Azarkon

Hardly steady. Modern society largely began with the Scientific Revolution right about 400 years ago. Before that, human society, at least in the West, had been stagnant for thousands of years, and might've actually regressed if we count the Greco-Roman period as a time of relative enlightenment. Man should never fear the future, but it makes sense to actually sit down and look at the future before continuing with the status quo. In less than fifty years oil will disappear as a viable source of energy. Meanwhile, global warming is taking a toll on the climate. We ignore the signs of the future at our own risk. Sure, but that only works if war actually threatened the lives of the population at large. Modern warfare, being often one-sided, is not of the sort. And with apocalyptic war, there's always a chance that humanity won't survive to tell the tale. What does not kill you might make you stronger, but only if it doesn't kill you. The next greatest challenge for mankind is a dwindling energy source. Necessity hasn't quite hit yet, but it will soon enough.

Billions of people forget that they live in a passing moment of enlightenment within eons of ignorance. People born today cannot possibly comprehend just how miraculous civilization is: humans have been on this earth for dozens of times longer than the length of recorded history. Civilization is hardly inevitable, and progress, if not treated with care, can easily lead humanity back into the stone ages.. Necessity is the mother of invention, not war. When a people is threatened with extinction, they will innovate. But the next great threat will not come from an outside enemy. That's my guess.

I like the way this man thinks, and while I don't think he's entirely correct, he's right about the PS3. And I do agree with a lot of his other articles. Particulary this one: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/wowworld.html :D

Hmm, sounds about right. Course, trying to guess someone's mind while they're reading in can lead to hilarious effects.

I kinda want this game to succeed, mainly because the RTS genre has been rather dry as of late. However, for it to succeed TA's legacy, it needs alot more than just pretty battles.

Err, seems like asking whether CRPGs are a waste of time was the wrong way to start this thread, Gin. I think the problem you're really getting at is that CRPGs seem a mish-mosh of other genres, where each of its component parts are better done by some other form of entertainment. Now, I'd buy that argument, except I think that you're wrong. Think about what gets lumped together as a CRPG. Is it because of the action? No, because shooters and action games do them better. The story? Adventure games can also have good stories. The characters? Not really, as the presence of such games as Might and Magic & IWD shows. Freedom of world exploration? But many RPGs are linear. The roleplaying? Perhaps, but what's roleplaying? It's certainly not just dialogue choices (Diablo, M&M), and it sure isn't the freedom to play a role (JRPGs), nor the ability to make an impact on the world (when's the last time this was implemented well?). How do you explain a genre with games like Diablo on one hand and PS:T on the other? The unique aspect of RPG gameplay, I think, comes down to *player character development* followed by the utility of this development in the RPG world. All games claiming to be RPGs possess this characteristic, even if they approach it differently. Predominantly, the methodology of PC development has been increasing martial prowess. Unsurprising, as this genre began not as a storytelling medium but as a sort of combat adventure simulator with levels. Whether it be Western or Japanese, action or story-driven, the gameplay of a RPG is defined by its leveling system. Now, you might argue that other games offer a semblance of character development in the form of new weapons, power-ups, or whatnot, but it's clear that they are vastly inferior to RPGs in every aspect of this particular domain. Hence, PC development is what I'd term the essence of RPGs, if such an essence indeed exists, and it's the eccentric offering of this genre that no other genre can match. The obvious next question, then, is why PC development is attractive. One hypothesis is that it taps into the psychological affinity for growth and advancement inherent to human beings. Whether that's guesswork or theory is meat for another thread, but the certainty of the RPG's allure cannot be denied, I think. When you pose the question: are RPGs a waste of time, the first retort that comes to mind is to contradict the utilitarian stance (aren't all forms of entertainment a waste of time?) But the second point, which I think is far more significant, is *why* RPGs seem a waste of time compared to other mediums, and here I think you're missing a significant idiosyncrasy of the genre that has attracted players again and again into the fold. Why are modern RPGs fun? There maybe many reasons, from graphics to music to story to roleplaying. But that's no different than any other genre in the throes of mass commercialization, wherein the gameplay is often overshadowed by the leaps of technological virtuosity that's lured many "casual" players. Yet if you look at it from the perspective of gaming history, you'll quickly see that RPGs were there at the beginning, and that the line of RPGs has never diminished, only taken different forms at different epochs of history. From the olden days of Wizardry and Ultima, to the new Renaissance of the Fallouts and the Infinity Engine games, to the unfaultering stream of JRPGs, and the mass commercialized action RPG and MMORPG, the genre is as diverse as it is enduring. It's easy to point at the multivalency of RPGs as a sign of its mongrel nature, but that's only because we've forgotten, after all these years, what CRPGs have never lost. For despite the great changes that's come to the genre, despite its players being dazzled by all the cinematic techniques that's come to dominate the genre, the RPG has kept its soul. And this soul, dating back to the very first RPG and which will endure till the last, is a stream that's never run dry.

Pluralist vs. Universalist, I reckon. Seems to me that the problem with religious fanaticism has more to do with its intolerance of another point of view and the zealotry to act upon that insistence, than with the specificities of the religion itself. Of course, that at times manifests itself in the teachings of the religion, but given Christianity's changes over the course of history, I reckon that religious doctrine is perfectly capable of adaptation - if the will is there. On the other hand, if you're against religion because you believe that religion is inherently harmful, then you're pretty much intolerant of it. As such, I am highly cynical of antitheism, which in my view can easily lead to anti-religion prosecution.

:D

Indecision or indifference, then?

We come to the paradox, then, that the lack of doctrine is itself a doctrine. "Atheists," to use your definition, might not abide by any single set of doctrines, but to claim that you live by no doctrines is, I think, impossible. For example: how do you structure your life? How do you live day by day? If you abide by the laws set by your country, why? If you don't, why not? We all operate on principles, and those principles are founded upon ideologies. If I act onto my fellow man as I would they act onto me, that itself is an ideology as ancient as man. The point you're getting at, I think, is that atheism is not the same as theism. I don't disagree, but I think that the state of non-belief is ultimately an irony, as those who claim to possess it still, nevertheless, live by other principles. As such, I don't think that the distinction here should be drawn across theism vs. atheism, but how *much* beliefs and dotrines mean to you. The "natural state" that you speak of, to me, is then not chaos - but indifference.

Depends on the definition you use for atheism, I guess. I think that's more pertinent here than how I define ideology. Personally, someone who believes in neither the existence nor non-existence of divine entities is not atheist, but agnostic. If, on the other hand, you believe that divine forces do not exist, period, and is fanatically so in your belief, then you are an atheist, and uphold one of the atheist ideologies (there are others apart from rationalist/antitheist). If you don't really care, then you're simply a non-believer, which you may define either as agnostic, non-theist, or atheist. The terminology really doesn't matter. My point was simply that *any* sort of belief can be taken to the fanatical extreme, in which case it becomes an ideology. As such, I don't think that religion is to blame here. If not Christianity or Islam, then certainly some other brand of ideology would take its place - nationalism, for example, is an alternative adopted by nations that do not have strong religious backgrounds.

Either one from dictionary.com will do: 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system. But I have a feeling that what's worth arguing is ideology in the sense of a system of control based on a common universalizing belief, as is in the case of Iran.

Paradoxically, it is very much possible to build a system of beliefs on the absence of belief itself. However, you're right in that I misused the term in my haste to post earlier. Atheism is what can be considered an overarching typology, much as theism refers to a myriad of different beliefs. For the discussion of atheism to make sense, one must suggest what branch of atheism we're talking about. I contend that there are two major ones of interest: Scientific Empiricism: the belief that everything in the world can be explained through science, which easily becomes an ideology by way of glorifying rationalism. Antitheism: the belief that religion is evil, a system of control, etc. This is really what I was referring to when I threw out the term atheism, since it made sense in the context of the religion-bashing, and is an ideology in and of itself.

No. That would be the US. Again, the US. You have no idea what you're talking about. For starters, Marxism is not the same as Communism, and "Marxist" theory can range from the realization that the accumulation of capital is the driving force of modern history to the literary critique of use and exchange value. A Marxist, in this sense, is simply one who subscribes to the economic principles and methodologies posed by Marx in Das Kapital or any of his other works. Communism, by contrast, is a political and economic ideology exploited by dictators for the sake of power. Other than the utopian vision of post-capitalist society purportedly shared by the two movements, they have little in common in practice, and it would be foolish to assume that Marx, if he lived that long, would have supported any of the Communist dictators. To state that Marx "forgot" about human nature completely misses the point of Das Kapital and his comprehensive analyses of historical capitalism. Empires have not always existed in this world, especially not empires of the sort we're talking about. The modern imperial power was made possible by the immense industrial and technological advantage accrued through the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions in Europe. Without the benefits of either, Europe would simply be another set of nation-states amidst a world of nation-states. To not see this, and to generalize modernity across the breadth of history, is ridiculous. I find it funny that you hold these opinions as if they were gospel, and then turn back and criticize the guy who formally theorized much of it as an idiotic idealist. Not only that, but you misunderstand the very essence of the argument that history is a struggle for natural resources. Namely, you mistake greed for necessity: there are certainly enough resources for the survival, and even contentment, of the human race. There is not enough resources for those who always want more. Empires serve those who always want more. Btw, being a hypocrite would involve me actively working against that which I believe in, and a first world life style is damaging only insofar as it is done in ignorance. Since you know neither what I do nor how I got to the US, I recommend restraint before you make a complete fool out of yourself. Just in case you insist on arguing this point: giving up my "first world" life style changes nothing. What must happen for suffering to end is systematic change, and systematic change is best effected at the level of those who are in power. Therefore, being in the first world allows me the ability to effect changes where they will make the most difference. Crawling under a rock in the third world, on the other hand, will do little more than distribute what influence I hold onto the likes of you. I'm sure you see the logical fallacy of your argument. I also find it funny that you depend so much on assumptions of my person, and yet the first time I make the observation that you've never truly fought for the democracy you take for granted, you throw a fit on how I shouldn't make assumptions about who you are. Who is the real hypocrite here? Thousands of years of human history under a single global hegemony, or even a local empire of the sort extended by the Europeans? Please refrain from your own breed of daydreaming, for your understanding of history is rather embarassing. Widespread warfare is made possible by the imbalance of power, not the contraposition of it. Global hegemony has not reduced the number of wars the US engages in, and did not do so for any empire that ever existed. Warfare is a constant *either way*, while exploitation is far worse in an unipolar world. Your misunderstanding of history is at the center of your assumptions. No offense, but you've said nothing here that hasn't been posed before by others, and all of the points you've raised have been the heavily criticized opinions of US hawks - the laughing stock, in some cases, of those who see it for what it really is: imperialistic propaganda. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism for a discussion of it. Finally, whether I am detached from reality is not for you to decide. I fail to see the point of continuous ad hominem attacks except to cause a mod to close this thread, so let that be a warning to you if you are serious about the discussion, which I don't think you really are anyhow. Still, I'll entertain this thread a little while longer.

Depends on which personality's doing the judging

Religion is not inherently mind-control. Those who depend on it for the legitimacy of their authority, however, inevitably make it so. But how's that different than any other ideology? Before you vilify religion, remember that the Nazis relied on no established religion, but their own dogma based upon nationalism, scientific racism, and cultural supremacy. And of course, who could forget the atrocities committed by Stalin in the name of Communism? All forms of ideology can be equally dangerous when misapplied, and that includes atheism.

And let me ask, who exactly would supply the weapons to this so-called rebellion against Fox's government? China and Russia propped the Vietnamese. Who would prop Mexico against the US? What, exactly, is happening in Iraq? Bush has toppled the Saddam government. He's plunged a country into ethnic strife and civil war. Sure, he hasn't exactly succeeded in owning the place, but he's damn well set them back twenty years in terms of develoment. Like I said earlier: Mexico can go the same way and become a terrorist state. But how would that help their living conditions? It clearly hasn't helped the Iraqis. There's nothing in that statement that suggests apologetism. No, Castro *cannot* run a happy country when there's an area wide embargo and sanction against him. That doesn't mean his country was happy to begin with, or that if US sanctions/embargo lifted Cuba would become a Communist paradise. It simply says that you can't run a happy country while being sanctioned and embargo'd. What the hell do you think economic warfare is supposed to do, if not wreck a country's chance at development? <snipped rest of your post since it's basically come down to "no, you're wrong"> I'm not sure about the Romans, but last I checked the British, French, and Spanish empires were systematically dismantled and vilified. Last I checked, "Imperialism" became a dirty word right around the time of decolonization. The US is about the only true empire left in the world, and there's no reason why it - or any other empire - should exist. Wasn't that the whole purpose of decolonization, self-determination, the formation of the UN, etc. or are you still stuck in the mindset of the 18th century? It's no world of pink to desire an end to neo-colonialism, and there's nothing inevitable about US dominance. In fact, in the coming years, I expect to see it dismantled piece by piece. That, consequently, is what makes my argument sensible - because I don't think that world politics is a zero-sum game, where if the US relinquishes hegemonic status someone else will take its place. A multi-polar world, for all the dangers associated with it, seems far more preferrable in the long run, and I wouldn't mind seeing the old elites given a run for their money. I can only hope that whatever governments in power (across the globe) would be sensible enough to understand the passing of an unipolar world rather than lash out against humanity one last - and apocalyptic - time.

Try reading "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," Kinzer. Or http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project...entions_project Of course, that's only one side of the story. I'm sure those supportive of US interventionism abroad have their takes, too. However, facts cannot be disputed, and I've never seen anyone dispute the fact that the US has overthrown a hell of alot of governments - many of them classified as democracies. It's only a matter of whether the US considers its actions justified... And whether the governments in question, so to speak, were legitimate in the US's eyes. Of course, illegitimacy in this case can range anywhere from a supposedly botched election to religion (ie Iran's current government). Yet truth reveals itself, I think, when you compare the governments that the US overthrows to the governments that we support/establish afterwards. Saddam Hussein? The Taliban? The Shah of Iran? The list goes on and on. And the trouble is, given Bush's actions or at least intentions in Iraq, Haiti, and Venezuela, I don't see how greatly we've changed since the days of the Cold War. Of course, in this day and age when the shadow of the USSR no longer looms over the globe, people are wont to be alot less tolerant of the US's actions.

There are *always* people within nations willing to sell their own people for money. None in Western Europe? You mean aside from the quislings that cooperated with Hitler's every whim after he invaded their countries, including turning over their own citizens for death camps? I didn't see a massive rebellion in France, Poland, Czevkoslavkia, etc. Did you? Let's not go into the whole "if it were Americans we'd fight to the last man" theory, cause the last time Americans did that was well over 300 years ago, and even then not all the colonies supported the independence. The reality is that the average citizen cares only about self-preservation and would not lift a gun for any ideology. It takes a rare leader (such as Ho Chi Minh) to unite a people under a common cause. Citing the lack of one as an inherent weakness in a country's people is more or less absurd. Like what? What would you consider evidence? We've got former CIA agent Felix Rodriguez affirming that Bush was planning the downfall of the Chavez government, and that should be sufficient for the purpose of my argument. Same way we stopped Castro when his government won against the American-backed Batista government. Let me remind you: the US has claimed absolute hegemony over the foreign politics of Mexico as per the Monroe Doctrine. While Bush's attempts to isolate Iran have failed due to China and Russia, this will not happen with Mexico, and any attempts to aid a potentially rival government in Mexico will undoubtedly result in full scale retaliation. There is no way that the US will allow a potentially independent (as in the sense of being able to forge its own national destiny apart from US goals) government to arise in Mexico. The US has made that quite clear over the years declaring Mexico as its own backyard. I never apologized for Castro's government. That's you putting words into my mouth. I merely used him as an example for US interventionism and the price one must pay for trying to go up against the US, which you pleasantly ignore in declaring that if Mexicans really wanted a better life they should just go up against Fox's government instead of immigrating to the US. Sorry, but the latter is a hell of alot more realistic than the former even with US troops on the border. Only to someone who turns a blind eye to the practical reality of military logistics. Weren't you criticizing me for having an idealistic view of the world earlier? In Vietnam the US was literally fighting blind. In Mexico we would have the full support of the elite plus existing military bases in the area, not to mention any country capable of significant military and economic support would be an ocean away and unlikely to care. Any sane Mexican should rather take his chances with the border patrol. And Fox's government is supported by the rich elite of his country, but that's exactly the problem isn't it? The rich lording it over the poor - who are powerless to change their own circumstances due to the stratified caste system. You might want to read this article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05199/539779.stm Get a list of the last dozen or so Mexican presidents and their cabinets. Count the number of dark-skinned people, compare that to the % of dark-skinned population at large, and then argue that I'm wrong. But really, do we even need to know that the elite is white to know that it's an oppressive regime that perpetuates the division between rich and poor while promoting immigration to the US so as to get rid of its impoverished? Are you really arguing that the Bush administration should be building a wall when it could be taking a stand against the source of the problem: the corruption of Fox's government? The US seems perfectly willing to overthrow democratic governments hostile to its goals in the name of freedom and humanitarian value. Getting rid of Fox should be no problem, right?

I recall that Russia and China supported Iran's "civilian" nuclear program as well...

What, because kumquatq3 didn't start off the post by suggesting we invade Iran after practicing battleship diplomacy against China and Russia? I didn't suggest you did. However, battleship diplomacy involves showing off your military dominance to those countries in question in order to force their compliance. You recognize the fact that China and Russia will veto any attempt to sanction Iran, and that without their support any sanction will be largely pointless... In that case, what's the only option we have, other than to go to war with the entire SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), which Iran will soon be part of? Which is why I suggested that an air strike (or tactical nuclear weapons) to take out Iran's nuke sites is the only practical military recourse? Of course I recognize US air supremacy. My point was that battleship diplomacy against Russia and China won't work, nor will invading Iran. A preemtive air strike to take out their nuke sites is about the extent of what we could do - after which, we'll have a pissed off Iran on us for decades to come. Yes, but the UN is practically giving Iran nuclear weapons by offering them nuclear reactors. Wasn't that your point?

So what is your point here? That Castro is a dictator? What does that have to do with my argument that every time a nation attempts to defy the US it's slapped with a sanction and/or embargo that prevents it from having a chance at developing its economy? This isn't limited to regimes such as Castro's, btw. This applies to *any* regime the US considers illegitimate or against its own interest, as the US-backed overthrow of numerous democratically elected regimes demonstrate. We put Saddam in power. We toppled Iran's democracy in 1953. As recent as 2002 we have attempted to overthrow Venezuela's democratically elected government. So what, exactly, has democracy done to promote the social wellbeing of people in South American countries? You yourself admits in this post that the system's corrupt and exploitive. You yourself admits that in order for something to happen the Mexicans would have to overthrow their "democratic" overlords. All that's needed for me to complete my argument is the idea that the US will prevent such an uprising from happening. So, do you have an argument against that or not? Duh. I'm not the one arguing that the US is right and everyone else wrong. It's only natural that I don't argue vice versa, either. North Vietnam had control of its own army and the support of both the USSR and China, not to mention logistic distance from the US and proximity to its allies. What does Mexico have? The US army can practically invade through Texas and CA to take over the entire area. I guess thats how we overthrew so many democratically elected governments and replaced them with our own puppets? I'm not even going to bother. Try googling. Then read this article about why people immigrate: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/feature...documented_war/

The US doesn't have the internationl pull or military dominance to engage in a land war with Iran (Iraq should've made that clear enough). What we do have is first strike capability to take out their nuclear facilities. That's the most likely recourse, if it comes down to military. Btw, battleship diplomacy doesn't work for jack **** if you're going up against Russia AND China on their own turf. The US pacific fleet would be destroyed by shore missiles and any attempt at retaliation with nukes would result in WW 3 and Fallout. Damn right you will. The problem you're posing is that the US is losing its ability to control the globe through force. Nothing you can do about that except 1) forcibly subjugate the entire globe to your empire, which will never work as a long term solution unless you kill everyone or 2) back off and let other nations do as they will, since who are you to tell them whether they can have nuclear weapons?

Because that's what I argued, right? You claimed that the internationality of the embargo proved its universal justifiability. You were wrong on both counts. The embargo against Cuba is neither internationally supported nor did it *do anything* to Castro's regime other than add yet another humanitarian crisis that the US gets to blame on Castro. It's all politics. It's got little to do with right and wrong and everything to do with the strength of the Cuban expatriate lobby in the US. Otherwise, where's our "international" sanctions against the two dozen other repressive dictatorships of the world? Yes, yes, yes. The UN is just a group of windbags. The US is the only righteous nation on the planet, and all that we do, regardless of what the international community feels (note the unanmity of the vote? Why, what happened to the US's ALLIES?), are justified. I get you. You didn't do **** for democracy. Your ancestors, if they were indeed there during the Revolutionary War/anti-monarchial movements in Europe, paid the price for what you reap. Consequently, they also later sewed the seeds for other peoples' discontent. Kind of hypocritical for you to attribute your luxury to the deeds of your ancestors and simultaneously deny other peoples' problems due to the same, don't you think? "My country's great because of what people did two hundred years ago!" vs. "It's bull**** to blame Mexico's problems on the past! You know, when conquistidors from Spain more or less wiped out their civilization." When was the last time something like this happened - successfully, mind you - while the US opposed it? When was the last time you saw a third world country rise into first world status without US/European economic cooperation? We live in a modern world, Bob, not the age of the wigs. This is a world where a nation is capable of projecting its power across the globe and freely engage in the wellbeing of other economies. This is a world where without an education you can do jack **** outside of manual labor. And it's not like the US uses its economic power solely for the purpose of toppling repressive dicatorships. Quite a few democratically elected governments have been destroyed by US intervention - but of course, they're not "healthy democracies," right? At least in the US's eyes. I suggest you do some research on the history of US intervention in South America. No, it's not all the US's fault that they're dirt poor. But quite a bit of it is due to the effects of European imperialism - you'd have to be stupid to think that Mexico is in anyway led by a indigenous government responsible to the people, and not a white elite vested only in its own interests (which, so it happens, the US supports). And if you recognize that, then it's dead obvious why they can't solve their own problems. Unless Mexico becomes a terrorist state, that is.

Ah, then I am in agreement. There will come a day when mankind may bid a farewell to arms. That day is not anytime soon, unfortunately.