OT: For all the genocidal dictators... [Archive]

Growltigga

July 15th, 2002, 02:56 PM

The hypothetical examples you cite may in fact exsist somewhere in the unsavory netherworld of the net.

They do exist. "Unsavoury netherworld of the net" is the understatement of the century I am afraid. The simple fact is that the internet has been the catalyst for the rapid expansion of every sort of crime into the global problem they are becoming today. Taking child pornography for example, if I told you the statistics for numbers of people who have these pictures on their machines, you would be looking round your offices in disgust, the problem is awesome.. I can go down to my colleagues who deal with internet based investigations and within 30 seconds, they will be able to find websites on pretty much every obscenity you can think of

My first thought when I viewed this site was satirical in nature. Something along the lines of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", or at the least "The top 100 things to do as Evil Overlord". But I don't see anything nearly that clever with this site.

You are too kind. The first thought I had at looking at this site is how the hell you start policing problems like this... the kind of arseholes (and I apologise for the use of that word) who create this sort of rubbish really should go to Cambodia, to Rwanda, to Serbia or to the Yad Vashem or Auschwitz and take a long-hard look at what they using as a base line for their jokes

The "game" appears nothing more than a test to see who can click their mouse the most number of times.

Well, be still my beating heart... not only do these cretins have a pathetic sense of humour, they cant even produce a decent game to go with it

But I suppose it's part of the price we pay for freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech does not permit you to violate both public policy principals and public morality.

Freedom of Speech does not allow me to stand on my soapbox and advocate genocide, rape, abuse, child pornography or a whole host of other issues. Freedom of Speech should not allow stupid bloody websites like this.

Baron Munchausen

July 15th, 2002, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:

Take 100 mines, take 20 linedancers, take 1 stopwatch and then take bets

Psst... better change your sig if you want to rant about humor in poor taste... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Growltigga

July 15th, 2002, 04:32 PM

Baron Munchausen, we are talking about linedancers, not anything more sinister..

It is hardly the same

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Freedom of Speech does not permit you to violate both public policy principals and public morality.

Freedom of Speech does not allow me to stand on my soapbox and advocate genocide, rape, abuse, child pornography or a whole host of other issues. Freedom of Speech should not allow stupid bloody websites like this.Well, actually it does. Well technically it doesn't allow you to violate the principles, but it does allow you to talk about violating the principles. The right to speak your mind for better or worse is one of the fundamental principles of a free and open soceity. The internet with it's anonimity and instantaneous global reach is the purest form of this principle in action today. In many countires where this freedom of speech is not protected by the government, the internet is the only option some people have to exercise this freedom.

Unfortunatly many people choose to excercise this opportunity to appeal to the basest of human behavior. But that is their right, as long as they are only talking about it and not actually participating in those things they speak of.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Baron Munchausen, we are talking about linedancers, not anything more sinister..

It is hardly the sameHmmmm. This is uncharacteristically illogical of you Gt. This whole thing wouldn't be a charade would it? Playing "Devil's Advocate" for the purposes of spuring some heated debate by chance? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2002, 15:46: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Growltigga

July 15th, 2002, 04:51 PM

Geo, I am a lawyer and a finance lawyer to boot

I will argue with anybody about anything anytime

Playing Devil's Advocate is ingrained in my psyche

You are talking about "Freedom of Speech" as it pertains to the American ideal. We have freedom of Speech over here in Europe, but it does not extend to talking about breaking the rules in the sense of imbuing a freedom to discuss issues such as child pornography.

We have a wonderful concept called inchoate offences which means that that is illegal.

Probably "inhibits" my freedom of speech more than the American ideal but do you know? I think I prefer it.

Under our laws, this extends to websaites such as the one in point, ie if someone complained, our internet police can do somthing about it.. you Amercians cannot...

And as for linedancers... well, Baron Munchausen, if you are a linedancer, then I apologise for suggesting the bet I am talking about and shall amend my sig accordingly

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 05:17 PM

Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech unless it extends to those things which you find objectionable. Talking about something is not the same thing as doing it. Child pornography is NOT freedom of speech, because to get it you have to break the laws of man, and take away the childs basic human rights. So that is not even near the same thing as the website that is the start of this whole topic.

However, your sig IS very much like what the website is that started this whole topic.

Originally posted by Growltigga:
And as for linedancers... well, Baron Munchausen, if you are a linedancer, then I apologise for suggesting the bet I am talking about and shall amend my sig accordinglyYou should not have had to be called on the carpet by Baron about this. And you should not only change it because it offends Baron. You should be ashamed of your self according to your own stringent belief system for making a humerous comment regarding the death and dismemberment of people in any context.

You apparently want to kill and dismember people, not to remove a problem such as overpopulation (which is the professed problem whcih the afformentioned website seeks to remedy) but simply for your own ammusment and financial gain.

For shame Gt! (EDIT: Sorry, forgot to wink. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Geo

[ July 15, 2002, 16:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

disabled

July 15th, 2002, 05:19 PM

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-games.html?2002-07/11/09.00.games

Food for thought

Growltigga

July 15th, 2002, 05:24 PM

Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech unless it extends to those things which you find objectionable

No, you are worng here and I have somewhere here in my office that Californian lawsuit judgement that went into this - I shall get my secretary to find it and post it. Freedom of Speech does not give you free rein to talk about whatever you want. It gives you the right to air certain views, but not where those views are illegal

Talking about something is not the same thing as doing it. Child pornography is NOT freedom of speech, because to get it you have to break the laws of man, and take away the childs basic human rights.

I agree, talking about something is not the same as doing it but that is an incredibly simplistic viewpoint... talking about genocide in the way this web site goes into it is incitement at the very least, and would break several EU and UK moralioty principals to boot.... I can talk about

Talking about child pronography is not illegal, I can talk about it now and I am not being illegal... if I talk about it with the same phraseology these peope use to discuss genocide, then I AM inciting it, and 'advancing' it, and that, even under US law is illegal.. The line is too fine to start using fredom of speech as a defence

You should not have had to be called on the carpet by Baron about this .

What carpet are you talking about?.... the fundamental difference between that website and my sig is proportionality. They are advocating a real problem, genocide, it was happening 2 years ago in Bosnia, it is still happening in Iraq and, if rumours are true, all over Africa

I am talking about taking bets on 20 linedancers doh-see-dohing in a minefield.. How likely is that? I would like to see you make any charge of incitement stick on that!!

I have a stringent belief system. I would not jest about real issues. I view child pornography and genocide as real-life issues. I do not see my hypothetical premis of taking bets on line dancers dancing in a minefield as being likely

[ July 15, 2002, 16:34: Message edited by: Growltigga ]

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 05:28 PM

Hmmm, Hadrian Posts the comment "Food for thought." and a link to an article about video games damaging the brain. I am sure there is a suitably ironic and scathingly sarcastic comment in these two items somewhere, but for the life of me I can't recon what it is. Perhaps my wit has been dulled by too many video games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

[ July 15, 2002, 16:29: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 06:05 PM

Gt, let me stop for a moment here and congratulate you. You have managed to deftly manipulate the debate to position anyone who disagrees with you as being in favor of child pornography. Excellent use of the straw man technique. It was so subtly done I almost didn't notice it and allowed my self to argue according to your terms for a moment. If I ever have business dealings in the UK and am in need of a competent litigator, I will certainly keep you in mind.

The inescapable fact which you can not get away from is, the website in question is a joke. It's a sick joke no doubt. And it's not even a funny joke, either in subject matter or in execution. (ooo, was that a poor choice of terms? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) But you would not be able to make your hypothetical case of inciting against the website in question any more so than one could make one against you for your offending signature.

The website in question proposes as a solution to overpopulation the extermination of every human being on earth. Not only do they not support their initial hypothesis of the problem with any scientific evidence, their "solution" to the problem is so ridiculously extreme as to not be taken seriously.

The means that they advocate for this extermination is the clicking of the mouse on a website button which correlates to a map representation of the earth. No explanation of the function whereby this clicking would result in the death of a single person, much less the deaths of billions. Again, so pathetically vague as to not be taken seriously.

However I could, if I were so inclined, most likely purchase the necessary materials to effect YOUR dastardly scheme. I am not rich by any means (certainly not of the level of one employed as a finance lawyer) and I believe that I could purchase the prerequisite 100 mines given a few months.

The line dancers would be a bit more problematic. As I live in southwest Ohio, or what is more commonly referred to as Northern Kentucky, the supply of line dancers is far greater than that of mines. But the problem there would be not one of simple supply, but one of motivating them to follow my instructions at the risk of life an limb. Average educational levels and general public opinion notwithstanding, line dancers are not typically idiots. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

However were I an individual of sufficient means, say a person who could travel to Japan for sporting events at the drop of a hat, and plan for weeks long safaris in the African plain a few short months later, then perhaps I could motivate a few dedicated individuals who held the same low esteem of linedancers that I did to assist me in this venture. I could afford to purchase the necessary "motivational equipment" that could be used to bring my evil plan to fruition.

So sir, I put to you that your plan is actually the more likely of the two, and thus the far more dangerous one to be permitted to be uttered.

Somebody get me the number for Interpol please, "Thought police" division preferably. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

[ July 15, 2002, 17:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Growltigga

July 15th, 2002, 06:31 PM

If I ever have business dealings in the UK and am in need of a competent litigator, I will certainly keep you in mind.

But I am not a litigator... you do not even want to know what one of those guys are like (too much red meat and testosterone I am told)

However I could, if I were so inclined, most likely purchase the necessary materials to effect YOUR dastardly scheme. I am not rich by any means (certainly not of the level of one employed as a finance lawyer) and I believe that I could purchase the prerequisite 100 mines given a few months.

How? dont tell me your gun laws are so lax you can buy mines can you?

Average educational levels and general public opinion notwithstanding, line dancers are not typically idiots. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

You are right - it takes a lot of brainpower to wear chaps and a stetson, call yourself "Dead Eye Dick" or something similar and dance like a fit

However were I an individual of sufficient means, say a person who could travel to Japan for sporting events at the drop of a hat,

You dont want to know how long I saved for that trip or how deep in debt I am now... us UK lawyers earn about 1/4 of what equivalent lawyers do...

and Borneo is not in Africa, it is in South East Asia and I have got one hell of a deal on that trip

So sir, I put to you that your plan is actually the more likely of the two, and thus the far more dangerous one to be permitted to be uttered.

I disagree, I am solicitor of the supreme court and therefore honest, noble, brave and wise... I would not ruin 100 landmines that way

Somebody get me the number for Interpol please, "Thought police" division preferably. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Someone get the attendents from the local funny farm down here to take you and Baron Munchausen away... dont worry, we will give you stylish straightjackets....

Pax

July 15th, 2002, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
But I suppose it's part of the price we pay for freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech does not permit you to violate both public policy principals and public morality.

Freedom of Speech does not allow me to stand on my soapbox and advocate genocide, rape, abuse, child pornography or a whole host of other issues. Freedom of Speech should not allow stupid bloody websites like this.WRONG.

That is EXACTLY what Freedom OF Speech means. We are supposed to be able to speak about ANYTHIGN WE WANT -- not just "approved topics" ... not just to advocate "approved positions" or "approved opinions" ...

For example, I personally find White Supremacy to be not only a crock of sh*t, but also abhorrent. But you know what? I'll happily defend their right to hold, and express, their views.

Free speech is just that -- the freedom to speak. About anything -- not just "about what soiciety deems palatable for conversation" ...

If Eruopeans believe that Freedom to Speak should be limited in any way whatsoever related solely to the topic being discussed ... then you folks don't have FREE speech. You have APPROVED speech.

Normally I am displeased with my country, owing to the deplorable trends in foreign policy and the ghastly restriction of rights domestically.

But ... thank you, you've just restored in me SOME gladness to be an American, and not be from somewhere else.

Free speech is without topic / opinion based limitations ... or it's not free. This isn't just an issueof American vs European ideals ... it's an issue of logic.

If someone says "You are free to discuss only that which I approve for you to discuss" ... then he's not giving me freedom to discuss much of anything at all.

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
How? dont tell me your gun laws are so lax you can buy mines can you?
I don't think so, but illegalites aside I am sure that mines would be easier to procure than mouse click controlled global death ray guns, even in the UK. You are right - it takes a lot of brainpower to wear chaps and a stetson, call yourself "Dead Eye Dick" or something similar and dance like a fitMuch less I am sure than it does to strip to your pantaloons, paint your body in your national colors and trapse about in general drunken debauchery, stopping your voiciferous bouts of deragatory epithets only long enough to physically abuse the opposing team's hooligan fans for having the audactiy to do exactly the same thing, only with slightly different color body paint.

You dont want to know how long I saved for that trip or how deep in debt I am now... us UK lawyers earn about 1/4 of what equivalent lawyers do...Meaning they are merely not quite so overpaid? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

and Borneo is not in Africa, it is in South East Asia and I have got one hell of a deal on that tripGeography was never my strong suit.

I disagree, I am solicitor of the supreme court and therefore honest, noble, brave and wise... I would not ruin 100 landmines that way
...As are all those in the legal profession I am sure. The esteem with which laywers are held is as close to a universal truth as mankind has ever found.

[ July 15, 2002, 18:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Puke

July 15th, 2002, 07:02 PM

mmmm, thought police. while i fully support GTs implication that most people are sheep, incapable of making their own determinations on morality when confronted with questionable ideas, i have to conceed that without the freedom to express those ideas, we would be forfitting other freedoms which i am in the habbit of abusing.

quite frankly, i would not give a darn about someone else's freedom of speach being regulated if i didnt think it would set a precident that could be used against ME, later. but for my own good, i have to maintain the assumption that playing DOOM does force children to gun down their school mates, playing Grand Theft Auto 3 does not force people to solicit prostitutes before murdering them for their money, and playing SE4 does not force people to spray napalm over cities.

now if you attempt to reason that kiddy porn does not force people to go out and take advantage of children, that may be so. the difference is, that child pornography is MADE by taking advantage of children. The problem should not be the need to protect the weak minded public from immatating published ideas, but that by supporting published material that has been made by breaking the laws, you are encouraging further criminal activity. thats whats wrong with child porn and snuff videos: if you are buying them, you are giving financial support to child molestors and murders. if you are viewing them, you are giving approval to the same activities.

if the makers of that web site are actually practicing or financing genocidal activities, it should be taken down. somehow, i dont think they are.

Puke

July 15th, 2002, 07:18 PM

wow, ease up guys. lets not get angry with each other about dancing styles, sports brawls, and income brackets. i cant dance, im unsporting, and i make more money than i deserve. go ahead and get mad at me for it, both of you.

i agree with everything Pax had to say, except the foreign policy bit. our foreign policy benefits US. would you rather have one that benefits OTHER people instead of us? thats just nonesense, man. Forigners frown on our policies because they get the short end of them. I think they're great. My boots were made in a sweat shop in China, my shirt was made in a sweat shop in Pakistan, and market factors made my car cheap to import from Japan, though it was probably assembled by domestic labor (or robots).

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Puke:
wow, ease up guys. lets not get angry with each other about dancing styles, sports brawls, and income brackets. i cant dance, im unsporting, and i make more money than i deserve. go ahead and get mad at me for it, both of you.
Puke, I have no objection to anyone making as much money as they can. Like every other person I aspire to be horribly overpaid someday. Although lord willing it won't be as a member of the "second oldest profession". I enjoy sleep too much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

Baron Munchausen

July 15th, 2002, 07:37 PM

Ah, todays explosive topic is Freedom of Speech, is it?

First of all, Gt, I was not 'offended' by your sig but simply pointing out that the principle you advocated could be turned against yourself. 'Freedom of Speech' is a legal principle and thus has to be applied equally to all. If advocating the death of many, even in jest, is not allowed, then advocating the death of a few, even in jest, is not allowed either. Else, we are placing the judge(s) or jury into the position of using sorites to resolve a case. If 20 people is not enough to violate the 'limit' on freedom of speech, is 25? If not 25, then 30? Etc... It's the old puzzle of where 'quantity' and 'quality' change hands. Because the act/event advocated in both your sig and that 'awful' website are the same. It's just a difference of scale.

And that's why the principle of Freedom of Speech has caused so much controversy. In order to preserve all reasonable speech from unreasonable application of the law we all have to put up with things we don't like. Anything that is judged 'out of the bounds of decency' will be twisted around to apply to something else. It's one of those 'cynical maxims' -- Any available power will be used by goverment, for whatever purpose it can be used for not just the 'original intent'.

This is what concerns people with the new 'anti-terrorism' laws here in the US. Anything that an FBI agent gets offended at could be defined as terrorism now, anyONE that some FBI agent wants to investigate could be defined as a terrorist and have his/her rights stripped away for nothing more than being 'suspicious looking' on some vague personal criteria. Speaking out against the 'War on Terrorism' is definitely offensive to many people here right now. While it probably gets you added to The List of people to be watched and investigated, it doesn't get you arrested automatically -- yet. If it were possible to legally define 'offensive speech' then it probably would. I mean, anyone who thinks we shouldn't go and blow up the terrorists is obviously saying that we should just put up with the thousands of deaths inflicted by them. That's just obscene! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif The fact that dropping bombs is rather messy and inexact, killing more civilians than terrorists, doesn't seem to matter to these same people who are terribly offended at 'terrorism'. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

And, btw, we've got a political advocacy group for sex with children here in the US. It's called NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). One of the priests accused in the current scandal has been a member for decades. I'll admit that it's pretty sick, and obvious to me that anyone who could advocate making sex with children 'normal' was abused him/her self, but the same logic that would suppress talking about this can be used to suppress almost anything else. You don't think we should put pot smokers in prison for 20 years to life? You're a degenerate and a threat to society! In the slammer you go with those evil pot smokers!!! It would be interesting to know if NAMBLA members are watched by the porn squad, though... and if their public advocacy is allowed to be used to get warrants on them. hmm.

But anyway, if offensive jokes are ruled out, we wargamers are gonna be next. Remember that next time you play your PBW turn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 15, 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

TerranC

July 15th, 2002, 07:37 PM

Now, all you kids that ever wondered why the US broke away from the UK, just take a look at this discussion, and you will find out why... to some extent.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This is better than crossfire.

capnq

July 15th, 2002, 07:40 PM

The simple fact is that the internet has been the catalyst for the rapid expansion of every sort of crime into the global problem they are becoming today. Crime has been a global problem for a lot longer than the Internet has existed. Computers merely speed up the transactions, and enable a few new ones.

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by TerranC:
Now, all you kids that ever wondered why the US broke away from the UK, just take a look at this discussion, and you will find out why... to some extent.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This is better than crossfire.Personally Tc, I am more partial to the McLaughlin Group...

"Issue 2 today, why are all Canadians pedophiles? Jack Germonde?"

"Well John, first of all, I don't think that's a fair statement because..."

"WRONG! Issue 3..."
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

TerranC

July 15th, 2002, 08:44 PM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Whew... oh man. That is good.

Now, seriously; to all that have posted here, LET IT DIE! BASH IT TO THE GROUND AND WHACK IT since the use of free speech is an issue that nobody will win and will be debated and discussed till the end of civilization.

It's not an easy issue, since every blade has two sides.

And, if they wanted to make that fun, they should have named it "Who can get carpal tunnel syndrome the fastest project".

geoschmo

July 15th, 2002, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
'Freedom of Speech' is a legal principle and thus has to be applied equally to all. I feel I must point out here that this is another cherished principle that if in fact were true in the real world, would result in Gt and his associates being significantly less in demand, and thus quite a bit less highly renumerated for their services. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Unfortunately law has very little to do with what is right, and much more to do with what you can prove or how well you state your case.

This seeming lack of fundamental principles in defense of those very principles is likely what results in the less than positive opinion people outside of the field hold for those within it.

But all in all, if I were on trial for my life I'd rather have a lawyer than a man of principle working for me. It's a shame though that those are often mutually exclusive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2002, 19:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Puke

July 15th, 2002, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[QUOTE]But all in all, if I were on trial for my life I'd rather have a lawyer than a man of principle working for me. It's a shame though that those are often mutually exclusive.why is that a shame? and why should 'principals' be applied equally to all? that smacks of communism, good man. people of greater means should be able to buy better representation, thus encouraging those of lesser means to strive to better their position. my only complaint is that there is no practical way to enforce a 100% inheritance tax, to keep layabouts from becoming people of significant means.

give me an even playing field, and cut-throat commercialism. its just not as easy to even the playing field as it should be. if only people really were created equal. ah well, better living through chemistry, and someday they will be.

TerranC

July 16th, 2002, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Puke:
and why should 'principals' be applied equally to all? that smacks of communism, good man.That's not communism. That's not capitalism.
That is a mixture of both called socialism.

Will

July 16th, 2002, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Puke:
and why should 'principals' be applied equally to all? that smacks of communism, good man.And what's really wrong with communism? It seems to me that there is still way too much residual effect from the US anti-communism propaganda campaign during the Cold War. People never stopped and realized that the Soviets were not, and never were going to be, communists. Same with China, North Korea, and whatever other countries currently have what the US has ignorantly labeled "communist government". Communism in its pure form is really a complete lack of government; wealth and power is held equally by all. Of course, because of human nature, communism will never happen in a group of any significant size.

Back to the thread's topic, though... First, I didn't quite expect a reaction as big as this. After all, I can be quite certain that anyone who argued that the subject of the site's satire is wrong and illegal, is being quite a hypocrite. Unless they have NEVER fired a single shot at a planet in SEIV http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif There are countless threads that talk about glassing enemy planets, and I don't recall anyone making a fuss about "killing" sentient alien populations. Only difference really, is fewer clicks.

I actually thought it was more humorous that somebody actually bothered to create a site for that. I didn't dig in deep enough to see it was a mouse manufacturer, I guess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Puke

July 16th, 2002, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Will:
And what's really wrong with communism?:you're kidding? is a crappy economic system based on fantasic ideals. and by fantastic, i mean fantasy. la-la-land.

Communism in its pure form is really a complete lack of government; wealth and power is held equally by all. Of course, because of human nature, communism will never happen in a group of any significant size.see? you agree.

[QB]Back to the thread's topic, though... [QB]yep, i agree with everything following the elipsis. ill shut up and go away now.

d0b

July 16th, 2002, 08:09 AM

Of course foreign policy is supposed to benefit your country but the USA being the most powerful country they have far more influence and immunity from their actions than possibly anyone else. So their policy infringes on other countries in ways that you would not accept if a hypothetical more powerful country did to you.

[ July 16, 2002, 08:17: Message edited by: d0b ]

Growltigga

July 16th, 2002, 09:36 AM

Crime has been a global problem for a lot longer than the Internet has existed. Computers merely speed up the transactions, and enable a few new ones

This is exactly what I said

But all in all, if I were on trial for my life I'd rather have a lawyer than a man of principle working for me. It's a shame though that those are often mutually exclusive

Ooh, I think you need to get off your anti-lawyer kick.. lawyers are not overpaid compared to other professionals (eg accountants, actuaries and venture capitalists particularily). Given that it takes most of us 6-8 years to even qualify (and we take loans to fund university and law school) and then you can be assured of 70-80 hour weeks for the rest of your life, together with the second highest work levels of stress going, we are then criminally underpaid. The legal profession, certainly in the UK, has the highest number of people wanting to change jobs but cant due to preciseness of training, why would we want to due that if we were so overpaid?

another point, the new trainee in my room is 25, earn about $18K a year and has just started her career, after law school, she says she is $42K in debt...

my next door neighbour is an accountant, he has a mercedes and a BMW.. I drive a 9 year old Renault clio that is frankly held together by rust and stubborn understains

wow, ease up guys. lets not get angry with each other about dancing styles, sports brawls, and income brackets. i cant dance, im unsporting, and i make more money than i deserve. go ahead and get mad at me for it, both of you.

Puke, it sounds like you have enough problems of your own... the point I want to make here Geo is that I showed your post on our sports behaviour to 2 germans, 1 belgian and 3 english colleagues... it really was better than laughing gas.. to accuse us of jingoism and patriotric fervour in our sports is an absolute classic, do the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" mean anything to you.

The rest of the world praised Salt Lake for the cracking winter olympics earlier this year. Brilliantly organised, excellent for world sport.. the rest of the world also pointedfly remarked that US supporters should really learn to be less partisan.. it is just insulting the lengths it is taken to (booing other teams?? yeah, really sporting)

WRONG.

Pax, wake up and smell the roses. YOur statements are frighteningly naive (or idealistic, I am not sure)

Freedom of Speech is constitutionalised in the US, rather than legislated as it is in most european countries.

So you think this means you can say what you like about what you like when you like.

Fine, try it. You try and take your soap box to the middle of your town today and preach on something like kiddy porn. You think you will be free to do so?

WRONG. You will be arrested. Try looking at the US public order offences and see what they really say.

We actually have more "freedom of speech" as you define in in europe. If our rights are breached, it is illegal and we can take the police to the lower courts. In the US, any constittuional breach goes to the Federal Supreme COurt...

Are your principles backed up by enbough cash to do this?

Fyron

July 16th, 2002, 10:52 AM

In the US, lawyers in general are paid absurd amounts of money.

Growltigga

July 16th, 2002, 12:03 PM

Fyron, you are right.

The statistics are that 85% of the world's lawyers are in the United States.

The pay differential is scary. I was speaking to an American lawyer of equivalent grade to me a couple of weeks back. We talked salaries and I choked when he told me that his pay was 8 times what mine was, and that he got a bonus.

Who do we think is paying for all this?

It is scary

Growltigga

July 16th, 2002, 02:13 PM

Well, they aren't all overpaid anyway... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo, if you wish to criticise lawyers, I should ask you to ensure you qualify your remarks by reference to stating that you are remarking on US attorneys, and not lawyers or advocates around the globe

Geo, what do you do for a living?

[/QUOTE]Gt, please do try to keep your comments at least a little bit to the point of the discussion. You keep going off on these tangents where noone else has gone

Oh dear, Geo, the whole point of an argument or a debate is that is comprises two mutually contradicting viewpoints that (hopefully) reaches some form of consensus through logical discussion. I am not going off on a tangent, I am simply responding or giving examples to the left-field remarks you have made.

I am also not prejudiced against all things American (I even own a Hammecher Schlammer cat rehydrator). I am slightly prejudiced against the national perception/world view Americans have a tendency to project to the rest of humble mortals lucky enough to share the planet with Americans but generally, I like Americans fine.

Your comments WERE directed at soccer fans and as such, are bound to be emotive to those of us who profess to enjoy soccer. My comments on linedancers I will admit are pure self-opinion.

Yes, booing is one thing, it is poor sportsmanship, and I would point out that having Asked Jeeves/google searched and checked, no-one can remember anyone ever being beaten up in any form of mass riot/fight at a Winter Olympics for carrying wrong flags or otherwise - what point are you trying to make by what appears to be a flawed comparator

In my mind you either have freedom of speech either or you don't have freedom of speech. It's a human condition, it's not about countries.

Again, your point is flawed, freedom of speech can be said to be a human condition but we are talking about how it can be manifested, and that is governed by national legal systems

I get it completely unfortunately. Racism in the US is not illegal. It is not illegal in 99% of Western democracies and the Klu Klux Klan, as the British National Party or the German Neo-Nazis factions are fully entitled to demonstrate and do what they want to profess a hatred for other races. What they cannot do is incite. Of course, any recourse to violence will be slammed down under provbably every jurisictional system.
Back to our example of public policy issues such as kiddy porn, try and get a permit for tholding a debating forum or rally for that and find out if you will get it. You wont. Therefor, you are saying that your right to exercise freedom of speech is being repressed and that constitutionally, you have a right to this. Try again.

Where do you get your incorrect ideas about the US? I guess the European press must protray America as some sort of facist police state. I guess if a few shameful incidents get all the TV coverage that is what you would think. I can tell you I live in America, and that's not the way it is.

My views come from personel experience. I have live in the US for over 2 years on and off. You legal system is less permissive than you think and is far more akin to the european systems than you may notice. As to your constitutional rights, all I will say on this that you try and get these enforced if they were breached,

geoschmo

July 16th, 2002, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Geo, if you wish to criticize lawyers, I should ask you to ensure you qualify your remarks by reference to stating that you are remarking on US attorneys, and not lawyers or advocates around the globeI will do no such thing. Disdain for those in the legal profession is not an American opinion exclusively. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But I will tone it down. My Last comment was a parting shot. I will stow my cannon.

Geo, what do you do for a living?I am a computer geek. I am sure you will have no trouble finding much ammunition to use against me in that regards. Most of it deserved I am sure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Oh dear, Geo, the whole point of an argument or a debate is that is comprises two mutually contradicting viewpoints that (hopefully) reaches some form of consensus through logical discussion. I am not going off on a tangent, I am simply responding or giving examples to the left-field remarks you have made.But you can't do that, because that is what I was doing. You hit the ball, I was merely attempting to get it back to the keeper before you got safely across the crease. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I am also not prejudiced against all things American (I even own a Hammecher Schlammer cat rehydrator). I am slightly prejudiced against the national perception/world view Americans have a tendency to project to the rest of humble mortals lucky enough to share the planet with Americans but generally, I like Americans fine.As well you should be. I too am prejudiced against that perception which too many of my countrymen hold. I will thank you to not lump me in with them.

Your comments WERE directed at soccer fans and as such, are bound to be emotive to those of us who profess to enjoy soccer. My comments on linedancers I will admit are pure self-opinion.
My comments were not only bound to be emotive, they were intended to be so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But they were not directed at your nationality, any more than your comments against linedancers were directed at all Americans. However, your misguided reaction proved my point better than I could hope to, and I thank you for it.

Yes, booing is one thing, it is poor sportsmanship, and I would point out that having Asked Jeeves/google searched and checked, no-one can remember anyone ever being beaten up in any form of mass riot/fight at a Winter Olympics for carrying wrong flags or otherwise - what point are you trying to make by what appears to be a flawed comparatorThe flaw was in your understanding of my original point, not in my comparator. I compared the raucous behavior of soccer fans to the ridiculous shenanigans of linedancers as equally comparable demonstrations of their lack intellectual prowess. You misinterpreted this as a denigration of your fair country, and attempted to drag the Olympics of late hosted in my fair country into the discussion for some unclear (too me) reason. I was merely pointing out that even if we were to discuss the argument on your fallacious terms, your argument would be found wanting as the behavior of the excessivly patriotic Americans in Salt Lake was admittedly rude, but it was by no account physically abusive.

Again, your point is flawed, freedom of speech can be said to be a human condition but we are talking about how it can be manifested, and that is governed by national legal systems
This is a true enough statement, although a bit simplistic. Mine was a poor choice of words. When I said a "human condition", my meaning was that the freedom is an indisputable fact. Freedom of speech I should have said is not a condition, but is an ultimate truth. It is a goal to attain. Whether or not you agree it can be, or even should be attained is a point of debate. You can argue that one does not have an inalianble right to freedom of speech. I can argue one does, and that any government that attempts to restrict this right is unnatural. Debating that point does not change the nature of the goal itself. You cannot redefine the truth of it for if you attempt to, you render it worthless.

I get it completely unfortunately. Racism in the US is not illegal. It is not illegal in 99% of Western democracies and the Klu Klux Klan, as the British National Party or the German Neo-Nazis factions are fully entitled to demonstrate and do what they want to profess a hatred for other races. What they cannot do is incite. Of course, any recourse to violence will be slammed down under provbably every jurisictional system.
Back to our example of public policy issues such as kiddy porn, try and get a permit for tholding a debating forum or rally for that and find out if you will get it. You wont. Therefor, you are saying that your right to exercise freedom of speech is being repressed and that constitutionally, you have a right to this. Try again.And here lies the root of your own misdirection of the debate. For the original discussion was not about kiddie porn, or even about ones right to stand on a busy street corner and defame the cherished sensibilities of a polite society. The discussion was about whether the right to maintain an objectionable website is maintained under freedom of speech. All your subsequent arguments have been taking us away from that central point, not towards it. The website in question does not seek to incite. Read it and you will see. Or don't and stay ignorant. That is your right as well.

My views come from personel experience. I have live in the US for over 2 years on and off. You legal system is less permissive than you think and is far more akin to the european systems than you may notice. As to your constitutional rights, all I will say on this that you try and get these enforced if they were breached,I stand by my statements. Yes, you may in fact be arrested for standing up on a corner and preaching hate or espousing the virtues of kiddie porn, if a crowd forms to listen to you. But you also will be arrested for standing on the same corner and quoting loudly from the bible, or reading the constitution of the United States. Anything that draws a crowd will become an inconvienence or a hazard to daily passage will draw the notice of the local constabulary, and get you a polite suggestion to "Move along buddy." If you refuse this, they will no doubt arrest you, but not for what you say. You will be arrested for causing a disturbance. There is a HUGE difference.

Growltigga

July 16th, 2002, 06:15 PM

I am a computer geek. I am sure you will have no trouble finding much ammunition to use against me in that regards. Most of it deserved I am sure.

I am actually sure that I do have significant ammunition against computer nerds (which is a bit of a surprise). I recall you mentioned you have children, so I am assuming you have been near to a female at some point in your life (or at least once). I suppose the computer nerd profession is such that it really is too boring to even make jokes about...

But you can't do that, because that is what I was doing. You hit the ball, I was merely attempting to get it back to the keeper before you got safely across the crease. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Er no, other way round I think. YOu need to reconsider who was keeping who on target [PS was your sporting analogy baseball?]

I will thank you to not lump me in with them.

I will be delighted not to lump you in with your fellow rednecks. I am also delighted to see at least one American who can rise above it.

My comments were not only bound to be emotive, they were intended to be so.

Yes, your comments were emotive but it is obvious that the mens rea behind your remarks was to make your point AGAINST the English in particular. You are aware that I recently spent a considerably amount of money watching my team play in the World Cup in Japan, and it is obvious that on this basis, you were trying to (I beleive the American phrase is) "score a point".

Given the profound fallaciousness of your remark, of course it is only a naturla reaction for us europeans to frankly lose bladder control.

Whether or not you agree it can be, or even should be attained is a point of debate. You can argue that one does not have an inalianble right to freedom of speech. I can argue one does, and that any government that attempts to restrict this right is unnatural. Debating that point does not change the nature of the goal itself.

Now, this is one of the first things you have said that actually makes sense [ducking under desk]. I do believe however that this whole debate started in analysing whether or not the United States has true Freedom of Speech and whatever you wish to tell me otherwise, we are back to this proposition.

You can stand by your statements and that is your right. I however, have had this debate dozens of times with Americans and it is interesting that the people who primarily do not believe you have true freedom of speech in the US are your attorneys. I find that interesting.

geoschmo

July 16th, 2002, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
I am actually sure that I do have significant ammunition against computer nerds (which is a bit of a surprise). I recall you mentioned you have children, so I am assuming you have been near to a female at some point in your life (or at least once). I suppose the computer nerd profession is such that it really is too boring to even make jokes about...ROFL! I'll have you know sir that I am considered something of a "stud" among my fellow computer nerds having been with two women in my lifetime. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Er no, other way round I think. YOu need to reconsider who was keeping who on target [PS was your sporting analogy baseball?]
No, this was a pathetically inept attempt at putting into cricket terms so that you would understand. I recently had occasion to catch a game, or match or whatever you call it on ESPN 8 between the Pakistani and Dominican Republic teams. It was quite interesting and has caused me to seek out additional information on the sport. If you have any direction in that regard I would appreciate it.

Yes, your comments were emotive but it is obvious that the mens rea behind your remarks was to make your point AGAINST the English in particular. You are aware that I recently spent a considerably amount of money watching my team play in the World Cup in Japan, and it is obvious that on this basis, you were trying to (I beleive the American phrase is) "score a point".

Given the profound fallaciousness of your remark, of course it is only a naturla reaction for us europeans to frankly lose bladder control.
Ah, but here you are off the mark. My comments were not aimed at English, or Europeans in particular, only at you as a football fan. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif The reference to body paint in your national colors was only by point of comparison. I was no more saying that all English do this than you were saying all Americans are linedancers. I could have just as easily compared linedancers to the ridiculous American Football fans that dress up in their teams regalia, but that would not given weight to my point that idiotic behavior is not limited to linedancers per se, because as both Groups are primarily made up of Americans they could in fact be the same people. And at any rate it would not have gotten a sufficient reaction out of you, which I have already admitted was at least part of the objective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

An example of a snide comment directed at persons of a specific nationality would be something like pointing out that europeans lack of bladder control is something which is beyond my means to affect. Please note that I do not make this comment except for the purposes of demonstrating the difference to you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I do believe however that this whole debate started in analysing whether or not the United States has true Freedom of Speech and whatever you wish to tell me otherwise, we are back to this proposition.That is in fact where you have attempted to take the debate. But the debate in fact began as a discussion of whether or not the particular offending website should be protected under the right of Freedom of Speech. You have chosen rather than to speak to this point to try and redefine whether we as Americans in fact have this right that the majority of us hold as self-evident.

You can stand by your statements and that is your right. I however, have had this debate dozens of times with Americans and it is interesting that the people who primarily do not believe you have true freedom of speech in the US are your attorneys. I find that interesting.This I cannot speak to other than to point out that making any sort of assumption based on your discussions would be a hasty generalization, which is another logical fallacy. One would have to assume that either you have spoken to every American attorney, or that the opinions they expressed were actually their opinions and not simply polite conversation aimed at not causing you distress, or that their opinion is somehow representative of the opinion of all lawyers in the US. And even assuming those things, it is not uncommon for one that is in a certain field and well versed with it's negative aspects to become jaded to it.

[ July 16, 2002, 20:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

rdouglass

July 16th, 2002, 09:03 PM

ROFLMAO!!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This is GREAT!!! WE WANT MORE...WE WANT MORE!!!!........

geoschmo

July 16th, 2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by rdouglass:
This is GREAT!!! WE WANT MORE...WE WANT MORE!!!!........Heh, you are reading this? I had thought Gt and I chased everyone else out of the room by now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

Ragnarok

July 16th, 2002, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rdouglass:
This is GREAT!!! WE WANT MORE...WE WANT MORE!!!!........Heh, you are reading this? I had thought Gt and I chased everyone else out of the room by now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo<hr /></blockquote>Heck yeah man we're reading this. LOL This is friggin hilarious. It's 10 times better then soaps even though I never watch soaps because they are gay... But it's still better. lol

geoschmo

July 17th, 2002, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Ooh, I think you need to get off your anti-lawyer kick.. lawyers are not overpaid compared to other professionals (eg accountants, actuaries and venture capitalists particularily)...But it's so FUN to kick lawyers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You do know that that is all in jest, no? I would not be so simple minded as to think all lawyers everywhere are overpaid and not worthy of respect. Well, they aren't all overpaid anyway... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Puke, it sounds like you have enough problems of your own... the point I want to make here Geo is that I showed your post on our sports behaviour to 2 germans, 1 belgian and 3 english colleagues... it really was better than laughing gas.. to accuse us of jingoism and patriotric fervour in our sports is an absolute classic, do the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" mean anything to you.
Gt, please do try to keep your comments at least a little bit to the point of the discussion. You keep going off on these tangents where noone else has gone and it makes it terribly inconvient to try and keep things moving along. If you didn't have such a prejudice against all things American you would realize that my comments were in no way directed at British, Belgians or Germans. YOU commented that linedancers showed a lack of intelligence by the actions they partook in persuit of their hobby, and i was merely pointing out that soccer fans show many of the same lacks of mental prowess. Not British soccer fans, just soccer fans in general. I could have said the same thing about American Football fans, except for the part about beating the crap out of each other. For that matter, booing is one thing, but how many people got beat up in Salt Lake City for carrying the wrong flag? I didn't hear about it if it happened at all.

The fact that you don't seem to get is that I am not anti-British. I never even brought up any comments about American fredom of speech being better than European Freedom of Speech. You were the one that opened that particular box unfortunatly. In my mind you either have freedom of speech either or you don't have freedom of speech. It's a human condition, it's not about countries.

Freedom of Speech is constitutionalised in the US, rather than legislated as it is in most european countries.

So you think this means you can say what you like about what you like when you like.

Fine, try it. You try and take your soap box to the middle of your town today and preach on something like kiddy porn. You think you will be free to do so?

WRONG. You will be arrested. Try looking at the US public order offences and see what they really say.You really don't get it do you? We can in fact do that exact thing and will not be arrested. You may have to get a permit or something. The Klu Klux Klan does that very thing several times a year all over the country. And As Baron pointed out,. the perverts at NAMBLA even have their own organisation and everything. It's all protected by law.

Many people think the permits are a tool used by the government to restrict the freedom of speech, and so say they are wrong. That I am sure has happened from time to time, but actually they are there to protect the person wanting to speak those things which are unpopular. It allows the local municipality to prepare for the speech and call in more police protection so the inevitable crowd doesn't turn into a mob and take away the person right to free speech, along with their head.

Where do you get your incorrect ideas about the US? I guess the European press must protray America as some sort of facist police state. I guess if a few shameful incidents get all the TV coverage that is what you would think. I can tell you I live in America, and that's not the way it is.

But even if you don't file a permit and go down town and start preaching on some unpopular topic, you may get arrested, but it WON'T be for the words that you speak Gt. It will be for causing a disturbance. In fact you may not get arrested at all. The cop may simply glare at you and tell you to move along. If you refuse he'll take you away and throw you in jail. The fact is if the cop wasn't there you might get killed, and then he'd have to fill out more paperwork, and cops hate paperwork. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You might spend a night or two and get a fine for public disturbance. But there are no prisons in the US for people that say the wrong things. Hell, there aren't even enough for the real criminals. You will be back on the street in no time.

As a lawyer you must know the difference between constitutionalising something and legalising it. But I'll explain it for the room.

If something is legalised, the government is saying, we have the right to take this away from you if we choose, but we are not going to do that. We will let you do it, for now at least.

Constitutionalising something says, I the government do not have the right to take this right away from you. As long as we are bound by this document I cannot do so. We could as a people ammend the constitution and give the govenrment the right to restrict our freedom of speech if we wanted to, but it would be really stupid to do so.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2002, 13:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Puke

July 17th, 2002, 01:53 AM

does that mean its 10 times more gay, or 1/10th as gay as soaps?

and do you mean "days of our lives" gay, or "90210" gay? or liberachi gay? or perhaps you meant "soap dropped in the prison showers" gay.

whichever it is, im entertained, and i have exclusively been entertained by straight porn before. unless you count lesbian porn, but im not sure this is as good as that.

oops, i was supposed to have left this topic alone. darn.

Ragnarok

July 17th, 2002, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Puke:
does that mean its 10 times more gay, or 1/10th as gay as soaps?

and do you mean "days of our lives" gay, or "90210" gay? or liberachi gay? or perhaps you meant "soap dropped in the prison showers" gay.

whichever it is, im entertained, and i have exclusively been entertained by straight porn before. unless you count lesbian porn, but im not sure this is as good as that.

oops, i was supposed to have left this topic alone. darn.ROFLOL That was great man. Loved it. But gay as in flaming gay, as in a gay guy going "Oh thank god for spandex!" That gay. Gay enough?

DirectorTsaarx

July 17th, 2002, 08:18 PM

The website in question reminded me of a site I found way back in '95, when the public web was still fairly new. It was a site dedicated to "Negative Population Growth", although it advocated far more peaceful measures (without any silly "how fast can you click a mouse button" crap). Anyway, there really is a problem with overpopulation on good ol' planet Earth, and environmentalists all over the world are trying to 1) convince people the problem exists, and b) convince people to SOLVE the problem (generally by birth control, etc. rather than genocide, of course).

I do support one thing stated on the webpage that started this whole debate: the vast majority of people on this planet are not smart. Not smart at all. How these people figure out how to have babies & raise them to an age where the reproductive cycle can keep on rolling is beyond me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And I have to say, the stupid people seem to have more babies than the smart people; probably because the smart people get distracted and spend their time playing games like SE4 rather than having sex with their spouses... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

(Like how I turned this topic back around to Space Empires?)

(Oh - and sorry for the reference to "Mad About You" and the main character's habit of forgetting whether he was "counting" reasons by number or by letter)

Phoenix-D

July 17th, 2002, 10:50 PM

"the vast majority of people on this planet are not smart. Not smart at all. How these people figure out how to have babies & raise them to an age where the reproductive cycle can keep on rolling is beyond me..."

The vast majority of people on this planet live in conditions where they have multiple kids to increase the chance of SOMEONE living long enough to have kids of their own.

Phoenix-D

Baron Munchausen

July 18th, 2002, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:

I do support one thing stated on the webpage that started this whole debate: the vast majority of people on this planet are not smart. Not smart at all. How these people figure out how to have babies & raise them to an age where the reproductive cycle can keep on rolling is beyond me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And I have to say, the stupid people seem to have more babies than the smart people; probably because the smart people get distracted and spend their time playing games like SE4 rather than having sex with their spouses... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

(Like how I turned this topic back around to Space Empires?)

This really depends on your definition of 'smart', doesn't it. People who have babies tend to leave someone behind to have more babies and so their family continues. People who play Space Empires or other computer games in lieu of a social life don't tend to leave any descendants. Who's 'smart' now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 18, 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

capnq

July 18th, 2002, 04:59 AM

Where do you get your incorrect ideas about the US? I guess the European press must protray America as some sort of facist police state. The European press? Try the American entertainment and news media (not that there's that wide a difference between the latter two).

Re: intelligence and reproduction, has anyone else read the classic SF short story "The Marching Morons", by C.M. Kornbluth?

[ July 18, 2002, 04:01: Message edited by: capnq ]

Growltigga

July 18th, 2002, 06:18 PM

Crikey. I do not know what has been discussed on this thread since I posted yesterday, but the symantec firewall software we have has denied me access to about 2 pages of Posts on the basis that they contain restricted material..

What is going on? did Geo simply ruin our fun debate by reverting to simple swearing? has someone got smutty? what is going on?

BTW, in response, the European press does not represent America (generally) as a fascist police state.. what it does do is generally challenge quite a lot of the preconceptions many people have (including many Americans) about their own country. You have to remeber that America is not always well liked in the world community (the government policies, not individual Americans).

Geo, my chums at Cravath Swaine & Moore are going to email me the American Bar Associations recent synopsis on Freedom of Speech. I will send it to you (I have your eddress at home)... you will find it interesting and I will take a can of any non-American beer as a suitable apology)

geoschmo

July 18th, 2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
What is going on? did Geo simply ruin our fun debate by reverting to simple swearing? has someone got smutty? what is going on?It's shame you can't read the current Posts, although with the lack of ability you have shown for staying on topic, perhaps it doesn't really matter that much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

what it does do is generally challenge quite a lot of the preconceptions many people have (including many Americans) about their own country.Yeah, no subjective underpinnings in that statment 'eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Correct me if I am wrong Gt, but to "challange a preconception" don't you have to have a preconception of your own that the other person is wrong?

You have to remeber that America is not always well liked in the world community (the government policies, not individual Americans).I seriously doubt anyone in this country is suffering from that particular "preconception" any longer, if any of us were before.

Geo, my chums at Cravath Swaine & Moore are going to email me the American Bar Associations recent synopsis on Freedom of Speech. I will send it to you (I have your eddress at home)... you will find it interesting and I will take a can of any non-American beer as a suitable apology)Considering my previously admitted too low opinioin of lawyers, your request that I retain my disdain only for the American breed of such, and my previous statements on the subject, do you suppose I would care what the American Bar Association believes on the subject? However, I suppose it would be interesting reading, although you could save the postage and forward me the email. And if you are ever about in Dayton, I'll buy you that beer, but you'll get no apology. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif We can toast to the Freedom of speech that allows these debates to begin with.

Puke

July 18th, 2002, 08:39 PM

geoschmo

July 18th, 2002, 08:50 PM

Maybe there were too many refereances to "kiddie porn" and the european "free speech preventor" engine kicked in and is stopping him from viewing the thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyway, I copied and pasted what he missed in an email and sent it to him. I hope I didn't get him put on some "list" by doing that.

Geoschmo

Growltigga

July 19th, 2002, 12:27 PM

It's shame you can't read the current Posts, although with the lack of ability you have shown for staying on topic, perhaps it doesn't really matter that much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I am pleased I cannot reach the current Posts because my symantec anti-corruption software has blocked it. As this is written by Americans for Americans, I can only assume that you were discussing matters so heinous and disgusting that it really is not fit for public consumption..

As for staying on topic, absolute rhubarb, what is obviously confusing you Geo is the natural progression discussions take, and the way any debating of competing viewpoints will evolve. I shall ask you to keep your left field comments to yourself.

Yeah, no subjective underpinnings in that statment 'eh?

I dont disagree with your statements. We are actually getting on emotive ground (not necessarily for either you or me) here.

There is a very interesting argument here about the 'preconceptions' the average european say developed in the 1950's and 1960's about America, given its obvious strength as a world superpower and the cold war etc. The base discussions that were run (I am recalling my policitics, legal anthropology and public international law courses I did at University) were all on the premis of how world perception of America has changed as the cold war ended, Russia de-hegemonised and the global economy of europe and pacific-rim countries gained in strength. That change of opinion is still ongoing and unfortunately, my personal experience is that it is going somewhat southward

I seriously doubt anyone in this country is suffering from that

I think you are right, now. I dont think the same can be said of quite a few people (senior politicians and otherwise) in the past.

On a side note but related, the subject matter in the "OT I am proud to be an American" thread is a bit disturbing...

do you suppose I would care what the American Bar Association believes on the subject?

No, I dont suppose you would but the interesting point here from my perspective is that I am only reiterating arguments which your countries' own major professional association for legal services have raised.

In your case, as you disdain lawyers, you probably could not give a monkey's danglers for what they say... I just think it is amusing how their arguments reflect are own. The document will be with you shortly.

As for the beer, if I am ever in Dayton, I will join in a glass of expensive imported european/antipodean/central american or south african beer

[ July 19, 2002, 11:32: Message edited by: Growltigga ]

geoschmo

July 19th, 2002, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
As for staying on topic, absolute rhubarb, what is obviously confusing you Geo is the natural progression discussions take, and the way any debating of competing viewpoints will evolve. I shall ask you to keep your left field comments to yourself.I suppose you could see it that way. Of course the "progression" could also be interpreted as the fact that you were totally overwhelmed by my logic and could no longer defend your original supposition, ie. that the website in question is not protected by the first amendment, and instead chose to switch to a more acedemic, and thus easier to defend position about whether or not Americans do in fact enjoy the freedom of speech that they assume to enjoy. If you could explain to me how the one relates to the other except in a purely ancillary way, I would be happy to concede the point. If not I suppose I will claim victory on the first debate as you have consistantly refused to return to it, and we can continue our discourse on the second. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geo

Growltigga

July 19th, 2002, 04:27 PM

Geo, I suppose you could argue this but only as a particularily poor attempt to refute my argument. I am no more overwhelmed by your logic than I have been overwhelmed by my wife's choice of buying "quilted" toiletpaper.

You must remember not to feel like you are sapiens imprimus just because you are a computer nerd who has grappled a couple of blarts in his time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The initial argument was not quite what you suggest. My opening position on this matter was (and I still hold) that a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site.

You then stated that this was perfectly acceptable under the first amendment. I did not raise any question as to whether or not this is the case but chose to base my refutio on questioning whether or not the fact that the first amendment applies affects the outcome from a public policy perspective, and also employed the comparative position under most civil law european legislative systems. That is not an academic supposition, but more a question of application of the relevant national legal systems to your premis.

Since then, we have bandied about various suppositions, the most interesting of which frankly was Puke's confession as to watching to many, ahem, indiscreet movies.

We have still not reached a conclusion about whether or not Americans do in fact enjoy the freedom of speech that they assume to enjoy. You simply claim they do, I claim that the current state of legal thought is that they do not.

On a side note, I recently (this morning) came across a recent UK case which does go to emphasise the fundamentally differing viewpoints between us English and you Americans.

The situation was that one of our public libraries operated 'an internet cafe'. The PC's each had a filter that prohibited access to adult or inappropriate sites. A UK-resident American took the local council to court on the basis that the filter breached her right to freedom of speech and her lawyer quoted recent American cases where this had been the case and the relevant court had oveturned a converse earloier ruling. The English court through this out of court on the basis that anyone is entitled to restrict access on pure public policy issues, and that the claimant would need to show that they had been materially prejudiced by the relevant restriction. The American Bar Associaiton on reporting on this case support the UK view, not the US

geoschmo

July 19th, 2002, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Growltigga:
The initial argument was not quite what you suggest. My opening position on this matter was (and I still hold) that a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site.

You then stated that this was perfectly acceptable under the first amendment.Please note that I made no attempt at a qualitative judgment of this type. I would never assert that sicko humor was "acceptable", "unacceptable", "appropriate", or "inappropriate". These arguments are too subjective and require too much in the way of presuposition on the part of the participants to be suitable for an open debate such as this. My initial point was merely to whether or not it was "permissable" under the principle of free speech. If you ask me whether I think it appropriate, I would agree with you in most cases, as I consider myself a man of decent moral fiber. However, in the specific case of this website I may question that as I have taken the time to review it (the site) more completely since we began our discussion, and I feel now we may have been to harsh in our initial criticism of it.

If this is to be a debate strictly on a legal basis, on whether or not a court (US or UK) could be convinced that this website is not protected under the principle of freedom of speech, then I shall have to conceed you have an advantage on me. However, I will point out that "the law" as you no doubt are aware is constantly shifting sand with which to build a foundation. Many priciples thought immutable by previous generations now are "re-evaluated". You may make an assertion that were a case to come to court today over this issue, your position could be victorius, but that would not make it "right". I conceed this is an idealistic perspective from which to base an argument on my part, but I was suffering from the delusion that ideals were what this discussion was about.

I do find it interesting though that when you make various aside arguments it is permissable under the "progression" of the discussion. But when I attempt to do so, or even redirect your aside back to the previuos point at hand, I am in "left field".

Geo

Growltigga

July 19th, 2002, 05:45 PM

Please note that I made no attempt at a qualitative judgment of this type.

You are quite right. If you had made any qualitative judgement in support of the content of said website, I suspect our debate would be substantially more heated. I am also glad that you are a man of moral fiber (and 2 notches on the headboard to boot!!) as this makes debating with you far more fun than if you were a man of straw with the morals of an alley-kat

My initial point was merely to whether or not it was "permissable" under the principle of free speech.

Exactly, you started this debate on this propostion which takes us back to the prime subject matter of our discussion being, inter alios and summarised, 'do American citizens actually enjoy the level of freedom of speech they think they do?" This is what we are still debating.

With regard to the locii of our discussions, I would point out that primary brake on any application of "fundamental" civil rights of any society is how the legislative body of that society applies them through the relevant judgement-making apparatus. In both our countries, that is left to the courts. Our debate therefore must focus to a greater extent on how the courts seek to restrict freedom of speech and I have sought to provide you with some examples for your own education.

You are right about the changing nature of legal systems. However, laws do not change (or even evolve) that rapidly and therefore, it is a safe basis for a foundation for my position. I will concede that my position today may not be the same as my position in 10 years.

I seek to exapnd and progress this discussion by various related side arguments because I am a highly trained and highly intelligent legal professional and I am, of course, seeking to make these arguements in order to guide you to a rational and balanced consensus. You must remember this and also remember that when you make similar (although not so well constructed or profound) side arguments, it is because you are desparate and are "throwing teddy bears out of pram" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 19, 2002, 16:47: Message edited by: Growltigga ]

geoschmo

July 19th, 2002, 05:53 PM

ROFL!

Gt, I have come to the conclusion that I will never see a satisfactory conclusion to this disagreement short of conceeding the merits of your argument, which I am unable or unwilling to do. I will nevertheless once again affirm that your skill at debate and the speed and sharpness of your wit is close to unparalled in my experience. Bravo Gt, ar as we say in the colonies "You da man!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And with that, I hand you my sword and offer you the honor of the Last word. I ask only that you show me mercy in your parting comments, and look forward to further such discussions on other topics as they may arise in the future.

Geo

Growltigga

July 19th, 2002, 06:02 PM

Geo,

The graciousness with which you have conceded defeat and acknowledged that I am the better man is most impressive and of course, the natural due you should give to your victor.

As discourse with you has been, at the very most, mildly entertaining, I shall return your plaudits with the acknowledgement that you have done very well indeed...... for a colonial.

We have a different expression here in England, and whilst you may not be"da' Man", you are certainly "da' Squirrel" and I shall address you as this from now on.

Onwards to the next debate. How do you fancy leading off on the merits of early Imperial themes in Byzantine choral music?

rdouglass

July 19th, 2002, 07:21 PM

Awww...don't tell me you're done yet! I've been really expanding my vocabulary thru this thread..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

My hat(s) off to both of you. You guys can keep this forum very interesting without talking anything SE.....

capnq

July 20th, 2002, 02:21 AM

a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site I still don't see how one can hold this position and still play any 4X game.

What is your opinion of the "appropriateness" of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement {link} (http://www.vhemt.org/)?

[ July 20, 2002, 01:22: Message edited by: capnq ]

Taz-in-Space

July 20th, 2002, 07:21 AM

Ummmm, rdouglass please don't 'rabble rouse' Geo and the Tigga. They are bad enough as it is!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

(Geo, your body was again headless at the Cantina. ...but don't worry - you have a new 8 armed one now!) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Growltigga

July 23rd, 2002, 10:52 AM

I still don't see how one can hold this position and still play any 4X game.

I dont play against the AI. I play against friends (or one of the cats) and we practice strict Geneva Convention policies. You want to attack a colony? send in Buzz Lightyear of Star Command

What is your opinion of the "appropriateness" of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement {link} (http://www.vhemt.org/)?[/QB] [/QUOTE]

This is not genocide. This is a matter of free will. If people wish not to reproduce, that is their decision. Unfortunately, quite a lot of people (and I am thinking of computer geeks here (carving out Geo "Da Squirrel" from Dayton , Ohio who we know for a computer geek to be a sexual tyrannosauraus) don't get to decide whether they get to reprodcue or not http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . If they choose to exercise this right as they believe it will help reduce global population pressures, that is their decision too.

Again, this is not genocide by any definition of the term (and I have checked the United Nations and public international law definitions before I said this).

As a humourous aside, vive la France is all I can say. A few years ago, the French government was concerned about the national population shrinking. The birthrate was very low and their cunning plan to combat this was to get the state television station to show, ahem, naughty movies late on Friday night to ahem, get people in the mood. Lo and behold, ante-natal classes all over France are chockablock in no time at all..

Now, I believe us English have the problem that although our population is shrinking, it is not shrinking fast enough. I am worried that Tony Blair and the idiots in Parliament will decide that like the French, mood inducing television may help out this problem. Instead of surgically enhanced blarts doing 'their thang' on TV, we are going to get late night programmes showing really ugly people rubbing themselves in chip-fat and doing exciting things like mowing the lawn...

I live in fear

[ July 23, 2002, 10:24: Message edited by: Growltigga ]