You know, I bet if everyone that thought this way ("I agree with a third party, but I don't want to throw my vote away, so I vote for the least of the two evils") actually voted in line with their beliefs, then third party candidates would stand a chance.
There is no concept of personal responsibility anymore. If someone is a criminal, then they're just "misunderstood" and had a "bad childhood". So the thinking is that they should be dealt with kindly, even if they break into your house, rape your wife and are attempting to kill you. After all, it's not their fault.
I agree with you. It's pure silliness and I have a hard time believing that people actually think like that. This has got to be the only time in history when someone breaking into a house or store could not expect to get hurt or killed, and if he/she is, they can sue. Apparently self-defense and defense of one's property and family is a crime now in some places.
Just sit back and take it and hope that the police take care of everything for you. No need to worry your head about such things as taking responsibility for defending yourself. That would be positively barbaric./SARCASM
That's true, but why should they be illegal just because they're addicive? Alcohol and tobacco are fairly addictive, yet are legal.
Keep in mind that all drugs were legal at one point, and while people may have been addicted, civilization didn't grind to a halt. Today, there are quite a few aloholics, but most still are productive members of society. It's a risk you take if you try a substance that is known to be addictive.
Ok, you obviously don't have the vaguest understanding of how the US government works. You also seem to lack reading skills. You're also a mean and nasty person.
The President can't just say "Ban, be extended!" and make it so. Congress has to do that and the President can either sign it into law or veto it. The bill never got to Bush's desk to sign. He said he would sign it if he got it. That never happened. It never got through the House (or the Senate, I think). Haven't you ever watched School House rock (or graduated high school)? You are apparently so convinced that all the world's ills are Bush's fault that it's caused brain rot (or maybe you're just woefully undereducated).
AK-47s or any other fully-automatic weapons have not been legal since 1934 without tons and tons of red tape and lots of money. Once again, you're listening to the deception in the media and moveon.org. Crime decreasing has nothing to do with the AWB. Everything that was banned can still be obtained as long as it's used. It's a useless and stupid piece of legislation.
For someone who's accusing me of being ignorant and getting my info from Fox News (which I rarely watch), you're pretty ignorant about all this and you ignored what I said. You're the one being lied to by the media. Try using your brain instead of letting your emotions run wild. You're making liberals everywhere look bad.
You're right, it's pretty pointless to argue back, since you're pretty obviously not even reading and comprehending what I wrote and are just retorting with what you've been taught. In fact, after glancing at that fine "journalism" at moveon, I can see that you're basically paraphrasing it back at me. Nice critical independent thought there.
BTW, I won't respond to any further ill-informed diatribes on your part, so you can respond if you like, but don't expect me to pay attention or reply.
Sounds like your grandfather and friends are more libertarian, to me. It's my political orientation and most libertarians are for drug legalization.
I agree that it seems obvious. The problem, IMO is that most people who are personally against something (as I am against drugs) think that it should be illegal whether it hurts anyone or not. I realize that other people have other interests and as long as they aren't hurting me (or someone else), I don't care what they do.
Someone breaks into your house. He is armed, your are not. He rapes your wife and kills you, then takes all your stuff.
The thing is, when someone breaks into your house, you have no idea what they are planning to do. If he is armed, then by the time you've determined that in a dark house and in a state of fear, you'll probably be shot already. If I detect someone creeping around my place, then the moment I determine that they're not supposed to be here, (not a friend or relative or something) I'm shooting them until they (a) turn and run away or (b) fall down.
And even in your naive example, the greater evil is breaking into someone's house and stealing stuff. Defending yourself, your loved ones, and your property is not evil at all. Someone who breaks into a house should realize that he's risking being shot and killed.
This is one reason why I think drugs should be legalized. Think about how much crime (and the load on police and prisons) would plummet if drugs were legalized. See Prohibition in the US. Drug prohibition causes more problems than it solves. All it does is criminalize people who use drugs and don't bother anyone. Most drug-related crime is caused by gangs killing each other for turf and junkies mugging people to get their fixes (I'm just guessing, I have no figures to back that up). If drugs were sold at legitimate stores, the prices would drop and noone would buy from gangs anymore. How many people buy cigarettes or booze from dealers in an alley? How many people steal to support their alcohol or tobacco habit? Not many in both cases, I bet. Except maybe in NY, where taxes are so high on cigarettes that they cost about $7 a pack, last I heard.
I, for the record, do no drugs other than caffeine and very moderate alcohol. I'm actually personally against drug use, but I see that laws against it accomplish nothing. What you do with yourself is your own business unless you hurt someone else.
I, as an American, admit that our major brands of beer suck. I am quite fond of Canadian beer, particularly the stuff from Unibroue in Quebec. Maudite, La Fin Du Monde, and all that good stuff.
We do have good beer, but it's not the Budweisers, Millers, Coors, etc.
I agree, I think he's screwed himself over. I'm pretty sure he's going to lose. I think the undecided voters who have been paying attention will vote for Bush, or at least against Kerry.
The only people who will probably vote for Kerry are those that have this irrational hatred for Bush and would vote for a radish if it were running against him.
I'm not a fan of Bush either, but I'd rather him win than Kerry. I, however, am voting for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. I know he won't win, but I'm voting what I believe. I live in Texas, which is going to Bush anyway, most likely, so I'm free to vote for whoever I like without worrying about Kerry winning.
I disagree with the tax cut thing, but I'm not even going to argue about that.
The "assault weapon" ban, I will argue about. BTW, I use quotes because there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". It was made up to sound like "assault rifle", which is scary sounding. You are buying the liberal bias (in some cases, outright lies) about the "Assault Weapons" Ban expiring. Please read carefully. The ban has *nothing* to do with *fully automatic* (machine gun) weapons. All the weapons banned are semi-automatic, meaning that shoot as fast as your average handgun or hunting rifle. One shot per trigger pull, on other words. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934.
The features that define an "assault weapon" are purely cosmetic and have no effect on letality. They merely make a civilian, semi-automatic weapon *look* military-style. In fact, hunting rifles are more lethal than "assault weapons" because they shoot a much larger round. The AR15 (civilian version of the M16) shoots a.223 caliber round. Many hunting rifles shoot a.30 caliber round or greater. AK-47 clones could be bought during the ban, but they were semi-automatic only. So please educate yourself about the ban and stop spreading disinformation.
Also, Bush had *nothing* to do with the ban expiring. To my chagrin, he said he supported the ban and would sign it if it got to him to sign, but the reason it's not being renewed is because it couldn't get passed by Congress. Of course, in your mushy thinking, everything is Bush's fault.
Also, the ban did not prevent people from owning scary looking weapons, it just prevented new ones from being made or imported. One could still easily find banned weapons used and purchase them legally.
The ban was a piece of "feel-good" legislation and nothing more. Of all the gun-related crimes in the US, only 1-3% involved "assault weapons" before the ban. They're simply not desirable to your average criminal. They're big, expensive, and not that powerful. Why buy a big AR15 that costs $1000 and is semi-automatic when you could get a.357 magnum for $200 that is more powerful, also semi-automatic, and can fit in your pocket?
Make sure you know what you're talking about before accusing others of being blind. You're falling for the media, which intentionally tries to make the "assault weapon" ban sound different than reality. They try to scare people who know nothing about the situation into thinking that fully automatic weapons will be flooding the street this Monday (when it expires). They've even shown fully automatic weapons being fired while talking about "assault weapons". Yeah, that's some honest news there. Your side lies as much or more than the other.
I heard that a poll done on a radio station where people can call and talk about issues freely (Which they couldn't do until recently) and the poll, among other things, showed that 100% of those that called viewed the attacks in Iraq as "terrorism" rather than "resistance".
Keep in mind that now that there is an Iraqi government in place, these terrorists are attacking their own government at least as much as occupying troops. They're also kidnapping and beheading foreign civilians from *many* different countries.
Not many people talk about these beheadings any more, but it's very distubing. I've seen my share of gore and the like, but after watching the videos, I was pretty upset. They cut their heads off from the back of the neck (while chanting to Allah or whoever) with knives while the victims are screaming for their lives. And I've read statements *by Muslims* that this is *the official execution method of Islam*. Apparetly it's spelled out very clearly in the Koran or somewhere. The fact that the religion (at least part of it) endorses an official method of execution and *that it is followed* bothers me. I mean, the Bible endorses stoning, but I haven't heard of a stoning in a few hundred years.
This is not normal resistance of an occupying power. The French and Dutch partisans didn't do this. Neither did American revolutionaries. The reason I brought that up was because most news sources don't cover in detail what happened (like in the school incident in Russia).
Oh, come on. I remember seeing such scenes in Arab countries since...well, since I can remember watching the news. I definately remember seeing people celebrating and burning American and Israeli flags after 9/11. These things happen in Islamic countries all the time and noone seems to care, whereas if such things happened here, you'd have all kinds of news coverage, anti-protesters, all kinds of stuff. For that matter, the only celebrating I remember seeing in Iraq is when they were liberated and Saddam Captured.
From this and your other post, you apparently refuse to see any wrong that Islamic terrorists do. I think you're buying the bias in the media hook, line, and sinker.
And, BTW, if anything, we're helping bring the country out of the stone age. Iraq was a well educated, fairly prosperous country before Saddam and the Baathists. It is, after all, were civilization began. You may not agree with this, but we certainly did not send it back to the stone age. I see plenty of people driving cars in cities...where is the stone age?
Yes, Americans and Catholics have done all kinds of bad things through history. But what religion have about 99.9% of all terrorists in the last 30 years been? The problem with Islam is that most of its followers follow the Koran to the letter, rather than interpreting it, as Christians and Jews have come to do. So when it says "kill the unbeliever", these radicals do it.
Also, I've heard different figures, but they all agree that at least 3/4 of all conflicts going on in the world now involve Islamic factions. I think that one of the worst right now is the genocide going on in the Sudan. 1-2 million black Christians *and* Muslims killed by Arab Muslims. They've even gone so far as to invade neigboring countries to eradicate refugee camps.
In my opinion, what Islam needs is a reformation and modernization. Christians were about as bad back in the middle ages, but they have reformed. I mean, the Bible has similar things about stoning people and the like, but the vast majority don't do things like that anymore. Many Islamics do.
For the record, I am an atheist, so I'm not innately biased toward or against any religion. I judge religions based on the actions of the majority of its followers.
You're not paying attention. Many of the hostage takers were *not from Chechnya*. Many (more than 10, from what I heard) were from the Middle East.
And taking about 300 children and others as hostage and blowing them up with plastic explosive embedded with nails and shooting them in the back as they flee is not a conventional military tactic.
I would have no problem if they were actual seperatists. After all, Americans fought for and won our independance from another government. What I have a problem with is the methods that they use. Their "cause" does not justify killing hundreds of elementary school children. I also believe that most of the perpetrators were not seperatists, but just plain Islamic terrorists.
Obviously if you're being very technical, then "American" would mean someone from the "new world". But the meaning in common use is "American" means from the United States of America. It's the only country in the world with "America" in its name. What did you call people from the USSR? USSRians? What about Germans? Bundesrepublik Deutschlandians? What about when we refer to a country as an English version of the country's real name? Most names of countries that English-speakers use are not the real names of the country.
You're being technically correct, but practically you're being silly. If you mean someone from North America, say "North American".
Your decision that it's not technically correct doesn't change the common usage *all over the world*, not just here (the US). I could argue that because n***er is derived from "negro", which is simply Spanish for black, it logically shouldn't be offensive. Try that and see how many black individuals get just a tad bit offended. What is offensive to a group is decided by that group. "Jap" and "Nip" are just short versions of the English and Japanese names for Japanese people, and logically shouldn't be offensive, but they are.
Your "USian" thing is cute (I find it only mildly offensive), but it's not what people say in the real world, and you're not going to change that.
So poor people shouldn't be able to vote either? At least here, if you make below a certain amount, you don't pay taxes (or at least get them all back).
Well, no, it's not generally used in games anymore, but it's used all the time in music production, which is what it was invented for--controlling synths, samplers, etc.
The problem is not in MIDI, but the fact that MIDI playback quality depends on the hardward it's played back on.
I bet if you heard a really good quality sound card, you'd agree that sound quality is important. If all you've ever heard is cheap audio gear, then you won't see the big deal.
Also, surround sound does also make a big difference. I never thought about it until I bought surround sound speakers.
I agree. The sad thing is, that for games, sound does (or at least can...see Silent Hill) play a *huge* part in creating atmosphere and believability. Sound isn't usually noticed as much as video, but it is very important.
Now, many people can't (or don't care to) discern the difference in quality, but it's there. Of course, you need decent speakers or headphones to be able to hear differences in sound quality in hardware, or formats like MP3. Most people think that cheap speakers or fine, since, again sound seems to be unimportant to most people. I think the problem is that you need a good card *and* good speakers to really hear a difference. Video, barring hardware shaders, effects, etc looks pretty much the same, disregarding performance issues, and the real quality determiner is the monitor (which people aren't as picky as they should be about either, really).
Well, many such games are made in the US, so it makes sense. Just off the top of my head, however, in Call of Duty, you play as British, Russians and Americans (always against the Germans, however).
In the Close Combat series, you can play as either allies or Germans.
Most games are from the perspective of the country where they're made, for pretty obvious reasons. But there are many games where you play as people from other countries, on both sides (even against the US).
And I wouldn't say that most wars since WWII involve America. There are about 15 different conflicts (though maybe not "wars") going on in the world right now last I heard. There have been quite a few since WWII as well. It's just that most well-known ones (at least to Americans) involve us.
I agree with most of your points. I think that making blatantly unrealistic games based on a war (especially one in living memory) kind of trivializes it. I think that Call of Duty is an example of a war-based FPS that doesn't, although it's not perfect. I know that unless I'm actually in war, I will never understand it, and thus don't pretend to. I know a lot about details and facts (being a military historian), but I haven't experienced it. That's why I like (realistic) war games, since the good ones kind of put you there. It's kind of similar too how I like horror. Good war movies (and hopefully games) make you feel uncomfortable at the very least.
As far as the true nature of WWII being about the holocaust, I'm not sure. That certainly happened during WWII, but I don't think it was part of the experience of most of the soldiers (from any side). Obviously a game is not going to be made where you play a deathcamp guard or the like, but I would like to see a game where you actually liberate a camp (see Band of Brothers for a very well done scene like this). This would have to be done very seriously to convey the horror of the situation, and if it wouldn't be done right, I don't want to see it at all.
I think the difference between Vietnam and WWII is that the average soldier saw or took part in warcrimes, prostitution, drug use, and other "bad" things (the first being the only really bad thing, IMO). Most German soldiers in WWII were fighting a war, and many were not even Nazis. The Allies who liberated camps saw the horrors, but before that, they were just rumors, for the most part.
The Russians did some horrible things to the Germans that they conquered, but I doubt that will be portrayed in a game. Nor what the Japanese did to the Chinese in WWII.
Honestly be allowed to say what they say, *unless* they are actively urging people to commit violence (which IIRC is illegal in any case) against a minority.
I think that people have a right to not like a particular group and even talk about how they don't like that group, but the moment that they specifically urge violence, it becomes illegal.
Disclaimer: I'm not a member of any of this sort of group, nor am I racist in the least. I just think that no matter how unpopular or morally reprehensible to most people, everyone should get to express their views.
Whether it's too recent or not is up for interpretation, but as far as the enemies all being black, that's just what happened. It was in Somalia, after all. It wasn't because of race, though, it was because of politics (war being an extension of politics by other means). I mean, in Vietnam games, all your enemies are Vietnamese. In any WWII Pacific game, all your enemies would be Japanese. I can play any of these games without having any sort of ill will toward a specific race just because they make up all the enemies in a game or a real war.
I'm sure very few if any serious games about any Middle East conflict will be made soon, with everything going on now. Notice how any game (that I've seen) about terrorism lacks Arab/Muslim terrorists. There's that console game where you kill terrorists and beat up Bin Laden, but it's gotten terrible reviews and is basically a joke. A serious war game in such a situation, I'd be interested it, although it might still be too recent.
I take quite a few games seriously. They can be works of art, not mere diversions. I'm sorry for you if you can't see that. You must be playing the wrong games.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with a good fun game that's not that serious from time to time.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I bet if everyone that thought this way ("I agree with a third party, but I don't want to throw my vote away, so I vote for the least of the two evils") actually voted in line with their beliefs, then third party candidates would stand a chance.
There is no concept of personal responsibility anymore. If someone is a criminal, then they're just "misunderstood" and had a "bad childhood". So the thinking is that they should be dealt with kindly, even if they break into your house, rape your wife and are attempting to kill you. After all, it's not their fault.
/SARCASM
I agree with you. It's pure silliness and I have a hard time believing that people actually think like that. This has got to be the only time in history when someone breaking into a house or store could not expect to get hurt or killed, and if he/she is, they can sue. Apparently self-defense and defense of one's property and family is a crime now in some places.
Just sit back and take it and hope that the police take care of everything for you. No need to worry your head about such things as taking responsibility for defending yourself. That would be positively barbaric.
That's true, but why should they be illegal just because they're addicive? Alcohol and tobacco are fairly addictive, yet are legal.
Keep in mind that all drugs were legal at one point, and while people may have been addicted, civilization didn't grind to a halt. Today, there are quite a few aloholics, but most still are productive members of society. It's a risk you take if you try a substance that is known to be addictive.
Oh yeah, I'm gonna read moveon.org. It's unbiased. Sure.
Ok, you obviously don't have the vaguest understanding of how the US government works. You also seem to lack reading skills. You're also a mean and nasty person.
The President can't just say "Ban, be extended!" and make it so. Congress has to do that and the President can either sign it into law or veto it. The bill never got to Bush's desk to sign. He said he would sign it if he got it. That never happened. It never got through the House (or the Senate, I think). Haven't you ever watched School House rock (or graduated high school)? You are apparently so convinced that all the world's ills are Bush's fault that it's caused brain rot (or maybe you're just woefully undereducated).
AK-47s or any other fully-automatic weapons have not been legal since 1934 without tons and tons of red tape and lots of money. Once again, you're listening to the deception in the media and moveon.org. Crime decreasing has nothing to do with the AWB. Everything that was banned can still be obtained as long as it's used. It's a useless and stupid piece of legislation.
For someone who's accusing me of being ignorant and getting my info from Fox News (which I rarely watch), you're pretty ignorant about all this and you ignored what I said. You're the one being lied to by the media. Try using your brain instead of letting your emotions run wild. You're making liberals everywhere look bad.
You're right, it's pretty pointless to argue back, since you're pretty obviously not even reading and comprehending what I wrote and are just retorting with what you've been taught. In fact, after glancing at that fine "journalism" at moveon, I can see that you're basically paraphrasing it back at me. Nice critical independent thought there.
BTW, I won't respond to any further ill-informed diatribes on your part, so you can respond if you like, but don't expect me to pay attention or reply.
Sounds like your grandfather and friends are more libertarian, to me. It's my political orientation and most libertarians are for drug legalization.
I agree that it seems obvious. The problem, IMO is that most people who are personally against something (as I am against drugs) think that it should be illegal whether it hurts anyone or not. I realize that other people have other interests and as long as they aren't hurting me (or someone else), I don't care what they do.
Or try this:
Someone breaks into your house. He is armed, your are not. He rapes your wife and kills you, then takes all your stuff.
The thing is, when someone breaks into your house, you have no idea what they are planning to do. If he is armed, then by the time you've determined that in a dark house and in a state of fear, you'll probably be shot already. If I detect someone creeping around my place, then the moment I determine that they're not supposed to be here, (not a friend or relative or something) I'm shooting them until they (a) turn and run away or (b) fall down.
And even in your naive example, the greater evil is breaking into someone's house and stealing stuff. Defending yourself, your loved ones, and your property is not evil at all. Someone who breaks into a house should realize that he's risking being shot and killed.
This is one reason why I think drugs should be legalized. Think about how much crime (and the load on police and prisons) would plummet if drugs were legalized. See Prohibition in the US. Drug prohibition causes more problems than it solves. All it does is criminalize people who use drugs and don't bother anyone. Most drug-related crime is caused by gangs killing each other for turf and junkies mugging people to get their fixes (I'm just guessing, I have no figures to back that up). If drugs were sold at legitimate stores, the prices would drop and noone would buy from gangs anymore. How many people buy cigarettes or booze from dealers in an alley? How many people steal to support their alcohol or tobacco habit? Not many in both cases, I bet. Except maybe in NY, where taxes are so high on cigarettes that they cost about $7 a pack, last I heard.
I, for the record, do no drugs other than caffeine and very moderate alcohol. I'm actually personally against drug use, but I see that laws against it accomplish nothing. What you do with yourself is your own business unless you hurt someone else.
I, as an American, admit that our major brands of beer suck. I am quite fond of Canadian beer, particularly the stuff from Unibroue in Quebec. Maudite, La Fin Du Monde, and all that good stuff.
We do have good beer, but it's not the Budweisers, Millers, Coors, etc.
I agree, I think he's screwed himself over. I'm pretty sure he's going to lose. I think the undecided voters who have been paying attention will vote for Bush, or at least against Kerry.
The only people who will probably vote for Kerry are those that have this irrational hatred for Bush and would vote for a radish if it were running against him.
I'm not a fan of Bush either, but I'd rather him win than Kerry. I, however, am voting for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. I know he won't win, but I'm voting what I believe. I live in Texas, which is going to Bush anyway, most likely, so I'm free to vote for whoever I like without worrying about Kerry winning.
You don't know what you're talking about.
.223 caliber round. Many hunting rifles shoot a .30 caliber round or greater. AK-47 clones could be bought during the ban, but they were semi-automatic only. So please educate yourself about the ban and stop spreading disinformation.
.357 magnum for $200 that is more powerful, also semi-automatic, and can fit in your pocket?
I disagree with the tax cut thing, but I'm not even going to argue about that.
The "assault weapon" ban, I will argue about. BTW, I use quotes because there's really no such thing as an "assault weapon". It was made up to sound like "assault rifle", which is scary sounding. You are buying the liberal bias (in some cases, outright lies) about the "Assault Weapons" Ban expiring. Please read carefully. The ban has *nothing* to do with *fully automatic* (machine gun) weapons. All the weapons banned are semi-automatic, meaning that shoot as fast as your average handgun or hunting rifle. One shot per trigger pull, on other words. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934.
The features that define an "assault weapon" are purely cosmetic and have no effect on letality. They merely make a civilian, semi-automatic weapon *look* military-style. In fact, hunting rifles are more lethal than "assault weapons" because they shoot a much larger round. The AR15 (civilian version of the M16) shoots a
Also, Bush had *nothing* to do with the ban expiring. To my chagrin, he said he supported the ban and would sign it if it got to him to sign, but the reason it's not being renewed is because it couldn't get passed by Congress. Of course, in your mushy thinking, everything is Bush's fault.
Also, the ban did not prevent people from owning scary looking weapons, it just prevented new ones from being made or imported. One could still easily find banned weapons used and purchase them legally.
The ban was a piece of "feel-good" legislation and nothing more. Of all the gun-related crimes in the US, only 1-3% involved "assault weapons" before the ban. They're simply not desirable to your average criminal. They're big, expensive, and not that powerful. Why buy a big AR15 that costs $1000 and is semi-automatic when you could get a
Make sure you know what you're talking about before accusing others of being blind. You're falling for the media, which intentionally tries to make the "assault weapon" ban sound different than reality. They try to scare people who know nothing about the situation into thinking that fully automatic weapons will be flooding the street this Monday (when it expires). They've even shown fully automatic weapons being fired while talking about "assault weapons". Yeah, that's some honest news there. Your side lies as much or more than the other.
I heard that a poll done on a radio station where people can call and talk about issues freely (Which they couldn't do until recently) and the poll, among other things, showed that 100% of those that called viewed the attacks in Iraq as "terrorism" rather than "resistance".
Keep in mind that now that there is an Iraqi government in place, these terrorists are attacking their own government at least as much as occupying troops. They're also kidnapping and beheading foreign civilians from *many* different countries.
Not many people talk about these beheadings any more, but it's very distubing. I've seen my share of gore and the like, but after watching the videos, I was pretty upset. They cut their heads off from the back of the neck (while chanting to Allah or whoever) with knives while the victims are screaming for their lives. And I've read statements *by Muslims* that this is *the official execution method of Islam*. Apparetly it's spelled out very clearly in the Koran or somewhere. The fact that the religion (at least part of it) endorses an official method of execution and *that it is followed* bothers me. I mean, the Bible endorses stoning, but I haven't heard of a stoning in a few hundred years.
This is not normal resistance of an occupying power. The French and Dutch partisans didn't do this. Neither did American revolutionaries. The reason I brought that up was because most news sources don't cover in detail what happened (like in the school incident in Russia).
Oh, come on. I remember seeing such scenes in Arab countries since...well, since I can remember watching the news. I definately remember seeing people celebrating and burning American and Israeli flags after 9/11. These things happen in Islamic countries all the time and noone seems to care, whereas if such things happened here, you'd have all kinds of news coverage, anti-protesters, all kinds of stuff. For that matter, the only celebrating I remember seeing in Iraq is when they were liberated and Saddam Captured.
From this and your other post, you apparently refuse to see any wrong that Islamic terrorists do. I think you're buying the bias in the media hook, line, and sinker.
And, BTW, if anything, we're helping bring the country out of the stone age. Iraq was a well educated, fairly prosperous country before Saddam and the Baathists. It is, after all, were civilization began. You may not agree with this, but we certainly did not send it back to the stone age. I see plenty of people driving cars in cities...where is the stone age?
I'm sorry, but you must be blind or full of it.
Yes, Americans and Catholics have done all kinds of bad things through history. But what religion have about 99.9% of all terrorists in the last 30 years been? The problem with Islam is that most of its followers follow the Koran to the letter, rather than interpreting it, as Christians and Jews have come to do. So when it says "kill the unbeliever", these radicals do it.
Also, I've heard different figures, but they all agree that at least 3/4 of all conflicts going on in the world now involve Islamic factions. I think that one of the worst right now is the genocide going on in the Sudan. 1-2 million black Christians *and* Muslims killed by Arab Muslims. They've even gone so far as to invade neigboring countries to eradicate refugee camps.
In my opinion, what Islam needs is a reformation and modernization. Christians were about as bad back in the middle ages, but they have reformed. I mean, the Bible has similar things about stoning people and the like, but the vast majority don't do things like that anymore. Many Islamics do.
For the record, I am an atheist, so I'm not innately biased toward or against any religion. I judge religions based on the actions of the majority of its followers.
You're not paying attention. Many of the hostage takers were *not from Chechnya*. Many (more than 10, from what I heard) were from the Middle East.
And taking about 300 children and others as hostage and blowing them up with plastic explosive embedded with nails and shooting them in the back as they flee is not a conventional military tactic.
I would have no problem if they were actual seperatists. After all, Americans fought for and won our independance from another government. What I have a problem with is the methods that they use. Their "cause" does not justify killing hundreds of elementary school children. I also believe that most of the perpetrators were not seperatists, but just plain Islamic terrorists.
Obviously if you're being very technical, then "American" would mean someone from the "new world". But the meaning in common use is "American" means from the United States of America. It's the only country in the world with "America" in its name. What did you call people from the USSR? USSRians? What about Germans? Bundesrepublik Deutschlandians? What about when we refer to a country as an English version of the country's real name? Most names of countries that English-speakers use are not the real names of the country.
You're being technically correct, but practically you're being silly. If you mean someone from North America, say "North American".
Your decision that it's not technically correct doesn't change the common usage *all over the world*, not just here (the US). I could argue that because n***er is derived from "negro", which is simply Spanish for black, it logically shouldn't be offensive. Try that and see how many black individuals get just a tad bit offended. What is offensive to a group is decided by that group. "Jap" and "Nip" are just short versions of the English and Japanese names for Japanese people, and logically shouldn't be offensive, but they are.
Your "USian" thing is cute (I find it only mildly offensive), but it's not what people say in the real world, and you're not going to change that.
So poor people shouldn't be able to vote either? At least here, if you make below a certain amount, you don't pay taxes (or at least get them all back).
Well, no, it's not generally used in games anymore, but it's used all the time in music production, which is what it was invented for--controlling synths, samplers, etc.
The problem is not in MIDI, but the fact that MIDI playback quality depends on the hardward it's played back on.
For that matter, FM synthesis is still used also.
I bet if you heard a really good quality sound card, you'd agree that sound quality is important. If all you've ever heard is cheap audio gear, then you won't see the big deal.
Also, surround sound does also make a big difference. I never thought about it until I bought surround sound speakers.
I agree. The sad thing is, that for games, sound does (or at least can...see Silent Hill) play a *huge* part in creating atmosphere and believability. Sound isn't usually noticed as much as video, but it is very important.
Now, many people can't (or don't care to) discern the difference in quality, but it's there. Of course, you need decent speakers or headphones to be able to hear differences in sound quality in hardware, or formats like MP3. Most people think that cheap speakers or fine, since, again sound seems to be unimportant to most people. I think the problem is that you need a good card *and* good speakers to really hear a difference. Video, barring hardware shaders, effects, etc looks pretty much the same, disregarding performance issues, and the real quality determiner is the monitor (which people aren't as picky as they should be about either, really).
MIDI has nothing to do with sound quality whatsoever. MIDI is note information. It can be used with FM synthesis, wavetables, samples, whatever.
MIDI is used today in professional music studios. It's not limited to old video games.
Just a nitpick...the rest of the post sounds (pun not intended) good.
Well, many such games are made in the US, so it makes sense. Just off the top of my head, however, in Call of Duty, you play as British, Russians and Americans (always against the Germans, however).
In the Close Combat series, you can play as either allies or Germans.
Most games are from the perspective of the country where they're made, for pretty obvious reasons. But there are many games where you play as people from other countries, on both sides (even against the US).
And I wouldn't say that most wars since WWII involve America. There are about 15 different conflicts (though maybe not "wars") going on in the world right now last I heard. There have been quite a few since WWII as well. It's just that most well-known ones (at least to Americans) involve us.
I agree with most of your points. I think that making blatantly unrealistic games based on a war (especially one in living memory) kind of trivializes it. I think that Call of Duty is an example of a war-based FPS that doesn't, although it's not perfect. I know that unless I'm actually in war, I will never understand it, and thus don't pretend to. I know a lot about details and facts (being a military historian), but I haven't experienced it. That's why I like (realistic) war games, since the good ones kind of put you there. It's kind of similar too how I like horror. Good war movies (and hopefully games) make you feel uncomfortable at the very least.
As far as the true nature of WWII being about the holocaust, I'm not sure. That certainly happened during WWII, but I don't think it was part of the experience of most of the soldiers (from any side). Obviously a game is not going to be made where you play a deathcamp guard or the like, but I would like to see a game where you actually liberate a camp (see Band of Brothers for a very well done scene like this). This would have to be done very seriously to convey the horror of the situation, and if it wouldn't be done right, I don't want to see it at all.
I think the difference between Vietnam and WWII is that the average soldier saw or took part in warcrimes, prostitution, drug use, and other "bad" things (the first being the only really bad thing, IMO). Most German soldiers in WWII were fighting a war, and many were not even Nazis. The Allies who liberated camps saw the horrors, but before that, they were just rumors, for the most part.
The Russians did some horrible things to the Germans that they conquered, but I doubt that will be portrayed in a game. Nor what the Japanese did to the Chinese in WWII.
Honestly be allowed to say what they say, *unless* they are actively urging people to commit violence (which IIRC is illegal in any case) against a minority.
I think that people have a right to not like a particular group and even talk about how they don't like that group, but the moment that they specifically urge violence, it becomes illegal.
Disclaimer: I'm not a member of any of this sort of group, nor am I racist in the least. I just think that no matter how unpopular or morally reprehensible to most people, everyone should get to express their views.
Whether it's too recent or not is up for interpretation, but as far as the enemies all being black, that's just what happened. It was in Somalia, after all. It wasn't because of race, though, it was because of politics (war being an extension of politics by other means). I mean, in Vietnam games, all your enemies are Vietnamese. In any WWII Pacific game, all your enemies would be Japanese. I can play any of these games without having any sort of ill will toward a specific race just because they make up all the enemies in a game or a real war.
I'm sure very few if any serious games about any Middle East conflict will be made soon, with everything going on now. Notice how any game (that I've seen) about terrorism lacks Arab/Muslim terrorists. There's that console game where you kill terrorists and beat up Bin Laden, but it's gotten terrible reviews and is basically a joke. A serious war game in such a situation, I'd be interested it, although it might still be too recent.
I take quite a few games seriously. They can be works of art, not mere diversions. I'm sorry for you if you can't see that. You must be playing the wrong games.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with a good fun game that's not that serious from time to time.