Azarkon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Azarkon
-
-
I don't understand this amazement over Chinese policy towards Taiwan/HK. With respect to HK, the country temporarily ceded the area over to the UK because it lost a war - is it really a matter of whether HK *wants* to rejoin China or not? To the Chinese government and the inhabitants of the country, HK *belongs* to China as much as any state of the US belongs to the US, regardless of the feelings of those who inhabit said state. If California were to declare independence / join Mexico, you can bet your dollars that the US military would come down and enforce martial law. When national security and unity is in question, no government ****s around with liberalism. The only independence that's ever been earned had been done so through force of arms, whether overtly military, or covertly power politics.
Taiwan is a slightly different issue, since technically it's led by a separatist government that never really agreed to nation-hood with the PRC. But if we are to take that stance, then technically Taiwan and the PRC are still at war, and it's really the Guomingdong that "invaded" Taiwan which had belonged to dynastic China (but not the PRC), in which case the future of the island remains a matter of military conflict.
Either way, the PRC has legitimate claims on both, whereby legitimate I mean as legitimate as any nation in the history of the world has ever had a legitimate claim on territory. People of a land (as opposed to immigrants) do not happily join national bodies. They conquer, or are conquered.
-
If we skip all the heathen burning and polygamy parts of the Old Testament, sure :D
Nonetheless, you are right in the sense that the Old vs. New Testament is much less disjoined than the body of Buddhist doctrine, due to the fact that the Old Testament was in fact integrated within the New Testament by theocrats. Buddhism, on the other hand, spread from India to the rest of the world in a much less official manner. As opposed to a legion of trained missionaries, Buddhism, by its natural lack of a intermediary authoritative figure such as the priest/preacher, tended to be much more open to interpretation, and many cultures simply made up their own version.
-
bhuddism is one of the oddest religions I've ever seen. they claim to not worship bhudda but they practically try to pray on his bones... they are the most hypocritical of the religions behind Chritianity.
Religions are not, generally, hypocritical (barring revisions going against past dogma, ie Old Testament vs. New Testament). Those who practice them, however, often can be.
As far as the China relative morality thing goes, I have a feeling that the government is making a power move, counting on the fact that most Chinese citizens are quite content with economic progress and as such wouldn't criticize the deterioration of internet liberties. On the surface, the acceptance of the restriction points out to a culture of submission to authority, but then again, have we ever considered the idea that China may in fact be dominated by a majority of nationalistic conservatives?
In this respect, the US making a fuss would be quite like the kettle calling the pot black. Certainly, there are different degrees of freedom allowed between the two countries, but in the end, neither care enough about freedom to sacrifice national well-being. And since these two countries are set to become the superpowers of our time, the future remains one of corporate dominance and foolish nationalism.
-
Rita is the third most powerful hurricane in history, at the moment. But with an impact date of Saturday, it could get even worse, though hopefully better.
-
Here's an oft-considered conspiracy theory: Bush is merely a puppet in a long line of puppets. His push for a change in the military role is not intended to give him any leverage in the remaining days of his presidency, so getting rid of him is not at all going to change things. Instead, this is just a step for those who really are in power to strengthen their control of the system. But of course, they understand that the American people will never give ground except in times of crisis, and they are patient. As such, they wait for (or perhaps even engineer) the moments of crisis when the public is most vulnerable, and then make their move, one subtle step at a time.
Probably an overly alarmist theory, but I do have to admit that everyday the Bush administration pushes me closer to belief. As much as RoTS might have sucked in certain areas, its equation of Palpatine and Bush is perhaps one of the more worthy-of-debate moments in Lucas's filmmaking. Democracy does indeed die with rounds of applause, though likely not as the result of a single villain. As bad of a president as Bush may seem at times, no individual, not even a Sith Lord, can single-handedly engineer the downfall of a republic.
What we gotta ask ourselves, and soon, is whether this is really even a problem, rather than the natural evolution of a flawed philosophy. Democracy and capitalism maybe the best systems we've ever achieved, but then again, they maybe the last we ever achieve.
EDIT: Btw, whenever we talk about "liberals", we should remind ourselves of something: today's "liberals" and "conservatives" are peas in the same pod, just as the Democrats and the Republicans are increasingly united in their ideologies. I'm not sure if this implies a reversal of positions, in the future, of the Democrat-Republican parties as much as it points to a single oligarchic entity that's no longer really cares about freedom, human rights, etc. as much as it cares about spewing out the right keywords in order to stimulate the right voters.
-
I want a fantasy version of this
-
I don't think it's even deniable that full voice acting, when done correctly, adds to the immersion factor of the game.
But the issue that I do see is that full voice acting has several drawbacks in terms of production, and they are significant ones:
1. Voice actors: are often inconvenient when not integrated within the development team, because under a contract based relationship, voice actors add to both the overhead of a project and can become a serious liability in terms of how far down the line the project may still be changed, as well as consistency of voice acting throughout a series.
2. No room for imagination: the standard argument of the cinematic medium vs. the literary medium - films let you see and let you hear, but in the process you're deprived of an opportunity to imagine the situation yourself. Some consider that a good thing, the death of literature as one further step in an evolutionary process. Others do not. IMO, it's foolish to preconceive film as being better than literature or vice versa, and yet the predominance of the cinematic medium in games ensures that preconception.
3. Player expectations: perhaps the biggest problem with full voice acting is the players who come to expect them. As mentioned in #1, VAs increase overhead and they lead to problems of development cycles and also, importantly, with the modding community (again a problem of overhead). Development costs are skyrocketing, but games are not getting more expensive. What this means, ultimately, is that game development studios, in order to satisfy player expectations for triple A titles, will have to cut corners, and this plays directly into the trend in modern gaming of shorter games that are as casual as they can be in order to appeal to larger mass markets. Obviously, this also means that start-up companies (a source of major innovation) will have a rougher time because player expectations force them to undergo overheads that are beyond their financial capabilities. While this problem is hardly solely due to VAs, it's undeniable that full voice acting contributes to the problem.
-
Eldar: Well, if you want a topic in which I would probably disagree on a major aspect, you could always ask me about the value of nationalism
. But hopefully not in this thead -
If I've put a straw man arugment in play, I beg forgiveness. I don't think I did, but I might not fully understand your argument. Where I have put words in your mouth, Azarkon, I ask for clarification.
Not your entire post, of course, only the part where you were arguing about healthy competition, physical activities, etc., which I didn't disagree with at all. The confusion, I think, lies in a matter of words. You quoted me stating that I disagreed with a world of "cutthroat competition" and "success at all costs" and argued that natural competition is a good thing. But see, that's exactly the interpretation I was trying to avoid by putting "cutthroat" and "at all costs", neither of which I thought suggested anything close to being natural.
In my disagreement, I was specifically responding to the idea that "playing nice" and "no fist fights" were attitudes that should not be used on boys, because boys are somehow different than girls in that they just have to "play hard", so to speak, which I do not agree with. There's very good reasons schools have rules to break up fights and encourage dialogue as the avenue of problem solution, and the reason is the same for both sexes. Namely, when little Timmy grows up, we want to give him the signal that if his girlfriend is cheating on him, the best way to deal with the situation is to talk to her, not pull out a gun and blow her and her boyfriend's brains out. The same can be said for any situation in which physical violence maybe applied but is not necessary (a necessary situation would be a case of self-defense, or having exhausted all other avenues).
Better that they learn early that physical aggression is a trait that must be suppressed in order for society to function, than too late and end up in prison.
-
-
I disagree. Encouraging healthy competition is much better than stifling natural competition. Indeed, it is in our very nature to be competitive. We can't rid ourselves of the inclination. What we should do is channel naturally occurring hostility into more positive avenues of expression. Furthermore, it does not follow that children who engage in fist fights will grow up to be gangsters, robbers, and warmongers. I know of many compelling examples to the contrary.
Healthy competition never stays healthy in the real world, so you understand my inclination to be less than optimistic with respect to encouraging physical solutions to problems. Of course, there is a degree of straw man in your argument, as my post was in response to the idea that suppressing fist fights and violence is actually wrong because boys are naturally inclined to physical violence.
It's been my experience and the experience of many researchers in the field that kids who grow up in violent environments become violent themselves. There are exceptions, of course, but most criminals have had a rough childhood, such as with abusive parents, bullys, violence in the streets, etc. As such, I completely disagree that we should encourage physical violence in anyway simply to placate some perceived natural instinct. If boys become girls in terms of physical violence inclinations, all the better.
We, as a society, actively suppresses violent behavior (else we'd not have laws against fighting, murder, rape, etc.): that is a component of mutual community, not some liberal agenda. I do not want to live with violent people around me. I do not want to live with people who excuse their abuse of others as human nature. I would rather we played "nice". I agree with channeling aggression to some non-violent, physical activity, but that's where my tolerance ends.
-
A generation of young screwed up men is growing up, having had their competitive urges suffocated during young ages by kindergarten pedagogues (sp?) who treats the kids euqally and demands that the boys suppress their nature (and pretty much expect them to behave like girls, i.e. play nicely, no fist fights etc.). Only now is the damaging effects on the psyche of male kids really showing. So tell society that they can go sit on a cactus, there is a difference
So you would rather boys were allowed to beat up each other so that when they grow up they'll become gangsters and robbers and warmongers?
Education, in all its incarnations, is social engineering, and I'd rather the engineering was directed towards a more peaceful society than one with cutthroat competition and an attitude of success at all costs.
-
IQ tests are not very accurate gauges of anything other than how well you do in IQ tests. Spatial reasoning / mathematics in real life != how fast and accurately you answer a test question.
-
JE not doing as well as NWN/KOTOR can have one of many ramifications, but which one Bioware will live by will depend on the success of DA. If DA bombs, it's likely back to Star Wars/D&D for Bio, whereas if DA succeeds, I can see a leaning on Bio's part towards PC games, which would be my biased preference.
-
Often the difference between terrorism and freedom fighters is targetting civilians as opposed to the government.
In FF7 you fight a government. The terrorists we fight today murder innocent civilians.
Government workers are not civilians? Corporate workers are not civilians? You kill both in FF7, alongside the handful of corporate/government leaders.
What are civilians then? People who don't work and stay at home?
-
The winners write history. Then a hundred years down the line the revisionists come along and lambast the winners, but that's just the guilt talking. What's done is done, and from the perspective of military and political leaders, that is what justifies any tactic.
-
Well, that's hard to say, but I've seen nothing but praises from critics and readers. Still, I'm the kind of person who understands that no story is capable of appealing to every one, so I can only offer my opinions and observations with that pinch of salt.
-
"The Last Nigg3r on Earth, starring Tom Hanks"
Upon recognizing quote; awarded ten points.
Paul Mooney
What the heck is Battle Angel? Never heard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnm
Regardless of how much you like/dislike Japanese-styled comics, BAA/Gunnm is a masterpiece of cyberpunk storytelling, and should not be missed if you're at all interested in a good story.
-
I wanna see a Battle Angel Alita anime.
I know theres a series of OVAs but I dont think theres a series.
There are two OVA's: Rusted Angel and Tears of an Angel. I'm waiting for them to publish the next part of Lost Order.
James Cameron is also doing a cinematic adaptation. I think BAA can be considered an inspiration for his Dark Angel series, to a degree.
Last Order is also not in the same ballpark as the original BAA, imo.
-
Iraq has become a cesspool of strife for the worst kind of people, that is no surprise. However, it would also be impossible to label all terrorists with one broad brush, as the Bush administration is attemping to do. There is no "War on Terror", because there isn't a coalition of forces that considers itself "Terror". There are, instead, numerous organizations operating at various degrees of brutality, everything from idealistic freedom fighters to common thugs, that at times cooperate and at times conflict with each other's differeing political and economic objectives.
Moreover, it has always been this way, which is the reason generalizations fail.
-
Great games still occur in the pop market and will continue to, because the only reason publishers are risk-averse is because they know their existing market research is accurate. That is, action games with eye candy continue to dazzle the public, and while not all of us will agree that they're great games, they very well can be, since they are to most of the populace.
What you must turn to indy games for are genres that have been proven to not sell all that great (ie Turn-Based RPGs, old school games), or for things so dastardly strange that no publisher will pick it up. Niche markets, in other words, and if you're a member of that, there's no real justification that I can think of in a capitalist/democratic system for your interests to take center stage.
I'm just glad that it does, every once in a while.
-
Afro Samurai is just too cool for words, so screw political correctness.
-
Abortion is a messy, controversial thing, but guess what folks, abstinence & protection are clean and raise no moral questions about the definition of life. As always, human beings are experts at jumping to moral judgments, but damn lazy when it comes to self-regulation. Other than that rant, I'm pretty much pro-choice, because I don't think a morality based on faith should be imposed upon anyone. After all, there are people out there who believe that babies that are aborted are automatically reincarnated into a better life, and obviously those who do not think life begins at conception, so lacking in scientific evidence as to the accuracy of any view, why not let the person choose based on her own beliefs? That way, when judgment time comes (if such a time exists in the person's belief system), the person could at least say that they chose out of their own free will between salvation and damnation, rather than that they got a free ride because society forced them to.
-
That only works if you intend to be one of the survivors.
Nothing in nature is certain. All the best laid plans do not guarantee your safety in the event of a pandemic, especially one that is airborne.
As always, quick response via quarantine and vaccination is the best weapon humanity has against pandemics. Oh and, of course, a government that won't save the most virulent strains of viruses for possible future use as a biological weapon helps, too.
. But hopefully not in this thead 
China renews their crackdown on the internet
in Way Off-Topic
Posted · Edited by Azarkon
Only the overt military operation is (sometimes!) frowned upon, and only if the government mismanages the spread of information so that the media gets a whiff. The US is very much in the business of conquering other nations through its economic dominance and puppet government policies.
Don't believe me? Think about who's really in charge in the US. Why does the US pursue an aggressive foreign policy at all, and why does it push for democracy in certain countries but not others? What are the benefits of fighting a war in Iraq? Clearly it's not so that we can make the world a better place, but it's also not just for the sake of "oil" or of "getting revenge". Who put Saddam in charge, who expected him to become a lapdog of the US, and who miscalculated that and must now go back once again to depose the rebellious general?
Others have more eloquently outlined the imperialism of the US, but it's not until we juxtapose it with that of a far more overt power player, in this case China, that we understand the differences of policies and why the US does what it does. Simply put, it's a matter of national image. China will need to work very hard to dispel its oppressive system image in the eyes of nations, but the US can simply be let off by the excuse of a dumb president catering to conservative values. When the next election rolls around and the US happens upon a "better" candidate, all will be forgotten and forgiven.