Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hate the fact that Sebastian's post got eaten. ~WEG~ I like reading his posts and the flack that come about because of Them! ~grins~ It keeps life interesting. Keep up the interesting posts, Sebastian.
Edit - And what happens? Sebastian's post appears! ~laughter~ It figures.
Glad to entertain. I've never yet met a bee hive that I won't throw a rock at.
|
I hate when I need to speak to my supervisor, and every time I go over to his desk he is either meeting with someone, or has vanished. I swear that the hellspawn has a few levels in ninja, or at the least about 30-40 ranks in hide. Seriously, sometimes he's like 3 feet in front of me, then he rounds a corner and "poof", he's gone!....
Isn't spot a cross-class skill for the undead? I would guess he only has 10-15 ranks in hide but that he is able to remove any shred of humanity from himself (maybe a "soulless" template is applied to those in management) which would render him virtually invisible to the undead unless directly interacting with them. You don't wanna join that type of cult.
FH
|
I hate when I'm trying to eat lunch at work, and everybody at the table is militantly anti my political leanings, and I have to listen to their whiney blathering about issues that they half understand. And I hate that I sit there listening to their whiny blather and don't say anything, because I haven't formulated a well thought out stance or anything, I just know they're full of crap.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hate when I'm trying to eat lunch at work, and everybody at the table is militantly anti my political leanings, and I have to listen to their whiney blathering about issues that they half understand. And I hate that I sit there listening to their whiny blather and don't say anything, because I haven't formulated a well thought out stance or anything, I just know they're full of crap.
How do you know that they aren't articulating ideas that they haven't fully formulated?
I hate that political discourse is so divisive and polarized that people can no longer have civil discussions about politics. I hate that both camps have their own sources of information, discount all information that the other side relies upon, and care more about party loyalty than policies. I hate that the same policy can be enacted by two different politicians, and that people will respond based on partisan feelings rather than the substance of the policy.
I hate propoganda, I hate smug political positions, and I hate the idea that because someone disagrees with you they are the enemy.
\If I heard a real position I'd consider a "rational discourse."
I got a rash from intercourse once. Does that count?
I hate that I am repsonsible for doing my job and the jobs of the electrical engineer and the wiring personnel. Learn to read a frikkin schematic for Pelor's sake. It's your job to wire something from a drawing, learn how to read the motherf***er. And if you're going to design something on paper, try looking at the actual physical components once in a while so you have a frikkin clue as to what goes where.
And I hate that my sailor mouth gets censored so I have to type stupid things like 'frikkin' and motherf***er.
***EDIT: I guess in this case it would be my sailor fingers not my sailor mouth...***
Was it a real position?\If I heard a real position I'd consider a "rational discourse."I got a rash from intercourse once. Does that count?
It was doggy with the half-troll template. Luckily the regeneration worked in my favor... ALL NIGHT LONG!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I just know. And I sat and listened to it for 15 minutes and didn't say anything, so I'm not the jerk here.
And all those things you say you hated, I hate them too.
And I know what propaganda is. I hear it every day.
If I heard a real position I'd consider a "rational discourse."
What exactly is a "real position?" I find that when people use that term, what they mean is "my position." Do you really think there is a justifiable position that exists opposite of yours, or do you think that those holding such positions are not aware of the same "facts" of which you are aware?
Can someone just state their position simply? Like if I say "The Iraq War was unjustified" is that a position that is defensible or is that not a real position?
I don't mean to pick at you Heathanson, I respect you and your posts. I get frustrated with the way that the right sees a big anti-right Godless media conspiracy and the left sees a bunch of ignorant Jesus-freaks who don't know any better and neither side bothers to listen.
The whole pidgeon holing in politics just pisses me off. I was told that I cannot be a "conservative democrat." The right wing lugheads tell me that if I believe in anything liberal, I'm a Godless anti-American and the left wingers tell me that my belief in a strong military and the support of the 2nd amendment make me a kool-aid drinking Bush lover.
Everyone wants to shove people into three categories:
1) Conservative Republican right wing religious nut jobs
2) Liberal democrat tree hugging dope smokers
3) Indecisive, cowardly moderates
Sorry people--life is too complicated to make it that simple. I'm a conservative democrat if you judge my voting record...which means that I'll vote Republican if I think the Democrat is an idiot. The whole political process is turning into a year long WWF match, with the blood sucking media feeding on it like a f&$@ing piranha. Up yours CNN, up yours Fox News, up yours Rush Limbaugh and up yours Cindy Sheehan. All of you STFU and someone please just report the news and leave us alone.
I don't mean to pick at you Heathanson, I respect you and your posts. I get frustrated with the way that the right sees a big anti-right Godless media conspiracy and the left sees a bunch of ignorant Jesus-freaks who don't know any better and neither side bothers to listen.
I am personally of the opinion that the Right and the Left are creations of the media. 98% of the people I know (the other 2% being those jerks who the media base their ideas of the Right and the Left on) aren't so polarized that they can't have a civilized discussion, even if they disagree vehemently on the way things are done/being done/should be done.
I disagree with my brother and mother and father and sister in law when it comes to politics, but I still love them. I still get invited to their cook-outs (and not just because I’m married to their daughter/sister/sister-in-law, but because I like them and they like me). They are very Republican (they're Cuban, so that's a big part of it - Democrats are one step away from Communism to them and Clinton was the anti-christ while he was in office). I, on the other hand, only recently discovered that my own personal leanings are rather heavily Democrat in flavor and after many many MANY years of being an Independent, finally switched to one of the major parties (because it was right to do so, finally).
We disagree on a lot.
I think the war was pointless. It has caused more chaos than there was beforehand. The people of Iraq are suffering more under our "kind, democratic" leadership than they ever did before (yes, thanks to those lunatic terrorists who think that evil and terror are ways to rule - not something our brilliant politico-tacticians thought of).
Afghanistan is a struggle that won't go away. I think Bush makes up his mind based on only the information he wants to hear (proof of that can be found in the fact that he so rarely ever allows non-supporters to attend his functions - can't stand hearing opposing viewpoints). I think he's swung America into a dangerous direction with his unilateralism. I think he's damaged our image to the rest of the world. I think he's spent so much time and effort trying to "be remembered" by making a difference in the world at large that he forgot to take care of the people at home.
I think the entire climate, both Republican and Democrat, in Washington DC is corrupt. Too much money, too many debts owed, too many backroom dealings. I don't know what can be done, and I know that those who go into politics, in general, don't have that corruption in mind when they start - that it seeps into what they're doing as one favor plays into another, plays into another...
I think terrorists are animals who should be shot on site, regardless of what they are fighting for. If you are willing to use innocent deaths or injuries as a basis for 'making yourself heard' then you are a cruel, inhumane being who shouldn't be listened to anyway.
I believe in the Death Penalty. I believe in Three Strikes (I'm from California, which is now dealing with an exploding prison population thanks to people like me who voted on that and didn't consider the repercussions on the already over-crowded prison system but can't think of any other way to fix it except building more prisons, which will take years to accomplish).
I believe in the right to an abortion. I don't think it's the right thing to do and I've been involved in one, so I know both sides of that story - you don't have to get on a high horse. I don't, however, think that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, regardless of their religious affiliation or beliefs. You shouldn't force your beliefs on anyone else if they don't want you to. It's never been right. It never will be right.
You may disagree with me on any or all of these items. Feel free to do so. This is a free country and that is what FREEDOM means. You have the right to flame me all you want. I also have the right to ignore you all I want.
Basically – civil discourse on a disagreement leads to compromise, which leads to a final outcome everyone can (hopefully) live with. The problem these days, as I see it, is that no one is willing to even listen to WHY people have the feelings they have that led them to that decision.
The why is more important than the decision, to be honest. It is what founded the formation of that decision and gave it the impetus it has in someone’s mind. Arguing against it is arguing against the foundation that gave that individual their point of view and is not likely to change their mind without a tremendous amount of conversation, give and take, and mutual understanding that neither side is out to destroy the other.
Unfortunately, at least in America these days, the media have decided that the only way for change to occur is for it to be in a combative environment, since that makes for good press.
That is why I don’t tend to listen much to the media and when I do, I read several different sites to get several different takes on the same story.
Ramble off.
Syrinx
(I’d really rather not have flames aimed in my direction – my comments were targeted at the conversation about civilized conversation – if you start a flame war, then you’ve obviously missed the point)
I get frustrated with the way that the right sees a big anti-right Godless media conspiracy and the left sees a bunch of ignorant Jesus-freaks who don't know any better and neither side bothers to listen.
"Hello, my name is the Jade."
"Hello, The Jade.""It's been two minutes since my last frustration..."
Fact, is... both camps often do camp out in the very stereotypical states you mentioned above. It it rare to find someone who can just talk about the issues.
Politics itself has become somewhat faith based. I don't mean right wing. I mean faith based. To disagree with someone else's position and want to discuss it is to invite wrath. Not intellectual scorn; rather, it's as if you insulted their mommy.
I am no one to talk. I have my own rules about who gets to play with me. I expect others to have put the same effort into attempting to recognize the truth from the bullpuckey as I have. These days when someone spouts administration talking points at me, which hit my hear vaguely like the sound of a sheep baaing, I just stand down. I've learned that trying to delve into an issue with people who wind up displaying only a facile understanding of the subject doesn't do anyone any good at all. I can't learn from people who refuse to learn from me. And yes, I decide what is facile.
Easier to just wait till I'm back in my own house and shout invectives at the latest world news, be it political, environmental, or entertainment. I bark till I'm hoarse then sing a gravelly dirge.
Though personally leaning more left than right... when I see a gentle academic challenge leveled at certain positions held by my friends on the left I am surprised how erratic and angry they can become just over having the position even questioned. As if any challenge was impertinent. I remember a guy telling me that Governor Pataki, just before he was elected governor in New York, would become the next Mussolini.
What? What did you just say? Could either of us even imagine you qualifying that?
Positions are often overqualified by official sources from the left and the right and whatsoever you're arguing for or against with others you're often not dealing with what I would call a true personal opinion based on actual calculations and the careful filtering of facts. You're running schnozfirst into a pre-generated wall of promulgated fabrications.
My door is always open for others to explain to me that one of my sources was wrong. Know what I do then? I actually call up people I've mentioned mistaken information to and correct myself. Seems only fair, no?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I believe in the right to an abortion. I don't think it's the right thing to do and I've been involved in one, so I know both sides of that story - you don't have to get on a high horse. I don't, however, think that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, regardless of their religious affiliation or beliefs. You shouldn't force your beliefs on anyone else if they don't want you to. It's never been right. It never will be right.
That reminds me of one of my other rants - people who are pro-life but have had an abortion. Wtf? Particularly when they are unrepentant about their own abortion but holier than though about everyone else's. And in my experience, it's not as if they change their view because they had an abortion. Generally, they're pro-life, they get pregnant, they decide to abort the pregnancy, and they continue being pro-life. If it were someone that had such a terrible experience with abortion that they went from being pro-choice or on the fence to being pro-life, I could sympathize more. It's one thing to say you shouldn't make the same bad decision I did, it's another to say that my decision and your decision are different animals altogether.
I hate that when I say something about how bad off the environment is, people perform the well meant kindness of intoning the name of Al Gore and say they really ought to go see his movie.
Al Gore is not the environment. Though I do understand the mistake, as he is somewhat tree-like.
|
|
I am no one to talk. I have my own rules about who gets to play with me. I expect others to have put the same effort into attempting to recognize the truth from the bullpuckey as I have. These days when someone spouts administration talking points at me, which hit my hear vaguely like the sound of a sheep baaing, I just stand down. I've learned that trying to delve into an issue with people who wind up displaying only a facile understanding of the subject doesn't do anyone any good at all. I can't learn from people who refuse to learn from me. And yes, I decide what is facile.
Thanks for saying what I would've took two hours to try to figure out how to say, and pulled off about 1/100th as eruditely.
And thanks, too, to Sebastian, for always being there to make me make good and dang sure I got any business popping off at the mouth whatsoever.
Thanks for saying what I would've took two hours to try to figure out how to say, and pulled off about 1/100th as eruditely.
And thanks, too, to Sebastian, for always being there to make me make good and dang sure I got any business popping off at the mouth whatsoever.
Well thank you again for your kind words, friend.
Oh yes, rant... I hate that food companies use a 'natural' red food dye called carmine or cochineal extract which they always fail to explain is beetles. If I wanted to eat a beetle I'd b!@w Ringo.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And thanks, too, to Sebastian, for always being there to make me make good and dang sure I got any business popping off at the mouth whatsoever.
Ditto. You always manage to turn my most offensive posts into a joke and keep a thread going in a friendly direction despite my efforts to move the conversation elsewhere. I appreciate your efforts to thwart my worst cases of bastardology.
Director of Narrative
|
A rant in two parts:
*Arrgh!*
I hate that in such an amazing group of witty thinkers we still feel we need to use words like "both" and "either" and phrases like "one or the other" when talking about representitive democracies. Let's, as a country, seriously start thinking a little bit bigger. Three, four - heck even ten parties. The "two" party system has obviously failed most of its supporters and nostalgia is the only thing keeping these people voting that way.
I hate that a guy can take 3 shots at a moving target with a bolt-action rifle and the last one is the most accurate. I hate that a fertilizer bomb can destroy eight, 8x8 steel-reinforced concrete supports from 15-30' away. I hate that modified kerosene melts high grade steel.
I hate that news is entertainment and real journalism is sidelined.
I hate that most people could give a damn as long as their AC and TV are working.
Part Two:
I hate that my campaign is ending early and when polled most every player present sided with one guy's opinion, but then later called me and expressed different sentiments.
I hate that the past three weeks of preparation will be completely un-used because I have to "wrap it up quick like".
I hate that soon I'll be too busy to play regularly because of Ren Faire.
I hate that vintage men's clothes are 100times more difficult to find than women's clothes. ( And I have no time to sew since I'm radically altering my game. )
I hate that ya'll haven't gotten that teleport thingy working so we can all play together.
Eh, guess I'm done. (Not really a ranter, I always end up feeling silly.)
|
|
Daigle, my advice: save whatever you have of the three weeks' prep stuff. This comes from a guy who for years chucked everything after the characters killed it. What a moron me was.
You never know what will be useful in a new incarnation of the game/campaign/whatever.
And it NEVER seems like it will be there again--whatever the spark was that made it happen--but the magic always returns in some form.
I hate that in such an amazing group of witty thinkers we still feel we need to use words like "both" and "either" and phrases like "one or the other" when talking about representitive democracies. Let's, as a country, seriously start thinking a little bit bigger. Three, four - heck even ten parties. The "two" party system has obviously failed most of its supporters and nostalgia is the only thing keeping these people voting that way.
I don't think people see it that way because they want to, or due to lack of vision. I think they see it that way because it's the prevailing reality. Grass roots movements and upstart parties can be enticing, but nothing really ever gets in the way of the two party boy's club. I've always wanted a major shift in paradigm and I've worked toward that goal but it just never works out--not on my shift anyway--which I think sucks the marrow out of mammoth bones but whaddumIgonnado? It isn't a bring-Tinkerbell-back-from-the-death-by-wishing-hard-enough-type process. If it was I'd sit in the middle of my rug in my lucky underoos every day all day with the puckered, breath-holding, constipated look of of a true believer. Man, I'd come off so sincere the Great Pumpkin would even choose my pumpkin patch. But every time a third party shows up to ball it gets marginalized because their man screws up in a way that their PR firms can't handle. Ventura gets elected governor as an independent (am I right about that?) but then it's all publically offered 'nympho skanks and weed strains I have loved' anecdotes. Perot sees armed men in the bushes and suddenly he's a paranoid gnome. Nader lacks allegiance to any idea greater than the great Nader (as if he's the first politician to so suffer).
And so, when everyone comes up to me talking about a choice between this person and that person... they've set the common reality. Sure its progammed devisiveness but it's also what's for dinner. On the national stage the competition is usually between two candidates. That's all anyone talks about in the real world. Not, "Will Gus Hall on the communist ticket give the Dems a run for their money this election?"
Republicans and Democrats have completely traded some of their core philosophies over the years and yet the nostalgia you mentioned endures. It reeks of historical amnesia. I guess if anyone out there is all hot for the traditional politcal zoomorphic icons they could just start a cult to Thomas Nast, who drew up the Democrat's donkey, the Republican's elephant, helped to bring down Boss Tweed in NYC with his scathing tiger of Tammany Hall cartoons, and also created the look of the modern day American Santa Claus. I'm all for being nostalgic about good art. Yet Democrat and Republican politicians so often appear to be only slightly different looking handpuppets both being worked simultaneously by Ol' Man McGreedypants that if there were more handpuppets I'm afraid I'd just think he'd grown more hands. Poor jaded Jade. So jaded I added the indefinite article just to feel... one... last... time.
::cue theme from Love Story::
They don't use that on those sundae cherries, do they?
Oh yes, rant... I hate that food companies use a 'natural' red food dye called carmine or cochineal extract which they always fail to explain is beetles. If I wanted to eat a beetle I'd b!@w Ringo.
Last time I checked Maraschino cherries used red dye.
But I was halfway down a glass of some Dole Strawberry Banana juice before I thought to read the label. Great.
"If you like Beetle Colada! Takin' walks in the rain."
Jade:
Do you eat shrimp, crabs or lobsters? I have always thought that they are just sea-bugs.
(Yes, I know that they are crustaceans. But that makes them kissin' cousins to arachnids, insects and myriapods)
Oh a double true dat to you, Bill.
I'm a veggie. But even when I wasn't, back before 1981, I'd always called shrimp 'cucarachas del mar'. If they aren't mer-roaches, I don't know what is. I raised sea monkeys as a kid and that was like having an ant farm sans risk of cave-ins.
In d20 Alternity, eating that red dye is going to turn the hapless unwitting masses into beetle-headed khepri a la Perdido Street Station.
Both Burroughs'--Edgar R. AND William S.--tried to warn us.
But did we listen? Nooooooooooo!rant done. gotta move before the beetles find me.
I had a naked lunch once. Libertaing to be sure, but having to fish out potato chip crumbs from the briar patch was no joy, lemme tell ya.
|
I am personally of the opinion that the Right and the Left are creations of the media. 98% of the people I know (the other 2% being those jerks who the media base their ideas of the Right and the Left on) aren't so polarized that they can't have a civilized discussion, even if they disagree vehemently on the way things are done/being done/should be done.
I agree. I think most people in this country are centrists, with the tendency to lean either right or left on certain issues. I do tend to lean a little more to the right, myself, but I like to think I am reasonable.
I think the war was pointless. It has caused more chaos than there was beforehand. The people of Iraq are suffering more under our "kind, democratic" leadership than they ever did before (yes, thanks to those lunatic terrorists who think that evil and terror are ways to rule - not something our brilliant politico-tacticians thought of).
I have to disagree with you on that point. Hussein was a murderous dictator with delusions of empire. The mass graves, torture rooms, and first-hand accounts of suffering have shown just how brutal that SOB was. At least now the people of Iraq have a choice in how they want to live. That some are suffering there is no doubt. But remember, the media loves to promote disaster and suffering because they think it makes better news/entertainment. Of course they are going to make it seem like everything over there is much worse. It's good for ratings.
Afghanistan is a struggle that won't go away. I think Bush makes up his mind based on only the information he wants to hear (proof of that can be found in the fact that he so rarely ever allows non-supporters to attend his functions - can't stand hearing opposing viewpoints). I think he's swung America into a dangerous direction with his unilateralism. I think he's damaged our image to the rest of the world. I think he's spent so much time and effort trying to "be remembered" by making a difference in the world at large that he forgot to take care of the people at home.
Where to start? Afganistan should be a struggle that won't go away. Democracy always is. Even here in America we constantly struggle to keep alive our democracy, we just don't always use bombs and bullets. The problem is that we aren't being harsh enough with the terrorists. It's much the same in Iraq. And I'm not sure where people keep getting this "unilateralism" idea from. We had (and still have) allies in Afganistan and Iraq. We are (mistakenly) allowing the UN to play a role in the attempts at peace between Israel and Hezbollah. We have at least 4 other countries helping out with the negotiations with that lunatic in North Korea. Where is the unilateralism? The President hasn't purposely tried to damage our reputation with the rest of the world. Instead he has tried to do what he thinks is best for the country. The ones trying to savage our rep are the tyrants, would-be tyrants, and terrorists in China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuala, Cuba. Why? Beacuse we stand in their way.
I will agree with you though, that the President needs to listen to some different people. He is allowing the US to be way to easy on terrorists, the UN, and a host of others.
I think the entire climate, both Republican and Democrat, in Washington DC is corrupt. Too much money, too many debts owed, too many backroom dealings. I don't know what can be done, and I know that those who go into politics, in general, don't have that corruption in mind when they start - that it seeps into what they're doing as one favor plays into another, plays into another...
I almost agree with you here. I think that maybe, just maybe, there are a few good people left in DC. They are few and far between however, and their voices are far to quiet. However, I think that some people are already corrupt when they get there (i.e. Jack Abramoff, John Edwards).
I think terrorists are animals who should be shot on site, regardless of what they are fighting for. If you are willing to use innocent deaths or injuries as a basis for 'making yourself heard' then you are a cruel, inhumane being who shouldn't be listened to anyway.
I couldn't agree with you more. I just wish the President thought the same thing. Obviously he does not, or we wouldn't have pushed Israel into this farce of a peace deal with those Hezbollah a&%+@%#s.
I believe in the Death Penalty. I believe in Three Strikes (I'm from California, which is now dealing with an exploding prison population thanks to people like me who voted on that and didn't consider the repercussions on the already over-crowded prison system but can't think of any other way to fix it except building more prisons, which will take years to accomplish).
I believe in the right to an abortion. I don't think it's the right thing to do and I've been involved in one, so I know both sides of that story - you don't have to get on a high horse. I don't, however, think that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, regardless of their religious affiliation or beliefs. You shouldn't force your beliefs on anyone else if they don't want you to. It's never been right. It never will be right.
Once again, I agree.
As far as the Death Penalty goes, when they say it is not a deterrant, I usually respond with "That's because they don't use it enough."
As far as abortion goes, I think it is nothing less than insanity. You're correct though. People have the right to it as long as it is legal. And I don't like these super-fanatic idiots who threaten or kill abortion doctors. They are nothing more than hypocrites.
You may disagree with me on any or all of these items. Feel free to do so. This is a free country and that is what FREEDOM means. You have the right to flame me all you want. I also have the right to ignore you all I want.
Basically – civil discourse on a disagreement leads to compromise, which leads to a final outcome everyone can (hopefully) live with. The problem these days, as I see it, is that no one is willing to even listen to WHY people have the feelings they have that led them to that decision.
The why is more important than the decision, to be honest. It is what founded the formation of that decision and gave it the impetus it has in someone’s mind. Arguing against it is arguing against the foundation that gave that individual their point of view and is not likely to change their mind without a tremendous amount of conversation, give and take, and mutual understanding that neither side is out to destroy the other.
Unfortunately, at least in America these days, the media have decided that the only way for change to occur is for it to be in a combative environment, since that makes for good press.
For lack of a better word - Amen!
Wow. I spent the night wondering if I was going to get flamed and I get a rational discussion on the items. Kudos to you, Aberzombie! ^_^
One reason why my in-laws and I get along so well is that we have discussions about where the country is going, listen to the opposing ideas about why and then nod and shake our head, taking that viewpoint into consideration.
The one very important thing to realize about Mr. Bush and his actions is this - No matter how much you might hate the results he is getting, only he knows exactly why and how he came to the conclusions he did or does and only he has the power to enact them on the world stage. Whether you think he was put into power by a series of wierd circumstances (as some think) or by a conspiracy (as others), he's there now, and while he's there, he has the ability to do what he wants. All the rest of us can do is talk about it and decide what to do (and try to figure out what can be done).
Regarding the death penalty - It has been mentioned on this thread that prison isn't always a deterrent. If it WAS a dungeon cell with bread and water, less people would be willing to risk going back. If the death penalty was seen as terrifyingly painful, less people would risk it. If the punishment fit the crime, less people would be willing to risk it.
America and the Western World, in our attempt to seem "civilized" and "humane" even to our prisoners (who have already shown an inability to function within that civilized and humane world) has weakened its own deterrence system such that there is little deterrence for some, if not many.
Heck, if I ever find myself homeless and destitute, rather than spend the rest of my life on the streets freezing in winter, frying in summer and starving all the time, I might commit some crime to get me sent to prison where I'd have a roof over my head, air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter. Sounds like a decent deal to me...
Syrinx
(who thinks we should bring back the Bastille to terrify would-be criminals into NOT DOING IT)
|
|
Wow. I spent the night wondering if I was going to get flamed and I get a rational discussion on the items. Kudos to you, Aberzombie! ^_^
One reason why my in-laws and I get along so well is that we have discussions about where the country is going, listen to the opposing ideas about why and then nod and shake our head, taking that viewpoint into consideration.
The one very important thing to realize about Mr. Bush and his actions is this - No matter how much you might hate the results he is getting, only he knows exactly why and how he came to the conclusions he did or does and only he has the power to enact them on the world stage. Whether you think he was put into power by a series of wierd circumstances (as some think) or by a conspiracy (as others), he's there now, and while he's there, he has the ability to do what he wants. All the rest of us can do is talk about it and decide what to do (and try to figure out what can be done).
Regarding the death penalty - It has been mentioned on this thread that prison isn't always a deterrent. If it WAS a dungeon cell with bread and water, less people would be willing to risk going back. If the death penalty was seen as terrifyingly painful, less people would risk it. If the punishment fit the crime, less people would be willing to risk it.
America and the Western World, in our attempt to seem "civilized" and "humane" even to our prisoners (who have already shown an inability to function within that civilized and humane world) has weakened its own deterrence system such that there is little deterrence for some, if not many.
Heck, if I ever find myself homeless and destitute, rather than spend the rest of my life on the streets freezing in winter, frying in summer and starving all the time, I might commit some crime to get me sent to prison where I'd have a roof over my head, air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter. Sounds like a decent deal to me...
Syrinx
(who thinks we should bring back the Bastille to terrify would-be...
Hmmmm......
This is more of a free-form reply, instead of a point-by point discussion, form a non-US citizen (though sympathetic - I am a UK Conservative, though that is a party name with different connotations than in America, which might even consider me a liberal).
I broadly agree with the War on Terror - following 9/11 there could be no other response. However, I personally believe that hubris and diabolical planning resulted in the current chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan (please step forward Mr Rumsfeld) but I certainly don't believe that the attacks were unjustified. I hate the real cock-up that has gone on in these states, and from my perception much of it was avoidable. Lives have been lost needlessly, security is awful, and the international situation arguably worse than it was before. My beef lies in the execution, rather than the original decision. But no one appear to be being held accountable, and that grates - maybe forthcoming elections will rectify that.
On the other hand, I hate the terrorists. By what right do you decide to kill me, a person you don't know and who has done you no harm, to justify some twisted religious message? It just beggers belief. Personally, the only time I would agree with Karl Marx is in his assertion that religion is the "opiate of the masses". Read this book, listen to this message, and check your brain at the door. My view is that the world would be better without religion - all religion. The horrors perpetrated in the name of God, Allah or whatever surely indicate that this superstitious drivel is much more trouble than it is worth. Frankly, I reckon a large part of Tony Blair's decision to involve us in the Middle East is based on his lunatic Catholicism, and everyone knows about George W and his "mission". Religion rots objectivity.
On crime and punishment, I'm not particularly convinced by the death penalty. I would hardly step up and defend the rights of serial killers, but I think a country that stoops to capital punishment is somehow diminished. Everyone has rights, inluding those accused and convicted of crimes. If that is eroded, society as a whole suffers. The death penalty in the US is a fairly sick carnival apparently designed to benefit attorneys rather than anyone else. Locked up for 20 years while the processes of law grind slowly - and then they execute you anyway. On the flip-side, you have murderers, child-molesters and rapists released after a couple of years over here, and that hardly seems the right response either. It is easy to be glib in this debate - the issues are tricky: is a felon entitled to a chance at redemption or not?
And while I am at it - Israel and Lebanon. Another far-from-clear-cut situation. Hezbollah - Islamic terrorists. Israel - lone democracy (more or less) in the Near East. But.... Israel was founded by the terroristic expulsion (ethnic cleansing if you will) of the resident arabs from Palestine on the basis (get this) that the area belonged to the Jews 2000 years before. Yeah right. Imagine how you would feel if someone kicked you out of your home on such a pretext. Maybe the Italians still own the whole of Europe on that basis? But.... Hezbollah and Hamas or whatever are genuiniely terroristic organisations, and Israel is a genuine democracy. You can tied in knots in this one - both have right and wrong on their sides.
Conclusion: the world is a confusing place. I don't think the simplistic answers work. The situation is too complicated to encapsulate with blunt solutions. While I respect your right (and mine) to rant, the issues are too subtle for that.
Oh yes, but ban religion.
I have to say that even from the beginning I disagreed with the war in Iraq. But I really hoped that I would be proven wrong once things got going. No such luck. The impression that I get is that it just wasn't planned out nearly as thoroughly as it should have been. Bush really did think that he would just go in, knock out Saddam and be greeted as a liberator. Beyond that, no plans for what to do afterwards, no idea how to prevent sectarian violence once the dictatorship was gone and no idea when we would get out. I won't even get into the ever shifting rationale. I'm definitely not a fan of dictatorship, but how can you bring democracy to a group of people that don't want it? The very idea of democracy is that everyone wants to participate. As it stands, the majority still prefers a theocracy or dictatorship, or they simply want to live their lives in peace regardless of the government which isn't something we have managed to provide for them.
Wars over religion, like the Crusades, are particularly absurd. It's a large scale arguement about who has the best imaginary friend. I can understand (but not condone) war over territory or resources. But ideals and philosophy are so subjective and open to interpretation that I can't imagine being so certain that I would be willing to kill or die over them. I'm too interested in the discussion. Then again, I live in an advanced country with the freedom to have that discussion and I've grown up with more than just an ideology to cling to.
Henry Rollins said it best when he stated that Fox News gets such good ratings because it's like poor man's Comedy Central. A rerun of Mad TV comes on and I usually have a better viewing experience clicking over to the O'Reilly Factor and laughing myself silly. I would be here for hours enumerating why I disagree with every word out of that guy's mouth.
I disagree with the death penalty because I personally find a lot of truth in French Existentialism and how Camus and Sartre spoke out against the death penalty. As soon as the state kills an innocent man, all citizens of that state are guilty of murder because of their support of that system. And I am certain that the United States Government has put more than one innocent person to death.
WOW a thread with the sole purpose of being mean and insulting, talking crap about game settings and the creators of those settings, the new and different things they bring to D&D, and how our players (or DMs) are ruining everything.
BOO HOO already. Grow up. Stop playing, or change it. Don't buy those optional books, but who cares if someone else does? Don't like this setting or that setting? Okay. But aside from "making you feel better" when you talk crap about it, what does it really accomplish... nothing. It is what it is. I used to allow 4d6 drop the lowest... stopped that when I got too many uber-players. Now it's point buy, and everyone is okay with that (in my game.) I've DM-ed in 2nd edition, 3rd edition, and now 3.5 no one held any sort of gun to my head when I willing bought the books and supplements I bought. Do I have lots of D&D merchandise. You bet'cha! Am I ever going to run enough games or play in enough games that I'll be able to utilize it all. No way. (It'd be a full time job just trying to.) I guess my rant is that I'm tired of all of these rants. They are more like excuses to say crappy things and sling insults. Great if you feel better afterwards, can we move on and talk about... oh I dunno... any-friggin'-thing else?
I HATE SOGGY BREAD!!!!!!!
*pants*
Thank you. I feel so much better.
|
|
WOW a thread with the sole purpose of being mean and insulting, talking crap about game settings and the creators of those settings, the new and different things they bring to D&D, and how our players (or DMs) are ruining everything.
BOO HOO already. Grow up.
...
I guess my rant is that I'm tired of all of these rants. They are more like excuses to say crappy things and sling insults. Great if you feel better afterwards, can we move on and talk about... oh I dunno... any-friggin'-thing else?
Um, you may not have noticed this is one thread in out of a couple hundred... Overall these Paizo boards are an amazingly friendly and welcoming community of people who share the hobby. Very few threads her get snarky and pissy (especially compared to other sites). This tends to be the one spot where people can play the 'B!tch Freely' card.
Granted, that's your rant, you are just as entitled to it as anyone else here, so it's well placed in this category. Sorry if there was irony/sarcasm that I wasn't picking up on.
*Tears cold compress away and savages it with sharp pointy teeth*
I HATE COLD COMPRESSES!!!!!! AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
My kids are driving me (MORE) insane today...
Does it show?
I
AM
NUMBER
ONE HUNDRED YAY!!!!