Azarkon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Azarkon
-
-
I dunno. It sure happened back in the 50's when Communism was all the rush. Course Mao and Stalin eventually stuck their noses at each other and the alliance collapsed, but that's the way alliances are when established for the sake of countering foreign superpowers (ie the US). Actually, if you take a look at recent news the two countries are getting back together again - at least on the surface. No doubt the Russians secretly fear the Chinese because they're a declining people (numerically) holding a heck of alot of Lebensraum that the Chinese would love to immigrate into, but for the sake of appearing strong against the US's incursions into their former satellite states, a few joint military exercises certainly doesn't hurt.
So yeah, a permanent alliance between the two countries isn't likely as it's not to their mutual geopoligical interests. However, in response to a pan-American bloc threatening to dominate the world, I'd be surprised if the Russians and the Chinese didn't run into each other's arms.
-
As for Mexico we should really just imprison all their government officials and revamp their system (government, education, health care, etc) with people who aren't scum bags. Start with the top then work towards the bottom until they are a civilized country which is worthy to be apart of a union. We also need to get Japan to take over China since Japan is awesome.
Yea Japan is so awesome its PM tries to cover up past atrocities by pretending they never happened: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1595375,00.html
Sound like someone we in the US have dealt with? *ahem* Ahmadinejad *ahem*
*shakes head and wonders when people will stop associating the geek culture in Japan with the nation in general*
Anyways, besides the obvious problem with this topic (if people could be united simply by a few individuals willing it national borders would've long ceased to exist by now), one issue you have with uniting any number of countries into a greater entity for the sake of becoming more powerful is the not-so-ironic fact that the bigger you become the weaker each constituent actually is. If the US were to unite with Mexico, we'd have to give at least 1/3rd of the votes TO Mexico. The same is probably true for Canada. That means the average American politician, citizien, decision-maker, et. all becomes less influential as he has to deal with the desires of Mexicans and Canadians in addition to his own. The loss of such decision-making power means that all that extra clout you gain by virtue of being bigger is in turn lost by vice of internal divisions. It'd work temporarily in response to a great threat, but over time all empires - especially the big ones - disintegrate simply because people fail to see why they should listen to each other.
And of course, the geopolitical solution to a united NA, on the part of our rival nations, is a united Asia, a new Soviet Union, a enlarged EU, a coalition of Muslim countries, and what-have-you. No one wants to return to a world divided between mega-powers where the sovereign rights of smaller states are automatically compromised vis-a-vis their size, yet that's exactly what will happen if people feel threatened by the rise of a new pan-American bloc. You band together, others band together to counter you. You think Russia and China are polite to each other now, watch how close they become if a pan-American bloc emerges to challenge their mastery of Asia (as for your beloved Japan, I fear it shall become only a satellite state of the pan-Asian empire it once dreamed of leading).
-
Japanese RPGs sell just fine.
-
If you could control your own squad instead of just your own character in the W40k MMO, I'm in.
-
This game requires a very beefy PC to even begin exploring its awesomeness, unfortunately. My PC, which was top of the line two years ago, slows down to a crawl in any major battle such that I'm basically watching a slide-show. *sigh*
-
I thought Lucasism indicated a unnecessary desire to explain mysteries as opposed to leaving them up to the user's imagination?
-
Perhaps, but then I wouldn't have made Nartwak put me on his ignore list and sparked a discussion on my sexual deviancy. Now what would be the fun in that?
-
Azarkon, perhaps you don't understand the procedure. Do normally short people recieve "disgusted stares?" This procedure wont make her look like a freak.
It's not just making her short, though. It's also making her sex hormones not develop, which presumably would make her look like a child... Until age begins showing, in which case I'm not sure what the heck she'll look like.
But you're right that I can't predict the result. That's why I posed my initial observations as a question, in the hope that someone will post some pictures as to results of the procedure on past subjects to either prove or disprove my implication. Instead, what I got was a question regarding whether mentally retarded adults are freaks. Obviously not, since the term freak is negatively connotated and the reason I phrased my question with the term was to suggest my potential distaste for the procedure.
Imagine if I had asked "isn't this like creating a disabled person" instead. Would that have made any sense?
-
You are attempting to reclassify all human intervention as "unnatural" and, further, as "freakish" and "unethical".
If a person is born with two hearts, then, I assume, it is perfectly acceptable (in your hypothetical worldview) to remove one.
If twins are congenitally conjoined, and the only way to save one of them is to separate them and save one, then I am lost as to your definition.
In any case, I reject your definition, as it is completely unworkable and pointless.
It might help to ask for my definition if you do not think I expressed it clearly. Nowhere did I say that all human intervention is unnatural, freakish, and/or unethical. I did, however, state that human intervention is subject to ethical examination whereas nature is not. That's why freak of nature is an oxymoron, as I define it - such negative connotations associated with what is natural implies imposing a human value judgment upon something that is inherently amoral. That is not to imply that human beings should not intervene in nature, but that we should not use words such as "freak" to denote what is natural.
Also, it would be helpful if you gave your definition of the word "freak" because you arn't going by the definition found in the dictionary.I'm not redefining the word, merely suggesting that it is inapproriate to use with respect to disabled people, whose only fault was to be born the way they are. I'm perfectly fine with calling a human practice or the result thereof freakish because assigning human values to human activities is perfectly logical.
If "freak" did not have the negative connotations that it did (and I do believe that it's latent with negative connotations - it's not simply a neutrally descriptive word like, say, disabled), I would not strive to adopt this usage, but as it is I feel offended when someone mentally retarded is suggested to be a "freak," as if they were on the same level as those engineered by humans to look freakish.
-
Perhaps, but a person born without a heart is still not a freak.
Nature must at times be subverted, but it (as in nature) is in no way ethical. There is no "little world" mentality about this, only the watery grave of Ahab.
I would also be wary of making universalizing comments towards the truth. My "mis-"definition of freak is deliberate, as a way of anticipating the argument of "disabledness" versus "freakishness." One thing does not imply the other, given the connocations of freak. However, human intervention can be interpreted as being freakish, as it takes upon an ethical dimension, which nature does not possess.
-
rolleyes.gif Humans are not seperate from nature in any regard.
Of course they are, at least for the purpose of debate. As I said, no one would question the ethical qualifications of nature, but we are all too capable of doing so towards man.
Do you have any idea the difficulties and dangers caring for an invalid involves for all involved? Did you just wonder whether or not menstration would be good for her? Are you aware that women in her family have a history of fibrocystic growth and breast cancer?Of course. But that does not make my point any less salient. I did not argue, you see, that what the parents did was wrong, all things considered. I did, however, argue that certain aspects of their argument are wrong, and that a strong argument against their point of view is that Ashley will be seen as a grotesque guinea pig of human modification.
I don't see how you conclude that sane or humane people would be more inclined to abuse her because of this so called deviancy; though from your comments I guess I can infer that you'd be more inclined to abuse her, so I guess I answered my own question.Let me pull a metadigital here and point out to you the dangers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Please respect me, and I will respect you. Fail to do so, and I will do one of two things: ignore you or say things that are likely to get this thread closed down. Your choice.
Holy ****ing ****. Did you say mean stares would be worse abuse for a three month old than rape? mellow.gifYeah, okay. I'm done. Don't bother replying to me. I'm putting you on ignore.
Pure idiocy. The risk of rape is minor, but the risk of disgusted stares is extremely high.
And by ignoring me, you demonstrate your own ignorance
-
Not at all.
There are no ethical issues with nature, nor would anyone make a thread about what do people think about this if Ashley was "frozen in time" by nature, rather than man.
Freak of nature is an oxymoron, where I'm coming from.
-
As far as I know she's still mortal, so yes, there is going to be aging involved.
Can I infer you think a physically mature three month old isn't a freak then?
Nope. Nothing nature creates can be considered a freak. What man makes, on the other hand, is debateable.
This plays into the central ethical issue of this debate - how does becoming chemically neutered and physically small help the child? The parents talk, on their blog, about issues such as sexual abuse by future caregivers - but from my perspective, Ashley is likely going to get more abuse (or at the very least, disgusted stares) by virtue of being a man-made deviant than a mentally retarded adult.
Before the procedures her body was developing but her mind wasn't. They are just preventing the body from developing any more than it already has.That's what the article says. It's not, from what I understand of biology, what the treatment does. You cannot prevent aging. What the parents are doing is "dwarfing" Ashley and making her sexually unable to develop. What the result will be of this procedure... Only time will tell.
-
Okay, this isn't entirely on topic, but she's not going to be "frozen in time," is she? She's still going to mature, to age - just at the physical size of a nine year old and with no sexual development, to speak of.
Isn't this like creating a freak?
-
It's certainly a thorny issue for the reasons you've mentioned, but that's what makes game development difficult. The tradeoff, as I see it, is between making preset "intended" paths (and if they were preset, you might as well make them transparent - ie with indicators like [corrupt]), and modularity, which allows for a greater degree of freedom in what the player can interpret.
Still, while on a theoretical level there are definitely issues, things are, in my experience, somewhat easier at the implementation level. There are times when it's obvious that a choice is non-commital. Take the compliment, for example - perhaps the player *is* trying to seduce the NPC as opposed to simply praising her. But if so, is it realy necessary that you make the fact that you have/don't have such a path transparent to the player? What is lost if, later in the game, there isn't an option to seduce the NPC? Well, obviously the player has just wasted an opportunity to insult the NPC, but even if so, the inherent weakness does not lie in your presentation's lack of clarity, but rather in your game's lack of options. If you had put [this will make the NPC like you better and is not meant to induce a scenario of corruption later down the line], you might have saved the player some ambiguity, but it would not have solved the inherent problem (ie that you did not have an option for seducing the NPC), and would've made modularity more difficult (since you'd now have to commit yourself, with each dialogue option, to some preset path that you must reveal to the player beforehand - hence the transparency of "good, evil, neutral" paths that people now take for granted in Bio games).
It's not unacceptable, in my mind, for the player to be wrong at interpreting the result of their actions. After all, the same happens in real life - things do not always go as planned.
Btw, Afterfall looks intriguing, but what are the Fallout community's impression of the game?
-
Why assign (read: force) a motive to a compliment?
More modular development can be had if a game just took statements like "you look good" to a NPC at face-value. Whether such a statement works for good or for ill should depend on the player's later actions.
This is why having the game try to "adapt" to a player's mindset or "offer" good/evil points for non-commital actions are bad ideas. If I compliment a NPC, I might be doing it for a number of reasons - whether I genuinely mean it or is simply being a nefarious sycophant has no bearing on the game world or the NPC's reaction, and should not thus factor into the gameplay. The NPC should, based on my past actions and speeches, react the same in either case, unless he or she can read minds (in which case the situation *is* far more complicated).
In other words, dialogue should represent *actions*, not *intents*. As such, the ideal case would be for every possible action to be represented at every stage of the game, so as to maximize the number of possible "intents" being represented. Naturally, this isn't possible given limited development times. That's part of what makes game development an art - deciding which options to give, given that you can't give them all.
-
Mercenary (and I call them mercenary because their loyalty would clearly be to the organization, and not the nation) armies of the size you imagine would play very well into a future dominated by mega-corporations and their private armies. But in terms of how it'd help America, I'm highly cynical. Such a blatant display of imperialist overtones is bound to unite the world against the threat posed by the US, and though the French Foreign Legion is renowned as an elite fighting force, it is kept so by virtue of being relatively small and focused in its objectives. What you seem to want the Foreign Legion to do (ie be the bulk of an invasion against massive countries like China) precludes such a criteria, as you'd have to favor quantity over quality.
It's also highly questionable whether granting citizenship to such a large body of soldiers is in the American public interest. With small, elite armies you can keep the membership down to a premium and elect only the best for citizenship. With a massive army - the size of which can defend the US empire - the situation is alot more complicated and you could easily descend into the "unruly masses" category of Legion composition, which would leave a bad taste in people's mouths both in the US and where the Legion is deployed.
And of course, the larger the army becomes, the harder it is to control. If the French Foreign Legion should revolt, not much would happen because it's not capable of doing significant damage beyond its immediate deployed vicinities. But if an army the size you imagine should revolt, the results could be catastrophic. Course, you might argue that USMC discipline would keep the Legion in order, but my impression of large mercenary armies in history is that they tend to go sour, sooner or later, and eventually contribute to the decline of the empires they served.
-
The US does not have enough manpower, conscription or no conscription, to divide and isolate a country the size of China. The sheer logistics would spread the lines of armor so thin that entire regiments would be able to move through the gaps. Besides, they know their land alot better than you, and there are many hills and forests in China to hide in.
Considering that the US can barely divide and isolate in a country the size of Iraq (actually, it's more the opposite, with the insurgents in the country side and the US being hemmed into strategic points) despite having 130,000+ troops there, I really can't imagine how it'd work for China, which has something like ten times the landmass, twenty times the population, and sophisticated military weaponry.
The sort of tactics you're arguing about sounds like something straight from the US invasion of Iraq - but then Saddam's standing army barely did any fighting prior to the transition into guerilla warfare, and once guerilla warfare began the US started losing ground. For a conflict between major powers, the US won't simply be able to waltz in and shock & awe the enemy into submission. In fact, the US wasn't even able to do this in Vietnam - despite utilizing some of the most destructive non-nuclear weapons ever invented.
I can't, therefore, see how think tanks would still consider the strategy viable as a means of conquest. Warfare has moved on since the days of trench captures and blitzkriegs - today military conflict between major powers is waged by proxy and technology, and battles are fought between guerillas and occupiers. In such an environment, beating the enemy on the battlefield is no longer what determines victory in a war - being able to occupy, rebuild, and effectively deal with an invasion's aftermath is.
And really, in this arena, the US can't even wage an effective campaign in Iraq, much less tackle the billions of China.
-
use PsyOps to do psychological operations since Chinese people are under a repressive government they can be incited to revolt once much of China's military is destroyed by USA airpower. Propaganda.
I know you're just using China as an example but as someone familiar with the politics there I can state with confidence that this strategy won't work. The vast majority of the Chinese people do not feel repressed by the government and certainly won't rally to any "PsyOps" propaganda, sponsored by the US or otherwise. At best, the US would be able to utilize Taiwan and Tibet - but given that they represent maybe 1% of the Chinese population, there would never be any mass revolts. Thus, if a land invasion was to be planned, it'd have to be planned against the backdrop of million-men armies, guerilla and standing. I can't imagine, post-Iraq, any self-respecting military strategist depending on the contingency of people rising against their own government as the means by which to win a war. Saddam Hussein was about as bad as they come, after all - he's certainly no Hu Jintao, who commands significant popularity (moreso than Bush in the US, certainly).
Which is partly the reason why all this talk about the Army and the Marines is missing the forest for the trees - war with another superpower will, foremost, not be fought with volunteer forces! No great war in the history of modernity was fought between volunteer armies - conscription is a necessity of scale, and any conventional war with another great power will require conscription on a massive level. Of course, that's why many military strategists believe that the great wars of the future will not be conventional (precisely because the countries are too big to invade and conscription is too taxing on the modern life style).
We're getting way off-topic, by the way.
-
Why would a Foreign Legion abide by US commands after they have established themselves in the world? In other words, what makes this different than, say, a mercenary army?
And in gamer terms, what prevents something akin to what happened in the MGS series from happening, assuming that multinational defense corporations will be involved (as they very well might be, given the current military-industrial complex)?
-
Nice website! Let the hype begin...
-
The Thayans. The Thayans. I will peel the malodorous skin from their blasted frames in due time for killing my kin and countrymen. When I left Saerloon, I was venturing for the trade gold of Archenbridge. I will bring home the coin of vengeance, minted in their defiled, primitive, barbarous, ugly, pig-scrawled, mud-painted, magic-poxed hides!
When a man fights a man, he does it with honor, blade to flesh. The Thayans used eldritch storms to kill my cousin and Ricci's schoolmate. They are not men, but whores of the occult and wretches of dishonor. It is well enough that their women also go bald, since they are no better, simply the mud-brown bitches to the red curs of Thay.
They are lower than dirt, and just a shade lighter. Unsightly, hairless worms that dig their insidious tunnels through the soil of every land to which they spread, uninvited. They bring only iniquity and maledictions, leave only weakness. Spineless, untrue, selfish corruptors, one and all. Had I the hand of Hoar as my own for but a moment, I would drown them in the Sea of Fallen Stars where they could not voice the words that undo nations!
Now that's a mouthful!
From this, I deduce that Guelfa is quite the lady charmer. After all, what self-respecting woman could resist being compared to hairless slimeland canines? You simply must have Guelfa as a female romance option, Josh.
:D
In all seriousness, I do sense a tad of irony here, considering that Guelfa is utilizing the sort of language here that an Edwin might use. I'm reminded of hardcore nationalists among the intelligentsia of ex-British colonies, speaking against the oppressor while speaking their language. Or perhaps all Sembians are like that, which would be scary. Either way,
and keep'em coming! -
Woot, always wanted to see your handiwork, JE, and what's shown so far is very exciting indeed. I like the epithet idea as a means of transferring reputation, undoubtedly it makes the scenario design much more modular. The icons also look good, though I'm not enough of an artist to know whether they were done by hand or photo manip
Would be very interested in seeing some sample dialogue, too. Mayhaps in another thread!
To the FRW modders - how is the NWN 2 Editor working out for you guys, performance wise? I was planning to make some mods myself, but the editor runs pretty sluggishly on my computer, and the learning process has, therefore, been pretty slow. I assumed that the problem was a lack of memory (my video card is 256MB & my comp has 1G) - does the editor run much faster with more RAM?
-
Doom 3 could've been good if they focused less on the "monsters jump out of the closet" factor and more on the "ancient, fathomless evil" feel of the original game. There was something epic about the mixture of loneliness and being stuck in a hell world consisting of ancient world architecture hybridized with occult symbols and high technology. Anyone who played the originals can probably attest to this trend - you were literally fighting in Aztec mazes at one point, in Inferno at another...
Somehow, the lack of narrative explanation added to the sublime attraction of the unknown. Doom 3 just wasn't as good at keeping a secret - the demons were too obviously from Christian Hell, and all the action was limited, more or less, to either the repetitive level designs of the spaceship or the too-often-used imagery of a burning abyss.
and keep'em coming!
Join the CIA and torture innocent people without consequence!
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
I'm sure some neocons would like a return to the time, before the world wars, when the populations of the world were desperate, backwards, and idealistic enough to consider brutality a legitimate option with which to treat the conquered... But I just don't see the US government getting away with disposing the vanquished as they pleased and still being able to wage this war. For better or for worse (for better, I think), the face of modern warfare has changed from one purely about strength, to one partly about morality.