Raven

You mean you would give up using the internet ever again?

So what you are saying is that the organization would be different but the end result would be the same. In capitalism I can buy mass produced items or I can get them custom made at a greater cost, same with ParEcon. Thus an argument based off the claim that capitalism takes away your choice (which is untrue, you can still have things custom made) while ParEcon (and thus socialism) provides said choice (when in fact it does so in a manner parallel to capitalism, by charging more or some equivalent).

LMAO As far as the whole pledge of allegiance thing goes (you know, the topic of this thread you do remember the topic dont you?) I have to go with Jag, say it or dont say it, no big deal (and your right, any kid who is actually brainwashed by the pledge is pretty dumb). I think it would be cool if it sticks, but I really dont care. As far as the whole science vs. religion argument goes, there is no hope; there is simply no way anyone will be convinced by argumentation on this type of subject. None the less, while science doesnt explain everything, it does make a good attempt. Thats the real difference, science doesnt claim an answer, it just claims a series of increasingly more accurate approximations that none the less are useful, religion claims absolute accuracy without any empirical evidence. Everyone is so used to looking at this form an internal view, my religion against your religion, or my religion against your atheism, or whatever, why dont you try to step out of it for a moment. Imagine that youre someone completely devoid of religion and you go down to the highly fictitious ye ol religion shope to pick out a religion. Only, which one do you pick? How do you decide who is right? Is it through the gathering of empirical evidence? Do you trace them back through history to some initial truth? Do you decide based on the universally excepted truth? To all of these, no. There is no real empirical evidence that supports religion, only unknown phenomena that suggest something science cant yet explain. There is no path back to the initial truth, only a series of semi-logical steps from one religion to another that any half assed historian can document. There is no universal consensus (or virtually so) like there is with science, only a series of groups that are larger then others. People choose based off of what makes them feel good, or what they were taught as a child, or what there relatives believe (especially relatives with money), or what is popular among there group of friends. I dont know about you, but this doesnt seem the way to make an important decision I choose not to believe I'm driving off a cliff because it makes me feel good I came to decision some time ago to believe nothing absolutely, but to go with whatever model of the universe that is right most often. If science one day proves that god exists then I will (feeling the total fool) believe in god, but then god will be the realm of science. Even if god exists there is no logical reason to believe in him until empirical evidence exists to prove his existence. If I were to go back in time and tell an early scientist that thermal energy is really molecules bouncing around and insane speeds and that he should accept it on faith he would be crazy to do so. That doesnt mean I advocate believing nothing without evidence, instead believe nothing without doubt and let the level of doubt be a derivative of the quantity and apparent quality of evidence.

quote: Maybe unions will get wind of this kind of stuff and try to implement it.....I hope they get the word. What about assembly lines, mass production, automation. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to custom build cars rather then mass produce them? This would be a nightmare, never mind the sheer quantity of people whose whole purpose would be to organize meetings and plan all this, never mind that mass produced goods are just fine under all but a few circumstances, forget about all this, and it would still be a disaster. Hours would be spent planning individual cars for some hack who has no idea how a car should be put together, then it would take time to either reprogram the robots (or do we get rid of robots because they steal jobs?) or to build the thing without robots, and what for? So some hack can have a unique car? On the other hand, what if a consumer wants something made and negotiates with the workers only to find that they are simply unwilling to spend the amount of time it will take and no compromise is possible? You do know that compromising doesnt always work dont you? quote: blah! eight pages and counting Pretty bad isnt it, and the number of new arguments is pitiful too boot.

I generally just use the W A S D keys to move around, works just fine. Oh, and by the way, acid arrow works better then fireball for opening doors.

quote: Sorry SC, Resnig is in my crew, and 'in case of accident, he always takes his mom'.Really? Tell me when and where you launch, I bet a piece of a wrecked space shuttle would be worth something too.

Right, so I got the game the other day (donÔÇÖt ask me which day exactly, I rather lost track of the time since then) and I have had an inordinate amount of fun playing the single player campaign and dinking a little with the Aurora toolset and found it extremely intuitive (nothing compared to level editors for, say, first person shooters or the likes). In general I found the game to be extremely interesting in that it had a compelling story with a lot of options on how you go though it, as well as a lot of other fun things to do (like demand protection money from nobles and demanding rewards for everything to dealing with daemons). The game is (thankfully) so far free from any inane inventory puzzles that plague so many role playing games. Furthermore, the ratio of story development to hacking through dungeons is most favorable, that is to say itÔÇÖs nothing like dungeon siege. As far as the game mechanics go, itÔÇÖs relatively satisfactory. I'm no great fan of dungeons and dragons, but third edition is a massive step over earlier versions and is well recreated here. While the ability to respawn in the temple is a little cheesy, it does save a lot of loading and saving, and the exp and gold penalty makes dying an undesirable result without being devastating. One of the big things I look for in any role playing game is the ability to play an evil character, and while that was possible in BG1, it was so heavily penalized as to be prohibitive (or, to be more accurate, there were significant experience bonuses given for performing good acts regardless of your alignment). Thankfully there are no such penalties or bonuses in neverwinter nights, thus youÔÇÖre free to play whatever alignment you desire to. That said, there is a decided lack of recognition of alignment choices. You can go around looting, robbing, demanding protection money, and all sorts of delightful things and everyone you meat will believe you to be a good person if not the epitome of heroism. At one point the game informed me I was Arkara the Malefactor, but it doesnÔÇÖt seam to make any difference in anything.

quote: So, you think I'm ignorant because I'm a well-off academic, and you think E5 is ignorant because he's not. Read to yourself! ThatÔÇÖs not what IÔÇÖm saying at all, I donÔÇÖt think youÔÇÖre ignorant because youÔÇÖre a well off academic, you obviously know an inordinate amount about socialism and capitalism even if I do disagree with your opinions. The problem with your arguments is that they are based of an idealistic view of the world. quote: It doesn't matter how wide the range of options is, the choice is not free because consumers don't have a substantial say in the options. Picking one option instead of another may prompt other owners or managers to determine options that are more compliant with the choices of consumers, but that does not make the choice more free. The freedom simply isn't there. Then, keeping with our analogy, how would socialism be different? quote: you know the wood problem between Canada and US? Just because Mr Bush is afraid that Canadian competition has an advantage, he preventing us from making profit throught FREE-TRADE, which here Bush obviously didn't cared about. Well to stay on topic, that already caused over 20,000 jobs to be lost, and the vast majority of these people are over 40 years old. It's all they did all their life. What will happen with these workers? NOTHING! they'll stay on welfare because there's nobody else that will hire them, and have no specialisation. Nice, huh? Just because there was too much competition, and some bighead decided to strike at the balance of markets in his favor. Actually that is perfectly reasonable on BushÔÇÖs part, part of his job is to protect domestic interests (that is, the interests of his constituency), not the interests of Canada. If that hurts Canada, then it hurts Canada, and thatÔÇÖs how it goes. On the other side of the coin, if Bush hadnÔÇÖt acted then it would result in a loss of American jobs (no doubt by people over 40). Ultimately, what you are saying is that you wished that is was America that suffered rather then Canada, not exactly altruistic, and not all that likely. It is my opinion that you support socialist reforms because they directly benefit you rather then because of any high minded ideals. There is nothing wrong with this, but it looks rather bad when you pretend to support said reforms for altruistic reasons.

quote: Do you all really think that having God in the pledge is somehow oppressing someone's right to worship a religious entity freely? They just need to keep thier mouth shut. I think the point was that it imprinted on young minds the existence of god (though I have to admit it didnÔÇÖt work well on me), and thus is part of a process to remove from a child the ability to choose no religion. Furthermore, it is the act of hearing it that is as much the problem as is the act of speaking it, so keeping there mouth shut as you so elegantly put it isnÔÇÖt really a solution. That said, I donÔÇÖt really care, I just think that it is inherently cool that someone would sue over this. As far as all of this nonsense about the origin of morality I have to agree with Menchise and Suanta, the complex set of ideas that we call morality is learned, but is none the less based in biological imperative. ItÔÇÖs not universal, or necessarily all that strong, but it does exist. quote: I believe that regardless of one's religious beliefs or lack thereof, one would recognize that what's happening is wrong. Unless, of course, one thought it was amuseing. Just because the seed of morality is biological doesnÔÇÖt mean that it sprouts in everyone. quote: Someone who goes around trying to get away with everything at everyone else's expense would not get very far. Well no, not if they are as obvious about it as you are suggesting, there is a certain finesse to doing that kind of thing well. That said, it is not so much that reciprocal altruism is good for each individual, indeed it is more of a burden then anything else, but rather it is beneficial for society as a whole that individuals act in a moral manner.

I'm going to go get this game in a few hours (like 6 or so) so IÔÇÖll post my own review after IÔÇÖve played for a while (that is, if I have time to stop).

You know, thatÔÇÖs what first came to my mind too. P.S. That site is cool though, now I can tell if itÔÇÖs dark out without finding a window. [ 06-27-2002, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

About damn time! I have been thinking that this should happen since grade school and I hope that it lasts. quote: Mentioning God does not imply a religion, just the concept of religion. And if I dont believe in any god or any religion in any way shape or form. I clearly remember finding the pledge an insult to my intelligence when I had to recite it (and it isnt really optional, at least it wasnt in my school). quote: Endowed by their Creator? Secure the Blessings? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and the Founding Fathers did not intend that religion be banned from public discourse. And I care because why? Just because the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs doesnt mean that modern kids should be subject to such beliefs. quote: LOL! We better watch out the atheists are going to want scrap the constitution now. Because it was founded on a belief in God by our fore fathers. I wish I could remember who it was that said we should write a new constitution every 20 years, that really would be the way to go. As far as the constitution being founded on a belief in god, I would say rather that it was founded by people who believed in god. There is, in all actuality, a considerable difference and too confuse the two would be to be mistaken. quote: You think you will eventually buy their service? I'd give you 3 years before you start to "realize" just how GREAT AT&T really is Are you familiar with the term going postal? The real difference here, though, is that you could buy there service and they would stop regaling you with incessant advertisement. The pledge is different, its ubiquitous, there is no escape Mwa ha ha ha.

quote: I haven't been to college yet, and I never read a single book on social issues. So your opinions are shaped by others opinions and personal gain (I believe you mentioned earlier you come from a poor family). A lack of formal education hardly is a sign of understanding or a lack of bias, if anything it is a sign of the opposite. quote: Canada's economy is not small. Maybe compared to the US, but we have about 10 times less people, mind you. And btw, the US has a deficit, Canada doesn't. While the US are in a recession, the Canada has the first rank (as of now) for economical growth in the G8 in 2002. First of all, Canada is not socialist; its capitalist with socialist reforms. There is a distinct difference, furthermore, though Canada may have a growing economy it doesnt have a large one, there is a difference. quote: The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Dont forget vote buying, by giving money to people a party can effectively purchase votes not really my idea of how democracy is suppose to work. quote: Now we're arguing over labels. I have already stated that I do not support what you call socialism, and I have already provided links to the model that I do support (on page 6). Yes, I remember this; the people are supposed to manage themselves. Delightful, why dont we allow farm animals to take care of themselves as well. Its madness, pure and simple, there would be a terrible paucity of infrastructure and thus things that require infrastructure (like coordinating shipments of good and the likes). quote: Now let's say I've had a shower and now I'm going to choose what to wear. Someone walks in and tells me that I have two options: a green or yellow dress. Regardless of what I choose, the choice is not free (for more than one reason). Let's say I pick the yellow dress, hence rejecting the green one. The next day, I have to choose between a yellow or orange dress. The choice is still not free, even though the orange is more compliant with the yellow dress that I chose previously. If someone walked in after I got out of the shower I would scream at them and generally be perturbed, but maybe thats just me Seriously though, your analogy is overly simplistic. Imagine instead that (after getting out of the shower) you were presented with a dozen people each with three or four items of clothes and they are vying against each other to get you to choose one of there outfits. This is called competition, and it is an integral part of modern capitalism.

I didnÔÇÖt know it was out yet, cool.

quote: My concern deals with the extreme indegestion and pain I experience in my gut within about twenty minutes of drinking ANY cola. You just need to drink more soda lots more soda. Should clear it up in no time flat (or else youll be rolling on the floor vomiting up blood, that could happen too).

quote: I understand that you believe current systems are better than making changes. I think your afraid of change....very mob like. But you are entitled to your opinion....but I disagree. I'm not opposed to all change, just the change you are suggesting. In fact I think I mentioned some types of change I would like in our political system. To say that I am afraid of change is clearly incorrect, better to say that I oppose what I consider harmful change. Would you appreciate it if I was to suggest a policy of conquest for America and then criticize you for being afraid of change when you objected to my idea? quote: Maybe....maybe not....unlike you I do not discuss my points and ideas from the bizarre position of having some divine insight that others do not. Thank you quote: Oh...and if their made to feel their voice has no meaning why would they be interested in the first place? Im not suggesting that the people should have no say, this is dangerous, rather I suggest that there voice in politics should be further limited to prevent unwise policies that are none the less supported by the mob from being implemented, welfare being an example of such. quote: You are popular...just for me it's in a sick fascinated kinda way.... You are too kind quote: Heh heh...they already get life terms....they just redraw voting lines..... I believe Gerrymandering is the technical term The problem, however, is that congressmen who want to get reelected (as just about all of them do) have to appeal greatly to there constituencies in such manners that can lead to waist (pork barrel politics being the prime example) or to horrible (but popular) bills being passed. quote: Your best interests or mine or the people's? I think you are losing sight of why these positions exist in the first place... I was thinking of the nation as a whole. quote: People are what its all about. Of course people are what its all about, but whether its about using people are helping people is a matter of personal preference and whim. quote: I think we are blinded by our successa success that that comes at the expense of others..a success that takes from those it is supposed to encompass forces are moving to change that.I believe we should move with that change instead of trying to fight it. For someone to succeed others must always fail, always. If everyone achieved the same level of something, it wouldnt be called success it would be called average, only those who rise above the average are truly successful and for some to rise above others must fall below (its pretty simply math). quote: I sure as hell dont want that power able to dictate policy over people. Why ever not? quote: Tell me if I'm wrong. I'll drop it again. Youre wrong quote: lol! you're trying to fight the nature of humanity itself (in debates). Speak, shout, diplomatically insult, then go name-calling (straigth-forward), and, if possible, use weapons Thats the spirit! quote: And that is a problem in my eyes. There is more to a person than a means to shareholder return. Yep, but we just havent figured it out yet quote: A lot of extremely rich people. Some good some bad. Also the rich wanna be's....gamblers incognito....and those who have a nest egg and are seeking to expand it. Not the working poor or vast majority of other personnel who are economically cut off from ever even trying to be part. And there is something wrong with this? quote: There is more to a story then what CNN puts out. Always!

quote: There are other places democracy can manifest itself. The next frontier I believe may be the work place. Democratization of the work place eh? Why not democratize education while weÔÇÖre at it, or perhaps the police force and military. I mean hell; if it works for government then it should work for everything. Seriously though, I canÔÇÖt see how democratization could help businesses run better. quote: Yep politics is a full time job. So you have said a number of times, but you continue to support an excessive level of democracy, this doesnÔÇÖt make much sense. Either politics is a full time job, and our country should only receive minimal input from the mob, or else politics is not a full time job, and our country should be run as democratically as physically possible. Sure, there is a middle ground, but you seem to be making two opposed statements. You canÔÇÖt, as they say, have your pie and eat it too. quote: I would rather have them calling the shots via internet referendum then allow pockets of power to dwell in the hands of personnel with your mentality and beliefs. Gee, arenÔÇÖt I popular. I understand your sentiments, I wouldnÔÇÖt want to live in a country ruled by someone like me either, but allowing the mob to be a major power in politics is ridiculous. If anything it supports spin doctors, pork barrel politics, and similar nonsense that should have no role in how our country operates. If you want my opinion (which you probably donÔÇÖt) high government positions should be for life, or at least a very long time. There exists a need for the people to be able to exert influence on how our country is run if for no reason other then to protect themselves, but the mob is currently far too powerful. quote: We must remember that even Senators are people and need to be insulated from overt pressures placed on them by sources that may not have the general interest of their constituency in mind. Sure, so we insulate them by putting them under extra pressure from there constituencies as well, peachy. If anything, that results in even more pressure on congressmen to act in a manner opposed to the best interest of our country. While it could be argued that these pressures (that from there constituencies and from the ÔÇ£sourcesÔÇØ you mentioned) exist in a state of concordant opposition (or some facsimile thereof) to do so would be incorrect. quote: whoever predicted 6 pages in thsi thread, congrats! That was me, thank you, though you picked an ironic time to mention it

quote: I firmly believe that alternatives can be reached that will allow people more democracy, more freedom. Freedom is great, but it worries me that you would think we are in need of even more democracy. Not to put it too bluntly, we already have too much democracy. The masses do not know whatÔÇÖs best for them and most of them are simply uninterested in spending the time necessary to make an educated choice. There have been a number of democratic reforms over the years (let us look at how senators are elected not as opposed to how they were originally selected) that have distributed too much power into uneducated hands.

Not exactly, though matter and energy are fundamentally the same thing, but photons are particles and that is what they were talking about teleporting. Amazing stuff really, I had no idea that kind of thing was actually possible.

quote: whatever happened to MUDDing? Nothing has ÔÇ£happenedÔÇØ to it as far as I know; itÔÇÖs getting better if anything. If you enjoy that kind of thing check out Skotos .

ROTFLMAO

I cant believe this topic is still going. Oh well, here is my addition. quote: The European Union pushed for the summit to consider food a human right What a preposterous idea, food is as much an innate human right as money and power are. quote: The bottom line for a whole lot of people is the alleged free market is a nice way of sayin your gettin screwed... And socialism is just a nice way of saying a whole lot of people are getting screwed. Only its wealthy people who get screwed with socialism, and because they have more money you justify it. quote: To answer your question, moral principles are important because they point in the general direction of what is wrong and what needs to be changed. If the current economic system cannot function in accordance with the moral principles of humanity, then it is the economic system that needs to be changed, not the principles. I would argue that there must be a balance between morality and economy. Economy triumphing over morality tends to lead to irritate the mob a lot. Thats generally not good. On the other hand, morality triumphing over economy is preposterous. Morality exists to keep people in line and prevent horrible abuses of power (something which it doesnt, at least not usually) not to regulate the economy. The sufficient amount of morality has been innate in our economy for a good while, and because a little is good some people seem to think that a lot is better. quote: It's not that simple. If a country loses its farmers then it becomes dependent on other countries for food. The food imports would be more expensive because of the lack of domestic competition. The higher cost of food in that country would increase the costs of production in every other sector of the domestic economy, hence other fields of endeavor would also be disadvantaged. A country doesnt loose its farmers without some kind of ecological disaster. If a country has less farmers then it needs, this will generally raise food prices like you say, but rather then wreaking havoc on the local economy the increase in food prices will allow existing farms to expand and encourage new farmers to start up.

quote: Ebgames is reporting the game has gone gold nothing from blizzard yet though :-), i think this means it's ready ÔÇ£Going goldÔÇØ is when the developer sends the game to the publisher to be mass produced and such not. quote: What do you mean by 'cookie cutter'? That itÔÇÖs just like all the other RTS games that are out there.

quote: With over 1200 sun type stars in our own back yard so to speak. Sol is a G2 V if I recall properly.