unreasonable and false result.
I'm also looking for a link, actually, not just an unattributed quote, because I want to see the context and the substance of his argument. I've tried googling this, but there are no matches for the exact quotes.
What I do know that Ezra Levant has argued is that the law does not authorize the prosecution of his case, and that the commissions are overstepping the authority granted to them by not dismissing the charges immediately. He does not argue that it is a hate crime to criticize Islam, he argues that it is not, and never was punishable for him to publish the cartoons, not even under section 13 or anything else, even without having to appeal to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, although he does do that as well. He argues that they are trying to censor him, and he as argued that he hopes they will, and that he will be penalized, so that he can use his right to appeal to the court system and thereby have the commissions and tribunals at all levels of government that seek to manipulate and abuse the power granted to them beaten back.
[ March 05, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
[ March 05, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
quote:
Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>I highly recommend you try out the demos. It's only a taste of the full game, but it will allow you to see that the epic scale, over-the-top theme, and underlying deepness are adequately represented.Provided, of course, that those are actually elements of the orignal.
Also, considering the graphics and the massive battles, it can run quite well with top settings on a mediocre machine. Relic really is a very good company.EDIT: Demo(s). There's a seperate demo each for Dawn of War, DoW: Winter Assault, and DoW: Dark Crusade (stand-alone expansion pack, has seven races to play as, a freeform campaign, and all the goodies of the other two, if you're willing to only play as the two new races in multiplayer games. This is the one I've got), and they're all worth playing. Download one, play it for all it's worth, and move onto the next one. Repeat until you've done every damned thing possible in the demo versions.
[ March 04, 2008: Message edited by: Kagus ]</STRONG>
In an attempt to keep this thread on a non-argumentative path of derailment. I agree. If you only play one demo, play Winter Assault, it's by far the best of the two demos I played. Imperial Guardsmen are weaksauce, and you're fighting Chaos Marines and Raptors. Situations like that are fun for me, I enjoy seeing my troops getting slaughtered by enemies.
((Shot in the dark here, but does anyone know of any free games that involve large numbers of player-controlled characters fighting small numbers of large enemies such as robots/aliens? This concept has always struck me as very fun))
quote:
Originally posted by Muffles:
<STRONG>((Shot in the dark here, but does anyone know of any free games that involve large numbers of player-controlled characters fighting small numbers of large enemies such as robots/aliens? This concept has always struck me as very fun))</STRONG>
And sometimes way more fun than the more common alternative of having the roles reversed. While it's a rewarding thing to be able to take on the endless hordes, if they're all stormtroopers/redshirts, what's the point? Cutting down the swarms isn't much more epic than farming if they're always weak. Now, if they're usually tough enemies, and suddenly you get the MASSIVE DEATH RAY that brings them down like blades of grass, that's a little more epic.
The difficulty is getting specific heroes in play that you'll care about, as if they're too weak, they'll just die, and you'll just hide them in the back ranks instead of using them.
Edit: This is one of only a few complaints I have about Call of Duty 4 -- it's a great game, but they spawn endless enemies against you at some points. Come on, it breaks the modern warfare realism factor if I have 100+ kills on a mission as an infantry guy. :( I'd rather have fewer, harder enemies, and be allowed to hang back and take these tough guys out in a brutal firefight before moving up, instead of a hacked together system where I have to leave my relatively safe place to charge into machine gun fire in order to move the chains forward and stop the enemies I kill in this location from respawning.
[ March 05, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan S. Fox:
[QB]
The difficulty is getting specific heroes in play that you'll care about, as if they're too weak, they'll just die, and you'll just hide them in the back ranks instead of using them.
Inquisitor Toth Vs A swarm of Chaos Marines and Armored Tanks/Mechs = Epic, especially when he wins thanks to his mind blast and amazing ability to rape just about ANYTHING.
quote:
especially if it were a hate crime merely to present a criticism of another religion.
quote:
merges them in a way that produces an unreasonable and false result
quote:
While being investigated, Ezra Levant continued to publish the cartoons on his web site without punishment ...
quote:
Familiarly horrible.
quote:
I would not have made this comparison because I didn't know Ezra made such false arguments.
What it does is change several of the aspects of all the races in the game. Most notably the orks, who now only have slugga boyz, killa kans, and looted tanks (squads of looted tanks, actually), along with the 'hero' classes. Here's the fun bit: The infantry pop cap has been removed, and slugga boy reinforcements cost a single req point.
Imperial guardsmen get just about the same thing. Guardsmen squads have larger per-squad troop numbers, and are free to make. You get what you pay for, though. They really fall like flies.
Ork swarm is easily my favorite mod. There's just something utterly cool about seeing your baneblade tearing a hole through hundreds upon hundreds of orkz, sending green bodies flying everywhere and getting each and every barrel smoking like it's on fire, because not a single gun can let up the barrage lest the bellowing horde inches closer.
Again, it's most likely only for Dark Crusade. Dawn of War mods are notorious for their incompatibility.
To Forumsdwarf: I had a long post here, it was up for about 30 minutes, and I'll keep a copy in case you want to see it or you end up replying, but I figured, what the hell. I'm done fighting with you. I can't much walk out right after getting last word in, so I'll withdraw my last word like a gentleman and bow out. I think we've both got better things to do that kick each other in the shins for another few days.
[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Hordes of cannon fodder versus small groups of elite enemies ... are Zerg too obvious to even mention?</STRONG>
Zerg define the concept! Though certainly not the first, they did it so effectively, and in a way that was so interactive for so many people, that the word zerg has become synonymous with that kind of warfare.
Ork swarms in ork swarm trump zerglings in the cannon fodder aspect.
quote:
Forcing people to defend themselves in "human rights court" whenever they criticize religion is censorship. If you can't see that it is you who is being unreasonable.
Haven't yet read past this, but I'd like to add that when people are afraid to criticize religion because they're afraid of a legal battle (monetary costs aside, the process itself is long and irritating), then there's a problem. That problem may not be accurately described as censorship. I'm also not saying many people are afraid. Just saying that if and when there is such a situation, there is a real threat to free speech (sure, you're free to speak, but if you do we'll make your life miserable for weeks or months).
Words muddled. Summary: If X, then Y. The veracity of X remains unknown.
[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]
quote:
Originally posted by Earthquake Damage:
<STRONG>Haven't yet read past this, but I'd like to add that when people are afraid to criticize religion because they're afraid of a legal battle (monetary costs aside, the process itself is long and irritating), then there's a problem. That problem may not be accurately described as censorship. I'm also not saying many people are afraid. Just saying that if and when there is such a situation, there is a real threat to free speech (sure, you're free to speak, but if you do we'll make your life miserable for weeks or months).
Words muddled. Summary: If X, then Y. The veracity of X remains unknown.
[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]</STRONG>
Excerpt from my withdrawn response:
I do not disagree with you to an extreme extent here. The objective of the complaints was to silence and suppress political cartoons deemed offensive and force an apology. The objective was censorship. If they are able to even scare people into submission, they would have achieved that objective, and I would agree with you. I do not believe that has occurred.
The people of Canada do not get hauled in front of human rights tribunals every time they criticize religion, despite your presumably hypothetical argument that my point of view would be unreasonable if made in an imaginary world in which they are, and nor do they live in daily fear of doing so. Even the two cases that we are discussing have seen the defense continue to publish their ostensibly offensive speech. While this could qualify under some strained definition of censorship, it is certainly an amazingly weak form if it fails at actually censoring anything.
In other words, if X then Y. But there is no evidence of X. The argument is valid, but inapplicable.
quote:
Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>What about WH40k? Is that still an open topic?</STRONG>
Sure. :D
Orks WAAAGH!
Zergs and Tyranids swarm. :D
quote:
in case you missed it ...
For a rules stickler you sure can bend 'em.
Talk about a game that never ends ... I think I've played maybe twice to the end. Once you're winning, it's boring.
Master of Orion had the same 4-step narrative arc:
1. Fear and terror!
2. Acquisition and deployment of key military technologies
3. Sherman's March to the Sea
4. If (!win) Goto 3
What makes a good strategy game is for the Stage 4 Victory Condition gremlins to not be too stingy with the win, which is what made Master of Orion the greatest strategy game ever. And the cookie, of course, a nice pat on the back, a movie about the new era of peace you'll bring the universe, a casual chat with the Zoq-Fot-Pik on the finer points of Frungy, something.
Master of Magic would grind on and on well after the outcome of the game was no longer in doubt. You got the cookie, but the cookie jar was at the far end of a 700-mile treadmill.
But the Halfling Hordes ... yeah, they didn't always win, but you always had more. No city could stand against them, and because of certain technical aspects of the game buff spells multiplied their effectiveness eightfold instead of the usual 6, so once you got a few good buffs your army of fodder became an unstoppable hammer of righteousness (Life Magic and Halflings go together like steel tubes and gunpowder.)
Heh, old memories.
quote:
Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Yes sir, your majesty ... until you decide it isn't over anymore and chime in again.For a rules stickler you sure can bend 'em.</STRONG>
Naw, I was responding to somebody else. The whole point of ending the conversation is that I'm not going back and forth over it with you. You're certainly welcome to keep asking me questions about it, but I don't want you to wonder why I'm not answering them when I ignore you.
I wonder whether if someone else asked you what your numerical threshold for journalists harassed by the government must be to qualify as censorship whether you would've stated a figure?
By ignoring only me you've decided that the person making the statement is what invalidates it, not the content of the statement itself.
So it's not that the conversation is over, you simply have something against me personally.
Okay, whatever. :roll: