Earth Like planet found

[Numbuh 0xFF]

numbuheightbitstar said:

Now you see, the fact is, most people are very much inclined to "clean up their act." Thing is, they want to do it in ways that don't actually require effort. They want to use votes and legislation and petitions and letter campaigns to achieve their ends. And, see, historically none of these methods has ever achieved anything.

Historically, people haven't been detecting alien worlds at monstrous distances using higher math, adaptive optics and supercomputers. Now look at us.

What always puzzles me is that people accept massive paradigm shifts in our understanding of the cosmos, nod in passing at previously undreamed expansions to our horizons[1] and are sanguine about technology's potential to redefine what a human being is but scoff at the idea that the same progress that has made us what we are today can be applied to society. Instead, they hold on to some romanticized notion of eternal verities. "Men will be men", they say. "You can't change human nature" they opine with the authority of Solon passing judgment. Piffle. You CAN change human nature. Human nature has been changed -- extensively over the ages. Take a stroll on Times Square. Grab a random passer-by. Chances are, that this random guy or gal is a far better human being than most humans during our history. Chances are, that this person finds the idea that one race or ethnicity being inherently better and more deserving of life&liberty&happiness than another abhorrent. Same for slavery and censorship. Even more so for women's rights. And yet, scratch under the surface of any great historical figure and you will see racism and slavery and a hundred other horrors.

Of course you may cry that those were other times. And you'd be right. They WERE other times. People are better now. Simple as that. Better. And they should be better in the future.

It's as Bush himself said: "Quit throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" Or with King John and the Magna Carta--King John would never have agreed to that document if it wasn't for the fact that the creators of the MC had already proven they had the will and muscle to back it up. Authority figures don't listen to pieces of paper. They DO listen to angry people who have proven a willingness to take drastic steps. History has proven this and this is a lesson that modern America is forgetting in our feel-good nanny-state age.

Ah, but were the USA a slightly better run country Dubya would be out on his ear for that comment. You see, do you know what the POINT of constitutions and such pieces of paper is? It's so that you don't have to bleed for your freedoms. So that ink may flow in blood's stead. The phenomenon is called civilization.

Of course, the USA are encumbered with a dated legal&political system which doesn't have nearly enough checks and balances. Which is exactly my point: it should be the beneficiary of the selfsame progress I mentioned a paragraph or two ago.

As for what the "Real Man" is (and note that by "man" I refer to humans in general, not just males):

Ah, no. You can't do that, sorry. Using "man" to refer to all humanity is a sucky thing to do. It's by little acts like this that we let ancient demons roam again. A little political correctness is actually good for you.

I still thing "congressperson" sounds ridiculous. Thankfully we have "congresscritter" which is vastly superior and so apropos to moder political discourse.

The Real Man is a realist--he knows the facts, knows what people are like, knows what will and will not work.

And by which occult means does he achieve this omniscience? I, apparently, am disqualified from Real Man status (which means I am a False Man...or perhaps an Imaginary Man? Complex Man?) because I certainly don't know which political ideas will or won't work.

But he's also an idealist. He wants the human race to reach the spiritual perfection we all dream about, where there's no war or pollution or greed or crime.

Ah, yes, employing Realpolitik to achieve idealistic ends. Yes. Right. That works.

To this end, he's a great planner--he may not be exceptionally strong (either physically or in terms of popularity) but he knows what options he has towards achieving this ideal of humanity.

Okay. He knows his opinions. That comes in handy. No nits to pick.

The Real Man never does anything with an ulterior motive, or if he does he at least doesn't try to hide it.

Point of contention: the definition of the term "ulterior" includes subterfuge. You can't have open ulterior motives. It'd be an oxymoron.

But I dig your point.

The Real Man seeks critics, and listens to their words in order to find his weaknesses and thus, ways to improve himself and his methods. He does not tolerate the presence of "Yes-men."

Hey, that sounds like science! Cool.

Obviously, he's open-minded.

Obviously.

What's less than clear is what you mean by that phrase...so well worn now that it's meaning is occluded behind mounds of rhetorical chaff. Might want to elucidate.

And finally (or at least until I can refine this ideal further):

The Real Man should also have a sense of humor.

Well everyone would have a sense of humor. But I understand your point.

I had an idea for what a "Real Man's" idea of a merry little revolution would be. It involved ventriloquism, Sheryl Crow music, and compromising photographs. But that needs refinement too.

Well, I've actually lived trough a revolution and it's somewhat less pretty and not at all merry. It involves outrage, risking imprisonment, torture and death and a state of continuous low-grade despair. It also runs the risk of causing a civil war. I've lived trough some two civil wars. They are even less pretty. A whole lot less pretty. And this, mind, from a person who was totally uninvolved in either. To an actual victim (and in a war...we are all victims: some lose life, others pieces of their humanity but none remain unscathed)

I'll take letter-writing and civilized discourse any day. The alternative is, trust me, too horrible to contemplate.

[1] My favorite example is Auguste Comte using the chemical composition of the stars as an example of something that's unknowable. A few years before the first stellar spectroscopy was preformed. Ouch.

[numbuheightbitstar]

@ Madame

You're not exactly the paragon of humility either.

Not that its a problem. Humility is overrated, and those that preach it or impose it on others always have some sort of ulterior motive. "Be humble" is almost always shorthand for "conform" or "let others control you."

numbuh 0xFF

veljko said:

What always puzzles me is that people accept massive paradigm shifts in our understanding of the cosmos, nod in passing at previously undreamed expansions to our horizons[1] and are sanguine about technology's potential to redefine what a human being is but scoff at the idea that the same progress that has made us what we are today can be applied to society. Instead, they hold on to some romanticized notion of eternal verities. "Men will be men", they say. "You can't change human nature" they opine with the authority of Solon passing judgment. Piffle. You CAN change human nature. Human nature has been changed -- extensively over the ages. Take a stroll on Times Square. Grab a random passer-by. Chances are, that this random guy or gal is a far better human being than most humans during our history. Chances are, that this person finds the idea that one race or ethnicity being inherently better and more deserving of life&liberty&happiness than another abhorrent. Same for slavery and censorship. Even more so for women's rights. And yet, scratch under the surface of any great historical figure and you will see racism and slavery and a hundred other horrors.

You know what the problem with that line of arguement is?

You're scratching "under the surface" of the great historical figure, and yet you're accepting the person on the street at face value. Scratch under the surface, and that person on the street is just as bad as that historical figure.

Sure, they may say "Racism is bad," they may even go into an impassioned speech about it, but 99% of the time they only say that because that's the "right thing" to say, not because they honestly mean it. People can trick themselves (and others) into thinking they've got a passion for something that they really don't have one for (case in point, how I used to act like I was so passionate about video game advocacy, only to realize just yesterday that I don't like video games all that much).

And have human beings really changed? Look at the entertainment industry--first they want to censor books, then they want to censor movies, then they want to censor comics, then rock music, then video games... and always with the exact same arguement that "if our kids see violence/sex/crime etc. they'll want to be like that" (an arguement that has never proven true but that keeps getting spouted anyway). Or again, history: First (or maybe not--I need more research) in American history there was a period where you could be interrogated and jailed--unjustly and unconstitutionally--just for being a suspected Communist, then there was a period where you could be interrogated or jailed for being a suspected Drug Dealer. Now you can be interrogated or jailed because they think you're downloading music, or because they think you're a terrorist... its the same old bull, given new clothing. Or how Scientology is just Christianity with all the terminology rewritten in a cheap attempt to sound more scientific.

You mention technology. You do know, don't you, that half the technology we have today (including our computers) are a by-product of the Cold War, right?

Even Scientists are not immune to these circular behavioral patterns.

Even your own "humans today are better than humans yesterday" ideal is itself a repitition of an old standby of the human mindset--the idea that anything we have today must inherently be superior to anything we had in the past.

So, ummm... how has human behavior changed, again?

Ah, but were the USA a slightly better run country Dubya would be out on his ear for that comment. You see, do you know what the POINT of constitutions and such pieces of paper is? It's so that you don't have to bleed for your freedoms. So that ink may flow in blood's stead. The phenomenon is called civilization.

Of course, the USA are encumbered with a dated legal&political system which doesn't have nearly enough checks and balances. Which is exactly my point: it should be the beneficiary of the selfsame progress I mentioned a paragraph or two ago.

Thanks for missing the point. The point was that people don't give a rat's heinie about a piece of paper, they DO give a rat's heinie about the muscle behind that power. The Constitution has been losing that muscle lately, specifically because there are few people left who would seriously stand up and fight for its ideals if push came to shove.

People have known for FIFTY FREAKING YEARS (maybe more) that our legal system and our politics are completely messed up. People have been pushing for change... via letter-writing campaigns and petitions. And what effect has it had? Absolutely zero.

When we secceded from Britain, we did it first with acts of sabotage (the whole Boston Tea Party thing), and with weapons and tactics. THEN we made a piece of paper. If Americans hadn't started raising a ruckus and shown their will first, the Declaration would've been an empty gesture, laughed at and casually tossed aside just like all our letters and petitions are today.

Ah, no. You can't do that, sorry. Using "man" to refer to all humanity is a sucky thing to do. It's by little acts like this that we let ancient demons roam again. A little political correctness is actually good for you.

So, would you prefer "Real Persuns?" Or perhaps, "Real Critters?" Or maybe even "Real Carbon-units?"

Political Correctness was a byproduct of another circular pattern of society--a dire need to avoid any real attempt at improvement by trying to hide the problem. Political Correctness isn't here to help us deal with those ancient daemons, its here to prevent us from having to deal with them by simply pretending they don't exist. If that's supposed to be a good thing, I'm going to laugh. PCness has not been good for anyone, particularly visionaries and creators.

And by which occult means does he achieve this omniscience? I, apparently, am disqualified from Real Man status (which means I am a False Man...or perhaps an Imaginary Man? Complex Man?) because I certainly don't know which political ideas will or won't work.

1) Who the flying flip said the ideas had to be political? Real Manism can apply to every walk of life. It pretty much has to, if the Real Man is ever to achieve his ideals.

2) As for your "occult means," its a pretty complex mixture involving two plastic boxes and many, many wires, as well as a phone line. All of these things would be almost impossible to construct by yourself, but fortunately they can all be bought ready-made from several dealers. For the plastic boxes, look in the Electronics section of Wal-Mart for something called a "Personal Computer" and a "Monitor." They're expensive components, but the good news is that they're reusable.

Ah, yes, employing Realpolitik to achieve idealistic ends. Yes. Right. That works.

I'm not sure if "Real Politics" has a different meaning when its spelled funny, but that still makes no sense.

Hey, that sounds like science! Cool.

I guess listening to critics is a form of science, but its not limited simply to science things, but also to decisions and behaviors and etc.

Lord British, from the Ultima games, had a habit of disguising himself as a peasant and walking among the populace in order to find out what they didn't like about him and his rule (because obviously they'd never say it to his face) and use that information to improve himself and his practices.

Obviously.

What's less than clear is what you mean by that phrase...so well worn now that it's meaning is occluded behind mounds of rhetorical chaff. Might want to elucidate.

Simply put, the Real Man never dismisses anything out of hand, never "tunes out" things he doesn't like/doesn't want to hear/doesn't believe in/contradicts what he thinks he knows/etc. because he knows that every side, no matter how far-fetched, could have something valid to contribute to his life and efforts toward goals.

Well, I've actually lived trough a revolution and it's somewhat less pretty and not at all merry. It involves outrage, risking imprisonment, torture and death and a state of continuous low-grade despair. It also runs the risk of causing a civil war. I've lived trough some two civil wars. They are even less pretty. A whole lot less pretty. And this, mind, from a person who was totally uninvolved in either. To an actual victim (and in a war...we are all victims: some lose life, others pieces of their humanity but none remain unscathed)

I'll take letter-writing and civilized discourse any day. The alternative is, trust me, too horrible to contemplate.

I'm sorry but... HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You would rather have the provably less effective method just because its prettier. That's kind of sad.

By that logic, we might as well not even attempt any social change at all! Let's just go down and eat ice cream and all the bad things in the world will just go away by themselves!

Personally, I'd rather have the war. Now, I wouldn't like it, the blood on my hands would ride on my conscience every day, and I'd probably be scarred (mentally and physically) for life or even killed. But at the same time, I would actually be doing something that would likely have results. I would be hoping to God (or whatever diety I subscribe to at the time) that the results were permanent, so that tomorrow's children won't have to repeat my efforts and can live in that idealistic society I wanted for myself.

Seriously, give me one good reason to believe that the "civilized" methods have ever worked, and could ever work. Just one good reason--a historical example or anything--and I'll drop this "Real Man" stuff and gleefully go with the civilized ways. Bottom line is, I couldn't care less about everything else, all that matters is the end results, and these so-called "civilized" methods have not shown any that I'm aware of, whereas the "uncivilized" ways consistently show results time and time again.

[Numbuh 0xFF]

numbuheightbitstar said:

numbuh 0xFF

veljko said:

What always puzzles me is that people accept massive paradigm shifts in our understanding of the cosmos, nod in passing at previously undreamed expansions to our horizons[1] and are sanguine about technology's potential to redefine what a human being is but scoff at the idea that the same progress that has made us what we are today can be applied to society. Instead, they hold on to some romanticized notion of eternal verities. "Men will be men", they say. "You can't change human nature" they opine with the authority of Solon passing judgment. Piffle. You CAN change human nature. Human nature has been changed -- extensively over the ages. Take a stroll on Times Square. Grab a random passer-by. Chances are, that this random guy or gal is a far better human being than most humans during our history. Chances are, that this person finds the idea that one race or ethnicity being inherently better and more deserving of life&liberty&happiness than another abhorrent. Same for slavery and censorship. Even more so for women's rights. And yet, scratch under the surface of any great historical figure and you will see racism and slavery and a hundred other horrors.

You know what the problem with that line of arguement is?

You're scratching "under the surface" of the great historical figure, and yet you're accepting the person on the street at face value. Scratch under the surface, and that person on the street is just as bad as that historical figure.

No. They aren't. Even if they still harbor, say, racism they feel bad about it -- society has inculcated them with an instinctive loathing of the very concept. Plus, scratching under the surface meant, in this context, that you merely had to look up their writings on the subject. Nothing more.

Sure, they may say "Racism is bad," they may even go into an impassioned speech about it, but 99% of the time they only say that because that's the "right thing" to say, not because they honestly mean it. People can trick themselves (and others) into thinking they've got a passion for something that they really don't have one for (case in point, how I used to act like I was so passionate about video game advocacy, only to realize just yesterday that I don't like video games all that much).

Just what are your standards of proof on this? You have realized that you don't like video games all that much so everyone's a closet racist? Non sequitur, much?

And have human beings really changed? Look at the entertainment industry--first they want to censor books, then they want to censor movies, then they want to censor comics, then rock music, then video games... and always with the exact same arguement that "if our kids see violence/sex/crime etc. they'll want to be like that" (an arguement that has never proven true but that keeps getting spouted anyway).

And look! Every media is more free now THAN AT ANY POINT IN HUMAN HISTORY. Comics, fr'instance. Back in the day they were totally controlled: so much that, say, you weren't allowed to even show drugs (even if they were portrayed in a bad light).

Or again, history: First (or maybe not--I need more research) in American history there was a period where you could be interrogated and jailed--unjustly and unconstitutionally--just for being a suspected Communist, then there was a period where you could be interrogated or jailed for being a suspected Drug Dealer. Now you can be interrogated or jailed because they think you're downloading music, or because they think you're a terrorist... its the same old bull, given new clothing. Or how Scientology is just Christianity with all the terminology rewritten in a cheap attempt to sound more scientific.

Yes, well, the USA are backsliding lately. I've never said progress was inevitable: you elect a evangelical lunatic for a president and that's what you get. Democracy means full rights to shoot your own damn foot off.

You mention technology. You do know, don't you, that half the technology we have today (including our computers) are a by-product of the Cold War, right?

No, the technology was financed because of the Cold War (and not all of it -- and computers were made because of WWII): it is the product of some highly clever people working very hard. And, besides, what kind of guilt-by-association are you trying to pull here? Tech is ethics-neutral. It gives us strength asking not whence it came nor what its purpose may be.

Even Scientists are not immune to these circular behavioral patterns.

Well, being people, I should think not.

Even your own "humans today are better than humans yesterday" ideal is itself a repitition of an old standby of the human mindset--the idea that anything we have today must inherently be superior to anything we had in the past.

It's not really a standby. If there is a standby it's that there's a long past golden age, a state of grace from which we fell.

And, really, stuff today? Way better. In every way imaginable. All else is romantic delusion.

So, ummm... how has human behavior changed, again?

So, uh, when was the last lynching in the USA? Did it go unpunished? Really?

Also take note: if you take violent deaths per capita and plot them you are going to see a pretty impressive downwards path (saving the spikes for WWI and WWII) that continues to this very day.

Thanks for missing the point. The point was that people don't give a rat's heinie about a piece of paper, they DO give a rat's heinie about the muscle behind that power. The Constitution has been losing that muscle lately, specifically because there are few people left who would seriously stand up and fight for its ideals if push came to shove.

At some point they did. And the all the muscle it needs is will of the people. You do realize that you can elect anyone you like for President, right? All it takes is will of the people.

People have known for FIFTY FREAKING YEARS (maybe more) that our legal system and our politics are completely messed up. People have been pushing for change... via letter-writing campaigns and petitions. And what effect has it had? Absolutely zero.

Not hard enough, obviously. See past paragraph.

When we secceded from Britain, we did it first with acts of sabotage (the whole Boston Tea Party thing), and with weapons and tactics. THEN we made a piece of paper. If Americans hadn't started raising a ruckus and shown their will first, the Declaration would've been an empty gesture, laughed at and casually tossed aside just like all our letters and petitions are today.

You weren't in a democracy back then, now were you?

So, would you prefer "Real Persuns?" Or perhaps, "Real Critters?" Or maybe even "Real Carbon-units?"

Hmm. Real Carbon-units sounds promising.

Political Correctness was a byproduct of another circular pattern of society--a dire need to avoid any real attempt at improvement by trying to hide the problem. Political Correctness isn't here to help us deal with those ancient daemons, its here to prevent us from having to deal with them by simply pretending they don't exist. If that's supposed to be a good thing, I'm going to laugh. PCness has not been good for anyone, particularly visionaries and creators.

In mild amounts it helps reinforce avoidance of patterns of speech that may cause, say, chauvinism. It stings a bit but, dammit, our very language is built with chauvinism on-board. It need exorcising. In mild amounts, mind. Like every act of social engineering this can be abused and taken to far. And it has, of course. But that's beside the point.

2) As for your "occult means," its a pretty complex mixture involving two plastic boxes and many, many wires, as well as a phone line. All of these things would be almost impossible to construct by yourself, but fortunately they can all be bought ready-made from several dealers. For the plastic boxes, look in the Electronics section of Wal-Mart for something called a "Personal Computer" and a "Monitor." They're expensive components, but the good news is that they're reusable.

And you believe everything you read on the 'net do you? So much that you can be sure?

I'm not sure if "Real Politics" has a different meaning when its spelled funny, but that still makes no sense.

*sigh*

They don't have history classes where you come from? Realpolitik . And that's not a funny spelling if you happen to be German. And Rochau was one.

Lord British, from the Ultima games, had a habit of disguising himself as a peasant and walking among the populace in order to find out what they didn't like about him and his rule (because obviously they'd never say it to his face) and use that information to improve himself and his practices.

*snort*
*giggle*

I...I think we should avoid using video games as reference material in the future. Y'see they never actually happened. And the "ruler traveling disguised" chestnut is from Harun al-Rashid's exploits in "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights"

Well, I've actually lived trough a revolution and it's somewhat less pretty and not at all merry. It involves outrage, risking imprisonment, torture and death and a state of continuous low-grade despair. It also runs the risk of causing a civil war. I've lived trough some two civil wars. They are even less pretty. A whole lot less pretty. And this, mind, from a person who was totally uninvolved in either. To an actual victim (and in a war...we are all victims: some lose life, others pieces of their humanity but none remain unscathed)

I'll take letter-writing and civilized discourse any day. The alternative is, trust me, too horrible to contemplate.

I'm sorry but... HAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You would rather have the provably less effective method just because its prettier. That's kind of sad.

By that logic, we might as well not even attempt any social change at all! Let's just go down and eat ice cream and all the bad things in the world will just go away by themselves!

Personally, I'd rather have the war. Now, I wouldn't like it, the blood on my hands would ride on my conscience every day, and I'd probably be scarred (mentally and physically) for life or even killed. But at the same time, I would actually be doing something that would likely have results. I would be hoping to God (or whatever diety I subscribe to at the time) that the results were permanent, so that tomorrow's children won't have to repeat my efforts and can live in that idealistic society I wanted for myself.

Seriously, give me one good reason to believe that the "civilized" methods have ever worked, and could ever work. Just one good reason--a historical example or anything--and I'll drop this "Real Man" stuff and gleefully go with the civilized ways. Bottom line is, I couldn't care less about everything else, all that matters is the end results, and these so-called "civilized" methods have not shown any that I'm aware of, whereas the "uncivilized" ways consistently show results time and time again.

You...you really don't know what the hell you're talking about, do you? You sit there smug and satisfied behind your computer living a pampered life in the world's most powerful democracy and you talk to me about war? When your only experience with bloodshed was pushing pixels around?

Have you ever seen people come back from the war changed? Broken? Have you ever seen a child collapse and go catatonic out of sheer fear? Ever been awoken by a cacophony of detonations and screams? One that wasn't flawlessly electronically emulated for Your Lordship? Have you ever really been afraid?

Kindly shut up.

The whole POINT the whole IDEA of civilization is to obliviate the need for such horror and replace it with pieces of paper.

You want to hear about civilized means working? Well, the Civil Rights movement pushed trough race and gender equality without firing a single shot or having a revolution, merry or otherwise.

[numbuheightbitstar]

You know what the problem with this debate is?

You and Madame have gotten this idea that my dislike of paper methods such as petitions = a complete and unabashed acceptance of bloodshed and violence.

You could not be more wrong.

The whole issue of militancy came up because you, 0xFF, presented a hypothetical example of the U.S. Government wanting to destroy a primitive alien species ("they wouldn't last much longer than the Native Americans did"). To which I answered that the massacre of the aliens could be prevented if the anti-contact factions got up in arms.

This is true--in your example, the Gov was already disposed towards militancy, and you can not reason with militants. The Vietnam protestors can tell you that (the ones that weren't shot, anyway). You can only threaten them with a show of force, or beat them down if push comes to shove.

Simply put, what I was saying was that for true change to take place, you have to take real action. Petitions, letters, and other paper methods are not actions.

Even your Civil Rights example says nothing to disprove that--Martin Luther King held rallies, organized "Sit-In" campaigns, and basically did all sorts of things which involved getting out of the house and doing something. I garuntee you if those Civil Righters had all just sat on their duffs and sent letters to their senators like everyone's encouraged to do now, we'd still have segregated schools and white-exclusive restaurants. The Feminists, too, got their way by going out into the streets and causing such a (non-violent) disruption that they became an issue the politicians simply had to deal with.

I have never seen a valid reason to think my beliefs are wrong. What I have seen is a lot of misunderstandings of my beliefs that invariably pervert them into a REH-like pro-barbarianism stance which is far distant from what I'm actually trying to convey.

[hoagiegal1970]

*headdesking*

Why do you keep on with these inane points that make absolutely no sense?

You're not exactly the paragon of humility either.

No, perhaps not, but when I have to be, I am.

Not that its a problem. Humility is overrated, and those that preach it or impose it on others always have some sort of ulterior motive. "Be humble" is almost always shorthand for "conform" or "let others control you."

Here we go again with this "conformity" and "sheep" theme. And of course YOU would say that it's overrated.

Plus people like Mother Theresa didn't have any "ulterior motives".

People have known for FIFTY FREAKING YEARS (maybe more) that our legal system and our politics are completely messed up. People have been pushing for change... via letter-writing campaigns and petitions.

Um, I believe it's a lot more than 50.

I honestly don't know why you're hung up on this "letter writing campaigns and petitions" idea. NONE of the great social changes that DID happen in the last 50 years happened via that method. Speaking of those movements, even if some idiots rejected the ideas behind them, they have been ingrained into society's consciousness, and have made society better overall. There's always going to be people who resist change...and the benefits of these social changes came with time.

Lord British, from the Ultima games, had a habit of disguising himself as a peasant and walking among the populace in order to find out what they didn't like about him and his rule (because obviously they'd never say it to his face) and use that information to improve himself and his practices.

Good Lordy Lord, he isn't even a real person. Please STOP using video games as examples of what goes on in the real world.

Seriously, give me one good reason to believe that the "civilized" methods have ever worked, and could ever work. Just one good reason--a historical example or anything--and I'll drop this "Real Man" stuff and gleefully go with the civilized ways. Bottom line is, I couldn't care less about everything else, all that matters is the end results, and these so-called "civilized" methods have not shown any that I'm aware of, whereas the "uncivilized" ways consistently show results time and time again.

Uh...the demonstrations in the 1960s? The massive protests against Vietnam? The feminist movement?

This whole "uncivilized" crap is really troublesome. For God's sakes, you were actually trying to rationalize and defend what the VT shooter did! Remember this?

Frankly, this kid felt the same way every last f---ing one of us has felt at one time or another. Only, unlike most people who are content to blow hot air on their livejournals and forums, he figured he was gonna leave this world behind and try to take some of "the opposition" with him.

America is shallow and petty and way too interested in keeping its population in a sort of extended childhood and a lot of people are sick of it. That's what motivated Virginia Tech.

There was no reason at all for him to kill 32 innocent people because of his warped belief system. Why didn't he simply take out himself and get it over with? Why did he have to take others down with him?

Something is short-circuting in your brain if you're going to try and make weak arguments for someone doing that.

As for the comments you made about war:

Now, since I live in the good old USA, like you, I've never seen war face to face. But I took history as my minor in college. This country is STILL feeling the effects from our own Civil War, which ended 142 years ago!

For a more recent example, look at all the damage that's being done to our poor soldiers over in Iraq. Not to mention all the Iraqi civilian casulaties that are NEVER mentioned in our newscasts (not even during Operation Firestorm in 1991).

0xFF lived through war. You didn't. I didn't. So for you to dismiss what he says about the effects of war reeks of smugness.

I think you seriously need to think about what you're doing with your life. You're not out in the world. You don't have a job. By your own admission, your day consists of meditating, philosophical pondering, attempts to write and draw, occasional housework, and fun stuff (whatever that is...and this is straight from your LJ). Damn. By your own choice, you're more sheltered than most of us.

So please, if you're going to keep spouting off nonsense, don't do it from an "ivory tower" perspective.

[numbuheightbitstar]

Madame, three things:

1) Understanding why tragedies happen is not an endorsement of said tragedies, so I fail to see how you read my VT posts as defending the VT Shooter's actions.

2) The Lord British example was not "an example of how people really act," and frankly I don't understand how you read it that way. It was an example of how a man should go find about his flaws in order to better himself. Also, why is it wrong to mention a video game (especially an idea from a game which is actually imitable in real life) when we've been making examples of TV shows, books, and movies--ones with far less reality-applicable scenarios--for the past three pages of discussion?

3) I never once said that war was glorious or that it was without heavy losses, and I did not dismiss 0xFF's descriptions of it. In fact, I never advocated war, except in the case where it would prevent another one. I explained all this in my previous post.

[hoagiegal1970]

1) Er, you said America is shallow and petty and way too interested in keeping its population in a sort of extended childhood and a lot of people are sick of it. You tied in Virginia Tech with your own belief system. Frankly, you're always going off on this one point. And how on earth can YOU point any fingers, when YOU YOURSELF are in an "extended childhood"?

2) Because a video game isn't based in reality. You can't tell me that any of my son's video games--and he has a buhmillion of them--are based in ANY kind of reality. My kid is even aware of that, at only 7 years old!

I would rather use a historical example than an example from a video game that I've never even bleedin' heard of. Now you can argue that history itself, things that really happened, can be skewed according to what people believe--and that happens--but I still err on the side of history.

3) Personally, I'd rather have the war. Now, I wouldn't like it, the blood on my hands would ride on my conscience every day, and I'd probably be scarred (mentally and physically) for life or even killed. But at the same time, I would actually be doing something that would likely have results.

Hey, Dubya thought the same way when he decided to invade Iraq. Look at what that got us into.

[seradarkness]

Ok, I'm sorry but I just have to butt in about the topic of war and how James, you seem to be defending it. You have said that it can be useful many times but I will quote the first time it struck me as an example:

Personally, I'd rather have the war. Now, I wouldn't like it, the blood on my hands would ride on my conscience every day, and I'd probably be scarred (mentally and physically) for life or even killed. But at the same time, I would actually be doing something that would likely have results. I would be hoping to God (or whatever diety I subscribe to at the time) that the results were permanent, so that tomorrow's children won't have to repeat my efforts and can live in that idealistic society I wanted for myself.

Now... haven't you ever heard the phrase that history repeats itself? I have been studying history continiously for the past 6 years and war and battles are something that we have particularily focused on. We have studied WWII from every possible angle and it still comes down to the same thing. People neer learn. You say that 'tomorrow's children won't have to repeat my efforts and can live in that idealistic society'... has that ever actually been achieved? No, because we are still hoping for it. Throughout history we have fought battles in the name of what we believe in and to make out own country or empire a better/stronger place. Through pain and suffering soldiers have fought, believeing that they were doing good. True, this may be true in some cases but overall, how much difference has it made? A few years of peace and then more fighting.

Now, considering I have only studied modern history, I cannot really truly comment on the past without risking the information to be incorrect. However, I shall use two of the most famous modern battles as a fine example.

The World Wars have already been mentioned but they show completely how we never learn. After the Great War we vowed never again to commit such atriocities and place on people such suffering... about 20 years later... we started WWII and it began all over again. With hindsight, we notice that the whole thing may have been avoided if Chamberlain had acted sooner had not been so afraid of Hitler's non-existent power of the time.

This may not make any sense but look at the facts. You say we fight for a better future... how many battles have we fought so far and how 'brilliant' has it made our future to date? People are still suffering from wars fought many, many years ago, and in this day and age we have technology that could make the whole business a whole lot worse.

I'm not anti-war because some things cannot be handled democratically. (WWII is an example of this also) However, I do not believe that it should be our first and only option.

Oh, and before I finish... I might just like to add James that you appear to be rather insenitive to the whole topic of the experience of war. Especially regarding Numbuh 0xFF and his experiences. It is not something to laugh at.

Finally, ;I think that we may be getting a little off topic and also a little heated in this debate. It's interesting and all but we might want to calm it down a touch before someone gets really angry or hurt.

[Numbuh 0xFF]

Oh, now, I wouldn't focus overmuch on my experiences with the war(s). They were, thankfully, quite peripheral. But I've seen quite enough to form an unshakable opinion that nothing, nothing is worse than war. It's hell incarnate destroying all good it touches.

Also, I didn't focus solely on letter-writing as a method of enforcing the will of the people. Civil disobedience is also key -- and there we have no quarrel. I'm talking about revolution and war. Not protest. Protests are a normal part of political discourse in a civilized country.

Now, as for my hypothetical scenario of aliens faring little better than Native Americans, note please that this represents the unlikely scenario of a contact between us as we are now and a technologically inferior alien race. And I stand by it: the contact between civilizations where there is a pronounced technological disparity has always been a tricky thing ending in outright bloodshed more likely than not.

[hoagiegal1970]

@sera

*applause*

Most wars were fought to prove a country's power or to gain territory, with a few exceptions--and even one that was based in ideology went very, very wrong--the French Revolution.

The only war that is "justifiable" to me was, like you said, World War II. Imagine what might have happened if no one did anything about Hitler. We, in fact, didn't enter the war until after we were bombed at Pearl Harbor--there was a lot of debate about whether we should get involved or not at the time. We can only say it was a war that needed to be fought in hindsight. But there were still real costs from that war, none the least being the unleashing of the atom bomb.

The debate so far has been between three people: me, 0xFF, and James. I have no desire to see this thread go down in flames--the only reason I'm debating is to point out, well, points and belief systems that didn't make any sense. If James can't handle what's being said, in all honesty, that's his problem.

[sjedmondson]

I'm just surprised my hypothetical question kicked up such a ruckus.

And 0xFF, I was just wondering (my history clearly isn't as good as I belive) but people keep referring to your war experience, what was it? (feel free to ignore my question if you so wish, I don't mean it rudely).

[hoagiegal1970]

@sj

No need to censor yourself. ;D You asked a thought-provoking question that got sidetracked by this hypothetical "Real Man" and his, um, strange "belief system", which happens to reflect the beliefs of only one person on this board...but anyway.

So let the ruckus continue. ;D

[numbuh82]

Ok I'm going to jump in here and say this,

Numbuh 0xFF & Madame Hoagie's Gal,Both 0of you should try and think about what JamesEightBitStar.In all honesty you two need to be a bit more open minded.For instance,you both gave out to him for using a fictional character as an example,It does not harm any one,What he said was one of example.



And Sera,when you said people need to learn as they don't look back on history based on repeating it,Well people do look back,but people are greedy enough,well the ones that try to do it again for their own personal gain thinking they have worked out all the kinks when they haven't or just plainly choose to ignore them.

JamesEightBitStar,what your description of a real man is is the type of person that should be in government.

Numbuh 0xFF,What you said about the world being in a state of time with the freest Media,Sorry but I had to laugh at that,Look around,The USA,The apparent land of Freedom is the most censored free county in the world,The U.A.E,China and many other countries in the middle east and western Asia have very strong blockings on their internet,The last true free place.For instance they cant access.

Now I'd like to post more but the fact that I am only 15 with a important test coming up soon and thats it's 11:45 pm has annoyed my mother so I'll post more when I can tomorrow.

[hoagiegal1970]

numbuh82 said:

Numbuh 0xFF & Madame Hoagie's Gal,Both 0of you should try and think about what JamesEightBitStar.In all honesty you two need to be a bit more open minded.For instance,you both gave out to him for using a fictional character as an example,It does not harm any one,What he said was one of example.

Oh God. I tried to be as open-minded as I could. It's next to impossible when you're dealing with some of the totally absurd things that James posted here.

JamesEightBitStar,what your description of a real man is is the type of person that should be in government.

Are you serious? You're really serious? I'd be scared to death of someone like that running the country. That would be close to a Montana militia man running the country. (These are conspiracy nuts who totally distrust the government and hole themselves up in Montana. The Unibomber was one.)

Now I'd like to post more but the fact that I am only 15 with a important test coming up soon and thats it's 11:45 pm has annoyed my mother so I'll post more when I can tomorrow.

And the debate rages on!

Is that a Good Thing^TM or a Bad Thing^TM?

[NumbuhInfinity]

Whew... Who'd thought a thread that started with "Hey, there could be an Earth-like planet out there, isn't that cool?" would turn into... this. Internet forums amaze me sometimes.

I'm not going to enter this debate, but I will offer everyone an A/C, and a big-arse umbrella for shade, and, heck, I'll even throw in a free prescription to Chilpil, because things are getting rather hot in here.


EDIT: And as soon as I said this, the two posts of Numbuh 82 and Hoagie's Gal appear. Ack.