213374U

It is false that "not being nice to other people" equates to "not being able to function in a community" -- much like being an asshat at the wheel doesn't mean you must break the traffic code or be otherwise unable to drive. I'd like you to define what exactly is "being nice", and how this is written into your school's conduct code, thus making it an obligation, rather than just one of the pedagogical guidelines teachers adhere to.

bah

Because it's your obligation as a human being to be nice to other people. That is a personal philosophy that i wish that many would follow, but alas not many do. That is why there is a system of laws to begin with. But since it is a personal framework for social conduct, it can not be made mandatory to others. Honestly, have you even worked in the private sector? And i do not mean the local supermarket, i am talking about multinational and global coorperations here. There you can most easily see the manifestation of this. You would be surprised how fast this obligation is thrown out of the window. The only obligation to be nice (mostly to customers) is in the self interest of the person/company to get more money/power/influence. Not by a sense of altruism. Or, alternatively, just drive in any highway.

I still don't understand what exactly is it you want. If westerners aren't as eager for violence against the Muslim world as you claim the opposite to be true (don't buy that btw)... is this a bad thing? We built our democracies based on a set of principles aimed to prevent anyone from abusing power to oppress others. There are self-protection mechanisms in place to deal with those that would pervert those principles and misuse them. The battle for secularizaton was long and bloody because religious structures were often one and the same as power structures, something which doesn't always apply elsewhere today, and by no means can be taken to imply that religion is innately more appealing to people than reason. I contend that there is no need for special measures, as these attacks aren't a significant structural risk. The law however, needs to be applied for this to be true. They need to be treated as the criminals they are -- there is no political statement and if there is, it's rendered invalid by the means used to forward it. By listening to their rants, giving extensive media coverage of their antics and overreacting to their hissy fits, we are making them greater than the pathetic misfits they are. I'm under no illusion that immigrants in general intend to integrate seamlessly into the society that takes them in. I don't have a problem with this, either. But I draw the line when they try to change our customs and uses. So don't make the mistake of believing I'm a multiculturalist -- I'm not. However, I refuse to let their actions plant a seed of fear that has the potential to undo and corrupt what took centuries and millions of lives to establish... and replace it with something much darker. Keep saying that we're losing this battle of ideas and eventually enough people may believe it. At that point and not before, we will have lost. Btw, I live in Spain, one of the countries in the whole EU with most immigration, a large portion of which is Muslim (Maghrebi).

What, I live in a country with ~40 million hispanics, of which I'm a part of. I couldn't get out of here soon enough. Just wipe off that puke and lighten up, will you.

Lol, you got more Hispanics living in there than Spain. I don't know how you can endure that. I know I couldn't.

Well I doubt you could have convinced John Stuart Mill that "positive" discrimination is useful or desirable. Mainstream western liberals today are about as genuine as "socialists". But other than that I agree. That's why armed policemen enforce the dictates of our judges. That's all the show of force that's needed. Pick them up. Put them in jail until they feel like playing nice. Or insta-deport them. I'm not sure what's exactly what you'd do. What encourages further attacks is the law not being applied as it should, and people relenting because of fear. 1) If you've met the kind of scum that makes up ultra groups, then you know that these morons also follow a philosophy of violence. Get caught by them alone and wearing the wrong tee or scarf, and you're guaranteed to end up in a hospital. It's the perceived connection of these Muslim agitators to terrorism that gives people the impression that they are more dangerous and better organized than common criminals or violent hooligans. 2) I saw the video. The cops were all over him, douching him with pepper sprays in like a fraction of a second. What I didn't catch is, did he continue the lecture after the attack? He wasn't seriously injured, so he could have. He should have.

I doubt liberalism is the problem. Freedom of speech, civil rights, political freedoms... those things are what social and political liberalism stands for. Nah, people just don't care -- they'd rather "avoid getting in trouble", than get in trouble to defend that. I'll concede it's a problem, though. From the article Mes posted below: That scares me ****less. When people are too afraid to stand up and fight for what they believe in, all is lost. Well, you can pretty much substitute "muslims" with any other fringe group with violent tendencies, and the statement doesn't lose an ounce of truth. Supremacists, nazis, extreme left, cultists... you name it. Only, our tolerance threshold seems to be higher for religious fascists (unless they are Christians). This would end if we stopped considering their message at all and considered only their acts. In a democracy, violence and threats are not accepted as a valid way to convey one's message. Therefore, they are criminals. Punish them as criminals. That's all there is to it. I wonder if there's some hard data on how statistically significant are these attacks compared to say, hooligan violence, regular violent crime or just random nightclub brawls. Because unless they are, it's only as serious as people allow fearmongering to affect their thinking. But hey, what the hell do I know. My fellow citizens elected our current president at gunpoint, so perhaps it's time we had a big ol' world war to remind all those yellow-bellied wankers that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Well, that's kind of the point. If those elected have in their agenda the abolition of democracy and the outlawing of all parties... I don't know much about Nepalese politics other than there's like 5 different "Communist Party"-s, so that may or may not be one of their goals. Also, lof's attempt to appropriate the transition to democracy in Nepal for the CPN(M) doesn't look particularly fair and balanced.

Wow. Warrior, philosopher, statesman. And he bagged his maths tutor, all according to Wiki. He also speaks Mandarin Chinese and has a career in MI6. Looks like someone to listen to.

Why, because a bunch of ****heads went and tried to beat somebody up? So, what else is new? Seriously, it's not like the news is that Iran finally has the bomb. Those asswipes can get thrown in jail like the common thugs they are. Why do they deserve special attention?

Yup. I know a lot about failing at humor, so I can relate to that awkward feeling. No worries, it'll fade with time. Possibly. LOL! You're my new fave poster of the week.

I seriously doubt they got that from randomly bashing the keyboard as I advised, man. For some reason, they are under the impression that names such as "38q9yg0ajow43p" or "234fjiofrmn<" aren't quite as pungent as "THI4F". People sometimes...

Care to share? You can edit the hot steamy cyber bits out, if you really must.

=/ I really wish devs would participate more in, um, their own forums.

Whew. For a second there, I thought this thread was going to use the metaphorical relation between Quarians and Jews as an introduction for a People's War rant. Yes, right up there with "Illusive Man", "Cigarette Smoking Man" or even "The Dude". Are you perchance an OE employee? Meh, never mind...

To remind himself as to where his allegiance truly lies? You know, with all those lobbies, special interest groups and campaign donors, it's easy to lose track...

Right, because reducing the opinions and reasons of any number of members of a heterogeneous group to just ONE, always works beautifully. Great job.

And I take it you missed how what I (and Boo) was saying has nothing to do with that. FPTP can result in relatively popular candidates not getting a seat and therefore skewed parliamentary majorities, but unlike some other undemocratic bull****, it will not result in gravely impopular politicians getting "elected", ever. Apparently, some people believe Gordy is the bestamest PM, evar. That's freedom of opinion for ya. Regardless, I like STV better than FPTP. Coalitions are bad because big parties are willing to compromise on important issues if that's what it'll take for them to keep power for themselves -- this is what places political dwarves in a position of strength that doesn't correspond to popular support. However, coalition governments formed by large parties in Germany have worked well for some time, so coalitions aren't necessarily bad. The problem comes when the people don't punish the party they voted for forming a coalition with a small party whose stated goals and policies are at odds with their own. Leaders in a democracy are, for good or ill, a very accurate reflection of the quality of the electorate.

I can't say I've been following his performance with the national team, but in Real he's been carrying the team 50/50 with Higua

Um, you can't really polarise what is essentially a yes/no question. Once you pick a camp, you're supposed to defend your position, or resort to nonsense along the lines of "Is this art? Maybe to someone with just the right personality disorder. Sometimes, I happen to have just the right personality disorder to consider that art." Art is a category... only no two people can seem to agree on precisely what it encompasses. Uh huh... That seems to have caused the intended effect No, I'm not an art expert by any means, so don't take that as me implying that "I have the refined tastes to better appreciate art than you plebs". I know what snobbism is, though. And no matter how many times I've read it, The Emperor's New Suit never fails to bring a smile to my face, either...

I find this opinion holds the most water in countries where you vote for the person instead of the party, which increases actual accountability and makes MPs think more of their electorate, as that's what can make or break their careers. In theory. In places like Spain where each ballot is a closed party list full of names you've probably never heard before, voting becomes akin to rooting for a football team; pro politicians are mostly just party apparatchiks whose essential talent is self-promotion. It's under this setup that Boo's statements reflect reality the most.

http://thief.wikia.com/wiki/THI4F Who keeps telling people that names like THI4F and F3AR are good?

No, just to become "cult" titles. I suppose there's no general rule though, as for instance Bloodlines or DX are probably considered cult titles but aren't overdone in that respect, with the "artistic" qualities overtaking the game itself. On the other hand, you have Fallout 3, and other than the usual suspects, you'll find that the game got pretty good ratings across the board. Lots of indie games go unnoticed every year, too. People pay way too much attention to the opinions of "experts" in a field where such a thing is meaningless... whatever works for you, just does. Overly complicated mechanics just tend to make games more a chore than a pastime, which in my book is a bad thing. There's fans for everything, however... Art is abused by the intellectually insolvent in an attempt to draw a qualitative distinction between themselves and those over whom they believe to stand. This doesn't mean there's no difference in quality between artists, though... just a lot of mediocre but very forceful fine art "connaisseurs".

Yeah, pretty much like during "Pax Romana" and "Pax Britannica", and yet those periods are considered by and large relatively peaceful. Consider the first half of the 20th century (and to a lesser extent, the second half), for some context on industrial era militarism and "peace". You can also compare daily casualties in Iraq with violent deaths in Mexico, for some additional perspective on current "wars". I doubt you can find any period in human history that's absolutely devoid of violent conflict.