OT: For all the genocidal dictators...

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:

I do support one thing stated on the webpage that started this whole debate: the vast majority of people on this planet are not smart. Not smart at all. How these people figure out how to have babies & raise them to an age where the reproductive cycle can keep on rolling is beyond me... And I have to say, the stupid people seem to have more babies than the smart people; probably because the smart people get distracted and spend their time playing games like SE4 rather than having sex with their spouses...

(Like how I turned this topic back around to Space Empires?)

This really depends on your definition of 'smart', doesn't it. People who have babies tend to leave someone behind to have more babies and so their family continues. People who play Space Empires or other computer games in lieu of a social life don't tend to leave any descendants. Who's 'smart' now?

[ July 18, 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[capnq]

Where do you get your incorrect ideas about the US? I guess the European press must protray America as some sort of facist police state.

The European press? Try the American entertainment and news media (not that there's that wide a difference between the latter two).

Re: intelligence and reproduction, has anyone else read the classic SF short story "The Marching Morons", by C.M. Kornbluth?

[ July 18, 2002, 04:01: Message edited by: capnq ]

[Growltigga]

Crikey. I do not know what has been discussed on this thread since I posted yesterday, but the symantec firewall software we have has denied me access to about 2 pages of Posts on the basis that they contain restricted material..

What is going on? did Geo simply ruin our fun debate by reverting to simple swearing? has someone got smutty? what is going on?

BTW, in response, the European press does not represent America (generally) as a fascist police state.. what it does do is generally challenge quite a lot of the preconceptions many people have (including many Americans) about their own country. You have to remeber that America is not always well liked in the world community (the government policies, not individual Americans).

Geo, my chums at Cravath Swaine & Moore are going to email me the American Bar Associations recent synopsis on Freedom of Speech. I will send it to you (I have your eddress at home)... you will find it interesting and I will take a can of any non-American beer as a suitable apology)

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
What is going on? did Geo simply ruin our fun debate by reverting to simple swearing? has someone got smutty? what is going on?

It's shame you can't read the current Posts, although with the lack of ability you have shown for staying on topic, perhaps it doesn't really matter that much.

what it does do is generally challenge quite a lot of the preconceptions many people have (including many Americans) about their own country.

Yeah, no subjective underpinnings in that statment 'eh? Correct me if I am wrong Gt, but to "challange a preconception" don't you have to have a preconception of your own that the other person is wrong?

You have to remeber that America is not always well liked in the world community (the government policies, not individual Americans).

I seriously doubt anyone in this country is suffering from that particular "preconception" any longer, if any of us were before.

Geo, my chums at Cravath Swaine & Moore are going to email me the American Bar Associations recent synopsis on Freedom of Speech. I will send it to you (I have your eddress at home)... you will find it interesting and I will take a can of any non-American beer as a suitable apology)

Considering my previously admitted too low opinioin of lawyers, your request that I retain my disdain only for the American breed of such, and my previous statements on the subject, do you suppose I would care what the American Bar Association believes on the subject? However, I suppose it would be interesting reading, although you could save the postage and forward me the email. And if you are ever about in Dayton, I'll buy you that beer, but you'll get no apology. We can toast to the Freedom of speech that allows these debates to begin with.

[Puke]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
What is going on? did Geo simply ruin our fun debate by reverting to simple swearing? has someone got smutty? what is going on?

i mentioned liberachi. sorry.

[geoschmo]

Maybe there were too many refereances to "kiddie porn" and the european "free speech preventor" engine kicked in and is stopping him from viewing the thread.

Anyway, I copied and pasted what he missed in an email and sent it to him. I hope I didn't get him put on some "list" by doing that.

Geoschmo

[Growltigga]

It's shame you can't read the current Posts, although with the lack of ability you have shown for staying on topic, perhaps it doesn't really matter that much.

I am pleased I cannot reach the current Posts because my symantec anti-corruption software has blocked it. As this is written by Americans for Americans, I can only assume that you were discussing matters so heinous and disgusting that it really is not fit for public consumption..

As for staying on topic, absolute rhubarb, what is obviously confusing you Geo is the natural progression discussions take, and the way any debating of competing viewpoints will evolve. I shall ask you to keep your left field comments to yourself.

Yeah, no subjective underpinnings in that statment 'eh?

I dont disagree with your statements. We are actually getting on emotive ground (not necessarily for either you or me) here.

There is a very interesting argument here about the 'preconceptions' the average european say developed in the 1950's and 1960's about America, given its obvious strength as a world superpower and the cold war etc. The base discussions that were run (I am recalling my policitics, legal anthropology and public international law courses I did at University) were all on the premis of how world perception of America has changed as the cold war ended, Russia de-hegemonised and the global economy of europe and pacific-rim countries gained in strength. That change of opinion is still ongoing and unfortunately, my personal experience is that it is going somewhat southward

I seriously doubt anyone in this country is suffering from that

I think you are right, now. I dont think the same can be said of quite a few people (senior politicians and otherwise) in the past.

On a side note but related, the subject matter in the "OT I am proud to be an American" thread is a bit disturbing...

do you suppose I would care what the American Bar Association believes on the subject?

No, I dont suppose you would but the interesting point here from my perspective is that I am only reiterating arguments which your countries' own major professional association for legal services have raised.

In your case, as you disdain lawyers, you probably could not give a monkey's danglers for what they say... I just think it is amusing how their arguments reflect are own. The document will be with you shortly.

As for the beer, if I am ever in Dayton, I will join in a glass of expensive imported european/antipodean/central american or south african beer

[ July 19, 2002, 11:32: Message edited by: Growltigga ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
As for staying on topic, absolute rhubarb, what is obviously confusing you Geo is the natural progression discussions take, and the way any debating of competing viewpoints will evolve. I shall ask you to keep your left field comments to yourself.

I suppose you could see it that way. Of course the "progression" could also be interpreted as the fact that you were totally overwhelmed by my logic and could no longer defend your original supposition, ie. that the website in question is not protected by the first amendment, and instead chose to switch to a more acedemic, and thus easier to defend position about whether or not Americans do in fact enjoy the freedom of speech that they assume to enjoy. If you could explain to me how the one relates to the other except in a purely ancillary way, I would be happy to concede the point. If not I suppose I will claim victory on the first debate as you have consistantly refused to return to it, and we can continue our discourse on the second.

Geo

[Growltigga]

Geo, I suppose you could argue this but only as a particularily poor attempt to refute my argument. I am no more overwhelmed by your logic than I have been overwhelmed by my wife's choice of buying "quilted" toiletpaper.

You must remember not to feel like you are sapiens imprimus just because you are a computer nerd who has grappled a couple of blarts in his time

The initial argument was not quite what you suggest. My opening position on this matter was (and I still hold) that a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site.

You then stated that this was perfectly acceptable under the first amendment. I did not raise any question as to whether or not this is the case but chose to base my refutio on questioning whether or not the fact that the first amendment applies affects the outcome from a public policy perspective, and also employed the comparative position under most civil law european legislative systems. That is not an academic supposition, but more a question of application of the relevant national legal systems to your premis.

Since then, we have bandied about various suppositions, the most interesting of which frankly was Puke's confession as to watching to many, ahem, indiscreet movies.

We have still not reached a conclusion about whether or not Americans do in fact enjoy the freedom of speech that they assume to enjoy. You simply claim they do, I claim that the current state of legal thought is that they do not.

On a side note, I recently (this morning) came across a recent UK case which does go to emphasise the fundamentally differing viewpoints between us English and you Americans.

The situation was that one of our public libraries operated 'an internet cafe'. The PC's each had a filter that prohibited access to adult or inappropriate sites. A UK-resident American took the local council to court on the basis that the filter breached her right to freedom of speech and her lawyer quoted recent American cases where this had been the case and the relevant court had oveturned a converse earloier ruling. The English court through this out of court on the basis that anyone is entitled to restrict access on pure public policy issues, and that the claimant would need to show that they had been materially prejudiced by the relevant restriction. The American Bar Associaiton on reporting on this case support the UK view, not the US

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
The initial argument was not quite what you suggest. My opening position on this matter was (and I still hold) that a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site.

You then stated that this was perfectly acceptable under the first amendment.

Please note that I made no attempt at a qualitative judgment of this type. I would never assert that sicko humor was "acceptable", "unacceptable", "appropriate", or "inappropriate". These arguments are too subjective and require too much in the way of presuposition on the part of the participants to be suitable for an open debate such as this. My initial point was merely to whether or not it was "permissable" under the principle of free speech. If you ask me whether I think it appropriate, I would agree with you in most cases, as I consider myself a man of decent moral fiber. However, in the specific case of this website I may question that as I have taken the time to review it (the site) more completely since we began our discussion, and I feel now we may have been to harsh in our initial criticism of it.

If this is to be a debate strictly on a legal basis, on whether or not a court (US or UK) could be convinced that this website is not protected under the principle of freedom of speech, then I shall have to conceed you have an advantage on me. However, I will point out that "the law" as you no doubt are aware is constantly shifting sand with which to build a foundation. Many priciples thought immutable by previous generations now are "re-evaluated". You may make an assertion that were a case to come to court today over this issue, your position could be victorius, but that would not make it "right". I conceed this is an idealistic perspective from which to base an argument on my part, but I was suffering from the delusion that ideals were what this discussion was about.

I do find it interesting though that when you make various aside arguments it is permissable under the "progression" of the discussion. But when I attempt to do so, or even redirect your aside back to the previuos point at hand, I am in "left field".

Geo