Azarkon

What exactly is so funny about that? The thought of you doing Odin's will with axe in hand.

I can just see someone preferring Norse ethos to modern ones

That does qualify, sort of, but I wonder if the qualities that would distinguish a Valhallan from a Helian are not just a repeat of what is already common sensical in the culture. Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions, really) is, by comparison, more or less a religion of morality, in that its historical effect was to disseminate a certain type of moral practice. Christians did X, and they did not do Y. Was that the same for the worshippers of Odin, or were they simply worshippers of Odin by virtue of being Nordic? In that case, the Norse gods would be closer to a mythology, than a religion (though people obviously believed in them at the time).

And always will. That's the thing with capitalism - if you regulate it in your country, companies just move somewhere else. In this respect, methinks the Chinese are doing the smart thing - take advantage of the market for as long as you can and worry about labor rights once you've got enough funds to transition into a high-tech economy. Starting off with labor rights doesn't really work the way things are setup, because nobody will invest when there are cheaper opportunities elsewhere.

I'm not sure the ancient religions functioned on any specific level of morality. They were more explanatory than they were prescriptive, and morality was therefore determined more by society and culture than it was by religion - at least, that's what it seemed like to me.

While alot can change in a year, structural weaknesses typically do not. The reason for bringing up the article is that it was linked to me in the course of a discussion about the future of the world, and I'm wondering how credible it is. I can link the article suggesting that the US economy is on the decline, too, but it doesn't say enough, beyond that the US is in the course of a recession, which we already know.

Read an interesting article today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6021301569.html As I'm not much of an EU scholar, I'll leave the more erudite discussion to others for this one, but the trend is certainly interesting (and troubling, perhaps) to talk about even just in terms of ancedotes. So, any Europeans around who'd like to shed light on what they think about the predictions? Is it truly doom & gloom, or is the article writer just talking alot of arse?

I would not call myself a McCain supporter because of anything he has ever said or done. He is simply the lesser of all evils. But in the interest of discussion I'll try to make an answer. But first, what is your definition of "Neo-Conservative"? I ask that because it is a term/pejorative that seems to have different meanings to different people. For the lack of a better source, it is perhaps prudent to begin with the following (lifted from Wikipedia) definition of neoconservative policy: 1. Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."[8] 2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[8] 3. Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."[8] 4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."[8] 5. National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."[8] Of course, all five need not be present for defining a neoconservative, and in recent years the term has become closer to an articulation of #2, #4, and #5 than #1 and #3. Essentially, a neoconservative cut from the same cloth as Bush would feel sympathy for the Project for a New American Century, and is not at all reluctant to utilize the American military to achieve that end. A neoconservative is thus, above all, interventionist, but it is a particularly sort of interventionism that the neocon pursues: "According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism... The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological."[32] Neoconservative foreign policy parallels their domestic policy. They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos. Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite." A neocon, as such, ostensibly believes in a worldwide "democratic" revolution and is thus closer to the ideological Left than the term conservative suggests (leading to the suggestion that neocons are "liberals gone rogue"). However, the Bush administration has shown that neoconservatism is quite capable of adopting in the face of failure. When their grand plans were thrown down by the catastrophe of Iraq nation-building, the neocons realigned themselves with a more "realistic" view of the world. Thus, the Bush administration cooled its anti-Iran fervor, at least temporarily, to seek stability in Iraq. However, I do not believe that just because the neocon has become more realpolitik that he is therefore free from his earlier visions. Rather, the difference between a neocon and a conservative lies in his dedication to the need to create and defeat foreign boogeymen in the advancement of American interests across the world. That is the legacy of his Cold War experience - that only proactive and preemptive interventionism, such as practiced by the CIA in overthrowing numerous foreign regimes, can maintain American hegemony & security. Thus, just as we emerged out of the Cold War more powerful than ever, we shall emerge even more powerful still if we use our newfound power to the same ends. Many people consider neoconservatism, as such, to be a new imperialism - no different in philosophy than that practiced by the British Empire at the height of its power. Neoconservatives identify a particular civilization mode as being superior (ie American or Western) and attempt to justify an expansionist policy towards the rest of the world (previously associated with the "white man's burden," but now for the sake of PC is more keenly associated with universal human rights or democracy) on the basis of spreading the superior model for the benefit of all. Of course, just as the British Empire was by no means devoid of self-interest, the neoconservative "empire" is tied to national interest - the assumption that separates neocons from classic imperialists being the doctrine that "those who are like us, will serve us." Thus, neocons do not seek to reimpose colonialism on the rest of the world. Democracy and capitalism, they believe, are just as effective in bringing nations and peoples to the service of the American system, since we are, after all, the de facto center of both. There is much more to be said and criticized about neoconservatism, not the least of which is just how effective neoconservative philosophy really is with regards to serving American interests in light of the fact that foreign adventures seem to incur severe economic costs. But let's start with this definition.

McCain has been called by some to be cut from the same neo-conservative cloth as Bush and his supporters. What's your view on this, McCain supporters? Do you agree with the neo-conservative view, or do you think that McCain is as much of a maverick as he claims?

I agree, but people far wiser than I have been at it for as long as civilization's existed It's the holy grail of the social sciences, after all. But getting our heads out of the clouds for a moment, I think the relatinship between social repression and crime bears looking at. It's certainly a trade-off, as you say, and I do wonder how better technology - especially as a way of redirecting repressed desires - would affect the landscape. I think it's safe to say that the old hypothesis that games like Doom are a good outlet for violent instincts must be challenged, given that school shootings are becoming more common, not less. Still, what would today's youths be doing, if video games didn't exist? Would they be more violent, or less?

The particulars of each society are bound to be different. But that's part of the optimization process. If there wasn't any diversity, progress could be stalled if we were all stuck at the same point. This is part of the problem with Western societies today - we've reached, I think, what in function optimization people call a "local maxima." That is, we're at a spot where there's no seemingly easy way to improve the overall satisfaction, and as a result we stagnate. Thankfully, or regretfully, depending on your point of view, humans have an innate desire for change that might help us overcome this setback. But before that happens, we're bound for a rough ride as societies oscillate back and forth in search of a way forward.

One could argue that self-interest, in the animal world, is expressed in terms of survival/eliminating competition/expanding one's territory. In that respect, all animals "murder" in their self-interests. Humans are simply cognizant of the fact, and being so, may hope to move beyond it. As far as the suppression vs. redirection argument goes, I believe that both play a role in explaining why human civilization is capable of progress. As a species, we have some limited control over our basic instincts, that overtime becomes habitual (this explains why people who practice certain types of meditation could learn to control their metabolism, breathing rate, etc.). This process is subject to social forces, and thus it is possible for society to, starting from a young age, act as a suppressant for certain instincts (ie aggression, violence, lust) that might otherwise become dominant. Of course, there are limits to what we can control, so these instincts can never be fully suppressed. That's where redirection comes in - by setting up society such that there are other, better avenues for satisfying our urges, we become more capable of dealing with them without creating, or becoming, victims. As someone rather familiar with computer science, I'm keen on thinking of human progress as an optimization problem. The constraints are the basic biological/social needs, desires, etc. The parameters are what we've got to work with (culture, technology, social structure), the evaluation mechanism is the degree of satisfaction, summed over all participants, and the algorithm is educated trial-and-error (possibly hill-climbing, but that's pushing it). Thus, social progress can be characterized as bettering the overall satisfaction of the human species, and that probably makes the most sense, as even though kings and lords might've had it better in ye olde days, we don't typically look back at those days and say that they were better for the majority of humanity. The hope, then, both in computer science and among progressives, is that this process results in better satisfaction over time. To do so, of course, requires that we learn from our past mistakes, because that's the only way we'll know whether where we're going is better.

This thread is going places.

The Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR and the fall of Communism. Putin is a whole new breed of Russian politicians, one that doesn't care all that much about ideology but is very much concerned about Slavic territorial integrity.

Actually, the US & NATO just defied UN resolution 1244, and Russia is pissed. If there really is going to be a Second Cold War, then we've fired the first shot.

I blame postmodernist nihilism.

So we should lock people up based on their sexual orientations, because of what they might do? That, my friend, is the slip into thought control.

This is what I was referring to earlier. I was not aware that authorities had the right to search through people's HDs as per standard examination.

A level 40 campaign done right could be awesome. Done wrong, it'll just accentuate the flaws of the D&D system.

I think it should depend on the particulars of the porn. Certainly I don't think non-practicing pedophiles should be subject to the same anathema as practicing ones, and within the non-practicing category, I think a significant distinction should be made between people based on whether they 1) are part of an actual child porn circle, or not, 2) pay for it and distribute it, or not, and whether the porn itself is a) fake, b) naturalistic, or c) sexual. Such a discrimination would help rationalize the case against pedophiles, at least for me. As it is, I don't quite understand the pitchfork and torch routine against anyone who is accused of being a pedophile, regardless of the details. And I do think that North Americans are quite particular in this notion; you should understand what I mean if you're at all familiar with Japanese geek culture.

I think what frightens people about this whole ordeal is the "where next?" principle. With university shooting becoming such a common occurence in the US, it's no longer about if, but when and where. It's also the fact that universities are supposed to be safe havens, not places where you should have to worry about defending yourself against homicidal maniacs.

A) is debateable. If they pay for it, sure. But if they don't? If they have no contact whatsoever with the original producers, as is often the case? Where does the encouragement come from? B) is true and gets into the whole issue of informed consent, which children, presumably, don't have. However, the blame there rests with the person who releases the photo, not the person who sees the photo. Do people get in trouble for looking at celebrity nudes taken without their consent? Somehow, I doubt it. Besides, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that it's the legal aspects which (invasion of privacy, informed consent, etc.) determine people's reactions, in this case. I do, in fact, think that people will have just as adverse of a reaction against pretend play and maybe even drawings, at least in the West. Other cultures are actually pretty different, in this respect.

I never quite understood the murderous rage against non-performing pedophiles. There are worse deviancies in the world than masturbating to naked kids. But this board is, perhaps, not the best place to discuss something like this.

I see... I guess I presumed that it was Canada because I heard they had stricter laws regarding digital pornography.

I'm more surprised he actually got busted for having child porn that he did not share... So Canada does random "we're going to go into your computer and see what you have on your HD" searches now? Cause it sounds like that he cooperated with the authorities after they decided to search through his HD (perhaps because he thought doing so might save his skin in case they discovered the files on their own). Isn't that an invasion of privacy?