News Stories

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

"you can't be a prostitute and claim yourself a holy virgin at the same time".

So America is a whore. Sure, why not.
Statue of Liberty and gigantism fetish goes hand in hand.

Again, what's that got to do with wanting or not wanting wars?

Surely you're not going to suggest the PRC's twitchy fingers on the trigger is to be blamed on Whoremerica, right?

[Sumeragi]

And what is territory? The definition of territory can be moved back and forth, meaning this is not a YES or NO question. Some consider territory has a piece of land under the administrative control of a country with no challenges to the sovereignty of the control, while others believe that only administrative control is needed to consider a piece of land as a country's territory. This is in line with how the US considers the Dokdo situation: It's under Korean control so it is Korean territory, but the US wouldn't be outright saying it is Korean territory give that the sovereignty of the island is being challenged by Japan.

Basically, you're distorting the issue by forcing one definition of territory which a certain country finds convenient upon another who might not follow the same definition, and also using the same kind of logical disconnect you always use when it comes to PRC's belligerence issues with its neighbors.

[Urzu 7]

I notice Tom Bombadil knows Chinese. Is he from China?

[aohige]

Quite obviously.
He should give us inside scoop on the 9/18 demo.

Hopefully it won't turn into a violent riot, but at this rate, it's seems almost inevidable.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Apparently, a lot of human beings think acting like an enraged two year old with deadly force engages respect for their imaginary friends rather than ever accelerating levels of disgust.

Originally Posted by negrep

Shut up you racist bigot

Heh, apparently some anonymous coward thinks my statement is "racist bigotry" rather than an indictment of anyone of the human species who behaves this way, regardless of what kind. Repeated just to emphasize the "enraged two year old" seems to apply to him or her. Anyone who knows me knows how ridiculous and ignorant that accusation is.

[aohige]

Obviously, you're being racist to the human race.

I always knew you were a martian infiltrator!

EDIT: I gave you cookies too recently to offset

[Sumeragi]

Hmmm..... What imaginary friends were you talking about in that post?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by aohige

Obviously, you're being racist to the human race.

I always knew you were a martian infiltrator!

EDIT: I gave you cookies too recently to offset

Oh, I don't care about the rep... just thought they needed a spotlight on them

@Sumeragi: I'll concede that "religion" or "belief system" would be a more civil term but there's that respect problem again. If someone wants me to respect their idea they need to put down their weapon first and stop demanding I (or anyone else) dance their dance, otherwise they're just trying to make me fear the idea. Fear isn't respect in my dictionary.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Apparently some anonymous coward thinks this statement is "racist bigotry" rather than an indictment of anyone of the human species who behaves this way, regardless of what kind. Repeated just to emphasize the "enraged two year old" seems to apply to him or her.

Hm.. Think I'll add my two cents on this topic in general, albeit a very insensitive 2 cents that only tangentially touches this topic.

I was having a conversation with my fiance at a steakhouse talking about global security, terrorism and territorial disputes. I pointed out that the fact that we were eating an expensive steak and drinking wine on a weekday evening was:

1) Incomprehensible to millions of people around the world, or deemed to be outright ostentatious and a sign that we're "evil"
2) A subsection of the people in 1) whether through upbringing, ideology or certain other religious or political factors would gladly see us or our "kind" dead, subjugated or otherwise see our way of life eliminated
3) Obviously we don't want any of the things that 2) wants to happen .. to happen, and therefore it's in our best interests that we or someone else keeps them in check or eliminated as it isn't likely feasible for us to sway them to our way of thinking at least in the short term

So what does this train of thought lead to? It leads to supporting people that could/have turned into tyrants. It leads to western powers ignoring Russian massacres, supporting Saddam, Qaddafi and the Saudi Royal Family.

It also leads to the simple acceptance that we "humans" also have "human" enemies.. that not all men will be privy to the universal rights we so loudly espouse at the UN .. and that we all lose a bit of our "humanity" so in the doing and acceptance.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Hmmm..... What imaginary friends were you talking about in that post?

You can give it the name you want, it's the same one for the 3 religion even if most don't know it.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Vexx

@Sumeragi: I'll concede that "religion" or "belief system" would be a more civil term but there's that respect problem again. If someone wants me to respect an idea they need to put down their weapon first and stop demanding I dance their dance, otherwise they're just trying to make me fear the idea. Fear isn't respect in my dictionary.

I don't know, striking their weakest and most emotional point (as I once mentioned earlier) and then expecting them to be rational seems to be overestimating the weakness of humans. I'm certain that only those with the strongest of resolves would be able to keep calm when something hits them at their pressure point.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

And what is territory? The definition of territory can be moved back and forth, meaning this is not a YES or NO question. Some consider territory has a piece of land under the administrative control of a country with no challenges to the sovereignty of the control, while others believe that only administrative control is needed to consider a piece of land as a country's territory. This is in line with how the US considers the Dokdo situation: It's under Korean control so it is Korean territory, but the US wouldn't be outright saying it is Korean territory give that the sovereignty of the island is being challenged by Japan.

Basically, you're distorting the issue by forcing one definition of territory which a certain country finds convenient upon another who might not follow the same definition, and also using the same kind of logical disconnect you always use when it comes to PRC's belligerence issues with its neighbors.

bingo, territory does not necessarily equal sovereignty. If it were so simple, the whole Israel/Palestine mess would've been resolved one way or another long ago.

Not that it matters to someone who is obviously biased in a dispute :P

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I don't know, striking their weakest and most emotional point (as I once mentioned earlier) and then expecting them to be rational seems to be overestimating the weakness of humans. I'm certain that only those with the strongest of resolves would be able to keep calm when something hits them at their pressure point.

I *expect* them not to resort to physical violence. Expecting *me* to tippy toe around irrationality, mistreatment of others, or authoritarianism is no different than kowtowing to any schoolyard bully.

Frankly, I view that sort of violent behavior as an indicator of just how *insecure* they are about their belief system. Its like they're afraid they've made the wrong choice.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by willx

Hm.. Think I'll add my two cents on this topic in general, albeit a very insensitive 2 cents that only tangentially touches this topic.

I was having a conversation with my fiance at a steakhouse talking about global security, terrorism and territorial disputes. I pointed out that the fact that we were eating an expensive steak and drinking wine on a weekday evening was:

1) Incomprehensible to millions of people around the world, or deemed to be outright ostentatious and a sign that we're "evil"
2) A subsection of the people in 1) whether through upbringing, ideology or certain other religious or political factors would gladly see us or our "kind" dead, subjugated or otherwise see our way of life eliminated
3) Obviously we don't want any of the things that 2) wants to happen .. to happen, and therefore it's in our best interests that we or someone else keeps them in check or eliminated as it isn't likely feasible for us to sway them to our way of thinking at least in the short term

So what does this train of thought lead to? It leads to supporting people that could/have turned into tyrants. It leads to western powers ignoring Russian massacres, supporting Saddam, Qaddafi and the Saudi Royal Family.

It also leads to the simple acceptance that we "humans" also have "human" enemies.. that not all men will be privy to the universal rights we so loudly espouse at the UN .. and that we all lose a bit of our "humanity" so in the doing and acceptance.

I'm not gonna defend myself.

I AM racist towards the human race. I think we are dicks. I mean, really, really douchy dicks.
I think we are stupid idiots who seem incapable of harmoniously working towards a common goal on a global scale.

That being said, I think if there's any redeeming quality to human beings, it's that we can adapt and change.
We don't have to be utter morons forever.

.... Or so believes Gene Roddenberry.
We just gotta figure out what the hell happened to these dumb apes that we somehow achieved enlightment and formed the Federation.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I don't know, striking their weakest and most emotional point (as I once mentioned earlier) and then expecting them to be rational seems to be overestimating the weakness of humans.

The question is: is it rational to begin with than this ''topic'' to be ''their weakest and most emotional point'' ? There's plenty of matters much more critical in the physical realm to begin with, should we keep the issue about the ''spiritual'' to thoses than have enough time to waste on it ?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

The question is: is it rational to begin with than this ''topic'' to be ''their weakest and most emotional point'' ? There's plenty of matters much more critical in the physical realm to begin with, should we keep the issue about the ''spiritual'' to thoses than have enough time to waste on it ?

If the society itself considers the spiritual to be equal to the physical, that is the choice of that society, and thus for anyone to say they're being irrational is in itself pretty biased, if you ask me. It's basically saying that the physical emphasis of a certain society is the sole rational standard.

This reminds me of a quote over at another thread.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Heh, apparently some anonymous coward thinks my statement is "racist bigotry" rather than an indictment of anyone of the human species who behaves this way, regardless of what kind. Repeated just to emphasize the "enraged two year old" seems to apply to him or her. Anyone who knows me knows how ridiculous and ignorant that accusation is.

Yeah, I don't see your comment targeting one group of people. I see it as targeting, for the most part, Christians, Jews, and Muslims who will fight in the name of God and they think the conflict they engage in is acceptable to God. They think they are "God's people" and their violence or use of force is acceptable. You see it with some Muslims out there, and you find it with some Christians in America. You find it with a lot of the people in America that enlist in the military and with a lot of our citizens and politicians. They think that we are in a holy war with Islam and we have to fight the good fight for the Christian God. You made a comment that includes any religious extremist. It just so happens that in the world today, you mostly see it with Christian fundies and certain Muslims. You'll also see it with Jews in Israel.

I think this person that disliked what you said only associated your statement with one group of people because it was in response to people storming embassies. They thought one group of people were being singled out when that isn't the case.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

If the society itself considers the spiritual to be equal to the physical, that is the choice of that society, and thus for anyone to say they're being irrational is in itself pretty biased, if you ask me. It's basically saying that the physical emphasis of a certain society is the sole rational standard.

I would agree with you... if such choice had been a choice. Society do change, the biai of the occident (or even the USA) was once like the one in the middle east now but after a long process the grasp of the spiritual did regress.

Plus the fact than the situation was helped by some of their leaders much more than the society itself, talking about choice might not be very appropriate.

[willx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

If the society itself considers the spiritual to be equal to the physical, that is the choice of that society, and thus for anyone to say they're being irrational is in itself pretty biased, if you ask me. It's basically saying that the physical emphasis of a certain society is the sole rational standard.

This reminds me of a quote over at another thread.

My only issue with this is that taken a certain way, this could potentially lead to acceptance of all differences as pure "cultural relativism" and lead to a lack of acceptance of any sort of developing "moral progress" ..

I'm interested in whether you've heard of Sam Harris at all? He gave a TED talk that started out particularly interesting but sort of rambled on a bit afterwards..

His points were (if I recall properly) basically: 1) Moral Progress exists 2) Science and Reason can take us there and 3) There can be such a thing as a "Moral Expert" (example: willx isn't a physicist. Therefore my opinion regarding string theory isn't relevent. So why is "everyone's" opinion about morality relevant)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_...t_s_right.html

EDIT: I understand that taken with my previous post, some people may take my acceptance of both these "viewpoints" as being hypocritical. I simply accept it as being "realistic"

[aohige]

Originally Posted by willx

My only issue with this is that taken a certain way, this could potentially lead to acceptance of all differences as pure "cultural relativism" and lead to a lack of acceptance of any sort of developing "moral progress" ..

I'm interested in whether you've heard of Sam Harris at all? He gave a TED talk that started out particularly interesting but sort of rambled on a bit afterwards..

His points were (if I recall properly) basically: 1) Moral Progress exists 2) Science and Reason can take us there and 3) There can be such a thing as a "Moral Expert" (example: willx isn't a physicist. Therefore my opinion regarding string theory isn't relevent. So why is "everyone's" opinion about morality relevant)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_...t_s_right.html

EDIT: I understand that taken with my previous post, some people may take my acceptance of both these "viewpoints" as being hypocritical. I simply accept it as being "realistic"

Morality is, when it comes down to it, a fabricated standards of keeping a healthy functioning society.
Only problem would be the fact there are so many societies with different standards, making "expert in morality" a very hard job to accomplish, unless human society can globalize to a common standard.

Obviously religion would get in the way of this feat.
Because by faith, morality is NOT defined as the previous definition I stated, but instead a hard-lined law of the universe set by magic man.
Or magic men. Or a flying spaghetti clump with meatballs.