Tigranes

We would ban Sand, except he's pretty much the defining character of these forums.* Is it just me or does this just sound a lot like Georgia? *Also, I owe him a sandwich.

Very, very true. Leaving the validity of the Christian religion out for a moment, if there is one thing I picked up from my home education, my university degree and my church activities (whether they intended it or not), it is that you must question what exactly is it you believe? Why do you believe this, and what made you believe this? Can we imagine different perspectives from which one may believe something different, even something diametrically opposed? And, coming back into the realm of practicality, What are the personal *and* social consequences of my belief? Ultimately it's about consciously choosing and refining your beliefs, instead of having them handed on a platter and having them control you. And I believe that is/should be the aim of religion, science, academia, education, these discussions, whatever.

Haha, Nick had taken over from me, but there seems to be little progress with Sand. That's fair enough - I can perfectly understand why Sand has the position he has, and why it seems like needless bother to go anywhere else. The effects of language on our society are indeed pernicious; words like faith, evidence, reason, science - I tried to deconstruct them before in my long replies, to uncover the implicit assumptions within them - but I had to use those very words to do so, and indeed, words do literally fail you when you try and go against the accepted connotations. By the way, the line between eugenics and environment is an interesting one. You see, it was drawn, like many other lines in our society, back in the 18th-19th centuries, when we got it into our heads that there are such things as 'Direct', or coercive, effect, and 'Indirect', or implicit, effect. The difference between hitting someone and calling him names. Making him do it by physical force, or making him do it because otherwise he can't earn any money. Eugenics in terms of putting people in cages for breeding, environment in terms of racial or sexual discrimination, or old-school upbringing (women should learn to stay home and cook, not learn to manage or anything!). Society at large is only now beginning to recognise that prohibiting and condemning the direct, while letting the indirect fly, will not help in the end. Of course we can't go ridiculous lengths here, but think about it. Who we are and who we become is dependent as much on genetics and physical conditions, as much as social environment/upbringing and mental conditions. So, if it is eugenics to breed babies who are tall, healthy with big genitals, is it not, under Azarkon's passive/intentional definition, eugenics to socially condition our parents and kids, raising daughters who want bras and big breasts at 12, indoctrinating them in religious discourse from birth (I'm opposed to this, despite my Christian inclination), educating them in a certain way? Yeah, of course if we go too far, it's like saying everything is eugenics, and the argument loses all force, diffused. Let's keep it at reasonable levels though. I think it's fair to say that we practice social eugenics on a regular basis: and some of it, past and present, is quite very unacceptable.

So that I don't destroy this thread with long long replies: Yes, there is. It's just that you don't value that evidence, because the evidence that you value most is sensorial and scientific. What's the difference? Well, from your point of view, religion and God can't help but look unrealistic, silly, illogical and nonsensical. Because you are basically saying the sensorial and scientific perspectives are all there is, and religion doesn't have a logic of its own. The truth is that it does; you have simply chosen your path. Which is fine, but choosing your path doesn't mean you have to pretend other paths don't exist. What does it matter practically, you say? Well, it depends if you believe everything in society is fine right now. If you think some things could be better, then it pays to recognise and look at various ways of doing things and various moralities, instead of just pursuing one - that leads to dead ends. You are right, Sand. But as I have been trying to say (and yes, I can be too longwinded for my own good, so it's probably my fault) - what you are doing too is picking ONE belief and formalising it! You are doing exaclty that. The difference is that your 'belief' is belief in capitalism and democracy, belief in scientific evidence and modern trend of rationalism, instead of a Christian God.

Sand: See, the standards by which you are judging religion is sensorial. Basically, you are saying that if your five senses can detect something, then it exists; if they don't, it does not. By extension, you are saying that the sensorial standard is so absolute and infalllible, if something is not proven sensorially, it is not fit for any government. Why? I am not being facetious or trying to annoy: I am trying to dig to the heart of your logic. For example, senses, we all know, can be fooled. Some people will claim they have seen God with their own eyes. They may truly believe this. Now, will you claim that they are simply deluded? Why? If someone has seen God, then does it not pass the sensorial standard? Two logical results from here. One, senses can and are fooled; senses are not infallible. It is good to rely on your senses for most things; but thinking that the sensorial standard is absolute for everything in the universe sets yourself up for a fall. Secondly, how do you conclude that these people hallucinated (we're assuming they're not lying), as opposed to really seeing God? We are no longer judging in terms of sensorial standards, are we? Same with miracles. People say there are not miracles. Then, someone shows a Mary bread or something (yeah, I know). Then, we say, "well that's not a miracle, because there's another explanation for it." A scientific one, usually (fungi or whatever). In other words, it is not that God cannot exist; it is that you privilege sensorial and scientific methods of evidence more than that of faith! I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. But you are speaking as if the sensorial standard is a basic truth of the universe. It is not. It is an artificial standard created by us mankind; so is scientific systems of evidence; so is religious. So, when you say, "I reject God myself, and think religion and state should not be intermingled, because I reject anything that is not sensorially proven", that is fine. I am not saying you are wrong. But I am saying, you have to recognise that you are not making that claim based on some basic irrefutable infallible truth standard of the universe. You are making a CHOICE, conscious or not, of using a sensorial and scientific method of proving truth and falsehood, and privileging them over the methods of faith. You have decided to pick one over the other. So, I ask again. What if I go the other way? What if I, just as YOU have made a choice, make a choice to privilege the faith method over scientific? Then I could say that since God said women were created from man's rib-bone, the scientific babble saying this is wrong is clearly nonsense. Because, obviously, God's word takes precedence. Look, the creator of the universe just told you how women are made. Am I going to believe Him, or you with your Ph.D? That is what I could say. It might sound ridiculous, but that's because you are so firmly entrenched in the sensorial and scientific evidence methodologies that it seems natural to you to use that standard on everything. Again, that's not necessarily wrong; but knowing this is the key to understanding religion and religious people. What sounds ridiculous to you and me, what sounds/feels natural to you and me, doesn't come entirely from our 'basic human nature', whatever that is. It comes from our culture and upbringing. If we were raised in medieval theocracies, we might well be saying the exact opposite.

So true. Wellington seems to revel in the fact that statistically speaking, it should already have had a Gozilla-level earthquake.

It's an interesting question. Now, it's easy to repeat the old adage, separate religion from state. But, remember that religion is just one of the many epistemological methodologies we humans use to try and understand ourselves and the world. Just like science. And modern rationalism. And various cultural traditions. And mythologies, animisms. Etc, etc. So, if you want to completely separate religion from state, and say that any law or policy that is created for religious reasons or is based on a religious maxim, is wrong, then should that not be the case with science? Religion offers its own sets of evidence and for religious people, what religion wants to do is perfectly sensible. Science offers its own sets of evidence, too. So, making a law to ban abortion because God says certain things; or making a law to ban some chemical because scientific experiments says something; they are exactly the same. Why ban one and not the other? The answer is that as a product of our times and society, we are often predisposed into thinking that our brand of rationalism and 'reason' is the best thing since sliced bread; reason and scientific proof cannot be wrong. We can make unreasonable mistakes or screw up our science, but if we didn't, they would be perfect. However, we do not have the same kind of 'natural' response towards faith or religious logic. (for it is a logic in itself). So, the maxim that religion should always be separate from the state, unless it comes from a cynical political science observation that it causes trouble, is grounded on a subconscious perception that reason and science is (or can be) right; religious logic and faith, not really. That's what it is about. I mean, you say, a state based on Christian logics would disadvantage atheists. Well, a state based on modern rationalism would disadvantage those who believe in works of God and miracles, or animism! What am I saying? That separation of church and state does not mean a "balanced", "Impartial", state; that simply means that one has decided that the laws and logics a state should be run by, is modern rationalist and scientific. So you are saying, religious logic is unfit for societies; modern rationalist reasoning is. But one would do well, in that case, to remember that if one would argue that religion was the invention of Man, so is modern rationalist logic and science; that the latter two have, in the past, made as many farfetched claims, caused in their name as many atrocious disasters and civilisation setbacks, as any religion in the world. As somebody last page said, for the faithful, faith IS reason. Or rather, faith is reason for everyone; its just that some people believe in that particular 'reason'/logic, some people believe in the modern secular version (which, by the way, is not the only secular one to exist, and is just as contested, ever-changing and possessing various deviant strands, as Protestants). Back to topic, though: Architect is right. I am very curious to know how Turkey, or whoever is actually doing this, has the 'right' to actually edit the Koran. Will this be widely accepted even?

Little more detail: what happens when he tries to scan the folder with Norton? Can it be scanned at all? Does Norton just freeze? Does Norton think there's nothing wrong with it? Does it try to kill it but the folder 'gets bigger'? Can he move the folder? Rename? Put things inside it?

Well, I tried to help before, but when I tried a few clever (or not) googles, they came up with, uh, Harold and Kumar in White Castle. So yeah, no idea. Meanwhile, book hunting eh? How about this. Some people might know of Jeff Smith's Bone comic series. It's in our local library, or some of it, and I love it - can't get it till I bother to get a credit card or get someone in the US to, though. Anyway, that's fine. A few years ago, I read a comic in the library; it had, from my (admittedly confused) memory, a similar art style to Bone; my memory suggests it might have been one of those small add-on stories to a Bone book or something, but searching the Bone book pile in the library has yielded nothing. The story was a rather oddball and light one, telling the story of amoeba-like creatures that live underground. The entire 'world' was just a small 'island' of sorts; a small portion of the landmass floating above some sea, and inside the undersea portion of that landmass, lived these weird amoeba things. I think the story even begins from what looked like some sort of unicellular primordial sea. Anyway, it was quite charming and I'm wodnering by a super long shot if anybody even knows what I'm talking about. Ahey!

So are we going to see the effects of that too? University year begins now in NZ, so went over to a staff/students meeting for Honours courses (it's like a BA Plus, but really, you want it if you want a real BA). You can really tell the difference between profs who just love the sound of their own voice and those who have actually thought about things. Then I got a haircut. My evening schedule this week appears to alternate between church and going light drinking. Interesting.

Just to be pre-emptive - they're joking, of course. We really need to take Kaftan's sig and give it to about ten other people.

Probably best off in the Dev Corner, as that is where these threads often reside. I have no idea what kind of experience you have when it comes to these things, but making a game from the ground up is no longer a feat for one person - I would suspect the best way is to begin with toolkits such as those for NWN1/2, or even simpler (and less powerful) ones. For example, the Age of Empires series features quite simplistic (but does-the-job) editors, and you can even mod the game quite extensively using XML, which reads a lot more like normal English than C+, for me anyway. I wouldn't know how those Make Your Own Game kits work, though.

Playing Thief 2, again.

I would say something at this juncture, but I remain a confused boy because I still have yet to understand what walkerguy is actually saying in the original statement: I mean, is he implying that mixing with all these different races has made US an unrespectable country? Is the entire quote a complete nonchalant joke? Does he mean something else? What? What?

Kara-Tur would be cool, although I have yet to educate myself on the setting with some authentic work on it. Is it more of a Sword Coast that just looks Asian and adopts surfacial 'Asian' things, or are there some real differences about the setting of Kara-Tur? Even aesthetically speaking though, it would be nice and add a great deal of variety.

Fair enough - but that doesn't stop you from using your judgment. Even a cursory, speculative glance over the methodologies of any such 'listing' would prove it irrelevant to any serious debate. You posted it, so you must have thought it of some report; my point is that it is not. I will be happy to have you prove me wrong, of course, but having a healthy debate has nothing to do with being 'bureaucratic'; certainly I don't ask you to give a comprehensive report of how that listing occured. Again, nobody's asking you to be a computer. But you are giving no rationale at all, no reason at all, behind why you believe McCain is so far behind. It is not credible at all, at the moment. Anyhow, I caught about half of the debate - Hillary is obviously faster on her feet (or just better prepared) than Obama and is the better in debates, but Obama did enough so that she probably hasn't really pulled ahead significantly. He managed, in the portions I saw, a couple of rousing 'hits' such as the attack on McCain's 100-year-Iraq, which is a nicer direction to go (for Dems) than Hillary's Xerox opener. Texas is surely he last gasp for Hillary (if she only barely wins it, the other states won't be too keen to push on) - I wonder how it got that way in so short a time, but Obama is a good campaigner.

Okay. I'm just confused - what does America being a 'melting pot' have anything to do with the decline of US or the Europe? How has the melting pot phenomenon influenced the issue in any way?

I must say, walkerguy, there is very little scientific sense in 'ranking' presidents. Especially if we are not told what criteria and what standards are used. How do you give points and rate presidents on what they did and what happened during their reign, over decades and decades? The answer is, you can't. Those kind of studies are no more academically valid than Top 10 Games of the Year from Gamespot. I will be happy with either Democratic candidate, probably, but your assertion that McCain has a small chance is quite very simplistic - there is a very good chance he will win the November elections, especially if the Democratic primaries stay 50-50 right until the end and it requires deals and superdelegates to get something going for the General.

Surely it will be a new story. I really hope they go even farther away from the Sword Coast this time. They've done Thay and Rasheman, will do Westgate - I'd say the return of Planescape or some other setting, except Wizards seem to be killing them off. Still, why not a radically different society? Everywhere we go, the same ideologies of our society seems to seep in; there's always the same rhetorics of freedom, of democracy; of civilisation organised amongst townships threatened by chaotic barbarians; etc, etc. Probably rocks the boat too much, but isn't it about time we did? Yeah, I know, I'm off my rocker.

Oh, it's Fareed Zakaria? Well, I like him, but this time it feels like he's suspected something for a while from personal observation, then saw an OECD report and decided to just latch onto it. Not the most professional or appropriate hijacking of big macro statistics. Frankly, I don't know enough hard facts to say what IS true about the topic. But looking at that column, neither does he; it's conjecture and very quick at that.

I understand that Mesh, but what is "killing without reason"? There is nearly always a reason. We don't walk around with guns and just shoot people. Most human killings DO have a reason. What you are really saying is, "without a 'good' reason". What is a 'good' reason for killing? Is killing for territory or killing with greed any 'better' a reason than killing someone you hate and despise, or killing for a political reason, or killing someone of a different religion or ethnicity? You might say killing for territory means you are killing because you are threatened, and you have something to gain from it. Well, that would be the same with genocide against ethnicities or religions - they are killing because they feel or believe themselves threatened in terms not of material loss but of ideological ones. And that is just as 'valid'. I do not understand why the animal reasons for killing are any more 'natural' or 'better' or more understandable/acceptable than human reasons for killing. Because of the way we have loaded the term 'natural' and 'artificial' with connotations, it is sometimes 'instinctive' to feel that what is natural is more acceptable, and these newfangled, 'invented' human reasons, for the simple flaw of being 'artificial', are more insidious or less acceptable. But that most certainly is not true. What makes a good reason for killing, Mesh? Or if you would go back and argue we truly kill very often without ANY reason (whether you see it as valid or not)... well, I can't imagine how that is, so you will have to explain it to me.

Man, you guys are all wrong. Those guys are all, like, totally dead, and stuff.

Wait, so killing for territory or greed is actually less contemptible than other types of killing? I mean, this sentence would probably better fit a race of beings who just sit there with a sharp knife then randomly stick it into other people's groins as they go for a beer. Just because some fundamental aspects of primitive (non-)civilisations are detectible in a distorted form now, does not mean that social evolution of the last few thousand years is negligible or trivial. At best, that amounts to saying, "but we're still humans!".

Thread pruned. Taking a leaf from kindergarten teachers all around the world, I may as well point out that throwing around insulting terms and questioning others' basic intelligence is, regardless of their validity, somewhat detrimental to the atmosphere. If you are pissed off with a member, PM a moderator. If you are astounded by another member's stupidity, use the ignore function. If you are just really, really angry, ice cream is a nice remedy. I'm on Facebook by the way. Search for Sun-ha Hong, then I'll be the only guy on the search results. Yeah, my parents had a shot of parkinson's when they named me.

The website says enhanced version is only out in May.