The part about this that I deride is the fear that the Chinese are out to get the US. They most certainly are not. Aside from some diplomatic disagreements, the US and China are deeply dependant upon one another economically and form an almost symbiotic relationship to the advantage of both. Chinese purchace of a US oil company will not cause any of the things you mentioned, particularilly the trading of oil in any other currency. Indeed, the article makes a good point; far better for China to increase its integration with the US than begin forming a new block opposed to the US (with Iran, etc). As a final point explaining why this is nothing but hysteria, look at the number of US companies in China; there's a reason why so many of our products were made there, and its not a result of Chinese companies.
The House has just recently and collectively freaked out about China in a foolish yet understandable fear of the proverbial "other". There's a reason the cold war lasted as long as it did; people like having a generically evil enemy. Hopefully this house bill will be shot down on its way throught the Senate or elsewhere.
As many people are no doubt aware, PJ's newest movie is set for release the end of this year. As the remake of an incredibly well-known film by possibly the most well-known director currently in film (in competition with Spielberg and Lucas), it promises to be highly hyped at the very least. As a side note, Jack Black stars in it. How dominant is that? Anyway... thoughts on this film?
yes but the othert thread is over 200 posts long and is arguing the point of homosexual reformation not if this camp should even exist in the first place.
I'd agree with you here, this topic is definitely an aside from the other thread and worth addressing separately.
I would argue that the camp is unethical for reasons I briefly mentioned near the beginning of the older thread but which have since been lost to the other debate. Regardless of one's view on homosexuality, psychological conditioning (which is essentially what this camp does) is inherently dangerous. It cause severe mental trauma and other psychological issues in the best of circumstances. This camp isn't even licensed (and no wonder... they aren't exactly engaging in licensable activities :/)
This will be fascinating for a whole host of reasons. The fact that O'Connor retired now means that Bush will be in a position to appoint at least two SC Justices if not more. The actual nominees and the fight that will invariably follow will say a lot about both political parties and more than likely underscore the fact that neither actually knows what's going on
It's not. If the set was full of combo cards, he would have said "RAV is full of combo cards!" instead of saying that it will be powerfu like Urza's block.
Although to be fair, he could have meant both. This being corroborated by a recent article (though the date and author escapes me) from mtg.com in which he stated something along the lines of "Ravnica is combo-rific". (Can anyone help my memory here on who and when this was??)
High power leveled sets are not inherently bad, but what does start to make the game unfun is overly-synergistic block mechanics. That was the problem with Mirrodin block; not only was it high powered, it was also incredibly synergystic such that it made creative tournament deck design incredibly difficult if not impossible. What would be ideal is a high powered but non-synergystic block, thus allowing people to create a myriad of powerful tier 1 decks.
And, yet again, in the face of looming global conservatism Canada manages to remain liberal. Let's hear it for Canada!
Definitely! Though I'm not too terribly worried in the long run about looming global conservatism; on the gay marriage issue for example, the majority of people under 30 support it, its just the older generations that are more conservative (as is almost always the case). While I hope things can be resolved logically now and people can get over their homophobia, at least its comforting to know that in a few decades the problem will largely take care of itself I just hope they don't make us have to go through all the bother of repealing a silly ammendment to the constitution...
#13 is almost definitely Mind Rot. Consider the following:
1. The similarity to old Mind Rot art. If you look at it, you can see certain similarities; the expression of horror, the evil-looking energy being emitted from their head, etc.
2. The colour. This is very much a black-card colour scheme. Compare it to Lose Hope , for example; they both have the same dark purple and grey shading and lines.
3. The orientation of the card art. This does indeed make it highly unlikely that it is a creature (a very good point btw to the first people who noticed this).
The incredibly spicy thing about the new T2 is the fact that, unlike the current format, one won't have to play green to play multiple colours. Since they reprinted all the painlands, any colour combo will be possible. Even with just COK and 9th cards this is sweet, but with the addition of multicoluresque Ravnica (and as a consequence even more mana fixing), deck design will be at its height of potential (in theory).
This is the best confirmation i've heard in a long time. All 10 Pain lands. Wow. Standard is going to be great once this rotates in...
An interesting thing to note is that these lands, along with jester's cap etc seem to indicate that Wizards has finally put more thought into what type of cards will make people buy the core set; lands for the tournament players, cap and hyppie for those who remember the "good old days", and simple cards for new players. That plus the addition of trample, protection, etc seems like they're really starting to get the hang of this! (though i tend to be optimistic ;))
Just saw this film last night and and damn is it hot. Also and for the record, Liam Neeson is the man.
With respect to the rest of this thread:
Do people know for certain that they are in fact making sequels to this series? I'd love it if they did, but I was wondering what the plan is for them. I'm certain someone far more versed in pop-culture will know the answer to this
I personally loved Gary Oldman as I'm generally a fan of his (his performance in True Romance was astounding) and its nice to see him not in a villian role.
The darkness and psychological themes of this movie were very well done and very much in synch with the general feel that the series has always implied. Highly enjoyable.
It is protected by freedom of speech and although I would never support buring the flag I would defend a person's right to do so.
Hear hear!
This is fundamentally a freedom of speech issue. In fact, the current law in consideration is actually a constitutional amendment for that very reason; unless the constitution is altered, it inherently protects flag burning and other activities along these lines.
This is not a very polite way to begin. All you had to say was: "I think these arguments are not well supported." I appreciate your being on our side or at least for being indifferent, but I think you could afford a less condescending tone.
It is not my intent at all to be condescending and if I have come across as such I wish to sincerely apologize! My intent was very similar the the sentence you suggest, I just typed it the way it came to me... I guess sometimes I can be a bit verbose :/
Quote from Gotachunx »
I think you are being too harsh with him. In the quote you cite, no assertion is being made. He would like to see homosexual behavior curtailed. And he is entitled to this. I am not reading all that closely, but I don't think he has made the assertion that homosexuality should be cured as much as he'd like to see it so. Therefore, I think going off about what he hasn't even said yet is like unloading some buckshot into a humming bird.
I'll stand by this one. I definitely agree with you that he is entitled to believe whatever he wills about homosexuality, as I explained in my previous post. However, this statement is offered forth as a justification for genetically curtailing this behaviour, which it isn't. On top of this, I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction between Furor liking to see homosexuality "cured" and stating that it ought to be cured. Anyway, that was the reason for my argument. I was attempting to make everything as logical, polite and civil as possible. If I failed in this please let me know that I may rectify it.
I fear, Furor, that some of your responses are indicative of an underlying lack of logical rigor that robs your arguments of a great deal of their credence. Allow me to elaborate in a similar style to your post.
In response to the statement that "Diversity is desirable", you ask simply
Quote from Furor »
Why?
Due to the terse nature of your response, you seem to be implying that diversity is inherently without value. However, if this is a genuine question, there are several very simple response to this. Diversity in genetics is important in order to allow a population the best chances of survival. Even more important to this debate, diversity in ideas allows for greater competiton between said ideas, therefore ultimitely arriving at the "best" idea. This later concept is sometimes refered to as "dialectic" or the "marketplace of ideas", depending on the philosopher, but all trace back to the original Socratic/Platonic concept of ideological competition. This is the same principle behind democratic governance and free-market product development; although not perfect, both are the best system now known to maximize equitability and arrive at the best possible government/product/ideas.
Quote from Furor »
It is not a basic human right to have freedom of speech. Further to that, I do not see how this purported right even comes into play in this situation. Your genes prior to your birth are not covered by the state's indulgence of your opinions.
Be careful where you're going with this first point. Who designated you to determine which rights people do and do not have? Furthermore, within the United States, this is blatantly false, for in that case the Constitution determines what are and what are not basic human rights, and free speach is ideed among them (cf. Amendment 1 of the bill of rights).
On the second point here however, which does not rely on your first, you have a valid argument. People ought not connect freedom of speach to the manipulation of genes. Note that this does not yet address where this line of logic eventually leads.
Quote from Furor »
No, see, what I'm saying is that the "but some of the same arguments were used to support X" argument is precisely worthless. Some of the same arguments were used to support both FDR's New Deal and Stalin's Five Year Plan. Some of the same arguments were used to support the American Revolution and the Columbine massacre. Equating any of these things would be ridiculous, though.
Unless you can prove conclusively that removing a gene from an embryo prior to its birth is the same as forcibly sterilizing a mature human, it wouldn't even matter if the proposals leading up to each plan matched each other word for word and were written under the same letterhead.
Citing a coincidence of arguments doesn't mean **** all. Do you understand?
Another point that is essentially correct. I belive your eventual arguement is highly flawed, but people cannot logically attack it at this particular level.
Quote from Furor »
Whatever the root cause of it, men having sex with other men is something that I would be glad to see curtailed.
Ah, now we come down to it. This statement reveals a very serious flaw in your arguement. You are arguing that, because you find male homosexual sex distasteful (for whatever reason; your dislike of this particular activity is another argument altogether and will be addressed below), it ought to be geneticly curtailed. The problem is that this argument by itself is dangerous and holds no logical water. Simply finding a behaviour distasteful is not enough to make genetically engineering it out of existence a desirable endevour. This falls prey to the slippery slope fallicy; if your assertion is true, then, taken to its logical conclusion, any aspect of an individual with some genetic basis which someone (in power, presumably) finds undesirable can be engineered out of a population. This includes everything from race to the preponderance for political dissent. Surely you can see how this is dangerous from a logical perspective?
Now, of course there are things that would prevent this argument from falling prey to the slippery slope fallicy. If, for example, genetic makeup results in something medically dangerous to the individual (affinity for heard disease, cancer, etc) This then leads us to your next points.
Quote from Furor »
Homosexuality is not a disease, it's not "wrong"
What is your source on this?
Your question here is rather foolish. Indeed, it would be just as valid or indeed better to inquire as to your source. What suggests that homosexuality is a disease and that it is wrong?
Quote from Furor »
I think it's sad to see young people growing up with the view that the beliefs of previous generations are ultimately stupid and not worth considering. More than just sad, actually; it's appalling.
This is a bit of an aside from the thrust of your argument, but I belive it is worth addressing briefly. On the one hand, you are correct; blatantly throwing away beliefs of previous generations is indeed foolish. However, human progress depends upon the questioning of previous beliefs and assumptions. This is the very process which brought us all modern advances from the iron plow to the space shuttle, and even the game of Magic (why play with only 52 cards when you can have thousands from which to customise a deck?). Furthermore, in terms of things like homosexuality, modern advances in science which allow one to understand the genetic and behavioural basis of a phenomenon rather than merely observing its practice is very relevant in determining which "views of the ancestors" we should throw away and which we should keep. In summary, our ancestors once belived the world to be flat and women to be the mental inferiors of men; ought we hold this belief simply because they did?
Quote from Furor »
1. Increasing the number of heterosexual humans would increase the potential for breeding. We do want more people, don't we? I guess the argument could be made that the sort of person willing to engage in homosexual intercourse isn't the sort of person one would want to be having children anyway, but I'm willing to be fair.
This argument doesn't actually make any sense. First of all, we don't have a shortage of people - we can't yet feed those we do have and they're increasing - and, even if we did, heterosexual contraception is far more of a factor than homosexuality. And as for your second statement, this is only true if there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality. You clearly belive there is, but I'll get to this later.
Quote from Furor »
2. A prejudice exists against homosexual people. Trying to remove the prejudice from people already alive has failed; perhaps we should tackle the problem from the other end.
Quote from Furor »
The race of man is only forced to accept homosexuality's existence because it exists in the first place. If this were not the case, no such tolerance would be necessary.
Think about what you're implying! If prejudice exists against a race, should they be engineered out of existence? What about artists? Or people who play Magic? All of these groups are prejudiced against; that doesn't imply that they should be done away with!
Quote from Furor »
No reasons exist to keep these detestable groups around. No reasons exist to keep homosexuality around. It is a state of affairs that the world has been forced to accept out of regrettable necessity. Remove the necessity and the problem solves itself.
Yes there is! See the above argument regarding freedom of speech as well as my discussion on the slippery slope fallicy. Free speech is protected because if it is allowed to be infringed, someone by necessity is given the power to determine what people can and cannot say. If you logically accept this, you must also logically accept the forbiding of anything that those in power dislike, be it arguments against the Iraq war or the preaching of Christianity.
Quote from Furor »
4. The gradual reduction of the Homosexual population would lead to the closure of BGLQT centers and support groups across the nation, freeing up billions of dollars of public funds. This economic benefit also applies to Unviersity and College coffers.
5. Will & Grace might finally be cancelled. This may sound like a comedy answer, but it's not. The attention the homosexual community receives is vastly disproportionate to both its size and importance. This disparity would hopefully be rectified.
I intentionally skipped your third argument as I'll get to that shortly. As for these, this is only desirable, as I stated above, if there is something wrong with homosexuality. If not, these are commendable activities, or at the very least not in any way bad.
And finally, the true root of Furor's argument:
Quote from Furor »
3. Homosexual intercourse is sinful. We have been given a free pass to curtail it harmlessly and ethically. I say we take it.
I could here take a page from your book and ask, "why" and "what evidence do you have that this is true?". You could no doubt quote from the Bible or other various religious texts and yes, I agree; those documents do condemn homosexuality. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support your right to belive that about people for the precise reason I support allowing protests against the government and KKK rallies; free speech has an immese value.
However... Since when do we make legal determinations based soley on religious belief? Particularilly in Western secular democracies? We don't; indeed, we cannot, for it is explicitly prevented by our constitutions.
Now, at this point, there are two options for this discussion. Either you provide solid evidence, based not on religion but on natural law and logic, that homosexuality is a danger to society, or this becomes a religious/philosophical debate. If the second is true, you have a number of valid options; indeed, you could critique the entire nature of Western political society and contend that religion should be a prime driver behind laws, and I could introduce you to many an Iranian or Saudi cleric who would agree, but that is an entirely different argument and would require a separate thread.
I'd agree with you here, this topic is definitely an aside from the other thread and worth addressing separately.
I would argue that the camp is unethical for reasons I briefly mentioned near the beginning of the older thread but which have since been lost to the other debate. Regardless of one's view on homosexuality, psychological conditioning (which is essentially what this camp does) is inherently dangerous. It cause severe mental trauma and other psychological issues in the best of circumstances. This camp isn't even licensed (and no wonder... they aren't exactly engaging in licensable activities :/)
Although to be fair, he could have meant both. This being corroborated by a recent article (though the date and author escapes me) from mtg.com in which he stated something along the lines of "Ravnica is combo-rific". (Can anyone help my memory here on who and when this was??)
Definitely! Though I'm not too terribly worried in the long run about looming global conservatism; on the gay marriage issue for example, the majority of people under 30 support it, its just the older generations that are more conservative (as is almost always the case). While I hope things can be resolved logically now and people can get over their homophobia, at least its comforting to know that in a few decades the problem will largely take care of itself
1. The similarity to old Mind Rot art. If you look at it, you can see certain similarities; the expression of horror, the evil-looking energy being emitted from their head, etc.
2. The colour. This is very much a black-card colour scheme. Compare it to Lose Hope , for example; they both have the same dark purple and grey shading and lines.
3. The orientation of the card art. This does indeed make it highly unlikely that it is a creature (a very good point btw to the first people who noticed this).
An interesting thing to note is that these lands, along with jester's cap etc seem to indicate that Wizards has finally put more thought into what type of cards will make people buy the core set; lands for the tournament players, cap and hyppie for those who remember the "good old days", and simple cards for new players. That plus the addition of trample, protection, etc seems like they're really starting to get the hang of this! (though i tend to be optimistic ;))
With respect to the rest of this thread:
Do people know for certain that they are in fact making sequels to this series? I'd love it if they did, but I was wondering what the plan is for them. I'm certain someone far more versed in pop-culture will know the answer to this
I personally loved Gary Oldman as I'm generally a fan of his (his performance in True Romance was astounding) and its nice to see him not in a villian role.
The darkness and psychological themes of this movie were very well done and very much in synch with the general feel that the series has always implied. Highly enjoyable.
Hear hear!
This is fundamentally a freedom of speech issue. In fact, the current law in consideration is actually a constitutional amendment for that very reason; unless the constitution is altered, it inherently protects flag burning and other activities along these lines.
It is not my intent at all to be condescending and if I have come across as such I wish to sincerely apologize! My intent was very similar the the sentence you suggest, I just typed it the way it came to me... I guess sometimes I can be a bit verbose :/
I'll stand by this one. I definitely agree with you that he is entitled to believe whatever he wills about homosexuality, as I explained in my previous post. However, this statement is offered forth as a justification for genetically curtailing this behaviour, which it isn't. On top of this, I'm not sure there's a meaningful distinction between Furor liking to see homosexuality "cured" and stating that it ought to be cured. Anyway, that was the reason for my argument. I was attempting to make everything as logical, polite and civil as possible. If I failed in this please let me know that I may rectify it.
In response to the statement that "Diversity is desirable", you ask simply
Due to the terse nature of your response, you seem to be implying that diversity is inherently without value. However, if this is a genuine question, there are several very simple response to this. Diversity in genetics is important in order to allow a population the best chances of survival. Even more important to this debate, diversity in ideas allows for greater competiton between said ideas, therefore ultimitely arriving at the "best" idea. This later concept is sometimes refered to as "dialectic" or the "marketplace of ideas", depending on the philosopher, but all trace back to the original Socratic/Platonic concept of ideological competition. This is the same principle behind democratic governance and free-market product development; although not perfect, both are the best system now known to maximize equitability and arrive at the best possible government/product/ideas.
Be careful where you're going with this first point. Who designated you to determine which rights people do and do not have? Furthermore, within the United States, this is blatantly false, for in that case the Constitution determines what are and what are not basic human rights, and free speach is ideed among them (cf. Amendment 1 of the bill of rights).
On the second point here however, which does not rely on your first, you have a valid argument. People ought not connect freedom of speach to the manipulation of genes. Note that this does not yet address where this line of logic eventually leads.
Another point that is essentially correct. I belive your eventual arguement is highly flawed, but people cannot logically attack it at this particular level.
Ah, now we come down to it. This statement reveals a very serious flaw in your arguement. You are arguing that, because you find male homosexual sex distasteful (for whatever reason; your dislike of this particular activity is another argument altogether and will be addressed below), it ought to be geneticly curtailed. The problem is that this argument by itself is dangerous and holds no logical water. Simply finding a behaviour distasteful is not enough to make genetically engineering it out of existence a desirable endevour. This falls prey to the slippery slope fallicy; if your assertion is true, then, taken to its logical conclusion, any aspect of an individual with some genetic basis which someone (in power, presumably) finds undesirable can be engineered out of a population. This includes everything from race to the preponderance for political dissent. Surely you can see how this is dangerous from a logical perspective?
Now, of course there are things that would prevent this argument from falling prey to the slippery slope fallicy. If, for example, genetic makeup results in something medically dangerous to the individual (affinity for heard disease, cancer, etc) This then leads us to your next points.
Your question here is rather foolish. Indeed, it would be just as valid or indeed better to inquire as to your source. What suggests that homosexuality is a disease and that it is wrong?
This is a bit of an aside from the thrust of your argument, but I belive it is worth addressing briefly. On the one hand, you are correct; blatantly throwing away beliefs of previous generations is indeed foolish. However, human progress depends upon the questioning of previous beliefs and assumptions. This is the very process which brought us all modern advances from the iron plow to the space shuttle, and even the game of Magic (why play with only 52 cards when you can have thousands from which to customise a deck?). Furthermore, in terms of things like homosexuality, modern advances in science which allow one to understand the genetic and behavioural basis of a phenomenon rather than merely observing its practice is very relevant in determining which "views of the ancestors" we should throw away and which we should keep. In summary, our ancestors once belived the world to be flat and women to be the mental inferiors of men; ought we hold this belief simply because they did?
This argument doesn't actually make any sense. First of all, we don't have a shortage of people - we can't yet feed those we do have and they're increasing - and, even if we did, heterosexual contraception is far more of a factor than homosexuality. And as for your second statement, this is only true if there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality. You clearly belive there is, but I'll get to this later.
Think about what you're implying! If prejudice exists against a race, should they be engineered out of existence? What about artists? Or people who play Magic? All of these groups are prejudiced against; that doesn't imply that they should be done away with!
Yes there is! See the above argument regarding freedom of speech as well as my discussion on the slippery slope fallicy. Free speech is protected because if it is allowed to be infringed, someone by necessity is given the power to determine what people can and cannot say. If you logically accept this, you must also logically accept the forbiding of anything that those in power dislike, be it arguments against the Iraq war or the preaching of Christianity.
I intentionally skipped your third argument as I'll get to that shortly. As for these, this is only desirable, as I stated above, if there is something wrong with homosexuality. If not, these are commendable activities, or at the very least not in any way bad.
And finally, the true root of Furor's argument:
I could here take a page from your book and ask, "why" and "what evidence do you have that this is true?". You could no doubt quote from the Bible or other various religious texts and yes, I agree; those documents do condemn homosexuality. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support your right to belive that about people for the precise reason I support allowing protests against the government and KKK rallies; free speech has an immese value.
However... Since when do we make legal determinations based soley on religious belief? Particularilly in Western secular democracies? We don't; indeed, we cannot, for it is explicitly prevented by our constitutions.
Now, at this point, there are two options for this discussion. Either you provide solid evidence, based not on religion but on natural law and logic, that homosexuality is a danger to society, or this becomes a religious/philosophical debate. If the second is true, you have a number of valid options; indeed, you could critique the entire nature of Western political society and contend that religion should be a prime driver behind laws, and I could introduce you to many an Iranian or Saudi cleric who would agree, but that is an entirely different argument and would require a separate thread.