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.

"Very Good Argument", Darth Sirius? Sadly not... Many people more mature than you hold abortion to be wrong. Do not create the false premise that believing abortion is wrong denotes immaturity. That is true, but if you are suggesting that being opposed to abortion is popular, you are again wrong. Babies cannot survive on their own - even after they are outside the womb, unlike many animals. Your point is redundant. Statement: "I can accept the definition of when the fetus is able to live on it's own outside the womb." Your logic suggests that a human being is only able to be murdered if it can take care of itself...try and use that in a court of law...see what happens. Maybe you just left out an or? A) Your description of abortion is accurate. Much better to have the child and either raise it or put it up for adoption. B) Like you are judging anyone who disagrees with you as Immature, Arrogant Self-absorbed villans? C) Abortion is not the answer for any of the social ills you mentioned. 90% of the people on this forum use compters they didn't pay for? How did you come upon this statistic? Or are you simply using sensasional and emotive slander in an attempt to sound like you control the moral high-ground? The hardships of single motherhood say two things...First: Beware of not respecting the possible outcome of careless, casual sex. Second: Choose who your sexual partners wisely, because many men will leave you high and dry if you happen to get pregnant. Bold Text: Who does? More sensational, irrational crowd-playing. Like condeming anyone and everyone who is against abortion as immature Nazi's? Compare your highlighted statement with something you said above: I'm sorry, but I find your arguments overly hostile and flawed.

careful there faramirk, logic rarely makes sense in the face of ideology taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not following you...

Yes, I believe he would. Then again, Disney did...remember the Southern Baptist Disney boycott in the 90's? :D Made me laugh.

I think the height disparity is going to make that relationship difficult...

Why on earth would you bother to shave if nobody ever saw your face?

Me too. No game ever came out for the PS2 that I wanted that didn't eventually come out on PC...XBox has the Halo series and Jade Empire, so I'm sold.

It's not that I would be "uncomfortable", per se, merely that I don't think I could relate to the character if he/she was exclusively homosexual. Thats why I think Jade Empire handled it well, letting you choose. Well, the homosexual community make up only a very small slice of the population, so their apperance in a game trying to be "realistic" may be non-existant. I don't think games would be as fun without the stereotyping (not derogatory stereotyping, mind you) of characters for emphasis of story. I really like to shy away from games that try too hard to imitate day to day life. None come close to the real thing, which is usually very hard work. I want games to be more fantastic in nature, not simply more wallowing in modern cultures current struggles.

I believe that only Christianity and Islam have any dogmatic negative stance on homosexuality, and even those have many adherants who are either support or are homosexual.

I'd have to agree with your speculation concerning his ethnic background....

Ok, listen. Pregnancy is not "torture". Abortion is much more damaging to a womans body than giving birth. Get over it. Basically, your saying that a woman can kill for convinence sake. I can't disagree with you more. Pregnancy is one of the possible results of sex. If you can't deal with the possibility of having to give birth, don't have intercourse. Yeah, we can move on to one of the other topics if you like, I respect your rigt to disagree.