Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Caustic behavior can have a manipulative affect. Manipulation is simply a conscientious regard for purpose.

But you can be caustic without being manipulative (unless simple communication itself is manipulation, in which case everything is anyway, semantics!). It requires either uncovered truth from an outside party or general admittance to really be "manipulative" insofar as the effects of that manipulation are concerned. Until people know its going on they are no more immune to it.

But yeah, the latter. Very few people are that calculating.

Bullseye.

Shuma wrote:Hardly. You said you didn't mind it being a surveillance state, and wanted me to tell you about your own lolicon laws when I mentioned that you had draconian social laws. I didn't have the sheer force of will required to teach you about your own country, as you so willingly thought you could do for me (considering I had conversed about the patriot act with you previously it's stunning you felt the need to mention that it exists as if I didn't know).

I wasn't aware of the term 'lolicon' - I obviously don't spend as much time looking at hentai as you. I don't think it's 'draconian' to criminalise sexual images of children, photographic or otherwise. Perhaps you do... And I disagreed that Britain is a 'surveillance state'. I am aware that surveillance plays a large part in British law-enforcement - I stated that I preferred that to arming all police officers.

Shuma wrote:
When you don't care that it's a governmental surveillance state (one of the lynchpins of both the comic and movie) and when you somehow wanted me to inform you of the very same laws I had mentioned in the thread that spawned the PM conversation I begin to get the feeling that you're stunning levels of cognitive dissonance are coming to the fore and that it's a rabbit hole that I don't want to walk down when dogma or sebster can't make snide comments and take the reigns away from me when I'm tired....

Yeah, sure. 'Tired'. You were talking about things you have no first hand knowledge of, and were called on that. I don't have a national persecution complex - you have freely admitted you were just insulting my country. You have read some stuff on the internet and formed the opinion that Britain is some sort of Orwellian dystopia - I live here, and I can tell you that you are wrong.

ShumaGorath wrote:
But you can be caustic without being manipulative (unless simple communication itself is manipulation, in which case everything is anyway, semantics!). It requires either uncovered truth from an outside party or general admittance to really be "manipulative" insofar as the effects of that manipulation are concerned. Until people know its going on they are no more immune to it.

The barrier lies in awareness. Every cause has an effect, but most causes are non-cognizant.

For the record.

Whilst the UK does have CCTV dotted about the place, being the fine capitalist nation we are, it's only to be found in areas of trade like city centre shopping streets and highstreets or in areas of public transport or hospitals etc. It certainly isn't up and down housing streets or in half the places it would be a benefit such as dark walkways or alleyways where actual crime against people takes place.

It's there to protect commercial property for the most part. Local authorities don't like paying for it anyway so it's shops etc that pay higher rates and enjoy the cameras.

@MGS - Exactly. Anyone who suggests the UK is a 'surveillance state' has clearly never been here.

Sweet Rebuttals Shuma! I guess you couldn't go with the stock 'OMG those aren't real sources' retort. Sorry to back you into a corner like that. But it is great to see you go from strength (straw man arguments) to strength (ad homenims)

I know about the transhumanism, right? IT is so crazy, I mean, me, who can't ever accept any other points of view, even when they are backed up by irrefutable evidence? Oh wait, that's you. sry

I wasn't aware of the term 'lolicon' - I obviously don't spend as much time looking at hentai as you.

Zing!

I don't think it's 'draconian' to criminalise sexual images of children, photographic or otherwise.

Except isofar as the liberal idea of freedom is one that allows all acts so long as they do no harm to fellow members of society in either a macro or personal level. child pornography is illegal because it exploits minors, a very tangible effect, lolicon has no such effect, and is merely a christian morality law tacked on because the subject is taboo. Hence your lack of reasoning for actually defending it beyond "i have no problem with it". This is no different than arguing against homosexuality because it's "unnatural".

And I disagreed that Britain is a 'surveillance state'.

I am aware that surveillance plays a large part in British law-enforcement - I stated that I preferred that to arming all police officers.

These are conflicting statements.

Yeah, sure. 'Tired'. You were talking about things you have no first hand knowledge of, and were called on that.

Perhaps because firsthand knowledge is irrelevant when discussing the widely published facts inherent to the surveillance methods utilized in British law enforcement? I've never been to the moon either, I guess I can't discuss that any more.

I don't have a national persecution complex - you have freely admitted you were just insulting my country.

You do, and yes I did. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You have read some stuff on the internet and formed the opinion that Britain is some sort of Orwellian dystopia - I live here, and I can tell you that you are wrong.

Actually I read a lot about england and mocked it for being an Orwellian dystopia for the same reason I bait fateweaver. It's easy, and you react much more strongly than situation really requires. It allows me to catch you in your dissonant beliefs (admitting to living in a surveillance state but arguing about the reasons, approving of unjust morality laws because the item in question is tabboo).

---

Sweet Rebuttals Shuma! I guess you couldn't go with the stock 'OMG those aren't real sorces' retort. Sorry to back you into a corner like that.

The fact that you continue to trumpet the Ayers connection means I reeeaaallly don't have to go into length debating you. You've already discredited yourself.

Right... the one that he talks about in his own book. So, by your logic, is Obama's own book discredited than?

Silverthorne wrote:Right... the one that he talks about in his own book. So, by your logic, is Obama's own book discredited than?

Nope, it's just that the link is utterly meaningless, thus when you trumpet it as somehow important you discredit yourself for magnifying a totally irrelevant connection. Bill clinton has met Kim Jong Ill. He's clearly tainted by that. George bush met Hu Jintao, he's now a communist. You get where I'm going with this?

I didn't realize that Kim Jong helped Clinton set up his political organizing apparatus! Cool story dude! IT IS IN HIS BOOK. He speaks frankly about how Ayers helped plug him into these community organizing groups, which got him started in the Chicago Machine. How is that like Kim Jong? Oh, wait, it clearly isn't you are just grasping at straws as the floor of your argument falls away.

Silverthorne wrote:I didn't realize that Kim Jong helped Clinton set up his political organizing apparatus! Cool story dude! IT IS IN HIS BOOK. He speaks frankly about how Ayers helped plug him into these community organizing groups, which got him started in the Chicago Machine. How is that like Kim Jong? Oh, wait, it clearly isn't you are just grasping at straws as the floor of your argument falls away.

You didn't understand what I was saying. I said that the connection was irrelevant because Ayers at the time was a respected educator. Which he was. You're grasping at anything bad to connect to Obama despite how irrelevant or meaingless simply so that you can further prove the connection that you had already formulated in your own mind. It's no different than assuming that bill clinton makes concessions to the north koreans (i think frazzled said that) or that President Bush intentionally capitulated to chinese trade ministers in order to strengthen communist governmental rule. You're drawing parallels where none exist and you're doing it to prove something you already believe, even without evidence. It's true that he was connected to Ayers, it's true that Ayers was convicted, neither fact proves that it's a black nationalist campaign, only that you're taking coincidences and trying to glue them together by believing hard enough. Something a transhumanist shouldn't do as you're supposed to plan on outliving these political issues, thus it's a poor idea to be taken in by the flash and pomp of one side or another.

The fact that he now radicalizes college students is irrelevant. A man, convicted by a jury of his peers for TRYING TO MURDER THE WIVES OF ARMY OFFICERS launched the presidential ambitions of the COMMANDER AND CHIEF of the armed forces. I capitalized the important parts, since you seem to have trouble making obvious connections. The fact that you can't see why this is problematic floors me. Are you willfully avoiding the obvious? You really don't see the problem here?

Did you go back and edit stuff in? It seems like your post shapeshifted while I was replying.

Silverthorne wrote:Yes, and Bin Laden is a respected cave interior designer. The fact that he know radicallizes college students is irrelevant. A man, convicted by a jury of his peers for TRYING TO MURDER THE WIVES OF ARMY OFFICERS launched the presidential ambitions of the COMMANDER AND CHIEF of the armed forces. I capitalized the important parts, since you seem to have trouble making obvious connections.

Ok, now say something beyond LOOK THESE TWO DUDES KNOW EACHOTHER to prove what you're saying. You can't, you won't, and thats why people keep responding as if you have no credibility. It's because you're arguing from a position that doesn't.

Shuma wrote:
Except isofar as the liberal idea of freedom is one that allows all acts so long as they do no harm to fellow members of society in either a macro or personal level. child pornography is illegal because it exploits minors, a very tangible effect, lolicon has no such effect, and is merely a christian morality law tacked on because the subject is taboo. Hence your lack of reasoning for actually defending it beyond "i have no problem with it". This is no different than arguing against homosexuality because it's "unnatural".

So you don't believe such images encourage the sexual objectification of children? Or they do, and that's just groovy? Which is it? I know which side my bread is buttered.

Shuma wrote:
Perhaps because firsthand knowledge is irrelevant when discussing the widely published facts inherent to the surveillance methods utilized in British law enforcement? I've never been to the moon either, I guess I can't discuss that any more.

My point is that if you had been to the UK you would know the term 'surveillance state' is wide of the mark - that term suggests an oppressive amount of surveillance, which isn't the case, as MeanGreenStompa rightly pointed out. There are no cameras on me now, nor would there be if I stepped out of my door. Acceptance of a certain level of surveillance in UK law enforcement is not the same as an acknowledgement that I live in a Surveillance State, where individuals have little or no privacy. But I think you know that.

Shuma wrote:Actually I read a lot about england and mocked it for being an Orwellian dystopia for the same reason I bait fateweaver. It's easy, and you react much more strongly than situation really requires.

Um, nope. I find you fairly amusing - I type all of my replies with a smile on my face.
I'm just the sort of person who will say 'impressive use of academic language and everything, but you're fething clueless. Sorry.'

Which you are. Again, sorry.


EDIT:p.s. Silverthorne pushed the big red 'IGNORE' button on me today - all I did was /vomit...

Know each other? I said one plugged the other one into the political machine of Chicago politics, and launched his presidential ambitions. I said that several times, actually. Would you like me to quote myself?

So you don't believe such images encourage the sexual objectification of children? Or they do, and that's just groovy? Which is it? I know which side my bread is buttered.

Do you believe that allowing gay marriage encourages homosexuality? Do you believe that bondage encourages the objectification of women (A key part of its appeal)? Do you believe that supermodels encourage the objectification and starvation of teen girls? Do you believe that images of violence on television encourage violent behavior in children and adults? All these things are true (environment directly corresponds to attitude and belief), but it's funny how only one of them has been outlawed or is even under consideration for such (Well except the gay marriage thing, which I can't comment as to your position on).

My point is that if you had been to the UK you would know the term 'surveillance state' is wide of the mark - that term suggests an oppressive amount of surveillance, which isn't the case, as MeanGreenStompa rightly pointed out. There are no cameras on me now, nor would there be if I stepped out of my door. Acceptance of a certain level of surveillance in UK law enforcement is not the same as an acknowledgement that I live in a Surveillance State, where individuals have little or no privacy. But I think you know that.

Are your phones tapped? Are your internet connections monitored? A surveillance state doesn't watch you in your house, thats expensive and pointless. The U.K. just goes far enough to put cameras on every urban street corner, where most countries are happy with just listening to your cell conversations.

Um, nope. I find you fairly amusing - I type all of my replies with a smile on my face.
I'm just the sort of person who will say 'impressive use of academic language and everything, but you're fething clueless. Sorry.'

Which you are. Again, sorry.

And yet you seem to know so very little about your own country and the laws upon which it rests.

Know each other? I said one plugged the other one into the political machine of Chicago politics, and launched his presidential ambitions. I said that several times, actually. Would you like me to quote myself?

No, I want you to come out and say why it's important, because so far all you've managed to say is that they worked together. We get it, we can all read. Just because you can repeat it doesn't mean it has relevance.

mattyrm wrote:Wait a minute, Britain is like V for vendetta? haha! Who said that?!



Why does my Californian girlfriend like it here so much then?

Because of all the sunshine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silverthorne wrote: The fact that he now radicalizes college students is irrelevant. A man, convicted by a jury of his peers for TRYING TO MURDER THE WIVES OF ARMY OFFICERS launched the presidential ambitions of the COMMANDER AND CHIEF of the armed forces. I capitalized the important parts, since you seem to have trouble making obvious connections. The fact that you can't see why this is problematic floors me. Are you willfully avoiding the obvious? You really don't see the problem here?

Did you go back and edit stuff in? It seems like your post shapeshifted while I was replying.

A lot of American voters clearly didn't see the problem.

The U.K. just goes far enough to put cameras on every urban street corner, where most countries are happy with just listening to your cell conversations.

Define 'urban'. There are no cameras on my street or on any residential street nearby, and I live in a fairly built-up area.

As for the censorship thing - there are some things that I believe should not be for public consumption, sexual images of children being a big one. But that's because I find the idea distasteful (to say the least) - it's not a 'moral' thing. Everywhere has censorship though, that's why US TV doesn't show child porn during breakfast news programs. you may have noticed.

Do you believe that allowing gay marriage encourages homosexuality?

Nope. And I am absolutely Pro-Gay marriage.

Do you believe that bondage encourages the objectification of women (A key part of its appeal)?

That's a little bit of an over-simplification.

Do you believe that supermodels encourage the objectification and starvation of teen girls?

Yes, absolutely. Does the word 'thinspiration' mean anything to you?

Do you believe that images of violence on television encourage violent behavior in children and adults?

Not necessarily, but I believe that children should not see violent images, because they would find find them distressing. But I suppose there could be a de-sensitising effect.

And yet you seem to know so very little about your own country and the laws upon which it rests.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I could argue that you know nothing about the practicalities of living in the UK, regardless of what you think you know.

Silverthorne wrote:I didn't realize that Kim Jong helped Clinton set up his political organizing apparatus! Cool story dude! IT IS IN HIS BOOK. He speaks frankly about how Ayers helped plug him into these community organizing groups, which got him started in the Chicago Machine. How is that like Kim Jong? Oh, wait, it clearly isn't you are just grasping at straws as the floor of your argument falls away.

The problem isn't that he talked to Ayers. The problem is that you view that conversation, and any aid that came out of it, as sufficient to damn the man.

I've spoken to Lou Dobbs about foreign relations, does that mean that I now believe illegal immigration is the greatest foreign threat to America? No, clearly not. Stop pretending as though guilt can be determined by association. Bill Ayers is an intelligent, and conflicted man. He made some unfortunate choices in his past, and learned from the mistake. It would be foolish to discredit his opinion on that basis.

You frowned upon Shuma's use of ad hominem. Your entire argument is ad hominem. Look in the damn mirror.

Silverthorne wrote:Know each other? I said one plugged the other one into the political machine of Chicago politics, and launched his presidential ambitions. I said that several times, actually. Would you like me to quote myself?

And? That doesn't actually mean anything.

Or do you think that John McCain's connection to the CEO of RUSAL makes him an insidious destroyer of American virginity?

Back to the original topic, I didn't see anything incredibly wrong with Obama's speech. Even a president doesn't sneeze at a million bucks and what is probably regarded as the most prestigious award in the world.

I particularly liked his line about peace not stopping Hitler's armies.

I don't like Obama any more than Fateweaver does, but I don't think he said anything wrong.

Back off-topic. I find it interesting that Cheney's connections with Haliburton are damning, but Obama's connections with Ayers and Wright are not. Bush is a draft dodging piece of gak but Clinton is not. Palin is a slow but Biden is not - the list goes on and on.

Especially MGS, your comments in this thread have taken the form of broad based attacks.

Since the Mods seem to be MIA, I'll remind people about rule #1.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Back off-topic. I find it interesting that Cheney's connections with Haliburton are damning, but Obama's connections with Ayers and Wright are not. Bush is a draft dodging piece of gak but Clinton is not. Palin is a slow but Biden is not - the list goes on and on.

Cheney's connection to Halliburton was based on finance, rather than influence, and therefore isn't really comparable to Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright. However, it still isn't damning. Cheney's behavior is damning, and the connection serves to underline it.

Dodging the draft isn't damning either.

However, Palin's errors tend to be of the sort that indicate a lack of intelligence, rather than a lack of knowledge. Biden makes mistakes that show he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he does not make mistakes which force questions with respect to his ability to learn. Palin's foreign policy gaffe was a mistake of the latter sort.

dogma wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Back off-topic. I find it interesting that Cheney's connections with Haliburton are damning, but Obama's connections with Ayers and Wright are not. Bush is a draft dodging piece of gak but Clinton is not. Palin is a slow but Biden is not - the list goes on and on.

Cheney's connection to Halliburton was based on finance, rather than influence, and therefore isn't really comparable to Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright. However, it still isn't damning. Cheney's behavior is damning, and the connection serves to underline it.

Dodging the draft isn't damning either.

However, Palin's errors tend to be of the sort that indicate a lack of intelligence, rather than a lack of knowledge. Biden makes mistakes that show he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he does not make mistakes which force questions with respect to his ability to learn. Palin's foreign policy gaffe was a mistake of the latter sort.

From my point of view, Obama's connections with radical left-wingers like Van Jones and Ayers and Wright aren't damning in and of themselves. However, his actions combined with those connections make it so.

Dodging the draft may not have been damning for Clinton, but you cannot deny that Bush got a lot of flak for going into the Guard during 'Nam. It's been alluded to in this very thread by MGS - I believe he said Bush was a "draft-dodging piece of gak." I can't be bothered to scroll through 6 pages to find the exact quote.

The fact that Biden repeatedly shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about shows that he doesn't have the ability to learn from his mistakes. I would argue that both lack the intelligence for the job.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
From my point of view, Obama's connections with radical left-wingers like Van Jones and Ayers and Wright aren't damning in and of themselves. However, his actions combined with those connections make it so.

I shouldn't have said that Cheney's actions were damning, that doesn't really express my feelings with respect to the man. Its more that I would accept an argument which used his actions as the primary means of damning him; much as you have done with Obama. Though I still feel the inclusion of associations is little more than poncy rhetoric. We all know, or associate with, people who we aren't proud of. Its just part of life.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Dodging the draft may not have been damning for Clinton, but you cannot deny that Bush got a lot of flak for going into the Guard during 'Nam. It's been alluded to in this very thread by MGS - I believe he said Bush was a "draft-dodging piece of gak." I can't be bothered to scroll through 6 pages to find the exact quote.

I agree, Bush got a lot of draft-dodger crap. It was stupid then, and it remains so now. But I don't see how observing the supposed irony of a double standard really gets to the point. When it comes down to it people who have double standards often know they have double standards. They simply don't care. That's what emotion does to debate.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
The fact that Biden repeatedly shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about shows that he doesn't have the ability to learn from his mistakes. I would argue that both lack the intelligence for the job.

Biden certainly isn't the smartest man in the world, but that's something to be expected. Highly intelligent people tend to be mediocre politicians for the simple fact that they struggle to relate to the largest chunk of the bell curve. That said, Biden is right more often than he's wrong, which is really all we can ask of anyone. The same can be said of Bush.

Obama is getting the Nobel Peace? For what? Spending us into the 41st Millenium?

*Faceplam*

This is why I now neglect the news...

dogma wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
From my point of view, Obama's connections with radical left-wingers like Van Jones and Ayers and Wright aren't damning in and of themselves. However, his actions combined with those connections make it so.

I shouldn't have said that Cheney's actions were damning, that doesn't really express my feelings with respect to the man. Its more that I would accept an argument which used his actions as the primary means of damning him; much as you have done with Obama. Though I still feel the inclusion of associations is little more than poncy rhetoric. We all know, or associate with, people who we aren't proud of. Its just part of life.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Dodging the draft may not have been damning for Clinton, but you cannot deny that Bush got a lot of flak for going into the Guard during 'Nam. It's been alluded to in this very thread by MGS - I believe he said Bush was a "draft-dodging piece of gak." I can't be bothered to scroll through 6 pages to find the exact quote.

I agree, Bush got a lot of draft-dodger crap. It was stupid then, and it remains so now. But I don't see how observing the supposed irony of a double standard really gets to the point. When it comes down to it people who have double standards often know they have double standards. They simply don't care. That's what emotion does to debate.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
The fact that Biden repeatedly shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about shows that he doesn't have the ability to learn from his mistakes. I would argue that both lack the intelligence for the job.

Biden certainly isn't the smartest man in the world, but that's something to be expected. Highly intelligent people tend to be mediocre politicians for the simple fact that they struggle to relate to the largest chunk of the bell curve. That said, Biden is right more often than he's wrong, which is really all we can ask of anyone. The same can be said of Bush.

I... uhm... what?

I think I agree with you - thesis and antithesis creating a synthesis. This can't be possible. I never agree with you.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I think I agree with you - thesis and antithesis creating a synthesis. This can't be possible. I never agree with you.

That is the beauty of OT. Someone you disagree with one week you will agree with the next, and vice-versa.

Ahtman wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I think I agree with you - thesis and antithesis creating a synthesis. This can't be possible. I never agree with you.

That is the beauty of OT. Someone you disagree with one week you will agree with the next, and vice-versa.

Exactly. I hate you now Ahtman. DIE!

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I... uhm... what?

I think I agree with you - thesis and antithesis creating a synthesis. This can't be possible. I never agree with you.

Hegel would have been quite happy in the middle of your avatar.

Silverthorne wrote:Of course it is! Good thing I didn't say anything like that. I'm noting how one person was as close to America has to aristocracy- you kind of have to be in the military to understand what a big deal the McCain family is- and refused to exploit that to improve his situation. Especially impressive considering his situation was solitary confinement in a cell sized so you could neither sit or stand. That to me is a far more American ideal than Mr. Obama, who did nothing but exploit his background for personal gain- first by making connections in Black Radicalism to assure choice jobs and education, and then by exploiting unjustified white guilt during the campaign.

You say being a veteran doesn't make someone more qualified to be president, but then you go on explaining how McCain's service made him so much more qualified. Background and life story is nice, but what matters is policy.

Also, I was under the impression that Australia was hardly effected by the Queen at all. I understand that the Queen and the Governor General are both figureheads at the top of the Government, but when I lived in your country, I never got the impression that they wielded any significant political power. Obviously nations that have a figurehead Monarch for tradition's sake are not odious to the United States. If the people of some nation have chosen to institute a policy whereby they democratically limit the power of their monarch, that isn't really a true Monarchy is it? And therefore there is no problem.

I was ignoring the role of the Queen and GG, as they're just figureheads. No, the key difference is that our executive is chosen by the legislative to enact their will, while your executive is elected by the people. Despite this very important difference we still recognise your President - and why shouldn't we? You're good people with a functioning government, it would be absurd to shun the key figures of your government. So why shouldn't the US do the same with the UK or Japan?

The idea that anyone who opposes The Chosen One is a racist has been battered down the collective throats of America for way too long. Throughout the entire Tea Party movement, which in no way concerned with the fact that our Chief Executive is only half white, the immediate response of the MSM was to paint the protestors has violent, unhinged racist.

The media hasn't covered the Tea Party movement very well at all. The movement has a racist component and that has been exaggerated, while the real crazy at the core of the movement has hardly been examined at all. It's the same crazy that was around during the Clinton Whitehouse, and it's growing.

Its name is Dobbs/Palin.