FaramirK

I think "we" [read: Global Community] already have the means to...if we could somhow co-operate. There are always going to be countries like North Korea that will happily starve their population and sped money on weapons...until the US decides they are a threat to US Security and forcibly makes democracies out of them. How about you all? Would you support your country going to war against any government that was butchering its own people, or pretend it didn't happen, like everybody did during the Khimer Rouge in Cambodia? (I'm not suggesting the reason behind the war on Iraq was at all noble, merely asking if you'd support going to war to stop local/national genocide). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is a tough call. Generally local communities loath interference from any outsiders, and will actively oppose them in spite of the local political situation -- except in rare, extreme cases, when most of them would probably be more involved dealing with the more pressing issue of staying alive, such as Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge dictatorship, from the revolution in 1975, till he fled the Vietnamese in 1979. The thorny issue is who decides when to intervene? When does a government become an unwelcome / unrepresented / indefensible organisation? The UN decides? With the existing Security Council vetoes? China is particularly wary of any interventionist actions (can you say "Tibet", boys and girls?) and specifically blocks all such debate: the only reason they are onboard with the North Korean disarmament talks is because they share a border with these poor people with the nutters still running the asylum. The only security action ever passed before the first Gulf War, to push the Iraq forces out of Kuwait, was the Korean "police action", and that was passed when Moscow had temporarily boycotted the UN. The Balkan crisis of 1999 was not sanctioned by the UN; it was a NATO conflict operating outside UN durisdiction. So there you have the dilemma defined: try sorting out Northern Island or Somalia by wading in with a peace-keeping force, or preventing China from annexing territory it belives to be sovereign without starting WWIII. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All excellent points...I guess the best option would be to create as free a society as possible and then find a way to allow mass immigration of Assylam seekers without overcrowding the job/housing market. To be honest, with Russia's vast land and resources and falling population, I don't see why we couldn't pull it off if our leaders would stop living in a vodka induced stupor...that way oppressed people could find refuge, our hypothetical "bastion of liberty" would grow stronger and stronger, and we wouldn't have to wade into blood-baths on the other side of the world, and try to create minatures of ourselves. Thoughts?

I think "we" [read: Global Community] already have the means to...if we could somhow co-operate. There are always going to be countries like North Korea that will happily starve their population and sped money on weapons...until the US decides they are a threat to US Security and forcibly makes democracies out of them. How about you all? Would you support your country going to war against any government that was butchering its own people, or pretend it didn't happen, like everybody did during the Khimer Rouge in Cambodia? (I'm not suggesting the reason behind the war on Iraq was at all noble, merely asking if you'd support going to war to stop local/national genocide).

Ok, if that wasn't your intention, then so be it. Call it a misunderstanding. In my opinion, pro-abortion is far more vocally popular than an anti-abortion stance, especially here in Russia. A baby is not self-sufficient. It is helpless. The court of law illustration was in slight mockery of your implied statement that babies are self-sufficient and unborn infants are not. In my mind, they are both helpless, and very much alive. I think that live is sacred, and that society should treasure it more than anything. Society should take better care of orphans, for sure. Ok. I didn't say you did, I just said that those reasons were not justification for abortion. Once again, I think the sanctity of life is more important than personal convenience, but we could argue this forever. I actually mentioned this earlier. While I would advise against abortion, the right must remain with the woman. In this case, no one has the right to force a woman to do anything. Well, sin is a religious issue, so lets not go there, because no religion should be forced on anyone, imo. I will say that thay have to suffer the consequences of their actions, and not try and erase it. Again, if that is the case, very well. I just didn't think you came across that clearly as to who was your target. As a side note, you only have a limited number of quotes per post, so you can split you post in two and the quote boxs wll appear - didn't know this myself until recently.

It's called debate. My quoting of his post and answering it is a part of debate - it is called rebuttal. I was over-emphasising the stupidity of his illustration - and its not a flawed debating technique...it correctly invalidates one of his points. No. Yes, it is. Yes, nature seems cruel to us emotive beings. No, nature is not capable of morality. Yes, your point is, like Jayque's, redundant. No, that wasn't his point. His point was "if you think abortion is murder, your a cold, uncaring, immature villian." But this isn't just a thread about abortion...would any of you be willing to sacrifce some modern conveniences if a green governemt came to power and suggested it, like better public transport and cutting down on multiple cars per family?

I inquired with my better half, and yes, you can have two men/women kiss etc in the Sims, but I'd hardly herald the Sims series as a groundbreaking treatse on portraying serious relationships in videogames... :D But look on the bright side, now I can spend $50 on a video game instead of thousands on real home improvements/shopping sprees etc.

You should. It really is supercoolmegawhoppingubertotallyawesome. I can't find that word in my english dictionary, and yet it seems so perfect for describing AC...

So how 'bout them homosexual video game characters? Actually, maybe Jade Empire doesn't count...Sky and Lian were actually bisexual...like Buch and Atomic. What about Alexander and Hephaestion? I think that relationship was tastefully portrayed...maybe there just isn't a big enough market for such issues as homosexuality to be handled seriously in video games. Side note, it's quite humorous that some of the same people who say "homosexuality is repulsive in a video game" like the idea of being able to lead on multiple woman and sleep with them all, and disgarding/decieving them at a whim... ...I love psychology.

Fionavar is a dragon. A green dragon...and quite a reasonable one at that. ...for lizard. EDIT: And she hates spam... EDIT: EDIT: Big, Green, Reasonable, Female, Hates spam... Like the exact opposite of Baley...

I thought you had said you were in a different topic...I may be mistaken.

You mean Ellen? Was it taken off the air?

I removed it...I didn't really understand Drakron's point - it seemed like a strange thing for an atheist to say (I think thats what he said he was... ), and my reply-post was just argumentative anyway...

The media treats homosexuals as if they were invisible? Since when, Steve? The sixties?

We all have our opinions, and I reserve the right to have mine. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, you do. But hopefully my critique of his post will convince you that his argument was not valid. If not, oh well.

Not being able to experience something from one perspective does not negate your ability to make a judgement on it Drakron. Bolded Text: That statement is true, but you have no right or reason to assume I am guilty of this. Besides, your point is just a straw-man argument.

But thats just it...the argument was fundamentally flawed, and many of the points were redundant, as was his choice of wording.