Cantousent

Yes I think so. Evern though I dont buy into what Bush believes I have no particular doubt that he does. Kerry on the other hand looked like he was "playing the game" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...But why should we assume anything about what Kerry believes? At some point it becomes unhealthy to assume something about someone else's belief. Isn't that the sort of thing religious people level against atheists? "Ah, nobody is truly and ahteist at heart!" Unless there is some sort of compelling evidence to the contrary, I think we should take everyone at his word when it comes to his profession of faith or lack thereof. As for you, Archmonarch, I don't believe for a second that you should be limited or judged based entirely on your age. However, you have a pronounced animosity towards religion. That's your right, and I won't speak against it. ...But observe the following statement: "I view it as the cause of most of our world's problems, particularly with the idea of heaven. We accept the great loss of life every single day because we expect the dead to go on to a paradise where we will one day meet again. Think about it a little and I think you will realize what I mean." Not only is it strident, but it is arrogant as well. Did you really believe that you were the first person to give word to these thoughts? Did you really believe that you were the first person to "think about it a little?" You have confidence, and that's a good thing, but you also take a lot upon yourself. For my part, I didn't find your post offensive. It was full of excitement and conviction. Only your exuberance flows too freely and your conviction is untempered by experience.

Intelligence is a cul-de-sac in the highway of existence; it is a dead end where too many precious resources are wasted to create the brain that ultimately ends up contemplating its navel instead of continuing the gene game. The armoured anthropods had it right, first. Loads of dumb animals will overcome even the most puzzling of survival problems with sheer numerical force and a frequent reproductive cycle to react quickly to the environment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've waited to respond to this for a number of reasons. First of all, I was afraid that my immediate response would appear to be advocacy. I'm not afraid to advocate a position, even in strong terms, but I didn't want to muddy the waters when I have more of a question than an answer. I also didn't exactly know how I felt about this. meta's response really does go to the heart of what I said in my post. I still don't know what to think on this issue, but it is one of the thoughts I've often pondered. Finally, I just decided to seek your thoughts. I also suspect that this discussion deserves a new thread, but it's set up very well in this thread, so here I am. Why is it that man ponders his existence? Why is it that I ponder the pondering? As meta states, the insects seem to do very well. Bacteria is thriving. Why is it that man is compelled to seek a higher purpose. Then I look at my cats. I have three of them. They don't appear to seek a higher purpose, but they do seem to have needs beyond those of an insect. My cats appear to desire company and companionship. Some folks claim that animals don't think, but most folks concede that animals have "feelings" of some sort or another. People in society who don't exhibit emotion often make others uneasy. Is that because they don't process their feelings very well, or is it because they don't have them in the first place? ...And why would emotion be a positive genetic trait in the grand scope of evolution? Is it because emotions foster community? Do emotions serve a purpose for the advancement of the species? Intelligence, though, that's the tough one, isn't it? Virtually everybody values high intelligence. Ask a parent about his child. The kid is invariably "smart." Nevertheless, we must value intelligence. After all, it is mankind's most significant advantage over other species. I'm curious about this and I have often thought about it, "gazing at my navel" rather than other, more immediate problems. ...But please, don't make this an either/or debate. Don't make this a war between religion and science, because it will only cheapen the debate and muddy the issue. I'm really curious to hear what folks have to say. Religious responses are undoubtedly going to be the target of science minded folks and perhaps the opposite will also be true. ...But target the specific response.

Most Americans are religious, so it stands to reason that politicians speak to the religious nature of their constituents. On the other hand, I agree with Commissar, all policy arguments should be made according to strictly worldly logic. On the other hand, conviction can be religious, spiritual, or secular. As Volourn said, part of what comprises Bush' character is his Christianity. He's never evaded the issue as far as I know. So, his convictions are derived primarily from his Christianity, something he quite openly admits, and he acts according to his convictions. *shrug* The one thing I do hate, however, is assuming or asserting that someone is "pretending" faith. If someone professes faith and his actions make that profession a reasonable assumption, then he should be taken at his word. The way folks are willing to assume Democrats are a faithless bunch makes my blood boil. Fringe Democrats charging all Christians with stupidity can only hurt their cause. ...But fringe Christians charging all Democrats as soulless doesn't really help religion either.

I suppose that might be true, ncr. Still a damned weird way to phrase the question, but I'll beg pardon for my snide remark.

Inasmuchas KotOR 2 was an excellent game, yes. I should have voted "maybe" since it's ridiculous to answer a hypothetical question about some mysterious future game about which we know nothing. On the other hand, the original question is stupidly prejudicial that I felt compelled to vote yes.

There are other factors involved in the debate, that's true. It's not just getting across your ideas to the bulk of the population. cew was right in pointing out that the system is weighted against certain segments of society because not all eligible citizens vote. It's also true that other factors, such as military service, family backgrounds, political ties, play a part in the process. Nevertheless, it still remains that the process relies on getting across a message to the average voter and convincing him that the message is true. In that regard, Bush excels as a speaker. You mentioned talking points earlier, Azarkon. Key words. These are excellent tools in a society that doesn't sit still and doesn't pay attention to the issues long enough to hear a more detailed argument. Our society is extremely reliant on the spoken and written word. For our purposes, I guess we can call it communication. Ultimately, the ability to convince the voters (at least those who actually vote) of the truth in your platform is the only way to win an election. If you can use other factors to your advantage, then so much the better.

Winning a presidential election twice is "using language effectively and persuasively." I intentionally used the broadest meaning of the word. Originally, the Greek root rhE means simply speaking at any rate. ...But, for the purposes of discussion, I'll rephrase in order to simply the argument. Democracy is over reliant on the ability to convince the bulk of the voters. The most convincing person is not always the best suited for the job. As for the other things in your post, they're worthy of comment, but I'm on my way out of the door. I'll revisit when I get back.

This assessment is undoubtedly true, but it goes further than that. The students could make arguments that the avergae voter understand and, as a result, actually influence votes. The students could actually vote, which would be a direct expression of will. Sure the guy seeking office is going to try to address the folks who actually vote. That only makes sense.

...But they can vote, cewekeds. If my idea is idealistic, and I'm sure it is, then your idea is too jaded. First of all, we might have a small number of eligible voters turn out for any election, but we have a much broader pool when compared to the foundation of our country. We've become more progressive in the last two hundred years, not less. Can anyone really argue that the steps we've taken as a nation have not been towards more opportunity for folks to express their will? The real problem is that a large chunk of society does not express its will. I'm not worried about folks not voting. I find it contemptible, but not frightening. First of all, not voting for most folks just means that they don't feel strongly enough to vote in the first place. Sure, we say it's because they don't think their vote counts, but the fact is that most folks don't care in the first place. They don't see how their life will be significantly changed either way. The death knell for a politician is to appear radical, because, liberal or conservative, what most folks apparently want is more or less the status quo. Folks say that democracies are only run for the interests of the rich. Well, having been both poor (from the old definition, not the new one) and now enjoying life in the middle class, I can say that my interests are well served by our democracy. Someone is going to be rich, and I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot just to try to strip away wealth from some other person. On the other hand, I look around and see that some of the people most vocal in their complaints about the unfairness of the system have actually benefited quite well from it. Oh, I'm not talking about a rich guy saying the system treated him better than it should. I'm talking about middle class folks who have beautiful houses, cars, and children in college who complain that there are people with more wealth. Here's the truth: there will always be some people richer than others. It is a fact of human existence. We can argue about different forms of government, but the only place where everyone will have true economic equality is in a fantasy universe. The students, on the other hand, scare the average voter. I'm not saying that the students are always wrong. I'm saying that they don't argue effectively for their cause. On top of that, as you rightly pointed out to me, students also don't vote.

To build on Alkera's post, it seems to me that a single-class character need not be a "stereotype." What stereotypes a character is the style of the player. Some players want a stereotype at any rate. They want to play the stereotypical half-orc barbarian who rushes into battle. They want to play the halfling thief who skulks around in the shadows and steals things. As long as the player has fun and the group has fun, then that style is no less valid than playing a one legged, near-blind half-fairy, half-dragon with two levels of street urchin, five levels of food critic, and three levels of poser. ...And a character will be differentiated as much as the player wants him to be, whether he is single class, multi-class, or classless. I rarely multi-class my characters, but I am currently playing a level 1 thief/level 5 mage in one campaign. In the campaign I DM, the players have all opted for single classes. One has stated, however, he'd like to play a prestige class. I hate prestige classes. Some players love them. I want the game to be fun. The players win.

The students must not be heard because they have failing arguments. How do we know that the arguments are failing? Because they're not being heard. Nice argument. Really convincing there . Wonder where you were when they burned people at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Great way to intentionally misunderstand my statement. You've obviously heard my arugment, but you didn't find it compelling enough to listen to it. The students have the right to speak, but if the general public doesn't find their arguments convincing, they won't listen. That's not a circular argument. Your attempt to make it so doesn't change that one, vital fact. So, I repeat, if the student population had better arguments, then the overall population would listen. The students are insignificant because their arguments are faulty. As are yours. Finally, as to your edit, rhetoric doesn't mean using ten syllable words to convey a thought. Bush, and the Bush campaign, had to convince the voters by means of rhetoric. The proof that they succeeded is simple, he is currently in his second term. Since virtually every American adult has the right to vote, and since he did not gain and keep office due to military power, he won by means of rhetoric. Undoubtedly, he argued through a variety of surrogates who provided arguments tailored to different segments of society. In fact, the fact that Bush is so wrong in your eyes and yet won re-election only reinforces my main point: Democracy depends on the ability to convince others. Just because a man is convincing doesn't mean that he is right.

Of course, I think everyone has failed to identify the real weakness of democracy. (let's just understand democracy by its common use as the spread between true democracy and representative democracy) Democracy is overly reliant on rhetoric. ...But the best speaker is not always the best administrator.

Of course not. Ignorance must always be heard in order to be answered. Am I to feel sympathy for people who have voluntarily relinquished their voice. Indeed, I say "voice" in a larger sense. I hope that it is clear at this point. I might have just as easily said, "effected their will" and it would have meant the same thing only using a different idiom. You could have, just as easily, made the claim that some people are powerless because they've become jaded. Why should weep for those who have willingly given away not only their power in our democracy but also their obligation to it? If the student population had better arguments, then the overall population would listen. The failing arguments of the students are the cause of their insignificance.

The Athenian Democracy sentenced Socrates to death, which he almost gleefully accepted. There's a lot more to the story, but for the purposes of this thread, you're right. The Athenian Democracy also voted in favor of the Sicilian expedition. That was another blunder. The Athenian Democracy made it a practice to commit blunders. ...But the Athenian Democracy gave to the world a history disproportionately rich in thinkers, writers, philosophers, and artists of all kinds. From the example set by Athens, Enlightenment thinkers actually had hostile feelings towards Democracy. The fools. I'll take my chances with the Democracy, win or lose. Folks who complain that we don't have a "real democracy" because Bush won the election make me shake my head. First of all, nothing proves the lie behind their words more than the fact that they are given free reign to speak those words in the first place. Furthermore, a good democracy is one in which the people have a voice. You are guaranteed a voice in the United States of America. You are not, however, guaranteed that others will listen, nor should you expect to be heard. If your words are true, then others will hear them, even if not right away. It is not a good democracy because your side wins. It is not a bad democracy because your side loses. It is a good democracy because the people have spoken, for better or for worse. An excellent example of this sort of short sighted thinking lies in our higher education in the United States, where the students complain about the very democracy that supports their education. ...The democracy that leaves them in comfort to pursue their studies and allows them to speak out against the evils of the very system that gives them power. Folks are just too stupid to appreciate something good even when they owe virtually everything to it.

I loved the Fallout 2 theme song: A kiss to build a dream on. I sing it to my wife all of the time. Of course, I'm hoping she does not leave me, but it's still a cool song.

This is a test of the emergency broadcast system.

Tell that to the crabs and roaches ... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apparently, the crabs and ****roaches can take care of themselves.

I guess time does heal all wounds.. I mean, don't you remember that we're talking about a FPS with severely underpowered weapons here? Great art design but not really a classic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I loved it, weak weapons and all. It's a classic for me, at least. Anyhow, this is a music thread, and the music was quite well done, especially the level where Cat dies.

By Chris Vrenna aka Tweaker! Very good indeed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Damn straight! In fact, it's the soundtrack that got me playing the game to begin with (when I started my current job, among the stacks of CDs in my office I found the Alice soundtrack... then bought the game because I liked the soundtrack so much.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I remember getting the "collector's edition" of Diablo 2. I loved the game, but I can't even account for all of the crap that came with it. Anyhow, I might have sent the soundtrack to my mother-in-law for Christmas. From that it must be clear that I don't like her much. The soundtrack for America McGee's Alice is awesome. Actually, the entire package was awesome, graphics, music, story... it's a true classic.

American McGee's Alice Might and Magic 6

When you play Devil's advocate, my fellow gunslingers, you must always remember the disposition of your client.

"Now, I am quite happy to discuss the boundaries of science and further the science. The problem is -- and this is no accident -- only a very few people are qulaified to discuss such things. Because they are very complex, and rely on a lot of other complex knowledge, which is not readily available to the amateur cosmologist. It is very easy in this day and age to become a world expert on a tiny subject (heck I am a world expert on my thesis topic) -- but to gain enough broad spectrum scientific knowledge requires the total dedication of a lifetime's work -- unless you feel that today's physicists are not that bright." That's a reasonable approach and, under those terms, I can accept what you've said. Still, while I have nothing but respect for physicists of our day and age (and I know some of these physicists of our day and age) there is no concensus even amongst their number. While I can't make any real contributions to the question at hand, I can observe the ever changing landscape of the topic. Science describes our reality, and I, for one, am happy to let it do so. It provides for us a way to discuss our environment. Philosophy is another language, and Theology is merely an extension of that language into a more refined discourse on the nature of divinity. So use all three, science, philosophy, and theology, but none of them should be a weapon to attack someone else. ...Or at least none should be used as a weapon to attack anyone in this particular thread. As far off-base as some of the posts seem to be, there seems nothing truly dangerous in anyone's position in this thread. Wrong, maybe, but not dangerous. Ultimately, the real question might not be, "why does matter exist?" or even, "what does it mean to exist?" but, "why do we ponder these things in the first place?" You speak forcefully and well, meta. Nevertheless, you can believe in your cause with all you heart; you can speak with great eloquence for your cause, but you might still be wrong. That's true for all of us.

What's most interesting is that, of the most active participants in this thread, none has argued against the theory of the big bang at all. What is apparent to me, however, is that some folks want to turn a discussion of the origins of the universe into an all out attack on religion. That really doesn't serve anyone's purpose. ...And, yes, almost everyone seeks greater meaning, even if they do not have religion... even if they don't believe in God. You might find it silly, but, in your own words, "it just is." Even if we take God out of the question, something I have always been wiling to do for the sake of discussion, then we still seek the answer to our origins. That won't change. Science itself will never be happy with the idea that "it just is." Every minute of every day, there is someone, in the name of science, searching for the origins of the universe. Searching, I submit, for the origins of matter and energy. Science itself balks at the idea of throwing up our hands and saying, "it just is." Science would much rather ask, "why is it?" Some of the participants in this thread, of whom I count you, would have us believe that science tells us to be satisfied and remain silent. That flies in the very face of the science you seem to worship. So, yet again, some message board cowboy comes into the thread, jonesin' for a fight over God, when I contend that the discussion, even in terms of science, is ill served by the proposition that we just accept everything the way it is. Everyone can pack it up and go home. No need to ask questions or look for higher truths. I'm truly trying not to be offensive, but I am completely frustrated that some of you, in an effort to ridicule religion, are stifling science as well. Can you not accept that science itself is looking for the answers to these very questions? ...And I'm a religious person. I believe in God. If I'm willing to cease the ridiculous bickering of religion and settle into a discussion of the origins of matter, why is it so hard for others?

You're the Handmaiden aka Brianna! You are true to your word and keep your promises. If you don't the guilt stays with you like your shadow. You enjoy fighting hand-to-hand and think it reveals things about your character. Just don't obsess over too many things, and for God's sakes get a haircut!

Yes, but as I have already said above, religious dogma actually restricts your options quite significantly. (And, you are having a bet each way, saying either scripture is right or science!) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Strictly speaking, this isn't true, either. What I've done is approach the subject both ways. ...But I'm all for discussing the issue in t erms of science. There's a good reason for this. Suppose that you were religious, but not Catholic. What if you believed in the classical Greek gods or something even more foreign to my religious views? That would make conversation on the nature of the universe pretty damned difficult. As such, I'd actually rather discuss the issue along the lines of science. The fact that I believe in God doesn't prevent me from limiting the conversation to science because, as it stands, the language best suited for discussing our reality is science. Moreover, I don't think folks should be forced to believe in God. It is a leap of faith that they should make voluntarily. Indeed, What value would faith be if it were proven? At the very least, it would cease to be faith. If we wish to discuss theology, then I'm all for your arguments, but I'm willing to discuss the issue along scientific terms as long as we understand that there is far, far more that science doesn't know than it knows. We can't pretend that the answers that science gives us at this stage are reliable, let alone certain. Science will undoubtedly keep searching for the answers, as well it should. ...But let us not create in science the very religion which you hate. Don't worship science. The wait and see approach is our only option at any rate, regardless of how heated are our arguments. I've been personifying science, but the truth is, science really doesn't do anything. It is mankind's creation for explaining the nature of our surroundings, nothing more or less. I'm not afraid of science. I see no reason to fear it.