Congratulations -- everyone's time comes eventually. It took me perhaps two extra years to quit than I intended. The sense of power and control from running an forum like this can be quite addictive... it keeps on drawing you back.
PS. I'm still kind of bitter I can't view the staff lounge anymore, even though I know it's for the best.
The email sent was extremely unprofessional and bizarre, especially so because vBulletin does not even store passwords in such a manner that it is possible for passwords to be leaked.
Before I begin, I take one exception to the setup: our language would be not be English, but Pravic.
I would convene people I know and trust (a few) and build outward until we obtained a sufficiently large cadre to decide upon a plan of action.
We would strive to build as near an anarchist (in the anti-capitalist sense) of a society as possible. As to the people themselves, education and resocialization would be a long challenge. We would start small, and eventually grow large.
There would be no language requirements, no requirements of wealth or jobs or particular skills. We do not believe the racism, sexism or classism so rampant in this world should be continued and would not further such horrors. We would build a nation upon a culture of revolutionary commitment.
Healthcare is equally available to all, and no nation can survive without education. Both would be (nearly axiomatically) free and available to all.
I'm not sure that we would have money. We would certainly not have a rich and taxation is against our principles.
There is no need for guns, and correspondingly none would be produced. (This may be a bit premature at first.)
There are no prisons. If one can find substances to abuse, one will pay the consequences themself. If one cannot live among society, one will need to leave.
We are fundamentally democratic. There are no elections, yet decisions (at every level) are made with principles as near consensus as possible.
Until we start to be enjoy the fruits of our success, we would be more or less alone in the world. We would not have a military, and if necessary all would be expected to join in the defense of our way of life. If one (or several) choose to live in another way, there is a place for them on our undensely populated island.
We would be industrialized, but it would be slow. We would seek to build to meet the needs of our citizens.
In general, violators of our ethics would be banished to the wilderness. If they returned to commit violations, they would be forced to leave the island or left, in the most egregious cases, to confinement until they showed remorse.
This are only the first principles that come to mind: they are not steadfast, but to them I would seek to adhere. Concessions to reality would be made as necessary.
You make it sound like immigration is a bad thing. Illegal immigration is legally wrong, yes, but it's not as though the Mexicans entering the country are causing Lady Liberty to writhe in pain. Heck, she invited them.
...hey, maybe we should destroy more countries' economies, to get more immigrants from them, too!
You completely misread me, or I wasn't clear enough. I support immigration in all forms and the free flow of people in general. But immigration and the costs of immigrants are not inconsequential in the United States, although the burden certainly ends up falling on the wrong people (other members of the working class suffer, not the rich). My point is that this crisis is not the fault of those immigrating but the US government (and earlier colonizers).
Uh... what should we categorize them as? There is a group of people who broke the law of this country in order to enter it. This group needs a name.
Also see the guides on the official Ubuntu forums at http://ubuntuforums.org/ (see the How To forum).
Warning: Beryl is still very unstable software and installing it will probably be a pain in the ass. It took me maybe 6 hours to get it working on my laptop and it's still kind of buggy.
Maybe a bit of historical review would be in order. Whose military and economic imperialism over the past 150 years is a major contribution to how screwed up Latin America is today? Hint: look north.
"Illegal immigration" is our just desert.
(For the record, I don't believe in categorizing anyone as "illegal.")
I believe Darth Cow might disagree. To be honest I have to too. Is it really okay to do business with someone if you know they will use that money for something you consider wrong?
No, I don't think shopping at Walmart or buying from Sony is a sin. I'm actually in pretty good agreement here with extremestan, although I would argue the same point on strictly secular grounds.
I don't expect anyone to give up all luxuries because someone in the world is starving. I believe in practical compassion, which means I expect you to give up luxuries to feed your starving neighbor. To make that possible, I do support bringing people from different classes together. Make Walmart executives eat and live with their exploited manufacturing laborers in East Asia or Latin America -- take them out of their segregated and gated communities -- and then we'll see some progress. But I digress.
I argue against Magic because (in my view) it's strictly unnecessary and a waste of money (I also think the formal and informal economic systems it encourages are unhealthy). There are cheaper and more efficient forms of entertainment, so I see no need for playing collectible card games, though in truth, entertainment value is subject. But I also think it's subjective enough that we can do at a least a minimal amount to shape our interests to our values (e.g. we can at least play a non-collectible game even it's bought from the same company).
Moral people do not play Magic, or at the least, do not buy Magic cards. Buying Magic cards supports international corporate dominance and the manifest harm that corporations and modern capitalism do to millions of people around the world. It is hardly necessary to buy Magic cards and it is difficult to argue that the utility to be gained by playing Magic is greater than that to be found by playing other games, so we cannot justify it on necessity.
When we consider the degree of monetary resources that are used to support this industry and that is spent by regular players, buying Magic cards becomes truly reprehensible. By doing so, you sponsor:
transfer of economic resources to undeserving corporate shareholders (and coincident wrong that fall out of their wealth -- hint: it's not "trickle down")
commodification of recreation (in particular, perpetuation of social inequality along class lines)
a culture where it is socially responsible to spend money on senseless personal gratification when so many are suffering.In summary, you support the continued hegemony of our unjust world order.
Note: stealing magic cards to play, while it still promotes portions of points b and c above, it morally preferable to buying them. Better yet is stealing cards not to play with but to burn, or perhaps to merely enjoy with other friends and their stolen cards, too.
However, I should note that I do not recommend shoplifting from local card shops; such are generally small businesses with owners who would be devastated by the loss, and we do not intend to immediately destroy the entire economic system, but merely corporate dominance. So steal as directly from Hasbro or large corporate distributors as possible.
Also, as a legal precaution please beware that I only advise shop lifting as an act of civil and corporate disobedience (when you can get away with it) in the case that it is legal under your local law. And practically speaking, it's probably better just to commit arson, as long as you're careful with who the destruction of goods hurts (i.e. hit the shareholders, not potentially struggling employees). Only assuming that's legal in your area, as well, of course.
So would Jesus play Magic cards? Of course not. Nor, of course, do I.
P.S. Don't worry if you don't get or agree with most of this message and don't flatter yourself that I was struggling to put this across for you. It was not for you, but was for me; if anyone else is enlightened in any way by it, it would merely be an added plus.
So because he's not engaged in terrorist activity, Israel has no right to take him out? Can you not arrest a murderer unless he's in the act of murder?
And nuclear genocide resolves the conflict according to you too. Nuke Israel, and the conflict is gone!
Perhaps I should clarify:
- The "minding his own business" comment was merely meant to clarify that this is not interrupting an actual terrorist act.
- I am not in favor of any use of nuclear weapons, or killing in general. I suppose now that "resolution" (i.e. ending) of the conflict is trivial: rather, let's talk about "satisfactory resolution." Okay?
Well, that's a beautiful strawman right there. The terrorists aren't minding their own business--they're storing a weapon for use against Israel.
What I clearly meant by "minding his own business" is that the alleged terrorist is not actively engaged in any "terrorist" activity. This is a temporary state. Maybe they're going to work, or taking their children to school.
Still, nice job ignoring my argument. I'm still not sure how nuclear genocide fails to resolve the middle east conflict in your view.
The terrorist is putting the people in the building at risk by storing a bomb there, so when Israel takes out the weapon, any civilian casualties are his fault.
Even when Israel's actions are likely to kill or injure far more than would be injured by the launch of the rocket?
If a "terrorist," just minding his own business at the moment is in the middle of a crowd, it's okay to kill innocent bystanders because we don't tolerate terrorism? And those innocent deaths are his fault? (This is what Israel does all the time, by the way.)You know, I think I've just resolved the conflict in Lebanon. Fire bomb it all to dust, because, after all, the Lebanese are harboring terrorists. Hezbollah put all Lebanese at risk by storing weapons in their country, so any civilian casualties (i.e. the ensuing genocide) is obviously their fault.
This would also resolve the issue of new terrorists being incited by their dead compatriots, if we kill every last Lebanese. Of course, other Arabs or Muslims might be incited to resistance, but we can sleep soundly at night knowing it's their fault for the nuclear onslaught. It was necessary to stop the terrorists.
Israel has offered everything the Palestinians have asked for in terms of creating a 'viable Palestinian nation.' If they truly desired a country and to be done with this fighting, they could be living in a free and sovereign Palestine tomorrow. Israel is not preventing the Palestinians from having a country - their own leaders are.
But this is not, and has never been, truly about creating a Palestinian nation. Read this. Now, this is an opinion piece, so I do not offer it as "factual data" or "unbiased logic". But it addresses the elephant in the room that some are trying to skirt around here.
That is not true. The Camp David accords were not an offer of a fair Palestinian state:
Quote from Linda Belanger »
I've also frequently heard condemnation of Yassir Arafat for walking away from the Camp David peace proposal without making a counter offer. I was incensed when I found the terms of that proposal. Arafat rejected it because it was an insult.
The Palestinians have been open to compromise to some extent in regard to the borders of the new state but have understandably demanded territorial continuity. According to the Camp David proposal, Palestinians were expected to relinguish nearly half their territory creating a convoluted state where one might have to drive 50 miles to get to a town which was only actually 10 miles away in order to avoid entering Israel's territory. The remaining areas although appearing to be territorially continuous would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads, check points and roadblock. The Palestinians were also expected to accept Israeli supervision of borders crossings and to relinquish their rights over water and airspace among other things.
Also see this page, "12 Answers to 12 Conventional Lies."
Your article says, "Give Israel peace, and Israel will give you land." (But in truth, of course, the gift of land would come with many cavaets.)
In response, what can I do but turn that question around? Give Palestinians a truly viable state, release political prisoners and prisoners of war, and keep the Israeli military the hell away, and most of Israel's security concerns will evaporate overnight. How can you expect an oppressed people to do nothing when clearly that has not resolved their troubles? What cause has been won by not fighting back? Suicide bombers, rocket launches and kidnappings of soldiers, as bad as they may be, and there to remind Israelis of the far greater numbers innocent of Palestinians or Lebanese who have been killed or imprisoned by Israel in the name of self-defense.
"Terrorism" is to remind Israelis what it is like to live under constant threat, or with planes flying overhead with sonic booms regularly to assure you get no sleep... or bombs for that matter. "Terrorism" is to remind them of the risk of the risk of living anywhere in the Gaza strip with Israel's policy of assasinating resistance members and inevitably plenty of innocent, unknowing bystanders. "Terrorism" is to remind Israelis of what it is like to live surrounded by a wall.
I don't care if you call it "self-defense" or "terrorism" if it effects the same thing. It's not justifiable, and it needs to end.
No, THIS is a very dangerous and ignorant distinction. Israel is, in many areas, more advanced, civilized, Democratic than most of world's countries. It is, for all practical purposes, part of the Western world.
So was South Africa. (Israel is not South Africa, but Israel still treads on thin moral ice.)
You guys can argue specifics all day long, but the reality is that Israel's military policy (particularly policies of targetted assasination and the like) result like high numbers of civilian casualities.
We have a bit of a chicken and the egg problem here. Israel's response to "terrorism" creates more "terrorists" who incite Israel to respond.
It doesn't really matter who started it now. Clearly, aggression on both sides needs to end. But, in my calculus at least, those most persistently oppressed are Arab. If Israel wants to stop the hard line response, it's clearly, at the least, going to need to create a viable Palestinian nation.
Let's not even get into Lebanon... the Lebanonese have done nothing to deserve the horror they are suffering.
a) Offered something in exchange for the hostages, thereby making Hezbollah successful and again reinforcing the idea that hostage taking is a good way to get something back.
or
b) Done nothing, accepted the losses of their own people, issued a meaningless "condemnation" of the attack, and moved on, thereby sending the signal "attack us without any fear of reprisals!"
Which one of those "peaceful", diplomatic options discourages further terrorist/aggressive behavoir against Israel?
c) Released Palestinian and Lebanese political prisoners and prisoners of war (so called "terrorists"), unilaterally pulled out of West Bank, stopped testing weapons where they can accidently kill a family, and built their damn wall along the 1967 border.
It's not an entirely distinct option from a) but it goes towards the root of the problem.
PS. I'm still kind of bitter I can't view the staff lounge anymore, even though I know it's for the best.
I would convene people I know and trust (a few) and build outward until we obtained a sufficiently large cadre to decide upon a plan of action.
We would strive to build as near an anarchist (in the anti-capitalist sense) of a society as possible. As to the people themselves, education and resocialization would be a long challenge. We would start small, and eventually grow large.
There would be no language requirements, no requirements of wealth or jobs or particular skills. We do not believe the racism, sexism or classism so rampant in this world should be continued and would not further such horrors. We would build a nation upon a culture of revolutionary commitment.
Healthcare is equally available to all, and no nation can survive without education. Both would be (nearly axiomatically) free and available to all.
I'm not sure that we would have money. We would certainly not have a rich and taxation is against our principles.
There is no need for guns, and correspondingly none would be produced. (This may be a bit premature at first.)
There are no prisons. If one can find substances to abuse, one will pay the consequences themself. If one cannot live among society, one will need to leave.
We are fundamentally democratic. There are no elections, yet decisions (at every level) are made with principles as near consensus as possible.
Until we start to be enjoy the fruits of our success, we would be more or less alone in the world. We would not have a military, and if necessary all would be expected to join in the defense of our way of life. If one (or several) choose to live in another way, there is a place for them on our undensely populated island.
We would be industrialized, but it would be slow. We would seek to build to meet the needs of our citizens.
In general, violators of our ethics would be banished to the wilderness. If they returned to commit violations, they would be forced to leave the island or left, in the most egregious cases, to confinement until they showed remorse.
This are only the first principles that come to mind: they are not steadfast, but to them I would seek to adhere. Concessions to reality would be made as necessary.
You completely misread me, or I wasn't clear enough. I support immigration in all forms and the free flow of people in general. But immigration and the costs of immigrants are not inconsequential in the United States, although the burden certainly ends up falling on the wrong people (other members of the working class suffer, not the rich). My point is that this crisis is not the fault of those immigrating but the US government (and earlier colonizers).
I would rather call them "citizens."
Actually, Dapper Drake is 6.06. Ubuntu version numbers indicate the month and year in which a version was released.
I would recommend following the guides directly at www.beryl-project.org but it looks like right now the site is in some disarray (failed hard drive or something like that). This page still seems to have instructions, though: http://wiki.beryl-project.org/index.php?title=Install/Ubuntu
Also see the guides on the official Ubuntu forums at http://ubuntuforums.org/ (see the How To forum).
Warning: Beryl is still very unstable software and installing it will probably be a pain in the ass. It took me maybe 6 hours to get it working on my laptop and it's still kind of buggy.
"Illegal immigration" is our just desert.
(For the record, I don't believe in categorizing anyone as "illegal.")
I don't expect anyone to give up all luxuries because someone in the world is starving. I believe in practical compassion, which means I expect you to give up luxuries to feed your starving neighbor. To make that possible, I do support bringing people from different classes together. Make Walmart executives eat and live with their exploited manufacturing laborers in East Asia or Latin America -- take them out of their segregated and gated communities -- and then we'll see some progress. But I digress.
I argue against Magic because (in my view) it's strictly unnecessary and a waste of money (I also think the formal and informal economic systems it encourages are unhealthy). There are cheaper and more efficient forms of entertainment, so I see no need for playing collectible card games, though in truth, entertainment value is subject. But I also think it's subjective enough that we can do at a least a minimal amount to shape our interests to our values (e.g. we can at least play a non-collectible game even it's bought from the same company).
When we consider the degree of monetary resources that are used to support this industry and that is spent by regular players, buying Magic cards becomes truly reprehensible. By doing so, you sponsor:
In summary, you support the continued hegemony of our unjust world order.transfer of economic resources to undeserving corporate shareholders (and coincident wrong that fall out of their wealth -- hint: it's not "trickle down")
commodification of recreation (in particular, perpetuation of social inequality along class lines)
a culture where it is socially responsible to spend money on senseless personal gratification when so many are suffering.
Note: stealing magic cards to play, while it still promotes portions of points b and c above, it morally preferable to buying them. Better yet is stealing cards not to play with but to burn, or perhaps to merely enjoy with other friends and their stolen cards, too.
However, I should note that I do not recommend shoplifting from local card shops; such are generally small businesses with owners who would be devastated by the loss, and we do not intend to immediately destroy the entire economic system, but merely corporate dominance. So steal as directly from Hasbro or large corporate distributors as possible.
Also, as a legal precaution please beware that I only advise shop lifting as an act of civil and corporate disobedience (when you can get away with it) in the case that it is legal under your local law. And practically speaking, it's probably better just to commit arson, as long as you're careful with who the destruction of goods hurts (i.e. hit the shareholders, not potentially struggling employees). Only assuming that's legal in your area, as well, of course.
So would Jesus play Magic cards? Of course not. Nor, of course, do I.
P.S. Don't worry if you don't get or agree with most of this message and don't flatter yourself that I was struggling to put this across for you. It was not for you, but was for me; if anyone else is enlightened in any way by it, it would merely be an added plus.
- The "minding his own business" comment was merely meant to clarify that this is not interrupting an actual terrorist act.
- I am not in favor of any use of nuclear weapons, or killing in general. I suppose now that "resolution" (i.e. ending) of the conflict is trivial: rather, let's talk about "satisfactory resolution." Okay?
Still, nice job ignoring my argument. I'm still not sure how nuclear genocide fails to resolve the middle east conflict in your view.
If a "terrorist," just minding his own business at the moment is in the middle of a crowd, it's okay to kill innocent bystanders because we don't tolerate terrorism? And those innocent deaths are his fault? (This is what Israel does all the time, by the way.)You know, I think I've just resolved the conflict in Lebanon. Fire bomb it all to dust, because, after all, the Lebanese are harboring terrorists. Hezbollah put all Lebanese at risk by storing weapons in their country, so any civilian casualties (i.e. the ensuing genocide) is obviously their fault.
This would also resolve the issue of new terrorists being incited by their dead compatriots, if we kill every last Lebanese. Of course, other Arabs or Muslims might be incited to resistance, but we can sleep soundly at night knowing it's their fault for the nuclear onslaught. It was necessary to stop the terrorists.
Also see this page, "12 Answers to 12 Conventional Lies."
Your article says, "Give Israel peace, and Israel will give you land." (But in truth, of course, the gift of land would come with many cavaets.)
In response, what can I do but turn that question around? Give Palestinians a truly viable state, release political prisoners and prisoners of war, and keep the Israeli military the hell away, and most of Israel's security concerns will evaporate overnight. How can you expect an oppressed people to do nothing when clearly that has not resolved their troubles? What cause has been won by not fighting back? Suicide bombers, rocket launches and kidnappings of soldiers, as bad as they may be, and there to remind Israelis of the far greater numbers innocent of Palestinians or Lebanese who have been killed or imprisoned by Israel in the name of self-defense.
"Terrorism" is to remind Israelis what it is like to live under constant threat, or with planes flying overhead with sonic booms regularly to assure you get no sleep... or bombs for that matter. "Terrorism" is to remind them of the risk of the risk of living anywhere in the Gaza strip with Israel's policy of assasinating resistance members and inevitably plenty of innocent, unknowing bystanders. "Terrorism" is to remind Israelis of what it is like to live surrounded by a wall.
I don't care if you call it "self-defense" or "terrorism" if it effects the same thing. It's not justifiable, and it needs to end.
You guys can argue specifics all day long, but the reality is that Israel's military policy (particularly policies of targetted assasination and the like) result like high numbers of civilian casualities.
We have a bit of a chicken and the egg problem here. Israel's response to "terrorism" creates more "terrorists" who incite Israel to respond.
It doesn't really matter who started it now. Clearly, aggression on both sides needs to end. But, in my calculus at least, those most persistently oppressed are Arab. If Israel wants to stop the hard line response, it's clearly, at the least, going to need to create a viable Palestinian nation.
Let's not even get into Lebanon... the Lebanonese have done nothing to deserve the horror they are suffering.
It's not an entirely distinct option from a) but it goes towards the root of the problem.