Slashdot Mirror

Wow. I was with you up until this. Speaking of straw man arguments.

I belive the term you are looking for is "ad hominem": attaking the messenger rather than the message. But it's not and ad hominem if it's true.

You're right. It was not a straw man, since you weren't caricaturing an argument but rather a group.

It is not really an ad hominem either, because you weren't refuting an argument by attacking the messenger. (By the way, ad hominem is a fallacy regardless of whether it's true or not---the fallacy is about relevance, not truth.)

Instead, you said: The media isn't biased when they interview wacky nutjobs because wacky nutjobs are representative of the NRA. This isn't logical fallacy. It's simply a false statement, presumably due to prejudice and bias.

Rather than spending vast amounts of money on politics and fighting all forms of gun control, they should spend that cash talking about the responsiblities of gun ownership and the importance of getting training in the storage, maintainance and use of firearms.

In fact, the NRA spends considerable resources on training and safety programs. This fact isn't particularly newsworthy, however, at least not compared to their political lobbying. So one hears about political efforts much more often than safety training.

You might argue they still don't do enough in this area, but the fact is they don't ignore it. See http://www.nrahq.org/safety/.

On the other hand, I'm not american, so perhaps it just doesn't concern me that much.

What I do find somewhat uncomfortable is that you're always the "good guys" in America's Army, the enemy is always the terrorists no matter which side you're on.

Well, that is a rather accurate chariacature of the NRA. Rather than talking about gun education and the responsiblities of gun ownership, all of their political efforts focus on fighting off all forms of gun control. They talk about firearms as if they were magical firearms, guranteed to keep away robbers and evil governments.

Wow. I was with you up until this. Speaking of straw man arguments.

Neither side of the discussion is well-served by caricaturing the other side. Instead of pretending that gun-rights advocates are right-wing nutjobs, why not dispute what was at issue? Namely, the claim that the media only interviews nutjobs when presenting the pro-gun side.

Before we learn to walk again, we should learn to cycle again.

I'll have in about 50 miles before today is over, because I'm going to visit another city.

Back in the day, however, I used to live in something called a "neighborhood" and there was little point in cycling to the grocery store only a two minute walk away. Now the nearest grocery store is a 45 minute walk away and it's actually illegal to put a grocery store where the people who eat are.

People over here, food . . . waaaaaaaaaaaaay over there.

Bring the food back to the people. Walk first. Cycle when necessary. Try to make cycling as unnecessary as possible.

There are now shopping malls that you can rent an apartment in. We're reinventing, by need, the city, as caricature of itself.

KFG

My point wasn't that you should necessarily take my alternative explanation of what the OP's friend's motivations might have been over his. My point was simply that he seemed to be offering us an explanation of his friend's behaviour that made assumptions that might not have been true. Maybe they were... but that wasn't the point. A challenge was required, so I gave one, and he clarified.

I don't really have much to say in reply to that, other than you're wasting your effort by setting up straw men and knocking them down. I'm a Christian, and I don't have a problem with Harry Potter. I think the crusades were largely deplorable. Killing abortion advocates/surgeons is as bad as abortion itself. Any Christian with a biblically-sound and sincere faith will agree with me on all those points (with the possible exception of Harry Potter, but even then I'd say that any reasonable people among them would keep it as a private view for their own family, and not enforce it on others). You get the idea... you're not attacking Christianity in any useful sense, only a hackneyed caricature of it.

The rarest of Slashdot's rarities, civilized discussion! Let's enjoy...

I totally agree with you about Bush and so do many conservatives. Just because we voted for G.W. instead of the alternatives does not mean that we are any less Ronald Reagan types.

Well, I'm a conservative too. I liked Goldwater, liked Reagan, and were I an Usian, I'd have voted for them. But Bush II gives me the creeps. How could he have been RE-elected is beyond me. You know, fooled once, shame on you, fooled twice...

My point was that America's right wing is totally different than Europe's version of right wing.

Just as America's left wing is totally different from Europe's version of left wing.
You see, USA's political spectrum is orthogonal with the rest of the world's (not just Europe's). IMHO yours is saner, but as a result of the very unique circumstances of USA's geography and history, is unexportable. It has failed to catch even in your colony, the UK, despite the best efforts of Maggie the First.

Now, I'm going to invoke a Godwin's Law exception, in order to talk about Nazis. ;>)

Americans, as a rule, are ignorant about European political history (no offense intended, you have no reason not to be).
They think of Nazism and Fascism as the loony fringe of the European right, wich they're not. They're a profoundly different ideology, a poisonous caricature of right wing tought, in almost every way opposed to traditional conservative values, wich were old and established before Columbus set sail.
But the point is, Hitler, Mussolini et al took their respective countries' right wingers for a ride into disaster.
And Bush II is no conservative. He's just the sock puppet of a profoundly different ideology, a poisonous caricature of right wing tought, in almost every way opposed to traditional conservative values, and he indeed took American conservatives for a ride. A ride to where, is another discussion.

They have communist socialists on the left and nationalist socialists on the right. Either way you get socialism.

Let me guess, you're reading Hayek and Mises? We all did.
Not a bad influence at a certain age, you'll outgrow them. Like a first love, really.

Best wishes,
CC

"The official nationality of people from the UK is British, not English. By referring to Brits as "English", you're pissing off a sizable number of people who are proud to be Scottish, Irish, Welsh, etc."

The point is that in the UK it is only the English who matter. Rather than being insulted you should be flattered by the association - without us, the English, you would rank alongside the Solomon Islands in international profile, and the Scotch would only be known as caricatures on the Simpsons.

Too bad that didn't stop them from re-electing him.

Liberals are just pissed off that they aren't the ones doing it, they've always been in favor of trying new ways - that's why we call 'em liberals.

I'm a liberal, and I don't want to see the Constitution infringed by Bush or anybody else. One thing the American Right has been very good at is reducing their opponents to caricatures -- that is likely why your idea of what liberals stand for is so negative and cartoon-like. Keep in mind that "liberal" and "Democrat" are not anywhere close to synonymous.

NODA, Japan - The teachings of Grand Master Masaaki Hatsumi echo through my head as he entreats me to attack a blackbelted disciple with a practice sword. "Always be able to kill your students," he says.

Chilling words from a shockingly fit 76-year-old man who bills himself as the world's last ninja and stocks his training chamber with weapons such as throwing stars and nunchucks. Especially to a neophyte whose closest brush with martial arts was watching Bruce Lee matinees as a kid.

As I cautiously raise the sword with a taut two-handed samurai grip, my sparring partner gingerly points to Hatsumi. I avert my eyes for a split second - and WHAM! The next thing I know, I'm staring at the rafters.

Keeping your focus is just one of the lessons thumped out on the mats of the Bujinkan Dojo, a cramped school outside Tokyo that is a pilgrimage site for 100,000 worldwide followers. They revere Hatsumi as the last living master of ninjutsu - the mysterious Japanese art of war practiced by black-masked assassins of yesteryear.

"He's unlimited in body, mind and spirit," says Richard VanDonk, who flew in from California to practice body throws in the dojo's warm glow of rice-paper screens and flickering votive candles. "He's a master of change."

Hatsumi is the only living student of the last "fighting ninja," Toshitsugu Takamatsu, the so-called 33rd Grand Master who was a bodyguard to officials in Japanese-occupied Manchuria before World War II and fought - and won - 12 fights to the death. Legend says that during one battle, Takamatsu snatched an eyeball from a would-be Chinese bandit.

Today, Hatsumi's enemies are stereotypes and flagging interest in the ancient art. He seeks to leave the task to a worthy successor as speculation mounts about his retirement.

In many ways, the curly-haired, wide-eyed Hatsumi has been a victim of success: He has helped make ninja an international household name by training followers from Chile to South Africa. But he also has watched his legacy co-opted by goofy caricatures such as "Mutant Ninja Turtles" and schlocky Hollywood send-ups like "Beverly Hills Ninja."

"I think it's pathetic," Hatsumi says of the ninja's modern image.

A glance around the dojo suggests the average Japanese might agree. The vast majority of students are foreigners, often with a military background, who learned of Hatsumi overseas. That's because in Japan, ninjutsu is swept up in the wave of apathy that has sapped the ranks of traditional martial arts like sumo and judo.

Most Japanese are exposed to martial arts in school. But the number practicing judo has been declining since the 1980s as more people turn to Western sports like golf and tennis. Sumo also has fallen on hard times, forcing the Japan Sumo Association to import stars.

"Young kids might be more interested in other sports that are flashy or fashionable," concedes Makinori Matsuo, an associate professor of martial arts at Tokyo's International Budo University.

"They tend to be turned off by the image of martial arts as sweaty and smelly," he said.

Ninja is a compound word from the Japanese characters for "stealth" or "endurance" and "person," a reference to their traditional role as spies, mercenaries and assassins working for medieval warlords.

Traditional weaponry such as swords and throwing stars feature prominently is Hatsumi's lessons, as do handclaws for climbing walls, blow darts and chili pepper dust to throw in an opponent's eyes.

But true ninjutsu, Hatsumi says, is self-discipline and balance in the boardroom and the battlefield. It's about mastering one's weaknesses, including laziness and fear, and exploiting a riv

You've either got to be joking, or very young.

Hello, Bill Gates, world's richest man. Uh, Steve Jobs. Those names are known.

Geeks & nerds enjoy a social position not seen since the 1950's. I'm thinking back to the 80's: when the whole 'Revenge of the Nerds' franchise was born. It was silly stupid caricaturing of what would later become the slick stylish and edgy characters we see on something like CSI.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't this happen with Calvin and Hobbes and the little caricature of a Calvin-like character urinating on the logo of your choice?

Racist caricature? Tell that to Nanking. OH GOD, THE MILTARY PROPAGANDISTS MADE IT ALL UP!

How's this for a viewpoint: I don't care about the Japanese body count in WW2. Dropping a couple nukes saved a hell of a lot more American lives than storming the island, and that's the primary thing the US miltary should be concerned about. To criticise A war of that scope does not reward mercy.

The UK media is a bit better at that. When our soldiers get killed, you often see the coffins getting brought off the plane back home. It seems the right thing to do; if we're going to go to war, it's almost indecent to pretend there are no consequences. And Europe is no better: the press was proudly displaying the Caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, boasting about how they support freedom of expression. Yet how many of those newspapers would accept to publish a carricature combining the Christ, the Holocaust, and phallic symbols.

Three or four newspapers displayed those, as far as I can remember. The rest discussed them but didn't reprint them. And FWIW, (a) most of them, (b) very few of them, (c) you don't know the tabloids at all, do you?

Can we conceive that for muslim communities, displaying a representation of their prophet is just as unacceptable as using 4-letter words in the US? I wish they would not cause riots because of this, on the other hand they don't have the means to muzzle our mass media as other communities can.

Using those words may well be unacceptable in the US mass media. I'm not in the US, although this post will likely have an American readership. Let's see what we can do.

Fuck Fuck Cunting Bastard Fuck Arsefaced Shiteating Motherfucking Fuckwits, Fuck You And Your Hell-Damned Raggedcunted Daughter. And, let's get the religious angle in: Fuck Christ And Fuck His Holy Fucking Whore Mother, They Fuck Each Other Anyway.

Riots, anybody? No? Threats to behead the foulmouthed foreigner? Still no? Who'd have thought it.

Moreover, maybe as you say, in some Muslim communities, displaying a picture of the Prophet is offensive. Too bad. As far as I know, Denmark isn't a Muslim community. Neither is France, neither is Germany - although all three have some Muslims living there. Should the press censor themselves to suit every last minority sect? There are people in the world who believe all sorts of things are obscene or offensive; however, most of them just have to put up with it. I personally find Cherie Blair's face extremely offensive, but I don't riot about it.

And obviously, Japanese culture hasn't changed at allin 60 years, following hundreds of thousands of casualties, the fire-bombing of Tokyo, nuclear attacks, surrender to the U.S., the loss of the Japanese military, and the rise of Japan as one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth. So everything you've learned about Japan from nineteen-year-old Japanese exchange students carrying Hello Kitty purses and Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" provides an accurate window into Japan as it existed circa 1941-45. Whereas all the AC has to offer is verifiable, historical facts from articles and books.

The AC is NOT being racist, he is referring to documented facts about WII. Read some history books. Japanese soldiers often fought to the death, and many chose suicide- sometimes blowing themselves up with hand grenades, or leaping off of cliffs- rather than be captured. In Saipan, soldiers even forced women and children off of cliffs, rather than allow them to be captured by the Americans. I've got Japanese friends, and yes, they're nice people. But it doesn't alter the fact that an amphibious invasion of Japan would have resulted in massive civilian casualties. Arguing that the Japanese weren't fighting to the death because you've met some modern Japanese people who are nice in casual conversation is idiotic. I've met nice German people, therefore the Holocaust is anti-German propaganda? I've also met very nice people from the South and enjoyed their hospitality. So slavery didn't happen, it's just a prejudice against Southerners?

Yes, it's hard to look at people you've met from Japan and believe that during the war, Japan engaged in some atrocities which were just as brutal as anything that Germany did: raping and murdering civilians in China, forcing Korean women to work as prostitutes, working British POWs to death as slave labor, eating POWs (admittedly they were running low on food due to a successful American campaign to disrupt shipping). But these things happened. And the fact is, those nice exchange students we know from Japan, had they been born earlier, would have been part of a society that committed these acts, probably would have done nothing to stop them, and probably would have even helped. Of course, had we been born in that time and place, we probably would have helped as well, which is the scary thing.

Nice job mindlessly reciting the racist caricature put forth by the military propagandists. You duckspeak doubleplusgood.

Now let me ask: How many real-life Japanese people do you actually know? I bet the answer is: "none". I, on the other hand, know quite a few, tourists and exchange students I've met, and immigrants and their descendants I've gotten to know long-term. (Admittedly, I may have an unfair advantage. I live in San Francisco now, and used to live in Honolulu.) And they are among the nicest, most decent, generous and intelligent people I've known. And they are nothing like the stereotype that people like you try to present.

In summary, kindly FOAD plz. K thx.

cya,
john

The bottom line is that you should be allowed to speak your opinion. If you are commiting social suicide, don't speak? What the hell do you want to speak for if nobody takes into account what you say? But giving to the government DRAFTS? Man, I will never go there...

If you think Europeans put up with the shit you watch on TV, then you are sadly mistaken, my friend. We don't. Not on our national television, at least. And Iraq? Is there somewhere someone so inevitably dumb who doesn't know you bastards did it for the petrol? I'll stick to Europe.

Seen from Europe, US news have been so incredibly single-sided when it comes to War on Terror or Irak.
And how often have you seen body bags coming back from Irak on national television?

And Europe is no better: the press was proudly displaying the Caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, boasting about how they support freedom of expression. Yet how many of those newspapers would accept to publish a carricature combining the Christ, the Holocaust, and phallic symbols.

Can we conceive that for muslim communities, displaying a representation of their prophet is just as unacceptable as using 4-letter words in the US?
I wish they would not cause riots because of this, on the other hand they don't have the means to muzzle our mass media as other communities can.

Of course, you are less likely to be shot if you speak out a diverging opinion in the occident than in other parts of the world. But you might well be committing social or economic suicide by speaking up.
This ensures that the media, who have tremendous control over what we see or hear, just won't let it happen.

I don't want to defend Chinese policies, or put the blame on anyone. I just wish that all of our societies were enriched by more open debates, feeding a more intelligent understanding of opposed points of views.

First of all, I see no actor that can play Kirk or Spock. If an actor tries to imitate Shatner or Nimoy, the result would be ridiculus; no one actor can imitate another one 100%. Shatner and Nimoy were special because they enriched their roles with their own personal elements. If, on the other hand, the new actors do not try to act like Kirk or Spock, then the whole thing will not be believable enough.

Secondly, what the audience needs is not a new movie, but a new series. Star Trek can not be done right unless it is done in a series format. Take DS9, for example. It would be impossible to offer even a glimpse of DS9 in a movie; it is just impossible. Star Trek has a lot of things to say in each episode; 99% of those things will be lost in a movie.

Thirdly, the academy setting will just not work. It is not possible to realistically show larger-than-life characters "saving the world" in larger-than-life situations while these characters are very young people. It is not believable enough, especially when the audience has already watched how 'larger-than-life' characters should be. Just like Indiana Jones/Superman - the early years did not work, so will happen with young Kirk/Spock.

Forthly, people are interested to see what happened to the Star Trek universe in the future. If one checks the related forums and messageboards, what every Star Trek fan wants is to see the Star Trek universe evolve, rather than go back.

Furthermore, Star Trek is about exploration...it is not a land-based show. You can simply not explore the universe in a Star Trek academy setting, no matter how genius the writers are. There are so many opportunities in the Star Trek universe, I do not see why they are ignored. A few clicks in related forums will persuade everyone as to what Star Trek fans want.

Lastly, I would like to say that Gene Rodenberry's vision came to its zenith with Star Trek - The Next Generation. During TNG, the president (Reagan) came to the sets to get a glimpse of a possible future; the greatest scientists showed interest, and one of them even played in one of the episodes (Stephen Hawking); NASA experts were involved in many episodes; we saw Einstein and Newton. And all that because TNG was about physics (fake one, but still interesting), about philosophy, about what is life, about astronomy, about artificial intelligence, about a utopian society, about first contact with alien civilisations, about anything positive the current civilization has achieved or wants to achieve. And guess what...people really liked that! I agree that DS9 was better written, but DS9 was a soap opera in space more than anything else. It was about the personal relationships of the crew more than anything else. But the DS9 stories could easily be told in another setting that had nothing to do with space...but the TNG stories were impossible to be told without being in space!

So, dear Paramount, we want a new TNG-like series (with a tiny drop of DS9 thrown in). We need damn serious people like Picard; we need intelligent androids like Data; we need warriors who put honour above else, like Worf (and not the caricature Klingons we saw in the other series); we need our brains to be stimulated with episodes like Darmok (for example). We do not need another war, nor we need to see all the practical jokes of 20 year olds in the Starfleet Academy. We need to say young people that embrace science, like Wesley Crusher. It does not have to be exact TNG (the characters are getting old!), but the TNG format was the most successful of all times.

So, dear Paramount, think again really carefully about the Starfleet Academy movie. All things point to being a total failure...and a total failure at this point will put the final nail in the coffin of Star Trek!

Yours is a kind of pessimistic take on art. IANAArtist but I knows what I likes. You describe the hoity toity side of "fine" art; the kind that only seasoned critics and professors will understand - the legalese of art. It reminds me of a recent King of the Hill episode where Bobby takes a class in clowning, only to find he was a better clown before he learned how.

And indeed, Ebert is a master of deconstructing film. He makes a zillion observations every minute of every film. When it comes to interpreting other media I don't think he is qualified. He can't see the forest through the trees. He busies himself finding ways that games are not movies or literature, when it's so obvious to the rest of us that it's completely different.

Reading between the lines I can see you've got the right idea on this. Art isn't art because people tell you so. It's art when it draws you in, when you understand it on more than the surface level, and it gives you pleasure and meaning. The Artful Dodger finds art in pickpocketing. Robert Pursig finds art in motorcycle maintenance. Mandelbrot finds art in math.

Much of today's generation finds art in interactive storytelling, and perhaps we are more correct than any generation before us. Not only are we consumers of the artistic visions of all the game designers, graphic and sound designers, programmers, manual writers, etc. that make the game, but we as gamers are artists ourselves because we compose our own unique stories as we play. Whatever part of the human condition is left out of the box is injected by the consumers as they paint their own caricatures onto the pastel landscape.

Think of it like this. Do you know what local delicacy means? It means nobody else in the world wants to eat it. If a game truly became art would anyone really want to play it?

Take the game of life, the best game I can think of akin to a local delicacy. (http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.ht ml) This is a game in the loosest sense of the word in which pixels represent communities of organisms who will flourish or die depending on the number of neighbours. You play it once and you learn a little something about populations. Maybe you don't play it more than once, or maybe you draw your name or a squirrel, or maybe you experiment with it for hours. No matter how you play it, it's obvious that the game itself is nothing but an empty grid without human participation. What you put in is exactly what you get out of it. Isn't this true of all games?

Roger Ebert is an old man who is unsurpassed in his craft, but should not be taken seriously on this matter. He is accustomed to watching movies and reading books passively, and is not prepared to criticize a medium that requires him to participate proactively. He is a niche journalist who has thus discredited himself from interpreting other niches.

So give interpretive dance a chance. Jump up on stage and flail around with that psychopath. Maybe it's clearly art while you're onstage.

Yeah, except all the Microsoft bashing I see here at +5 is reasoned. The only time there are peasants and pitchforks is in the caricatures painted in comments like this.