Brasil

Well, there's already [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/rules.php?#signature]a 300-character signature-length[/url] limit, so for the most part, the signatures are kept fairly small. I mean, there isn't too much one can do with 300 characters, unless they get creative or put everything on separate lines. Regarding the size of a post versus the size of a signature, well, it reminds me of the "OMFG liek i t0tali luv tat shoooww!1!! itis tah k00lst!11!" versus "I watched an episode of it last night, and it was pretty good, I suppose. The dialogue was good and the direction was handled well." Those are the same number of sentences there, but I think it's clear which is the more acceptable post, even though they're both short ones. Similarly, a long, rambly, incoherent post will little to no point to it will also be subject to scrutiny, while a post with the same length but thoughtful and well-developed points would be fine. Post-wise, it's quality, not quantity, so I don't really see how the post length relates to what the signatures should be.

I'm about 4 levels from the Finale. I'm probably just about ready to finish up Quarantine-Zone, then there are 4 left, alternating MC and Arbiter, I believe. Beorhun, I believe you misunderstood my point. When I mentioned being bored with the Arbiter's missions, that was because the levels themselves were bland. I was talking about the [i]level design[/i] when I said "boring and tedious to go through." I still enjoyed the Arbiter missions, however, because the Arbiter is a much better character than MC, especially ability-wise, like I mentioned about the Camo, and his plot is far more interesting--I mean, honestly, do I really care about the cliched "Marines Stomping Bugs/Defending Earth" routine? lol Maybe it's just me, but Civil War/Internal Jihad is far more intriguing. I find that with MC's levels, it's the opposite. We have a nice-looking level ("prettier"), with reasonably well-designed areas that have some real potential to provide some fantastic action sequences, but all we're able to do is play as The Incredible Hulk in a cybersuit? Excuse me? MC's abilities consist of little more than run, jump, point, and shoot. That's it. There's no cloaking that [i]I've[/i] come across in 80% of the MC singleplayer campaign, but perhaps I missed it somewhere? The thing I found about the original Halo was that it was painfully repetitive, and the MC single-player mode in Halo 2 is no different. Dmitry and I agree pretty much that co-op is quite fun in Halo 2 (my brother and I were blasting across the bridge last night, me in the Scorpion Tank, him in a Ghost, then a Wraith later on...that was pretty fun, especially when I got the juggling routine down with the cannon), but for me to enjoy the single-player mode, I need to play co-op, because otherwise, I'm going to be on auto-pilot the entire way through, except when I'm playing as the Arbiter, because then I get to be sneaky, and I'm a devious little bastard.

I am definitely enjoying the music to Halo 2. I'm pushing through the Quarantine-Zone right now, and some of the movements are quite nice. I still have an issue with the level design; I'm finding some levels to be quite bleh...just boring and tedious to go through. Oddly enough, they're the Arbiter levels, and I love playing as the Arbiter. In fact, I think it's more appealing than Master Chief. I simply just don't care for playing as some cookie-cutter, genetically and robotically-augmented Marine superhero cliche that plays like every single other FPS protagonist. With Master Chief, it's really nothing more than run n gun, because that's all the guy can do. Arbiter, however, I enjoy the Camo. I like the "feel" of the character. I really appreciate being able to sneak up behind a Grunt in Camo, and slice him through the neck with an Energy Sword. It's a gameplay feature that could never be done with Master Chief, and it's a welcome variation, definitely, because I was getting really bored with the constant run n gun of the green guy. I was playing a bit of Multiplayer with my brother earlier tonight, and...the exclusion of Offline bots bothers me. With the original, I can forgive, because it was the first game. With the sequel, however, and the emphasis on multiplayer...a lack of AI bots in Offline multi is inexcusable. Yes, I'll be getting Live this weekend, but still. That said, the Multi is okay. It's average, really. I mean, it's what you'd expect from a combat FPS like this. However, even with the normal design and execution of the Multi, I had fun. A lot of fun. But I only had fun because I was playing with the right people. At the core of things, Halo 2's Multi is pretty damn basic, and I really don't think Halo differs from any other FPS on the market in terms of Multi, actually. Yes, Xbox Live; yes, LAN mode, but the core gameplay and approach isn't all that revolutionary (except for highjacking vehicles; that was a good idea), and the game isn't inherently fun; the players make it fun, and because my brother and I are a good match-up skillwise, the Slayer match was very close, and was actually a very balanced game. There were times where we were both sniping at each other, he with a Sniper Rifle, me with a Beam Rifle (I won that little volley). Other times, he had a Rocket Launcher, and I unwisely hopped into a Ghost. Plasma Grenades were getting thrown onto Warthogs and each other, the Energy Sword got some major action, etc. I'll give an updated impression after this weekend, because I'm having a bit of a Deathmatch on Saturday. You all know the Saturday Night Fever drill, lol.

It's sex, pure sex. I love it, and I love you, DW.

[center][URL=http://img100.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img100&image=ThreadPutDown2.jpg][IMG]http://img100.exs.cx/img100/2969/ThreadPutDown2.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/center] [center] [/center] [left]What do you all think? I suddenly had the urge to do something related to Old Yeller and OB, and a thread closure was the perfect coming together of the two ideas, because there's both "closure" in the two; on OB, we have closures of stupid threads, and in Old Yeller, well, Old Yeller gets closed. Dark humor, I know, but...I couldn't resist. XD[/left]

[QUOTE=Sauce-head]That phrase rule of thumb is just used by feminists (yourself), it is a complete hoax and there was never such rule. The below is from the book, "Who Stole Feminism" - the text can also be found [url="http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html"]http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html[/url] . ...The 'rule of thumb' story is an example of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts to their angry creed... The 'rule of thumb', however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. Is is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced. That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science. Sources: [url="http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html"]http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html[/url] [url="http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm"]http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm[/url] [url="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html"]http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html[/url] [url="http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/essays/ruleofthumb.html"]http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/essays/ruleofthumb.html[/url] or google "rule of thumb" Accusations again (the blow up doll...honestly, why are you targeting me, rather than what I said). I'd prefer it if you stopped, I can think of several insults of the top of my head that fit you (and are true), but I'd rather not recieve a PM from James... Like I said (I believe 3-4 times already) that if you don't like it, don't come in here and respond to it/read it. Please just leave my thread, all you do is flame me, I have done nothing wrong.[/QUOTE] You're just coming on here, regurgitating information that you found on a few very spiteful people's sites (Debunker.com is especially spiteful--people should immediately be skeptical of anyone who makes a point of mentioning that kind of "resume" on their site), and you're functioning as little more than a patriarchal mouthpiece spouting whatever male propaganda you find on the 'net. I'm not a feminist in the least, but when you've got Shakespeare populating his plays with these strong female characters and killing them off by the end of the play, that should tell you something about the structure of society in the past. Gilgamesh, Odyssey, Iliad, Beowulf, Othello, Lysistrata, The Fairie Queene, Narrative of a Slave (all the various incarnation of it, not just Douglass')...all of these works deal very directly with the social stigma of both women and color. All of these sites you brought in for support have a very questionable trait in common: they're all quoting from the [i]same[/i] text. There is absolutely no variation at all there. They're all quoting from the same text. Think about that. So, "rule of thumb" is a bit exaggerated. So what? That's one thing. [i]One[/i] thing. How does that legitimize your patriarchal regurgitated propaganda? Simply, it doesn't, because you've still got things like the 1920s and the requirement that women wore upwards of 30 pounds worth of clothing to remain modest, you still have the fake notion of content 50s housewives propagated by Leave it to Beaver. You still have Victorian England's rules or lack thereof regarding male dominance in the home. You still have slave-owners impregnating their under-age slaves in the US. You're trying to paint an entire world history with one color. It doesn't work that way. [quote]why are you targeting me, rather than what I said). [/quote] We've actually been targeting everything you've been saying and blowing it right out of the sky. You've just been trying to ignore it.

Movies. Spam or discussion?

[quote name='Lady Asphyxia]A[font=Verdana][size=1]nd yes, I agree that in, say, the 1950's, things like paying for a date was often because the woman didn't have much money, and the guy was also the main 'bread-winner'. ... But I don't know about the 1800's. You'd have to ask Siren. :p[/size'][/font][/quote] I just got burned, hehe. XD This talk of a bread-winner is actually a good way to segway into a brief history lesson, I think. In the 50s, men were the bread-winners and supported their wives through the money (the bread). In the 1800s (and essentially, all throughout history), women were the bread. [quote name='Sh-- er, sorry, Sauce-Head]Siren: You misread what I said, I didn't mean that [i]IN[/i'] the 1800's that is how it is like. I meant it in terms of money, women didn't have a lot and had to rely on men, but today women have jobs and make good money (and a good amount of women - especially those who are 16-24 make more than men). I was just commenting on the fact that men shouldn't be expected to pay for outtings, especially ones early on in a relationship.[/quote] Dude, you used the word "Chivalry" to describe the [i]1800s[/i]. Think about that. Think about how absurd that is. There was absolutely no desire at all to help women back then. There was no Chivalry. If there was a desire to support women financially, then there would not have been any prostitutes, would there? And even though women were entirely dependent on the male, the males were not at all obligated to support them, lol. [quote]And to your other comment, I haven't had a lot of trouble dating, just several cases before I picked up on a lot of this stuff such as women using men for a dinner or a movie.[/quote] So, 6 pages of your complainy, whiny, "Girls are absolutely unfaithful and shallow b-tches" "system" of picking up "chicks" isn't a sign that you're not the least bit bitter from not having much luck with the ladies? Sure, haha.

I'd just like to comment on this... [quote name='Sauce-head]It is actually you who is stuck [b]in the 1800's, men are expected to do everything for the women, when going out with a female ( for the first time ) the man is expected to pay for the womens meal/movie/drink etc etc. Why? Because of "chivalry"[/b'], "chivalry" may be dead, but women killed it. When going out, you pay for your stuff, and she pays for hers. Simple as that, and don't tell me I am being sexist here because what I am saying is for equality (for men, for so many years have been emptying their wallets for women - which really isn't needed). Men should care less about women than themselves, their friends, and their family. If someone you are seeing is number 1, and your friends/self/family come second, that just isn't how it should be.[/quote] Do you actually believe that women were somehow believed to be the superior sex, one that should be worshipped in the 1800s? I don't know how well-versed you are about British history, but the 1800s, 1700s, 1600s, 1500s, 1400s, etc, etc, were anything but supportive of "chivalry." Do you even know anything about Victorian England? Elizabethan England? Jacobean England? Did you know that in Victorian England, the man of the house was perfectly free and allowed to come on to the maid, who usually was a 17-year-old girl? Were you aware that no matter what happened, that girl was most likely going to be thrown out of the house, and have to resort to prostitution? Do you know why? If the male happened to get the servant girl pregnant, it was viewed as a character flaw on the part of the servant girl. She was a slut, a whore, and did not deserve such a glorious job in the home, so she was cast out into the streets to starve. If the girl happened to refuse the advances, the male could throw her out of the house with no problem at all, and no questions from anyone else, because she was being disrespectful to the male authority. Get a clue, dude, and stop being bitter because you've had so much trouble with girls. By the way, Chivalry was more an urban legend...a [i]myth[/i] than any type of reality.

TITLE GOES HERETEXT GOES HERE --- Shy, your issues with the HTML are totally understandable. The original HTML was spaced that way so I would be able to see everything that Desi arranged. As each person posted, I got them the proper HTML. What I attached in a previous post was only the preliminary coding, as it were. What you see above in this post is precisely how the post style looks, and I've made sure to include the precise coding in a .txt file in my reply here. Regarding the fonts, if anyone wants to use different fonts, you're more than welcome to. I'm not entirely sure which fonts are supported in HTML, but I suppose anything within reason is acceptable. But, if there are titles for any posts, I'm requesting that those remain Arial Black. I believe we also need to use the Basic Post Editor when using HTML, too, so our posts turn out correctly. Any other questions from anyone (Rebel Scummers or otherwise), feel free to reply with comments and feedback. ^_^

When I first heard about this, but hadn't read any details about it, I was interested. When I read "recreate the shots," I thought the game was going to be some type of analysis of the assassination. I was under the impression that they were going to reconstruct the assassination, using the various angles, witness accounts, Zapruder film, etc. If it were like this, then I think it would be met with a warm reception, because then it'd be educational, and would actually test a gamer's cognitive and pattern recognition abilities. Had the game been that, I would have most certainly considered buying it, because I really enjoy pattern analysis and ballistics examination. I find that type of material incredibly engaging. However, when I saw the word, "crosshairs," I threw my arms up in disgust. This game has you playing Lee Harvey Oswald, taking shots at JFK. It's disgraceful, simply and utterly disgraceful.

[QUOTE=Adahn]It was a hypothetical example, Siren. [b]I won't pretend I know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society.[/b] I could have just as easily said something about giving a native tribe a box of crispy creme donuts. If they are human, they will want more crispy cremes, and they won't be able to have them. It's called an abstract concept, Siren. There are many things that don't exist that can be discussed. I'm not complaining so much as presenting an idea as a topic for discussion.[/quote] I've bolded an important sentence here. If you don't know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society, then you shouldn't be trying to lead a discussion, or to start threads and get annoyed when people start countering you. Furthermore, you [i]have[/i] been pretending to know enough about things to where you can start spouting off nonsense. Nearly every single thread of yours is precisely that. Not abstract concept...useless concept, because it has absolutely no real-world application or basis in society. Your "concepts" are really no different than a n00b posting to wonder if his hand is really his hand (Descartes). It's just a waste of everyone's time, because it's like asking "What if" about JarJar Binks in Episode I. If there's no substance at all to what you're trying to talk about, and you're just coming off rambly as hell, with no real, applicable point...why bother posting? [QUOTE]Fine, I'll name off some necessary things if it will make you happy. Food, water, medicine, baths, free time, love, friends, heat, fire, and iodized salt. There are lots and lots of necessary things, and I don't want to name them all. I never set up those places as good places in terms of meeting needs. [b]I merely used them as an example of places with a much lower level of comfortability[/b]. Hey, that ties in with everything I said, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] Again, I've bolded a sentence that needs examination. You used Third World Countries as an example of places with a much lower level of comfortability, but you fail to realize [i]that they're not comfortable[/i]. They're dying. That's not having a [i]low[/i] level of comfort; that's having [i]no[/i] comfort at all. Also, Third World Countries possess nearly none of the necessary things you listed above, keep in mind, and it just further re-enforces the idea that these people are not living comfortably, and should not be looked to as the Ideal human situation. [QUOTE]Again, that's a good thing. It's not good, however, to provide people with something very desirable, and not continue to fulfill that desire.[/QUOTE] And you'll find that we're not providing them with any unnecessary luxuries, and we're not pulling out the aid. Your statements are just utterly redundant at this point, because there is no real reason to be saying any of it, because the situation you're criticizing doesn't even exist. [QUOTE]With how our world is set up today, cars are a need for many people.[/QUOTE] So, then, cars are necessary. They're not a False Need; they're not a luxury. They're necessity, and this means our automobile dependency doesn't indict us on your...Evils of Luxury Item Usage scale. [QUOTE]I'm not exactly sure what you're asking about here, but I'll try. Excessive luxury is unnecessary and consumes resources.[/QUOTE] Definitions, Adah, definitions. There's a reason I linked to the definitions in the actual words. You want me to treat your post as being about resources the entire time, you prove to me, through the definitions I've linked to, that "luxuries" means the same thing as "resources." [QUOTE]If there weren't pieces of plastic, would she not be just as excited about a hand-carved toy made by her mother and/or father? Would you not appreciate something given in love at the same cost just as much as Metroid Prime 2?[/QUOTE] I certainly would appreciate it just as much, if not more, but instead of answering my initial question with a question, how about answering my initial question there? After all, you're no Socrates. Are you saying that getting happy from getting Metroid Prime 2: Echoes or a toy you really wanted for Xmas is something people should be ashamed of? [quote]I can't attack capitalism, it's necessary for today's society. I can argue, however, that in terms of an ideal, it raises our level of comfortability to the point where excess resources are required to keep us in a good mood, and that it would be better to be comfortable with less material possessions.[/QUOTE] I seriously doubt that a Nintendo Gamecube, HDTV, or a $4,000 coaster is making people more comfortable. They're having fun with them, and getting enjoyment out of them, surely, but that's not comfort; that's fun. It almost seems like you're equating everything with providing comfort, when in reality, most of the "luxuries" we've talked about here don't add to the comfort level at all. They merely supplement people's enjoyment of their lives. There is a difference between enjoyment and comfort, especially in the sense of "comfort" that you're talking about. You wear a warm and soft sweater because it's comfortable because it makes you feel better physically. You buy a Nintendo Gamecube and a copy of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes because it makes you feel better mentally. I'll put it really simply for you. Just because someone enjoys something doesn't make it bad. You seem to be arguing here that we can only be truly happy with less? Maybe it's the headache right now, but that seems to be what you're saying...that the world and humanity would be better off with less (Rousseau was not all there, remember).

[quote name='Adahn']This is what Siren managed to twist. I was talking about giving things to people that they don't need, and that they can't receive a steady supply of. I used Third World Countries as an example because they tend to lack the luxuries we possess. I said luxuries, Siren, I wasn't talking about humanitarian aid, and you know it. Do you honestly think that I would argue against that? Look beyond your own desire to prove how idiotic I am and you'll see that I said no such thing. What I did say was that one should not provide someone with a luxury unless one could continue to provide that luxury. Even if you did somehow see humanitarian aid as a luxury, it would still be ok by what I originally said so long as they could provide a steady supply.[/quote] Then, Adahn, you show me where we're sending over HDTVs, Rolex watches (luxuries that are unnecessary at this point in time), and I'll concede this point. Otherwise, there was never any reason for you to talk about sending luxuries over, because we're not doing it to begin with. If you're unable to provide any evidence that we're giving them a Gamecube instead of fresh, clean water, or monetary funds so they can improve their living spaces, then I think you need to realize that your post amounts to spam, because...you're essentially complaining about something that doesn't even exist to begin with. [u]Also, luxuries are things you don't need. Resources are things you do.[/u] [QUOTE]Despite what you say, Siren, this follows the idea of my whole post. You disregarded this and what follows because of your deliberate misinterpretation of what I stated earlier.[/QUOTE] Let's look at it. [quote name='Adahn']Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/quote] You're not dealing in any concrete examples, firstly. You use this vague idea of "[b]relatively[/b] low requirement" but then refuse to define anything regarding specifics. Why would you refuse to define what is necessary? I think you refuse because there are very real required needs in the world today, regardless of where you go (contrary to what you've been trying to say). There is in fact a worldly standard that most nations try to go by. Human rights violations, starvation, malnutrition, disease, etc, are things that most nations try to remedy in the best way that they can. Obviously, some countries aren't going to do anything, like the former Taliban regime, but there are many people in the world who make it their life-goals to help improve the lives of people living in impoverished lands, because somebody starving isn't good no matter where you are. Answer me this, do you believe cars are a False Need or a True Need? This relates to your "relatively low requirement" line. [QUOTE]I'd like to thank cinnamon for seeing through Siren's attempt to undermine everything I've said and respond to the topic intelligently.[/QUOTE] I'd like to see you establish a concrete and clear correlative link between "luxuries" and "resources," because that portion of your reply was conspicuously absent. [quote]Yes, if we had a lower level of comfortability, we certainly wouldn't have computers. I would not suggest that everyone have an equal share (communism), just that each person's requirements to be comfortable be on a lower level. Our waste of resources is abominable. One would never have to give up what one worked for to another person. If someone cannot support themselves, most people would have enough extra (because of lack of waste) to be charitable. I can only hope that you're wrong. If we always want more and more, we will relieve this world of all its resources. I did not say contentment was physical. I would call love and human contact necessities, also. There's nothing I would desire more than to be completely self-sufficient. If I could live with my family and provide for it well consuming less resources, I would do it. All I really want is to be happy. I think that if we understood what unnecessary desire gets us, we wouldn't want to be presented with something better. You don't have to eat rats. I'd be happy with a fertile plot of land and a forest to hunt and trap in. To me, everything is a means to an end. I'm here in college because I feel that I need lots of money to live comfortably and provide for those I love. If I could leave college and go make a living for myself right now, and make my girl happy, I would do it in a heartbeat. If only we could be comfortable living that way, it would be like heaven.[/QUOTE] Okay, so...are you saying that my 7-year-old cousin, Kayla, getting so excited about Christmas because it means she gets to see her family, exchange presents, and Santa comes, and her face lights up around this time because just the very idea of Christmas...is a bad thing? Yes, toys are useless pieces of plastic, but you should see how bubbly she gets when she's playing with those useless pieces of plastic. Hell, because those useless pieces of plastic make her so happy and excited, I think that'd prove they're not quite so useless after all. Kayla's a happy girl all year round, but Xmas just boosts her up like nothing else. Hell, you should see how happy I get when I'm enjoying my presents. Are you saying that getting happy from getting Metroid Prime 2: Echoes for Xmas is something people should be ashamed of? I seriously think you're just vainly trying to take a moralistic "high-road" here by condemning Capitalism, lol. I think Baron's comment is quite true. This entire thread is just your carbon-copy lash-out at consumerism.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Of [i]course[/i] they did not adhere to Marxist principles. They [i]claimed[/i] to. To their own people, that is. "Communism is on the horizon" is an example of what they said to the public. Yes, it was propaganda. The USSR's system was by definition a socialist regime, but it was plagued by ubiquitous corruption (as Russia STILL is). It is not at all what Marx envisioned. But the USSR used the excuse of "working toward" communism. Their socialism was supposed to be temporary. A means to an end. Oh, it was very intentional. The government skewed Marxism because it didn't make them rich. What you see in the last 80 years of Russia's history is what does. Marxism in its pure form did not fit their plans.[/QUOTE] So only through propaganda was it Marx's Socialism, which makes Communism of the USSR...Socialism Gone Bad. If they skewed Marx's Socialism to make themselves richer, and the Proletariat suffered for it, then it does seem to be Socialism Gone Bad, true? The government (the wealthy) lied to the people about what was really going on, hiding what Marx was really saying--and what Marx was really saying was the people should have the power. Actually...Marx championed the worker. He advocated better wages, better conditions, etc. He sided with the workers. The government comes in, and tells the people that this ("this" referring to the corrupt Communistic system that enables the government to get filthy rich at the expense of the worker) was what Marx was saying. If Marx were around today, he'd be [i]having a fit[/i]. lol It really is Socialism Gone Bad.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I have never run into a "capital C" Communism [i]term[/i] before in this sense. I think it is particular to the U.S., because the USSR and China never ever ever referred to themselves as "communist" nations. The Communist party, not the Communist government. They referred to themselves as Socialist, never Communist. So if it is indeed an actual term referring to the [i]socialist[/i'] regimes in those countries, then it is a term borne of confusion. You would still be better off just calling it socialism. At least then it would be accurate on an international basis.[/quote] One thing that's interesting about that, though, is how Marx's ideas have been adopted over the years. Based on what you've said, the actual "socialist" nations like China, USSR, etc, actually aren't adhering to what Marx's precise idea was. His idea was what could be called Marxist Socialism, the communal society, essentially, where everyone was equal, "put in what you can, take out what you need," and that was the utopian society that he believed in. But, that idea has been diluted over the years to what the "Socialist" nations believe is Marxist Socialism. What Marx was suggesting wasn't what is actually in practice now. For all intents and purposes, many people high-jacked Marx's ideas and skewed them without realizing it..probably entirely unintentionally, too. It's definitely a weird little quirk about it. What people know to be Socialism (Communism, for discussion sake), isn't really Socialism as according to Marx's ideas and principles. Interesting, eh comrade?

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Hey Alex. It's been a while, but I just want to correct some terminology you are using.[/quote]Hehe. No worries, Dmitry. :p [quote]What you are making is the same mistake almost all Americans make, confusing socialism and communism and not knowing what the socialist countries out there call it. Yes, they're socialist. There's no such thing as "Communism today" because there's no communism. There never was, there never will be. Communism is NOT, I repeat NOT, Socialism Gone Bad. It is Socialism's evolution into a utopia. It's the opposite of "gone bad." Under socialism, the government controls most of everything. A lot of things are equal (like salary, more or less, unless you're talking about the government itself, where the people are filthy filthy rich). But under communism, EVERYTHING is basically shared. In fact, in a true communist society, there would be no need for a government. Its basic idea is "everyone contributes what he can, and receives what he needs." Communism is free of luxury. Socialism is not. Basically, don't view communism as some perversion of socialism. Communism is what people living in socialist nations like the USSR "believed" in. It was the end goal. The government said it was "on the horizon" (a bit ironic considering the horizon is perpetually a good distance away). Sure, socialism can and has been "perverted," so to speak, but not into communism. Not at all.[/quote]Are you treating Communism and communism as the same thing, or differently? There are differences between the two. I'm usually a stickler for proper punctuation just because I'm a hard-ss, but here, we really need to pay attention to our punctuation usage. "Communism" with a capital C is what the USSR became. It's the actual economic system that used to be in place. Now I understand they're trying to distance themselves from the dictatorial Communism and get into a freer economy. "communism," with a lower-case C is literally "communal society," like...hell, the Colony in The Howling: a group of people living together with no governmental controls in place. It may not seem like a major logistics issue to capitalize or not capitalize it, but it is, because the two words refer to entirely different "systems." [url="http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/"][u]Socialism[/u][/url] is a system run by the workers, and the Fat Cats, as it were, that dominated Capitalism have no place there. I mean, just think about it. Marx hated what these Fat Cats were doing. He couldn't stand how Capitalism was exploting the worker. Marx was an advocate for the Proletariat; he was an advocate for workers' rights. Why would he suggest a system where the workers wouldn't be in control? At the time, too, England was in economic chaos. Sometimes (quite often), you couldn't tell the difference between the government officials and big business owners (the recent situation with Halliburton and Cheney echoes this, interestingly enough). Communism (capital C) in the USSR was far from a utopian society. I think we can all agree that things weren't perfect, and really, they still aren't. Socialism can go in two different directions. One is Communism, which we all know doesn't work; the second way is communism, which is the utopia you're talking about (utopia, that is, if everyone isn't a werewolf...*rimshot*). Get what I'm saying? "communism" is the utopian Socialism. "Communism" isn't. I think Marx would be furious to see what has happened, actually. He wanted a free economy (Socialism and communism); I don't think Communism is quite a fair economy, lol.

[quote name='Adahn']I specifically used the word luxuries, Siren. I didn't say humanitarian aid. I know this, and you know this. Why must you insist on attacking everything I say?[/quote] Okay, then what did you mean by "luxuries?" Think about what [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luxuries][u]"luxuries"[/u][/url] means. It specifically refers to things that aren't needed, we agree on that much. However, when you realize that we're not sending over HDTVs, Rolex watches, Ferraris and such (which are "false" needs, luxuries), your post just becomes tragically redundant, because it's not based on anything substantial. Really, your post just amounts to spam, because there's no real meat to it. There was never any point to this thread, no matter how much conjecturing, dodging, or rationalizing you try to do. [QUOTE]You're doing more harm to yourself than you are to me. You're so angry you used 'you've' instead of 'you're'. You're no longer 'not sugar-coating', you're insulting.[/QUOTE] I had my window open most of the day. Cold air affects my accuracy. Adahn, you want to say I'm insulting you, I realize, but you and I both know that what I said to you is absolutely true, and Jordan knows it, too. I'm not insulting you, so don't play the whiny victim here. [QUOTE]No, I don't think they enjoy living without necessities. Did I ever say that? Again, show me where I said it, Siren. Giving people necessities is a good thing, Siren.[/QUOTE] What do you think the necessities are, by the way? Good, wholesome, and nutritious food. Rat meat and dirty water are not good, wholesome, or nutritious, and for someone to survive without starving, they [i]need[/i] something better than rat meat and dirty water. Good and nutritious food is a necessity for someone to survive. Rat meat and dirty water are not good nor nutritious. We've all showed you where you've been saying that, Adahn, but I'll point it out yet again: [quote name='Adahn']If someone can survive on dirty water and rat meat, and be content with it, is there anything wrong with it? I don't know what rat meat tastes like, but maybe it tastes like chicken.[/quote] You're treating that situation like it's simply not a problem. [QUOTE]Just admit that you were wrong, and walk away. You're absolutely right, Siren. It's a bad idea to make clarifications and provide an example before stating the point behind said clarifications and example. I hope I get as good an education as you some day.[/QUOTE] Tell you what, you prove that [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luxuries][u]"luxuries"[/u][/url] means the same thing as [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resources][u]"resources,"[/u][/url] and I'll concede this point. Otherwise, being that there is no mention [i]at all[/i] of "resources" in the entirety of your initial post, only getting tacked on at the end, you have absolutely no room to argue with me here. You state exactly what your precise focus is at the very beginning of the post. If you don't, you're viewed as trying to pull a fast one on your reader, misleading them, and your paper gets thrown out. I don't agree with having to write single sentence thesis statements, but you cannot get away with not including a focused thesis paragraph in any paper, if you want to be taken seriously, and posts are no different. [quote]I can't afford a plane ticket to Somalia.[/QUOTE] Then watch the news, read the paper. Get [i]informed[/i] before saying anything.

I'm not saying that Health isn't important; what I [i]am[/i] saying, however, is that you don't have to be a knock-out to attract people. Baron, I think we're actually saying the same thing, because you're not taking as an extreme stance as this sauce-head person. This person is implying that looks are the only thing that'll get you a first glance, and we all know that's a load of bull. I'm not going to stick around with a vapid blonde goddess if she's got no personality. Similarly, if an un-attractive person has a good personality, I'm going to be interested in spending time with them. When they go psycho on me, however...*does the beheading motion with the necessary sound that cannot be accurately transcribed* Just because I'm not attracted to blimp girl doesn't mean somebody else won't be. Just because I find Austin Powers-era Elizabeth Hurley to be one of the most jaw-dropping, empirically beautiful actresses I've ever seen doesn't mean somebody else is going to think the same way. I've never been saying that staying healthy is bad. All I've been saying is that there are no set rules of dating, and trying to categorize everything is just a waste of people's time.

[QUOTE=Adahn]I agree that giving food and medical care to other countries is good, but if and only if we can continue to support them. If we give them something like that and withdraw support, we've done more harm than good. The only BS here involves you putting words into my mouth.[/quote]You're bristling. I fail to see how I'm putting words into your mouth, when it's rather clear the words in your mouth were BS to begin with, Adahn. You were saying that it's inappropriate to send humanitarian aid to Third World Countries because it gives them false Hope. We all know that's bullsh-t, and you did, too, and now you're trying to deny that's what you were saying. Why not just admit it and walk away? Dragging this out isn't going to make you look any better to anyone here, because like I said in a previous thread of yours, around here, you're not viewed as some great thinker, or someone who's capable of successfully leading a discussion, because you don't have a strong enough grasp on things to begin with. No offense, dude, but like I told Jordan, you can't back up your ego (and Jordan understood this, by the way). You're a poseur, a fake, a phony. You're just lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Listen to me, okay? You can't cut it, and until you realize that, you've always going to sound like a little child trying to use big words. [QUOTE]Liar. Second of all, the state of Third World Countries was an example.[/QUOTE]Liar? You're bristling. Third World Countries [i]have no resources[/i]. They're not content with having nothing. They're starving, Adahn, because they have virtually no grain, no fresh water, [i]nothing[/i]. They're not able to survive with what they have, because they don't have anything. Do you honestly believe they're enjoying living like that? If we've got the power to give them a better life, why in the hell shouldn't we do that? Oh, because you have this asinine and Idealistic notion that scraping the dirt for food, suffering from malnutrition, disease, and dehydration, is somehow more noble than being able to provide a stable income, good healthcare, and still have enough left over from being responsible workers to have some fun? You mentioned "resources" once in your entire post, and then try to spin it like your post was focused on resources the entire time? Your entire post was focused on luxuries (HDTV, Ferraris, Cell Phones, etc...) we take for granted, and that focus is not going to magically change by tacking one word to the end of it, Adahn. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory; don't pretend to be. [QUOTE]I thought I had a point. If you would like me to clarify it more in some way, I'll try. I do think I've made myself clear already, though.[/QUOTE]If by "had a point," you mean that you never were trying to make that particular point to begin with, only trying to tack it on at the end and thinking it will change the entire meaning and point of your post, then, yes. Otherwise, I think you're trying to rationalize your way out of a snag that isn't looking favorable for you at all. [quote]EDIT: To Baron If one is happy with what one has, how, may I ask, is that person deprived of anything? You are saying those people aren't happy based upon what you require in order to be happy.[/QUOTE]Okay, Adahn, you head on over to Somalia and ask the stick-children, who can't even keep their heads vertical because they're so malnourished, if they're happy. Don't be stupid, Adahn; don't drag this one out like the others.

I think Pokemon's an interesting phenomenon, actually. When they were developing the initial game, I don't think they anticipated what kind of mass-marketing chaos they were creating. The games themselves were and still are quite stellar. There are a few snags along the way, but overall, it's a solid game series. Be that as it may, this is Anime Lounge, so I'll have to talk about the show, lol. Simply put, the show pretty much bordered on incoherent. It was uber-hyper, nonsensical, random gibberish, really, and I think if there was any solid evidence that Pokemon is more or less a money scheme, the TV show is it. The show has no soul, lol...I mean, there's a reason Drawn Together features Ling-Ling, a Pikachu derivative, and has it being put to work in a sweatshop. I'd say the show definitely crosses the line into (as Yogurt so affectionately called it) "merchandising merchandising merchandising." It's almost as if the TV series was slapped together the night before, and because of that, I don't think there's much attention being paid to little details like having a plot or good characters. Game-wise, though, Pokemon is fantastic. They're high-quality games (the traditional ones, at least, and Pokemon Pinball) that don't get crapped out every other week, as it were. So...yeah. First post in Anime Lounge...ever.

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]Some more finely selected quotes for you. Or, actually, I'll repeat the quotes I used in my last post. *Hint* read the bolded bits. How can you say that staying clean, having a physique, dressing decently,and eating healthy are bad things? Appearance is not everything, as I have emphasised. But, it is something. Get some pride, people.[/QUOTE] Baron, I'll put it this way. I may not be the best-looking crayon in the box, but I'm one of the more fun ones. ~_^ That's the precise idea here, and a box of Crayolas is actually a useful analogy. You have a very wide variety of different crayons in each box. Some, you have 16, others, you have 120 (yes, I have seen those boxes, lol). Now, just because Sky Blue looks fantastic and works beautifully one day, doesn't mean it's always going to be as good the next day, similar to how Maroon Explosion may not be suitable to color a basketball, but if you've got a plum or a scarf to color purple, Maroon Explosion will do nicely. Think of dating as you're coloring a picture with those crayons. Are you always going to use the same color(s) (*hint* qualities ~_^) for every coloring (*hint* relationship) you start? Do you always use the same colors for MyO Theme changes? No, you don't, because it depends entirely on how you're feeling, and dating is no different. Get what I'm saying? :)

[QUOTE=Adahn]Please be so kind as to show me where I said that sending humanitarian aid to Third World Countries is a bad thing. Again, show me where I said that. If I had said any of the things you've stated here, I'd have to agree with you. There's also nothing in my post that suggests that. No, it's not.[/quote] In your first post, Adahn: [quote name='Adahn]I assert that [b]if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks luxuries we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such luxuries for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply[/b]. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. [b]It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person[/b'].[/quote] I've bolded the exact phrases there. We often take good medical care and good food for granted in the USA. Connect the dots in your own post. Think about it. If we're providing food, medicine, and humanitarian aid (things that we don't realize just how great they are) to Third World Countries, we're [i]helping[/i] those people, [i]not[/i] hurting them. Read between the lines in your own posts, man, and just admit that you've gotten called on your BS yet again, lol. [QUOTE]Because our level of comfortability requires us to consume more natural resources than we should. Would it not be better to desire and obtain less?[/QUOTE] Never in your post were you ever explicitly or implicitly talking about natural resources, Adahn. Don't try to pull that here. The entire focus of your post was on the state of "comfortability" in Third World Countries and how it's wrong to help them, because it will give them a "false" Hope. That's talking about humanitarian aid, though it seems you don't even realize that. [quote]Try addressing any point of my post in the correct context and refute me there, and perhaps I will stop trying. I did purposely bait you into replying like this. You're so very predictable.[/QUOTE] Okay...this "point" of yours has no point, and it's more or less a thinly-veiled insult, so it doesn't serve your argument any benefit whatsoever. I like how you tried to insult me, Adahn, but it's not working. And the fact of the matter is, I was addressing your points in the correct context and wrecking them, but you wouldn't care to admit that. You don't have a problem with me, Adahn; you have a problem with yourself.

*is amused by the similarity in subject matter to previous, dead threads* [quote name='Adahn']I will define contentment as being satisfied with one's current situation. This contentment is based solely upon one's level of comfortability, and how one's situation relates to that level of comfortability.[/quote] Fine. [QUOTE]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks luxuries we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such luxuries for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. [b]It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person.[/b][/QUOTE] I think the [i]starving[/i], [i]malnourished[/i], [i]sickly[/i], and [i]dying[/i] children in Third World Countries in East Africa would disagree with you when you say that sending humanitarian aid, food, medicine to them is something people shouldn't be doing. So, we're actually sending over big screen HDTVs, Super Bowl tickets, cell phones, Ferraris and no food or medicinal items (food and medicine, by the way, to improve their quality of health, and health is not a "false need") whatsoever? Your take on things is, again, completely asinine. [QUOTE]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/QUOTE] Okay, so...are you saying that Third World Countries are what we should look to for an ideal human situation? There's nothing in your post to suggest otherwise. [QUOTE]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[/QUOTE] Okay, so by the USA and a few other superpowers sending humanitarian aid to poor and starving children in Third World Countries, humanity is worse-off? Is that what you're trying to say here? [quote]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/QUOTE] The more we produce, the more we have to give to others. America is one of the, if not the, most powerful and richest nations on the face of the planet. If we're the top dog, as it were, why shouldn't we help people out? Why should we feel guilty about being a powerhouse? Because we're so posh, we have the ability to help others. How is that a bad thing? How is our wealth and power a bad thing? Come on, dude. Just stop trying.

[quote name='Boba Fett']Socialism is a very nice concept, which will never, ever work.. Human nature makes a perfect socialist society impossible, and people will find ways to exploit the system. Socialism then becomes communism, and we all know where that has lead.[/quote] I totally agree that the actualization or realization--whoa, that's a low-flying plane right there...that was freakishly weird...sounded like an old bi-plane...wtf--of a Perfect Socialist society is nigh-impossible, because of basic human nature. But I think Marx and Freud both have been radically misconstrued as nut-cases because of one or two of their theories and ideas being skewed out of proportion. Marx had a lot of good ideas; he unfortunately just didn't think them all the way through. Freud takes a lot of flack for the sex-crazed psychoanalysis, but there's a lot of what he says that's very, very astute, especially pertaining to the Id, Ego, and Superego and various aspects of human desire influencing what we do.

There's always something weird about asking people if they'd rather have Democracy or Communism, because so many people believe Communism to be evil. But if you were to study the history of it, the only fault with it, apart from Marx's Idealistic view of man as good and hard-working, is its application. I think it's safe to say that Marx had a lot of good ideas, but because of Communism's chaos, he's viewed as a psychotic, more or less. He's a lot like Freud, I find, in the people's perception of him. He was a champion for the Proletariat (the working man), was critical of the sluggish, corrupt practices of Capitalism in England at the time, and believed that Capitalism was the bane of many middle and lower classes. If you were to study British history, you'd see that Capitalism was indeed a very harmful system for those lower classes. Marx's answer was Socialism, a fair and equal economic society. Socialism is not a bad idea. It's actually a very good one, and Marx made a very astute observation there. People think Marx was some lunatic because Socialism got warped into Communism. Really, Communism is Socialism Gone Bad, and what we see as Communism today is far from what Marx envisioned. I mean, for a guy who was such a strong advocate for an equal society, would he really approve of what is going on with Communism today? Simply, he'd go nuts. Modern Communism is a far cry from what Marx was saying with Socialism. [i]But[/i], with that said, I'm not quite sure that Democracy and Socialism can be compared exactly. From what I've read of Marx, he was more concerned with economics, and Socialism was more economic than political. Seems safe to say that Democracy is more political than economic, so I'm not entirely sure it's a valid comparison. If we're comparing Perfect Capitalism and Perfect Socialism, then, it's really a toss-up. In a perfect Capitalist society, everyone is hard-working and can achieve success no matter what; in a perfect Socialist society, everyone is totally equal, hard-working, and good-natured. In perfect conditions, they're both pretty nice. I'd go with Perfect Socialism, because Capitalism is still founded on competition, while Socialism is not.