military action is at the account of a government. saying somebody died from traumactic heart failure is much easier than saying that "we made a foolish move to go in there guns-a-blazin'" additionally they could avoid PR for not finding a better way to save the civilians. but its quite obvious from the evidence of what they did. they tried to get away with something they couldnt, and their PR dodge failed. well, obviously it worked on some shorter minded people... but not anyone with half a stare into the situation. and besides, a less potent aerosol would have done the job just as well, probably would have inhibited any normal thought process and loosened the aim of the guards

Alright, let me take some time to take this monster and disprove it piece by piece.

First, no military would ever say, "Whoops, we went in 'guns-a-blazin'' ha, we sure won't do that again." Why? Because no military would ever try to solve a hostage situation with guns a blazin'.

Second, the death of civilians during a military-supervised hostage crisis would look much worse than the death of military operatives trying to solve the situation. Why? Because the civilian deaths make it look like they occured in the midst of a military that was too slow to make a move and ultimately failed in its purpose of protecting the people. At least if some soldiers die, it looks like Russia tried its best. But in the way it actually played out, it made the military look clueless and helpless as they ultimately screwed up and got half the people they were supposed to save killed. This looks much worse for Russia's international appearance than the heroic deaths of twenty soldiers trying to save the innocent civilians from the *nasty* terrorists. (Asterik emphasizes sarcasm)

Third, let me go back to an earlier point of yours.

THEY RELEASED BIG AMOUNTS OF GAS MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS THAN NEEDED TO PUT THE PEOPLE TO SLEEP THE GAS WAS IN VERY ALPHA TESTING STAGES THEY KNEW IT WAS TOXIC THEY KNEW THE KILL RATE WOULD BE HIGHER WITH THE GAS THEY RELEASED IT ANYWAY THEY COVERED UP THE DEATHS

This is why they pay people who have gone to college and have three PhDs in the area to analyze this stuff and offer their opinions on the situation. This is why we trust their opinions over the generalized observations of a sixteen year old. As with before, chances are you are missing something here. Don't want to put the effort into looking something up to show you, so go ahead and do it yourself. Before you form radical opinions, research the alternatives.

Fourth, there are some nice examples that prove otherwise that are right in the hedlines. Specifically, the Khankala attack that occured a few months ago. You can google it and find many articles on it, you'll probably even be able to find it on your trusy wikipdia. In this particular incident, guerrillas used AA missiles to shoot down a Russian army Mi-26 HALO chopper that was grossly overloaded with troops. A big military embarassment. How long did it stay in the headlines for? A couple hours, maybe a day. I don't even remember seeing a television report on the incident, just a single online story on cnn.com. How long did the theatre and school shootouts stay in the headlines for? Days. The fact is that the public is going to pay a lot more attention to civilians dying, because we can sympathize with them more than a soldier in the line of duty. Why? Because we ARE civilians.

hey, dont go bashing on atheists. I have a really good friend who is one. actually atheists are very down to earth people. I like them a lot

WHOA. Didn't think it would be taken like that. As a militant atheist myself, I agree with you. We are nice people. What I was trying to do was bring attention to a stereotype among many faithful religious people that we are selfish, godless pagans who are doomed to die in dark, alliterative loneliness. I was just bringing this up as a random example, along with the metal music thing, a type of music which I myself cannot stand but don't think is bad because I know ten more who love it.

Also, let me just jut in here. Schem, your last reply (Post #145) is a perfect example of what I'm taking issue with here. Look how long my post was that you were responding to. Then, look at how much of it you quoted. Half at most. Next, look at how much time you spent on each taken-out-of-context point. A sentence or two, and sometimes you won't even grace your response with a period. If you're going to show to us that you have nothing to say on a point because you are incorrect, then say so, because it makes you look better and makes the discussion progress more smoothly and much faster.

Again, its just the Internet, ligthen up!

Ha, I'm perfectly light! Can't possibly see how you could think otherwise. I've been calmly articulating what I think the entire time. I'm not the one calling people assholes and saying "fuck" and "shit" frequently. Guess who is, though?

Now, if sarcasm will stop being so "your ignorant schem", and start using better arguements this thread might still have a chance.

Actually, my arguments are quite good, if you put forth the effort to read them. Also, Schem's ignorance is an argument in itself, and an effective one. He thinks he knows everything, yet he has seen very little and all of his opinions and points are based off of wikipedia articles. This is the same kid who felt comfortable enough to say you can take over Africa with three pistols. Even if he was joking, it is an obvious showing of his true dismissive nature. You know that old Freudian belief that jokes aren't really jokes, because you wouldn't have thought to make the joke in the first place if you didn't believe in what you were saying to some degree. What I'm saying is there are many blatant generalizations, assumptions, and convenient fact-choosing going around with Schem, and it is impossible to talk in a thread without mentioning it multiple times. Each post he makes gives me many new examples, so why stop? Good stuff!

As for Psychology versus Sociology, yes they are two different things of course. But sociology starts out with psychology. You cannot understand the mass unless you understand the individual. And Mob Psychology IS a part of mainstream psychology, so don't try to differentiate the two. Yes, Mob might be different from the form of psychology we all think of when we hear the word, but it is still part of the overall field.

To finish up, let me just put one thing out in the open that seems to make you all crazy. You need an introduction to my argument style. I have a reason for putting so much sarcasm and absurdity in them. What I do is I use simple logic to poke holes in your theory, and then use those holes to suggest completely absurd and unjustified examples that are made possible through your flawed logic. I know that Galileo wasn't a suicidal masochist, as do we all, but by showing you that your logic makes such an absurd suggestion possible, I'm hoping you can admit you're wrong and move on. If your logic allows for the non sequitur to be in sequence, then you have a problem that is completely on your end, and you cannot fix it by bringing up new points. Logic is a proof in itself, that's why I don't need any links, though it can be hard to follow if you only read half of what’s there.

Also, if you pay close attention and read, you'll see that at no point am I rambling. I write a lot, because I like to take each point and utterly destroy it to the point that it is impossible to continue to logically support it. This is something I have done quite a bit here, but it seems as if you either can't see it, or just come up with new stuff on the spot.

you, conveniently, refuse to show any sources OR respond to my valid points

That's because you have very few valid points, which isn't my problem. I have done quite well with responding to the invalid ones, though, and have conceded to the good ones. Don't try to take my main criticism of you and turn it around on me, because it just doesn't work. Also, I have not shown sources, and you have not shown credible sources. Sorry, I don't take wikipedia articles as proof. Gimme something solid, like I said above. I base my arguments on logic and common sense, two things that are sources in themselves.

If i missed something then do tell, there's a lot to address and I don't want to spend two hours typing this.

Yes, the same emperor who said but thats just it, its the place i was born nothing more. this is a statement that is entirely incompatible with the word "extensively."

what he meant by that was this:
he knows the place as a location of birth, but he's not intimately connected to it. he doesnt see it as the "motherland"
lets ask him.

I already showed you a nice little article on stem cells

what? who? where?

Also, my Recap os Schem's Assumptions was obviously blown out of proportion and sarcastic

if I said "cherry bomb" you thought "nuclear explosion"
its not that you were sarcastic, its that you were rediculously sarcastic.

I am careful to respond to every little bit of your posts, a care you neglect to show with mine, but oh well. I've responded extensively to every one of your points and killed just about all of them off already.

no, you've missed quite a bit.
for instance you havent even talked about the articles, which are the pillar of my arguement.

because they are everywhere

common, but highly biased, like I already said.

weak and unable to handle situations in their own borders.

no, thats what they were trying to avoid
a 0 casualty rate allowed them to flaunt that they were able to take down simple terrorists without difficulty.

this is because I don't need them. If you pay close attention to my posts, you'll see that all I'm doing is logically disproving every single one of your points

see, thing is you arent
wait a second. arent you the person who said that I obviously dont have enough "worldly experience" and then proceeded to admit that you dont either?
dont give me this BS. give SOURCES
and besides, you are using highly illogical arguements. like that saying that deception isnt a tactic in PR...

American forces were miles from Baghdad when the bombings started

oh, you mean the pereferal targets? like the tanks that were OUTSIDE the city bounds.
yes, those were hit. (they took out a tank column with a single type of weapon, I saw the recreation on the military channel, it t'was sweet.)
but the actual city was invaded by foot troops, and we werent using highly indiscriminant artillery.

If I recall correctly, the bombing of Baghdad was part of the initial shock & awe campaign, which took place the night before we even crossed over into Iraq.

thats MOAB and the usage of high explosives outside the boundaries of Iraq.

religion can be used to achieve someone's wants and needs

yes, but its never the driving force. even god is a good example

That's why I said to talk to a PERSON who has been there, not read a book about a person who has been there

problem is that people are 1 ) rarely allowed to leave (if they were born there) and 2 ) rarely allowed to enter (if they're from another country)
people that do get in are shuffled into specific "best of the best" towns. they aren't given free reign.
and besides, a 1st person source is about as good as either of us will get.

What I'm arguing against is your statement that China is a backward country, which it is clearly not. It's making many progressive steps forward,

I never said that...
they are an oppressive country is what I said. you said "repressive maybe, but not oppressive"
and I continued to argue the point
obviously they aren't taking any steps backwards in terms of infrastructure/economy

What? It's a rather lucrative position that people doubtlessly attempt to obtain when only three people in the history of the world have obtained it?

where did you get that from...
way to go. you misunderstood again.
I'm saying that science is just about the only profession/lifestyle that gets your name written down globaly for ages to come. politics doesnt do that, and at best philosophy is close.

go on to inspire a million modern-day scientists to want to obtain their position of power, wealth, and fame?

where did power and wealth come from?
but anyone looks for fame. and it doesnt make sense to say that people go into this highly unproductive field (stemcells) for money or to simply help other people?
I really doubt it. its for glory, there really isnt another explanation
of course there will be anomolies. but still.

this is certainly not true of the vast, overwhelming majority of them

every scientist is in it for himself. they are in it for knowledge and learning. trust me, that is still a self serving reason.
I've read many many biographies on scientists, and they almost all say that they are motivated by knowledge, not money (hell no) and not to help other people (although their research inevitably does) those fall out of the scope of most research. ex: how does discovering the fabric of the universe help anyone? it doesnt, and its not highly paying either. taht leaves one explanation, knowledge.

Not the guy who was a selfish ass who wanted to unseat the pope and rule the world from atop his heliocentric throne.

again, your being dramatic.
I'm saying he did it for his research, his brainchild. thats definately a self preserving reason: he didnt want to be labeled a nutcase. every scientist works towards proving something.
and lastly: your assuming that just because you know his name, he must be perfect. every single last action is run by self preservation. whether it seems selfless or not. gallilleo did it for the sake of his life's work.

Galileo is credited with *proving* that the solar system is heliocentric, he was not the first to seriously theorize it. That award goes to Nicholaus Copernicus

just because it was theorized doesnt mean it was a theorey, which makes this still relevant.
besides, god knows that anyone else would have said "ah god, sorry sorry I'm wrong, dont kill me"
Gallilleo didnt.

Copernicus was motivated to make these discoveries because he wanted to be famous

again your misundertanding me.
I said certain people are motivated by that famous desire, same reason people who dont want to have their lives Fuped up still want to become movie stars.

What fame does he have to enjoy when he's dead?

anyone could tell you that immortality with lack of life is still desired.
why else would you want people to "remember you" when your dead.
and besides, he knew that in life he would probably be rediculed and prosicuted for his theories.

Going to stick by not responding to the specifics of your stem cell stuff. Neither of us can prove anything, so let the discussion die

ah the classical quit while your ahead move.
no, I've given a credible source to disprove you. if you cannot do the same than thats my win by default.
and anything you come up with, I'll counter by more. so...
you decide whether its futile or not, dont tell me to leave my win alone.

Please rationalize your pairing of the above quote

I told you, the field of stem cells isnt much in term of research. it cannot prove anything because you have way way way too many independant variables.
I said that entering the field of stem cells is more likely to be plagued by attention-seekers. not the same for other things.

What you are saying is that a field is already completely understood

no, I'm saying its not as much a research field as an engineering field. (ah, engineering, the retirement of a very, very old field of science)
we already understand the rudimentary mechanics of the cell, and stem cells cannot help us discover more than that. I'm doubtful if it can do that.

this particular field is centered around a concept that is a complete mystery to us

I'm saying it cannot be used as a research tool. its way too complex, billions of un(directly)observable independant variables, and only thousands of observable dependant variables (most of which we cannot predict)

As for your article on Dr. Kennedy and neuroprosthetics...that's it? That's your source? That's your alternative? The website looks like it was made in a day and the article reads like a desperate advertisement for grant money

what the hell do you expect? this is a very difficult field to be working in. they need the grant money
and besides, its much better than your word for it. and second of all it garuntees the results soon, whereas stem cells practically garuntee no results any time soon (soon being within the next half century or so).

You can't talk someone down with wikipedia facts

and YOU cant talk anyone down with NO facts
besides, they work, they've been implanted in multiple people, and they WORK.
that cannot be said for stem cells. these have much lower risks than stem cells do. and one success with one person (who is likely to grow a fatal spinal cancer within the next decade) is not credible in comparison.

Maybe if you could give me something more credible looking, I'd go for it and concede something to you

did I just hear that, mister "I know for certain your a 16 year old pimplish brat who has a 2 year droppout high school education and no life"?
you havent provided any sources, just your own word. which is worthless.
and like I said, wikipedia is reliable and very usefull. its definately more reliable than someone not majoring in the field.

It looks like a science that's just as experimental as stem cells

no... its been in the works for over 30 years.
there have been implants created to manage numerous diseases and defects, even birth ones! (which stem cells CANNOT do, PERIOD)
people have had implants that have stopped whole body tremors, discontorted their bodies, forced their brains to reconstruct PROPERLY and even have stopped uncontrollable mood swings.
its only a matter of time before they are capable of bridging mechanical problems, of which stem cells are far away from doing.

Why? Because no military would ever try to solve a hostage situation with guns a blazin'.

no, they did that here. they just gassed everyone first.
they made a really stupid move that ended in lots of peoples deaths. this was about the simplest way to stop a hostage crisis period.

military-supervised hostage crisis would look much worse than the death of military operatives trying to solve the situation

did I not just spell this out to you.
government is far more credible then a few crying families, they sound desperate. government doesnt
government pressures people into saying things for risk of being persecuted.
exactly russias moves here. they covered things up, fast.

At least if some soldiers die, it looks like Russia tried its best

aha, point proven
if russia's best is a lot of soldiers dead (which would have been the case, but the overall casualties would have been lower) then that seems pathetic for a full grown nation vs. terrorists
now, no casualties and civilian deaths which can easily be pinned on terrorists or lack of food and water is easy to cover up and keep from international media.

Before you form radical opinions

a radical opinion would be saying that killing civiians is a good move by a government, and defensible.

the fact is that the public is going to pay a lot more attention to civilians dying, because we can sympathize with them more than a soldier in the line of duty. Why? Because we ARE civilians.

thats only relevant if you can prove the civilian deaths were their fault
which they vigerously denied.
you cannot as easily cover up military deaths, but they provide much more of an embarrisment. and btw
that example with the helocopter would explain my reasoning, many deaths in a span of a month isnt good for PR

at most. Next, look at how much time you spent on each taken-out-of-context point

I dont take out of context points, I take the meat and potatoes of the arguement and then pick it out of other irrelevant facts.
I do that rather than take a big chunk of an irrelevant and easily denied arguement and go on a long, sarcastic rant about it.

If you're going to show to us that you have nothing to say on a point because you are incorrect,

I cant believe your saying this. almost half of all your posts are about how I'm evading points. your the one doing that
but your quite tactful at that, I'll have to admit.
and who gives a shit about periods? they just mean you have nothing else to say. I always have more to say

As a militant atheist myself

well there are admitably some god-hating athiests
I'm partly agnostic, its much more helpful to avoid putting god in for reasons all the time.
and what do you mean militant athiest?

Ha, I'm perfectly light! Can't possibly see how you could think otherwise. I've been calmly articulating what I think the entire time. I'm not the one calling people assholes and saying "fuck" and "shit" frequently. Guess who is, though?

oh my god. that was a full page ago. just get back to an actual arguement rather than your sad attempts at discrediting me.
its not working anymore, as emp said. it ruins an arguement, makes you sound like nothing else comes to your mind. which may or may not be true, all things considered.

Actually, my arguments are quite good

what you think is true hardly is a good testament
its not that your ideas are flawed, but you present them poorly and dont support them.

ignorance is an argument in itself, and an effective one. He thinks he knows everything, yet he has seen very little and all of his opinions and points are based off of wikipedia articles

you know, I'm placing a new paradox into history right now
the "I know your an idoit paradox"
it goes like this:
a man knows another guy is an idiot. he is certain it must be true. it has to be true, he knows it! the other guy is an idiot because he thinks that he knows everything, and everything he knows is true. but what that man knows is obviously flawed because the first man knows that he himself must be completely right!
sort this one out, if you dont get it: I'm saying you think you obviously must know everything, otherwise how would you know that I dont know everything

and besides, I know that we are at least equal in terms of ignorance.

You need an introduction to my argument style. I have a reason for putting so much sarcasm and absurdity in them

or perhaps you should adjust your arguement so that you dont sound sarcastic and broadly assuming. we aren't going to go through a course just to learn how to listen to the secret messages and hidden references to sources taht are obviously hidden in some special code in your writting.

you'll see that at no point am I rambling. I write a lot, because I like to take each point and utterly destroy it to the point that it is impossible to continue to logically support it.

but that would only not be rambling if you could prove it
which you havent done
so its rambling.

This is something I have done quite a bit here, but it seems as if you either can't see it, or just come up with new stuff on the spot.

so you obviously must be right in all points, and we, both of us, are obviously too stupid to work on your level of thinking.
right.

That's because you have very few valid points, which isn't my problem. I have done quite well with responding to the invalid ones, though, and have conceded to the good ones

I'm confident to let other people be the judges. anyone who would like to post on this, go right on ahead
except you ticks, your way too biased, sorry but that much I've learned  

Logic is a proof in itself, that's why I don't need any links, though it can be hard to follow if you only read half of what’s there.

logic follows commonly believed or proven facts. thats the point of postulates and theorems
you have not provided any of these. ergo your logic hasnt started anywhere, ergo it doesnt exist.

I have not shown sources, and you have not shown credible sources. Sorry, I don't take wikipedia articles as proof. Gimme something solid, like I said above.

what? so sciam isnt reliable proof?
want to know why each article in sciam is written differently? because only the small excerpts in the beginning are by the same people with majors in writing. the rest of it is by leading researches in actualy fields.
this is where it differs from say, popular science. sciam caters to the global scientist, not the semi-intrigued reader.

I love these posts. It represents a larger battle, that of wisdom and knowledge. At the moment Sarcasm main suppor is his logic and wisdom to tare wholes in Schems theores. While, on the other side Schem uses his lengthy list of lecturative literations(whooo quadrople "l"'s)to prove Sarcasms logic wrong. See I think this of logic, although there are some parts of logic that is universal usually it differs from person to person. Although i do agree with some of the thoughts Sarcasm has i do not think that logic is legiable enough to disprove an arguement(although he has done well so far). Also, you dont need to use strong words to insult a person, nor did i mean that you were offending him, i meant that you were both being offended by a each other over the Web(very foolish). Now, Schems posts are riddled with very very well made points, plus he stays to the point(you Sarcasm go off on tangents, some that are a bit winded and irrelevant). Also, hes finally calmed down and as a result is less critical and more thoughful of what he says. I must applaud both of you for not giving up, even when to me it seemed like the arguement became to pointless to argue. Those are my thoughts on the overall appearance of your posts.

Time to actually take apart the posts. Okay, so first off lets clear one thing, when i said that "it was just a place of birth, nothing more" i also said it doesnt define me as a person. Sure, I have a strong connection to my country and i hope for its well being and general advancement, I would not be foolish enough to let its propaganda blind me from the truth. I am no foolhardy "motherlander", I try to support it when it seems logical, but when it fail in certain things i will not let my pride put me in denial. I have been raised there and i have experienced very little injustice from the government, the worst i saw was the corruption and the poor way money was handeled. I mean i lived their during its reconstruction from communism to democracy, most of those years are blank and memoryless, but my parents did tell me stories. They told me of a time when everything was almost free, you just had to work and be dedicated and you would always have a roof and food and luxuries that everyone else had excess too. They told me of the great infastructure of the Soviet Russia and they told me about its almost golden age. However, they also told me that it did come at a price, they werent ignorant, they knew that people were being taken by the Secret Police, they knew that people died. Then, they told me what it was like after communism collapsed, first off most of our currency was worthless so my mom had to barter constantly for food, they said they almost starved at one point. Plus, the government did provide cleaning services, health care, electricity, and plumbing when it collapsed all those things seased to exist for almost a year. In some parts of the country whole cities are still in disrepair and disaray(almost 5 years after 'reconstruction'). Then they told me of the good things, they told me of the first time they saw exotic fruits(kiwi, bananas, pineapple) and of other luxuries(most electronics). They said they were happy with the way the nation had rebuilt it self, but they also said that life was a lot easier back then. I mean my mom(a teacher) didnt get payed for months at a time and my dads laboratory had put him on sespension pay(they gave us enough to get food and clothes, nothing else). So when i was about 2 he went off to the US thanks to his reputation in the International Scientific Collaboration(not world reknowened but he might have been). From then on things improved, but not by much. It wasnt till i moved here that i truely experienced culture and technology and so my views on matters became more moderate, a mix of democracy and socialism. I had experienced both and could not ignore one in favor of the other. So even as a i live here i have strong ties with family and friends there and they tell me that now their lives arent as diffrent as mine, but i know i cant go back to live there now. Its sad but true, my only future is here i have forgotten too much of Russian culture(not to mention the language and literature) to go back, at least not now.

Okay, sorry that was a bit long winded. Now for Eastern Litteratrue. I have read some translations, i have a friend who works at this musuem and he has let me read some excerpts from many of Islamic text. Now these are translations so they have lost much of their meaning, but still they left a very powerful impression on me and i can still remember some of the interesting and amazing word use and imagery. I think that at the very least it rivals any of the writings i have read here and of those in European languages(French, Spanish, Russian, German).

Next, the thing about Iraq and such and relatign that to the Russia terrorist crissis. See Russia has been having terrorist problems since its dissolve from communism and sometimes i think the government officials are just getting tired of dealing with it, so they dont make the best decision. But, i have to agree with Sarcasm on this one, seems like it was still well planned and thought through, so they had a good reason for doing so. As for Iraq, your information greatly differs, either one of you is lieing or one of you is just twisting words to fit his point.

Thats all for now folks!   

you see, I'd be more open minded if
1) I didnt see "facts" and "testamonies" miraculously appearing out of thin air.
the last one I remember is the article about the stem cells in the back of a kid. which was, I remind you, sarcasms first post.
and 2) if sarcasm could keep the sarcasm down. I really dont care how you were conditioned to write, I was conditioned not to listen to people who are overly obnoxious about things. especially insulting people.

I feel that this thread lacks smilies so....                               

Immature smilies!!!
  

Too late to respond now, will do so later. These posts are getting bigger and bigger each time. For now, I'll address a few quick points.

i meant that you were both being offended by a each other over the Web

Eh? Assumptions. When did I say I was offended? As you said, it's rather foolish to get "offended" or angry with someone over a few lines on text on the Web.

if sarcasm could keep the sarcasm down.

Hey, you're on a roll with the paradoxes today.

especially insulting people.

I have insulted nobody in this thread. I have called you immature, which is simply a statement of fact, not an insult.

I'm saying you think you obviously must know everything, otherwise how would you know that I dont know everything

Ha, whaa? You don't need to know everything to show that someone else doesn't know everything. All you have to do is prove of the omniscient person's points wrong, and you've done it. Since I've killed off more than half of yours, and the rest are limited to conflicting ideologies, I tihnk it's safe to say you don't know everything. Are you implying you do?

And yes, I do go off on tangents. I love tangents. But they are relevant. More like examples rather than tangents.

Closing note: if you suspect I am being sarcastic or intentionally blowing something out of proportion to the point of comedy, then I probably am. I know it's hard to detect sarcasm in text, so don't take everything I say seriously.

edit: oh, and
DOWN THERE
IM SO SMOOTH
MY TURD IS DANGLING

Seems the conflict has settled, but one note. Even a fact can be insulting, wheter or not its true, even though you might think him immature he might think otherwise and therefore will find it insulting.

even though you might think him immature he might think otherwise and therefore will find it insulting.

or perhaps immaturity is developed through the lack of common tone on the internet. not to mention that the immunity from retaliation is a seed for immaturity
of which, I might add. you are too sarcasm.

I have called you immature, which is simply a statement of fact, not an insult.

ahahahaha, you wish.

edit: oh, and DOWN THERE IM SO SMOOTH MY TURD IS DANGLING

and if I had the impudence to say you were immature,
I would at least provide solid evidence. more than something taht says I was in a mood swing.

You don't need to know everything to show that someone else doesn't know everything

but you do to think that I would think I know everything. that was pretty damn simple.

Since I've killed off more than half of yours

AHAHAHAHAHA...
woo...
right.
that, with your mistical powers of "I'm right, and you and your myriad of completely reliable sources are wrong"

Hopefully Sarcasm comes back he was the only one that still had an arguement or two to debate..

Once again, I arrive in the thread too late to understand what is going on, which is unfortunate when I saw the whole "dangling faeces" fiasco but oh well.

I just came to register my disgust at anyone...not just a certain German person...who thinks games have an adverse effect on people. Sure, that kid played Counter Strike...but did it make him assault his school and kill 37 people? No. That was his choice that he made, for whatever unearthly reasons...on his own.

Wait...does that mean GalCiv2 players really will take over the galaxy!?

I know that is it boiled down to a simplistic (and absurd) form, but that is really all it is.

Oh and being a citizen of the UK, it makes me a little worried that history seems to be repeating itself, we all know what happened last time.

Oh and being a citizen of the UK, it makes me a little worried that history seems to be repeating itself, we all know what happened last time.

I'm just worried that (as sarcasm said, regarding sociocultural beliefs) that this sort of supressive belief will spread and turn into an oppressive one. it did last time
now, so long as you dont let Germany take over half the continent before you retaliate, than I believe we'll be fine.

Short on time again, so I'll try to be quick for once.

I think this thread has lost focus. It's difficult and extremely time-consuming to respond to anything, because it seems that every little quote has taken on a topic in its own right. Maybe we should try to condense things. So here are the topics at hand, add more if you like or if I missed any:

1) The oppressive nature of current governments. Russia and China, especially the former, are the cases in point. Russia more so because it is a democracy, and has some rather questionable practices and has gotten involved in events that haven't exactly had all their loose ends tied up or questions answered.

2) The practicality of stem cells, a topic which I am killing by my own choice because it is going nowhere. I am not killing it because I can't beat you, "winning" wasn't really my intention anyway, I just wanted to show you that it is the best lead in an unknown field. The reason that I am giving up on the point is because stem cells are an infant science, and like anything experimental, they have just as many failings as successes. You can't judge the outcome of a science when it has barely been developed. The fact is, we can sit here and quote sources to each other all day - there are as many examples as there are counterexamples - but it will go nowhere. It already HAS gone nowhere for an entire page - we haven't developed the topic in any way and it's just getting repetitive.

3) I suppose as a more minor point, the impact of society and culture on its people and how it affects what goes on in that particular region.

4) Learned ignorance versus stubborn open-mindedness in relation to world events and personal beliefs.

The first one seems to be the only one worth addressing at this point.

they made a really stupid move that ended in lots of peoples deaths

Yes, they did make a stupid move. But a calculated, premeditated move? There's nothing to show that and so much to suggest it was an accident caused by crappy counterterrorism skills. Come on - look at the 1972 Munich Massacre. That was an enormous screw-up too, are you going to suggest the Germans arranged that to get attention? Granted, that wasn't on their own people, but the same overall situation applies: hostages taken, military called in, military has ample firepower and technology at hand to solve the crisis, but doesn't have the skills or knowledge of how to use what they have correctly, and so they completely screw it up and people die. Accident? Yes. Planned move for international attention? I don't think so, and no syntactical construction you create can convince me otherwise.

I mean my mom(a teacher) didnt get payed for months at a time and my dads laboratory had put him on sespension pay(

Yup, this is a huge problem even today. In Russia, lots of doctors are leaving the country to work in Europe and America, because the government pays the salaries of doctors in Russia, and the economy is so backed up that some doctors haven't gotten any money in months. Same situation applies to their military and space program. Russia has all but backed out of the ISS project because it can't finish its components, the last one it was supposed to finish was two years behind schedule before they shipped it off to Cape Canaveral for us to finish it. Even with all these problems, though, Russia's still pouring money into its defense budget to make more tanks and develop new ones. Yikes. Add to that the fact that the mafia has a huge hand in much of the government, you get an absolute economic nightmare.

Also, what is this golden age you speak of that happened during communism? That's interesting to hear, haven't heard anything like that from people. I've talked to some people from Soviet Russia, and they said it definately had its perks, like everyone was super friendly - you could hitch a ride with a complete stranger and talk casually all the way to your destination and not have to worry about being sexually violated like you do here in the U.S. Could you elaborate on what your parents meant?

a radical opinion would be saying that killing civiians is a good move by a government, and defensible.

Another radical opinion would be to accuse, based solely on assumptions, preconceptions, and news reports and without any sort of concrete evidence, a major democratic world power of gassing its own people for brownie points with the West. Sorry, but killing your own people with gas doesn't bode well for future membership with the E.U., who are militantly against any sort of execution or intentional deaths of any kind in the state arena.

your way too biased

You too, man, you too. Just in different ways. That's the fun things about arguments. Most of the time, the formation of our close personal beliefs is a lengthy process that takes years, so when we are confronted with someone who disagrees, we tend to respond very defensively and aggressively. Something you are more than guilty of, but let's not turn this into a court trial. If you want to start pointing fingers at me, I can point lots more back at you. But it's not really worth it.

you cannot as easily cover up military deaths, but they provide much more of an embarrisment.

This statement could not be more wrong. Military deaths are official, sealed government documents that the government can choose to or not to reveal. During World War II, the Soviet Union claimed it lost less then 50,000 men during the Battle of Stalingrad. It wasn't till the 80s and 90s, when the Soviet gorvnment lightened up during Perestroika, that historians began to discover that the number was more around 500-600,000, not including the half-a-million civilians that lived in the city when the battle occurred. A government can cover up any number it wants to.

As for the helicopter incident, it does nto speak to support your point at all. Look it up sometime. The Mi-26 is supposed to carry a maximum or 70 or so passengers; this one was shot down carrying 120+. A rather embarassing incident, yet it stayed in the news for barely a day. Nobody really cared - it was just a case of, oh, look, another Russian died in Chechnya. To Americans, that's a place we can't even locate, aren't involved in, and doesn't affect us, therefore we don't care. Thus, the media networks aren't going to give it much attention.

Yet, when a similiar amount of civilians died during the theatre thing, it was in the news for days. It's shocking to see unarmed people killed, so the media networks are going to carry it. Soldiers don't get in the headlines unless they are American and a casualty, and the reference is attached to a large number. Seeing civilians killed is more shocking to the average person than a soldier, because we think that soldiers are supposed to fight and die - that's why they're there after all - and so we just kind of accept it as the process of the ends justifying the means, and go on about our daily lives. Saddening, but true.

and what do you mean militant athiest?

Ha, just a humorous description a couple friends gave to me once because I'm so against all religion in every way, shape or form. We can create another thread for that if you want.

now, so long as you dont let Germany take over half the continent before you retaliate, than I believe we'll be fine.

Yup, we dropped the ball there, and we may just do it again, our government has no spine. We'd be happy to get mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if a country were to take over half of Europe again we would be like "Hmm, yes their taking over the world, but we've seen no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction"

they have just as many failings as successes

...
fine, the topics dead. but I'm just going to outline this point and leave obnoxious I'm-speachless dots. so
...
...
...

But a calculated, premeditated move?

not what I claimed. you cant premeditate a terrorist strike, but how you handle it is more indicitive of the type of government

caused by crappy counterterrorism skills.

it was caused by good anti-PR skills, and wonton miscare for people.

. Even with all these problems, though, Russia's still pouring money into its defense budget to make more tanks and develop new ones. Yikes. Add to that the fact that the mafia has a huge hand in much of the government, you get an absolute economic nightmare.

more evidence to my point.

a major democratic world power of gassing its own people for brownie points with the West

gassing was just a point to an end: avoid PR, avoid self costs, avoid public outbreak.

but killing your own people with gas doesn't bode well for future membership with the E.U.

I doubt russia is working her way into the E.U.

If you want to start pointing fingers at

wow, you totally missed who I was adressing. 'grats
I was talking about ticks, who's beliefs are... well unconventional
obviously we are biased, but ticks takes it to a whole new level.
no offense there ticks, your actually a pretty good arguementor, and your ideas are well supported as well.

A government can cover up any number it wants to.

not really. yes, they are sealed documents. but its not as easy to defend against accusations from officials as it is from grieving parents who are grasping for attention.

A rather embarassing incident, yet it stayed in the news for barely a day. Nobody really cared

yes, but events like that with civilians (embarissing events w/ tons of civ deaths) happen all the time and get completely blown over, this one at least got a couple day's attention

Yet, when a similiar amount of civilians died during the theatre thing, it was in the news for days. It's shocking to see unarmed people killed, so the media networks are going to carry it

no, they carried it because it was a terrorist event within Russia's borders. civilians die in mass numbers all the time. but the concept of steel-fisted world-leader Russia being infiltrated is another thing
which also is part of my point: a swift, easy victory over terrorists gives Russia something to put up to mask the PR nightmare. a swamp battleground with intense fighting, many deaths, and 2 hours+ long battles would have been a misery for Russia.

Seeing civilians killed is more shocking to the average person than a soldier, because we think that soldiers are supposed to fight and die - that's why they're there after all - and so we just kind of accept it as the process of the ends justifying the means, and go on about our daily lives. Saddening, but true.

but like I said, easily covered up AND they are not at the hands of the government. the government could say "terrorists fault" for civilians death, and get a grumbled response at best. military casualties are the fault of the government who sent them in, rarely the terrorists who fired the shot. (at least, in public opinion)

Ha, just a humorous description a couple friends gave to me once because I'm so against all religion in every way, shape or form. We can create another thread for that if you want.

I am going to take you up on that offer. it'll be fun.

Germans are Germans for a reason and they will NEVER EVER change. Period.

. . .

Okay, so i like where this thread is going now, at least most of us are on good terms now. Now i really like point 2 from Sarcasm, it made me very very happy, my talking finally got through to someone YEA!!!    I must argue one point Schem made, steel fisted world leader? Russia? NO WAY!! Lol um we havent been that in a while, sure we still pour a lot of money into defense but its nothing like it was. Our millitary isnt half of what it used to be, most of it is going towards new research that the Mafia end up selling anyway. Its quite deppresing, but when i went to the Northern most part of Russia(European side), to this one old millitary base thing(on a tour), there were dozens of ships just siting rusting their. Sure, we still pose a threat to the world and our borders are well defended(draft anyone?), but its not that hard for terrorist to strike at us, we are connected by land to many questionable countries, and we have to much of a border to fense it all off. So in the end they sneak a cross and boom bombing, more people dead, media goes crazy. In the end more soldier die thoug, from rode side bombs and such, if you get drafted its almost like a death sentance.

Now as for working into the EU, Russia is getting clever. They have sent request to a lot of former Soviet Union countries to start thinking about more unified trade agreements. Already they are working with Belarus to get them to sign an agreement to unify the currency to allow freer trade. Now, currently the Russia rubel is worth more, but its less stable and its more soft currency than hard(like here). Belarus' currency on the other hand is even softer so when the too balance out those too by unifying Belarus will become almost an economic slave to our Rubel. They will have to keep it stable or risk ruining their own economy. Other countries are also thinking of benifits that this would bring though, Russia is a huge marker now that its citizens have money, and the Eastern European countries not part of the EU will want this market. So you can see where this could be going, dont you?

As for ieatplanets, can you be anymore judgemental about a nation you know little about. Why would you even say something like that?  

Lol um we havent been that in a while

my point exactly, history romanticism
besides, its not like you guys went out forcefully, it was more like a fizzle... sure, quite a few rebellions, the fall of the berlin wall. but nothing too incredible.

but its not that hard for terrorist to strike at us

the concept they wanted to avoid

and yes, Russia is opening up trade routes, but EU assimilation? i dont think so.

You fail to see the grander picture. What other reason might Russia have besides economic expansion, by making the countries in Eastern Europe rely on it so heavily once again?

economic expansion sure.
but I do not see them assimilating fully with the EU. thats what I'm pointing out.
and lets not start accusing one another of narrowmindedness, I've had enough of that from sarc.

No, not assimilating with the EU, though we plan, theres not much hope. The EU has developed quite a prejudice against Eastern Europe(and the Soviet Union). But whos to say there wont be an EEU or maybe an even stronger reform.

which would bring in the era of supernations instead of nations.
that would be the EU, the EEU, the Chinese Union, the United States, probably the Indo-chinese assemblage and the African Union.

wow, talk about over complicated world setup.

Well, those regions will be better off that way. I mean with all those resources being shared everything should prosper. Hopefully the politicians arent stupid enough to mess it up by competing over land and such. This will probably eventually happen because already the strong nationalism in many parts of the world are receeding soon enough people will ally within a region for the benifit of everyone(and because cultural diffrences will be smaller). Then who knows maybe well become a confederation or something.