prev <-> next
[2011-03-24 11:58:31] - of people killed, and wikipedia mentions that "The military of Russia claims it cannot verify a single airstrike against protesters has taken place since the unrest began". -paul
[2011-03-24 11:57:35] - Also, at the risk of starting up a firestorm again, but can anybody actually find evidence of how many people Gaddafi's forces have "massacred"? I was reading this article and at most it mentions "dozens"... -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:54:49] - Stephen: Really? I don't know much on the topic, but I've heard that there are a lot of tribal divisions in Libya as well in addition to a lot of uncertainty regarding what kind of government might arise. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:54:08] - gurkie: who that posts now is pro-war (or war-neutral)? ~a
[2011-03-24 11:47:20] - oops i did mean were not anti-war... ok time for me to refocus... ~gurkie
[2011-03-24 11:46:36] - oops I meant were anti-war not were not anti-war ~gurkie
[2011-03-24 11:46:24] - paul: glad I would have had a great point, I guess I thought we had evolved into overall involvement beyond just Libya
~gurkie[2011-03-24 11:45:28] - Paul: I'd also say that Libya is different from Iraq and Afghanistan in that the country is unlikely to fall apart without a dictator present. Any linguistic, sectarian or ethnic divisions in Libya pale in comparison to those in Iraq and Afghanistan. - Stephen
[2011-03-24 11:44:58] - stephen: I didnt follow paul's link but I would be surprised if the regular posters in 01/02 were not anti-war... If you look at the stats you can see who used to post. ~gurkie
[2011-03-24 11:44:42] - Gurkie: Yeah, that would be a great point which I would bring up if our stated goal was to remove Gaddafi from power. That doesn't appear to be our stated goal, though. Instead, we seem to just be interested in stopping him from making headway against the rebels. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:42:52] - another thing to consider is when we have intervened in the past the people we put in power we then have to reintervene and take them out of power... so how does that help us? we temporarily stop a bad situation get our military killed then have to put the situation back and get more of our military killed? ~gurkie
[2011-03-24 11:41:01] - Stephen: It's worth noting that most of the people who were posting I believe were people with liberal or libertarian tendencies. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:40:07] - Stephen: http://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=28250 People who were on the message board at the time seemed pretty against it the day it started. Obviously most of those people are different from the ones we have now, which is why I was wondering if new blood is the cause. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:36:36] - paul: i'm consistently anti-war. with afghanistan we were going for revenge. i'm not sure i see any revenge here though i admit i don't think i know the whole story regarding libya. ~a
[2011-03-24 11:31:27] - Paul: What makes you think that people on this board were anti-Afghanistan in 2001/02? I'm sure if we are in Libya for ten years, we will feel differently. - Stephen
[2011-03-24 11:27:30] - I'm curious, thought. I feel like the message board has been pretty consistently anti-war, but now it seems strangely more pro-war. Is it new blood, or is it because of the president in office, or something else? Could somebody tell me why Libya is that different from Iraq and Afghanistan? -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:25:15] - Aaron: I don't know if "more opinionated" is necessarily what I meant, but it made me feel like I didn't have to think I was wrong just because I have 4 people arguing with me saying I am wrong. Unless they make some point that I think makes sense, of course. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:19:01] - So I got a little used to thinking to myself, "Well, everybody is disagreeing with me, and they're all smart so maybe I am wrong, but I also know there are smart people out there who agree with me, so we probably aren't all crazy." -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:17:47] - paul: oh i see, so being in the minority maybe you feel like you have to be more opinionated in order to preserve your opinions? - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:17:24] - and right now looking at libya it's like - well, peaceful protesters are being massacred, that's bad right? we should stop it; it would make the world a more just place, and we all want to live in a just world. but yeah, thinking long term, what is that going to help really?? so it's complex; but my gut feeling is intervention is good - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:17:01] - Aaron: Actually, I've been thinking about it some, and I think part of it (why I feel so strongly about not judging my morals on what others think) might come from the college and the message board. I acquired a lot of my political beliefs in college, and even though I had supporters, I feel like I was often in the minority. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:16:08] - i guess i should replace "20" with "40" or whatever i forgot what year it was! but you get my point - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:15:49] - i seriously wish we could go back in time 20 years and find out - if we had never gotten involved in anything in the middle east, would america be a better or worse place? would terrorism be more or less rampant? my gut feeling is that intervening is probably a bad idea, but on the surface it still seems like the right thing to do, like scratching a bug bite - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:15:14] - I know this is going to drive Daniel absolutely crazy, but I almost don't even really care if there is a clear cut good guy or bad guy (in terms of whether our military should be committed). I feel like our military should be used for national defense, not policing the world. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:13:41] - Vinnie: The geo-political situation there is complex, but I really only care about how much of a threat country X poses to national security. If close to none, then why are we there? -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:13:32] - vinnie: The bottom line for me is that the situation in Libya does not represent any sort of military threat to the US, so I feel that the president should not have gotten our military involved. As horrific as the atrocities that are going on there, that in of itself should not serve as the only justification to get involved. - mig
[2011-03-24 11:12:09] - i think the tiebreaker is that it helps us level up our military... therefore intervening is a good thing, because i think we get a new special skill at our next level-up. well that's my honest opinion anyways (although not my honest rationale) - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:11:36] - Vinnie: Personally, I feel like having libertarian tendencies makes it easier for me to debate things like this because I feel like I approach things on a different level. I pretty much don't care if Libya is a good ally or an asshole or if the rebels would bring demcracy or theocracy or mass murdering, so I feel like I don't need that information. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:11:11] - vinnie: no, i agree, it's one reason why i really rarely debate anything that concrete, it's a really complex issue and daniel's got a good point that like, we're preventing people from getting massacred but paul/andrew have good points that like, if we help someone else rise to power, that someone else isn't going to necessary be any better than qadafi - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:09:26] - Aaron: I fully admit I'm stubborn and overly questioning. If NPR (or anybody, really) told me that the Libyans had it coming. I would ask why. My dad actually used to get mad at a lot for that. He would tell me to do something and I would ask why. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:07:55] - that don't seem all that related - vinnie
[2011-03-24 11:07:44] - I mean, I feel like I've relatively interested in politics, I've read a few articles about what's happening in Libya, but I still have no f'in clue whether our involvement is a good or bad thing. all I have to go on is people who have said "yes, we should involve ourselves" and "no, we shouldn't" but don't give much reasoning for either beyond past experiences... - vinnie
[2011-03-24 11:07:32] - Aaron: Haha, it's definitely not a smarter or more qualified thing. I just feel like only I can judge for myself what I personally feel is right or wrong. I'm certainly open to changing my mind, but I would hope it would be because of new information (animals are sentient, plants can feel pain, etc) and not because everybody else seems to think it's right or wrong. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:05:12] - aaron: I sometimes wonder how we manage to have debates at all about this kind of thing. I just feel like we're (ok, at least I'M) so lacking in information about the situation and especially the potential outcome of our involvement, that I don't know how we could argue anything about this situation - vinnie
[2011-03-24 11:04:15] - paul: yeah, that's a good point! they might just totally disagree with us for political reasons, everybody has bias. - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:03:22] - gurkie: keep our badgers you know in their badger cages or whatever - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:03:13] - Aaron: Because of politics? The UN isn't exactly an unbiased arbiter of world opinion. The veto-holding members of the security council still include minor powers like France and don't include countries like Japan or India or Brazil. In fact, it has three European countries, one Asian and one North American. -Paul
[2011-03-24 11:03:10] - gurkie: yeah, exactly. and i think we should analyze those motives. do they just want north korea to have nukes? or are they looking out for a country's right to privacy? because the latter is a valid point, and if like - great britian and ireland are like, "that's not cool, NK has a right to have their own nuclear facilities, don't badger them" i think we should - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:01:48] - if i was listening to NPR, and they were like, "fuck those libyan rebels man, those assholes totally had it coming" i'd probably just nod my head sagely and think, hmm, hmm yes they did. - aaron
[2011-03-24 11:00:54] - aaron: Didnt the UN have a big problem with us looking for nuke's in north korea? the problem I see is that a lot of countries have ulterior motives when saying what they think we should do... That being said I dont think I am disagreeing with anyone~gurkie
[2011-03-24 11:00:41] - also, honestly might just be a personal thing.... my opinions/morals are a lot weaker than yours, i tend to be opinionally agnostic wrt almost everything that doesn't affect me on some direct personal level. so maybe you feel like you have the moral authority to decide right and wrong because you're just smarter/more qualified to do so - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:56:19] - scruples: old testament edition - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:55:41] - paul: and i'm not sure 100% whether i agree with myself on that one, but i'm having trouble imagining a case where someone whose opinion you trust utterly would tell you something completely insane. like one of those theoretical "if god told you to murder your own son" kind of scenarios - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:53:43] - and it greatly depends on who's delivering the information. like, seriously, if the UN told us, "bombing libya would be an atrocity", that would be like, 10 megawrongs. we should probably let it weigh heavily on our moral opinion to do so. we should probably really not do it. i mean, why would the UN disagree so heavily on something? - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:52:20] - paul/a: im totally ahead of the curve here... Im like 90 years in the future
~gurkie[2011-03-24 10:51:18] - paul: well... wronger is a relative term in absense of scale. it could be you used to think it was right, and now you think it is wrong. wrong is wronger than right. is there an SI unit for wrongs? - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:49:42] - paul: tsk! how unamerican!! that's what credit cards are for - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:48:31] - Aaron: I'm not sure which comment you were addressing, but I meant wronger. If I said, "Aaron, you greatly affected how I think about the Libyan bombing, now I think it's wronger than before"... I would consider that minorly affecting since you didn't really change my mind, just reinforced what I already thought. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:45:48] - Aaron: I will say that one thing that should affect our decision which is largely unrelated is the non-right/wrong factors, such a support. Maybe we think bombing Libya is the right thing to do, but we can't afford it on our own so we decide against it... until the rest of the world agrees to chip in for the bill. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:45:25] - paul: that's funny, to me "judge" and "think something is wrong" are practically synonyms! to let someone "greatly affect how we judge..." and "result in us thinking something is wrong" are like, i almost can't perceive of a difference between the two terms. wow! maybe we're just miscommunicating horribly - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:43:35] - that opinion should affect us. - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:43:28] - Aaron: I guess I don't consider having something "greatly affect how we judge our actions" to result in us thinking something is wronger than we did before. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:43:02] - paul: you're right, if there's exactly two options, like "bomb" and "not bomb", and one is right, and one is wrong, we shouldn't let the world sway our opinions. but if there's two options which are really similar, like, "support the rebels with ground troops", and "only establish a DMZ but make them fight their own battles", and the world has an opinion, - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:42:00] - paul: sure, and if the rest of the world disagrees, maybe it's still the right thing to do, but we should consider it "less right". if there's two options, and to us one is just a little bit more moral, but the rest of the world strongly disagrees with it, we should probably the other option - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:40:30] - Likewise, if we feel like bombing Libya is the wrong thing to do, we shouldn't be convinced to do it just because the rest of the world wants us to. Obviously if what we think is the same as what the world thinks, it would probably be an easier decision to make. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:39:05] - paul: right/wrong isn't black and white. it could make us decide it was wronger, that's different than making us decide that it was wrong. - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:38:33] - I made the comment that I didn't feel like "we should judge our actions based on how much the world disagrees with us". My point in saying that was that if we felt like bombing Libya was the right thing to do, then it should remain the right thing to do even if the rest of the world disagrees. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:36:29] - I'm looking back at how this discussion started. We were talking about whether or not Obama is making the right decision to bomb Libya. Aaron posted a link (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/g8uip/seriously_reddit_either_i_need_some_some_clarity/) where the writer made the point that the Arab League and Libyan ambassador was requesting this. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:31:47] - a: It's interesting, because I was raised in an environment where pretty much everybody I knew was Catholic or at least believed in God, but I feel like I always had my doubts. I don't think I fully realized those doubts until I went to TJ and met a bunch of people who didn't have a belief in God, but I do think they existed before. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:28:41] - stephen: that looks like a great movie. i andrew and i talked about it briefly last week. ~a
[2011-03-24 10:28:17] - Aaron: Because if you're saying that if we bomb Libya and we think it's the right thing to do but the rest of the world disagrees, and we should let it "greatly affect how we judge our actions"... I don't know how it could greatly affect it other than making us decide that it was wrong. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:26:59] - in a positive light based on our own morals alone - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:26:54] - paul: i'm saying that if we believe one thing, like "democracy is the best form of government", and there's a great amount of dissent in other countries, "theocracy/monarchies are more efficient", then we should consider that maybe, spreading democracy is not helping make the world a better place. when we spread democracy, we shouldn't just judge ourselves - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:26:45] - how about another example. what if everybody in the world (including your parents and siblings) believed in an intelligent creator? i often wonder what my opinions of god would be if my parents were more religious. ~a
[2011-03-24 10:24:39] - Aaron: "i think it should greatly affect how we judge our actions" Ok, perhaps you could explain that incredibly vague point, then. How greatly should it affect how we judge our actions? -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:24:38] - the only major difference i see between your arguments is paul wants the whole world disagreeing with him to give him more *time*, but aaron wants it to affect his decision. ~a
[2011-03-24 10:23:33] - paul: i didn't call you a sociopath; i said that if you seriously based your morals on internal values without any sort of "positive feedback loop" from society, that would make you a sociopath. at the time i was pointing out that you, like everybody else, partially judge your own actions on how much the world disagrees with you - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:23:13] - a: I might stop eating meat too (especially since it would probably be illegal if everybody else stopped eating it). -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:22:02] - So...who is going to see Sucker Punch this weekend? http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/movies_without_pity/sucker_punch_the_movie_scienti.php - Stephen
[2011-03-24 10:20:26] - Aaron: I think it's cool that calling somebody a sociopath is apparently a legitimate arugment, but also a bit tiring. I never said that was your aguement, I'm trying to refute you (and Daniel's) misinterpretation (one might say exaggeration) of my point. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:19:37] -
~a[2011-03-24 10:19:34] - that is i don't think you've said anything arguing that you disagree with that basic point, i think you've just said a lot of things arguing that you disagree with crazy perverted versions of that basic point, where we do whatever people want us to, which isn't what i'm saying at all - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:18:14] - yesterday at 10 am i spelled out pretty clearly, "i don't think we should base our actions solely on how much the world disagrees with us, but i think it should greatly affect how we judge our actions" and i don't think you've contributed anything to the debate since then - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:17:09] - Aaron: The rest of the world disagreeing would make me re-think or think longer about an issue, but ultimately I don't feel like it should play a role in what we personally consider right or wrong. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:17:03] - paul: stop exaggerating my opinion in order to find something to disagree with!! "if everybody disagrees with me, i must be wrong" is not the same as, "if the whole world thinks i am wrong, maybe i should reconsider" i think it's cool you're able to argue with irrational opinions that aren't harbored by anybody on this message board but it's kind of tiring - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:15:36] - Aaron: No, I still feel like we disagree. I think we need to decide what is right and what is wrong on our own and not by majority vote. If the majority if against us, then maybe we should think longer for ourselves to make sure we think we're right, but I still don't think we should change our mind just because the majority is against us. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:14:38] - paul: "Well, if everybody thinks eating meat is wrong, I guess I should too." i think if everybody in the world stopped eating meat, i would eventually agree that eating meat is infringing on the rights of the animals, or animal cruelty, or something. it's the reason i don't eat cat meat, or dog meat, or watch dog fighting. you disagree? ~a
[2011-03-24 10:13:49] - Aaron: I don't think of it as a contradiction. By reconsidering, I meant I would double check to make sure I felt like my position was "right". I didn't mean that I would be thinking, "Well, if everybody disagrees with me, I must be wrong." -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:09:53] - Daniel: What I don't think is right, is to just ask, "What does everybody else think?" and then take that position as my own. -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:09:22] - it seems like now you're saying, "we shouldn't judge our actions solely on how much the world disagrees with us... but if the whole world thinks we are wrong, maybe we should reconsider". that's basically what i saying this whole time; we should factor in world opinion when deciding what's moral/immoral - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:09:21] - Daniel: I think of it this way: If somebody asks me whether I think something is right or wrong (let's say eating meat), I would think about it myself and make the right/wrong determination based on what I think is right or wrong (and after listening to arguments for both sides). -Paul
[2011-03-24 10:08:14] - paul: well, you seem to be contradicting yourself at "if everybody else thinks i am wrong, i might reconsider..." that seems to contradict what you were saying earlier, which was, "we shouldn't judge our actions on how much the world disagrees with us" - aaron
[2011-03-24 10:03:28] - Daniel: I don't think listening to people is bad. Now, that's not precisely what you said, but I definitely don't take umbrage with the idea that listening to people is good. Listening to people is good. But if they're wrong, they're wrong. Even if they have the force of majority behind them. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-24 09:59:29] - Daniel: And I also disagree that Andrew and I are saying not to listen to people. I'll admit that I may have accidentally implied that earlier, but I also think I've clarified twice since then that listening is fine, but if my morals disagree with the majority's, I'm not going to change just because others feel differently from me. -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:57:07] - Daniel: I disagree. I think just because we live our lives without constantly worrying about everything that happens in the world doesn't mean we are "ok" with it. I think you can be against something without actively working against it. -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:56:35] - Paul: I think really in a cold view it comes down to at what point how many people are worth what effort. (Sorry to Godwins here) At some point you reach the holocaust which I think most would agree we should try to do something. Further down the specturm you have Libya with much less people who aren't as completely helpless so perhaps its not as clear cut. -Daniel
[2011-03-24 09:55:27] - Then I would like to think that I would stick to my guns and not just shrug and say, "Well, if everybody thinks eating meat is wrong, I guess I should too." -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:54:55] - Daniel: Now obviously I am largely a product of the culture I grew up in, and most of my sense of right and wrong comes from the time and place that I was born. I fully acknowledge that. I'm just saying that if sometime in the future 90% of the world thinks that eating meat is wrong, but I still feel like it's ok (even after listening to everybody else)... -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:54:32] - Paul: I don't think anyone is advocating not thinking for yourself. Thats where I think a disconnect is happening. Aaron is trying to say listening to people is good. You and Andrew seemed to take umbrage with that. -Daniel
[2011-03-24 09:53:17] - I understand no one wants to be told they are ok with mass slaughter but more or less we all are because terrible shit happens around the world and we all move on with our lives. That said I don't think that means when a city full of people is about to get rolled into with tanks we can't say hey we could blow those tanks up and try to help those people. -Daniel
[2011-03-24 09:52:13] - Daniel: Sure, listening is fine, and if they legitimately change your mind, that's great. I just prefer to think for myself and not look to the rest of society for a sense of right and wrong. -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:44:49] - Paul: I think even if you have an opinion on an issue you can listen and incorporate others thoughts. You don't have to change your mind or "bow to the majority's will" or anything but if you don't listen to other people at all it makes it hard ever change your mind and get new idea which could lead to updated thoughts. -Daniel
[2011-03-24 09:44:38] - Daniel: Using that logic, I would ask why you aren't clamoring for intervention in any number of the other countries where there are atrocities happening all the time. After all, if you're not supporting intervention in country X, doesn't that mean you are ok with what's going on there? -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:42:34] - Daniel: I'm perfectly fine if we disagree regarding whether or not bombing Libya is ultimately going to reduce suffering, but I do take exception to the accusation that I am "ok" with mass slaughter or however you want to phrase it. Equating opposition to our intervention in Libya to being indifferent to mass slaughter seems unfair. -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:39:03] - Daniel: If you don't have an opinion on an issue, it's certainly valid to seek other people's opinions. That's not the case for me here, though. I don't think we should be bombing people in Libya and I don't particularly care if a few foreign governments think otherwise. -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:37:54] - " right (correct) option is immutable" seems iffy to me because it seems to imply there is one correct answer that doesn't change. What if there are many correct answers to pick from? What if some 'correct' answers are 'better' than others? I'm not sure the world is as black and white as some of the arguments here seem to imply. -Daniel
[2011-03-24 09:33:52] - I really think that Xpovos and Paul are looking at some issue that is black and white and going morality is absolute! There are definitely cases where you can have a 'right' answer and ignore others. However I definitely think there are cases that aren't as clear in which case why not listen to others and get input then make up your mind. -Daniel
[2011-03-24 09:18:43] - Aaron: My point wasn't necessarily that we shouldn't listen to other people, my point is that if I think I am right, I'm not going to change my mind just because everybody else thinks I am wrong. I might reconsider, but I'm changing my mind only if I decide that they are right, not just because of peer pressure. -Paul
[2011-03-24 09:16:45] - aaron: Hah, everybody? I felt like most people were on your side.
-Paul[2011-03-23 19:56:55] - aaron: Well, democracy is sort of a compromise. I can still believe in black and white absolutes, but if my opinion on the right and wrong of reality are not in alignment with a sufficiently large percentage of the population, I won't get elected. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-23 19:33:04] - i'd definitely prefer that my leaders respect other people/other countries/other religions/other viewpoints when drawing up their political agenda, but i guess i'm kind of a pushover. maybe it's just a personality thing! - aaron
[2011-03-23 19:28:17] - ignore everybody else! - aaron
[2011-03-23 19:28:09] - wow!! i'm so surprised everyone feels this way. so you think leaders should just lead based on their personal interpretation of right and wrong? i mean, it certainly makes things a lot less confusing for those in power that's for sure
maybe you guys are right, things are a lot simpler that way. it's probably best just to do what you think is right and - aaron[2011-03-23 19:14:44] - For Daniel: in exchange for my not intervening militarily, I'll send as many personnel carriers as I need any rebels against Qaddafi, along with their families, that wish may board and have free pass to America with a clear path to citizenship. We may use military force in self defense to protect our vessels during the rescue operation. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-23 19:13:06] - I missed a lot of fun debate. Stupid meetings. Short summary of my views: I agree with Paul, there are right and wrong and it doesn't matter how anyone else feels or what they believe, even if the right is in the minority. I'll go further and state that that the right (correct) option is immutable. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-23 13:16:56] - Mig: You put decided in your sentence. Aaron said "listen". It seems yall keep trying to change his position to one where decisions are dictated by others instead of influenced by others. Theres a distinction there. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 13:12:06] - aaron: I can't agree with that. Our intervention/non-interventioned should be decided on by the constitutional duty that our government is supposed to operate on, not what the rest of the world thinks. - mig
[2011-03-23 12:37:47] - i just think we should be listening to what the other arab nations are saying, and what europe is saying, and think about how intervention/nonintervention will portray america to other countries. - aaron
[2011-03-23 12:36:05] - mig: who was that in response to? i hope i didn't say anything to that effect, i think there's a lot of logical reasons to be against intervening in libya. - aaron
[2011-03-23 12:25:12] - title: you asking for details? ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 12:00:53] - However I think dropping bombs saved a lot more innocent people than it killed. And the suffering it spawned was for people who were going to go about cleaning out the protesters alley by alley. I'm ok with that. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 11:59:43] - His reasons for opposing intervention sound in line with what Paul was saying earlier, "- is that each will spawn suffering for some people even if they alleviate it for others. Dropping lots of American bombs on a country tends to kill a lot of innocent people." -Daniel
[2011-03-23 11:59:15] - mig: I get what he is saying and I think I agree with it somewhat. We are all hypocritical to some extent because to fully concerned with all human suffering would be pretty overwhelming. However just because we are all somewhat hypocritical seems like an odd reason to not help someone. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 11:26:51] - http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/22/libya/ i do want to respond to calling people who are against intervening in Libya to be "indifferent" to human suffering, but I think this article does the job better than I can. - mig
[2011-03-23 10:53:29] - mig: I agree, and its something we can try to work to avoid. I'm just not sure saying well I'm afraid we might have mission creep so we should just let those people die. I understand there are concerns and issues with our actions, I'm not ignoring those. I just can't currently outweigh those people with them. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:51:08] - daniel: that may be the case for now. But american military interventionism has long had mission creep as a "feature" in all its involvements and that's something I'm a bit worried about. - mig
[2011-03-23 10:45:32] - everyone grows up in different situations and it's easy for an individual person (or an individual country) to have their moral compass be a little faulty. people typically tweak their moral compass in order to integrate with society, and i think countries should also be tweaking their moral compass to fit into the world stage - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:36:40] - daniel: yeah that's pretty much all i'm saying. well i think i would stretch to say, that you should always consider other people's opinions. even if they're insane opinions, you should consider why they have them, and why they're irrational, or why you might mistakenly perceive them as irrational - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:33:44] - paul: if you mean historical examples where yeah, people were committing atrocities, and you're asking whether you should behave that ay. that's not really what i'm saying, all i'm saying is you should value other people's opinions and judgments. not that you should behave exactly like other people all the time - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:32:09] - paul: yes, i think they should rethink their moral objections in both cases. and it's OK to analyze other people's opinions, and realize, "wait i'm on the moral high ground here" and behave accordingly, but yeah if other people are doing something, and they have a rational reason, you should hear them out -
[2011-03-23 10:31:08] - Paul: I'm currently convinced that more innocent people would have died if we had done nothing. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:30:12] - -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:30:09] - I don't think Paul and aaron are arguing the right points from what it sounds like to me. I don't think aaron is saying morality is determined by popular vote but I think there are cases where considering others opinions is appropriate. Certain cases are more black and white (slavery - HA) but certain cases are more grey (Libya) and others opinions can be relevant there
[2011-03-23 10:29:53] - sorry not might, but will get some weight and be considered. ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 10:29:04] - aaron/paul: I too am surprised you guys are disagreeing but I think its based on the examples you use... Personally other peoples opinion might get some weight in my thinking (based on how much I respect/trust them) but overall my sense of right/wrong is going to win the day. ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 10:28:09] - Anyway, I would love to continue this, but I have to run now. I'll be back later to continue to stand alone as the only rational person in a world full of irrationality.
-Paul[2011-03-23 10:27:33] - Daniel: I'm not saying one side looks more appealing than another, I'm saying that you are saying that in order to save some lives, we should kill other people. Maybe it will save lives in the end, or maybe it will save more innocent lives, I'm just not convinced it would. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:26:52] - aaron: eating meat is not fine its harmful, look at all those poor little animals that had to die so you could eat babies! ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 10:26:43] - Aaron: These aren't theoretical at all, they are historical examples. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:25:59] - Aaron: Now the majority thinks it's perfectly fine to eat meat. Maybe in 100 years they'll look back on us as barbarians for ever thinking it was right. Does that mean vegetarians now should rethink their moral objection to meat eating? -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:25:07] - aaron: Once upon a time, almost everybody thought blacks were inferior and that slavery was acceptable. Does that mean the person who thought that was wrong should rethink his stance? -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:24:46] - paul: no, i don't think that either. but i think it should affect my judgment. if a million people are telling me, eating meat is fine, it's not harmful. meat isn't people. i might continue to eat meat but i might stll deep down think, "well, it feels a little wrong." it's ok to have dissonance. it's weird to disregard other peoples' opinions and perceptions... - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:23:51] - Paul: The rebels aren't talking about cleansing anyone and started as protesters that didn't kill anyone till they started to get shot. These sides are not equal. Equating them seems outrageous to me. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:22:48] - paul: all of your arguments seem to based on, "in a theoretical society where everyone but me is acting irrationally and destructively, should i behave irrational" which is at its foundation faulty. if seat belts are made of fire, should i still wear them? zomg - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:22:30] - aaron: I'm surprised we disagree on this, but I guess we do. I'm not going to surrender my rights to determine my own sense of right and wrong to the majority. I don't believe that just because more people think something is right, that it makes it right. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:21:56] - paul: if your friend is partying with a group of people, and he decides it's ok to trash somebody's house who he doesn't like, should he decide it's "wrong" because everybody else around him is telling him it's wrong? - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:20:32] - aaron: I am not saying that at all. I'm saying that my own morals and opinion should be of primary importance to me. If I go out partying with a group of people and they decide it's ok to trash somebody's house who they don't like, do I decide it's "right" because everybody around me thinks it's right? I would hope not. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:20:25] - i don't think we should base our actions solely on how much the world disagrees with us, but i think it should greatly affect how we judge our actions - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:19:40] - i think america should judge our actions based on how much the world disagrees with us. america is stupid, we only have like 300 million brains. if 5 billion other brains think we're wrong, we might be wrong. i think we should let it affect how we judge ourselves. - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:18:51] - Daniel: The rebels aren't just a bunch of Gandhis standing around handing out flowers. They are killing people too. On the flip side, I find it hard to believe that everybody who supports the current government is a mass murderer who can't wait to kill women and children. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:18:25] - paul: i don't think your determination of what is right and wrong should be based *solely* on what the majority around you thinks. is that what you're trying to say? because saying "it should be based on," "it shouldn't be influenced by," that means something else - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:17:49] - Paul: Perhaps the base assumption we differ on is that both sides here are "equal". One side is a working class of a country that wanted a better gov, got shot, and is now trying to get obilterated. The other side is a repressive crazy gov that trucked in mercs to obliterate the protesters faster. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:17:44] - aaron: other countries' opinion is I think a factor that should be taken under consideration, but not as an end all be all for rationale. Iraq wouldn't have suddenly become morally "OK" (or worked out any better) if the UN agreed to the invasion. - mig
[2011-03-23 10:16:54] - paul: is that what you think? do you think you live in a world where you're rational and everybody else is irrational? or where you're moral, and where everybody else is immoral? i don't think we live in a world like that. - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:16:52] - except I am phrasing it poorly... ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 10:16:28] - I think what paul is getting at is what makes something bad? If we kill a bunch of people (group a) saying we are protecting group b should someone step in and kill us to save group a? ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 10:16:13] - Aaron: I'm not saying I am unaffected by what other people think, because clearly I am. I'm sure the vast majority of my views and opinions come from the culture I was raised in. I'm just saying I don't think my determination on what is right and wrong should be based off of what the majority around me thinks. It should be based on my own morals. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:15:35] - paul: Do we kill some people that are willing to slaughter other people to save a boat load of people that just wanted a better government and got shot for it? -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:14:42] - Aaron: A personal level is great. Do I think I should change my mind on what is right and wrong based on what others think? No. Since when has peer pressure been accepted as good? If I think it's wrong to kill people and everybody else thinks it's right, I don't think I should change my mind just because everybody disagrees with me. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:14:22] - paul: cause from my understanding its a biased towards your viewpoint source of data... Not saying other people arent looking at biased data sources also...~gurkie
[2011-03-23 10:14:07] - normal people base their judgments on what's right and wrong on the opinions of other people, and that goes for groups of people, and governments as well, it's why so many countries repeal stuff like slavery simultaneously - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:13:09] - Daniel: I don't think this is as black and white as you think. It's not like the question is: Do we spend $X to save X lives. It's do we kill some people to stop them from killing other people. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:13:04] - paul: huh! okay. how about on a personal level; do you think your personal perception of right and wrong should be affected by other peoples' perceptions of right and wrong? i might be misunderstanding you, but if you're saying what i think you're saying, you might be a sociopath - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:12:23] - Daniel: It's interesting that the solution to saving people from dying is to drop bombs on the other side. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:11:01] - I understand we don't help everywhere in the world but I'm not sure that, "Sorry we can't help you because that wouldn't be fair to the people we didn't help" is a good response. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:10:33] - For those opposed to the intervention you would support the US not doing anything and saying good luck to those people as they died? I understand that war isn't pretty but its not really a war when the working class of a country tries to protest then gets shot by the government then picks up a gun they sort of know how to use to try and defend themselves. -Daniel
[2011-03-23 10:09:04] - aaron: I don't think we should judge whether we think it's right or wrong based on if the rest of the world disagrees with us, no. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:08:11] - paul: because i think we should judge our actions based on how much the world disagrees with us - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:07:15] - paul: you don't think we should judge our actions based on how much the world disagrees with us? - aaron
[2011-03-23 10:04:05] - Gurkie: Why aren't you surprised? -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:03:21] - Aaron: But I don't think we should judge our actions based on how much the world disagrees with us. Besides, I'll bet members of the Bush administration could trot out people who supported us overthrowing Saddam in Iraq. -Paul
[2011-03-23 10:01:24] - Paul: I am not at all surprised you agree whole heartedly with something from Reason.com... ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 10:00:52] - I'm not sure how I feel on everything... I mean US involvement in WW2 earlier could have been really good... However at times we jump into conflicts where we shouldn't.... I guess I don't have enough background to have a real opionion ~gurkie
[2011-03-23 09:57:42] - Aaron: I think that's the point he was trying to make, but the way he phrased it made the comparisons of Obama to GWB seem stronger. I understand we are being asked to do this as opposed to leading the charge, and Obama is a lot more popular with the rest of the world (and a Nobel Peace Prize winner), so there won't be as much antagonism created here... -Paul
[2011-03-23 09:57:25] - paul: i don't think the accusations are that republicans aren't "war hungry enough", i think it's just that if obama submitted like, the "every republican gets a hand job bill" they would still take a week to process it just for the sake of dragging their feet and trying to make the perceived "democractic-run government" accomplish less - aaron
[2011-03-23 09:56:13] - i agree with all the points there about obama going back on his statements from 2007, about the war powers act or whatever, and about the questionability of our moral reasons. i thought we were in libya because they were literally murdering thousands of protesters over the span of a few weeks? are there other countries like that where we're not intervening? - aaron
[2011-03-23 09:53:22] - Aaron: Fair enough, but doesn't it seem ironic that the Republicans are being accused of not being war-hungry enough?
That seems like a pretty damning indication that Obama might be on the wrong side here. -Paul[2011-03-23 09:52:23] - did you really read his last sentance as "obama isn't gwb?" i thought he was just trying to say, "based on these paragraphs above, the libyan conflict is way different than the iraq conflict so obama is approaching this in a more rational way than bush was" - aaron
[2011-03-23 09:52:08] - most of our other interventions like this have ended badly, and even if we did go, Congress should've been involved. -Paul
[2011-03-23 09:51:38] - http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/23/obamas-war-of-choice I think this article closely matches my own feelings on our intervention in Libya: We shouldn't be there in the best of times, it's not the best of times (weak economy, already fighting two other wars), we routinely ignore or ally ourselves with regimes just as bad...
[2011-03-23 09:49:53] - it's what i would do if i were a republican (and well, if i didn't care about the lives or well-being of libyans) - aaron
[2011-03-23 09:49:23] - i don't think there's a huge risk that the republicans would actually vote down any attempt to go into libya; i just think it's probably in their political best interest to like, drag their feet until the Libyan situation is irrecoverable, then give it their "yes vote" and point and say, look at what a terrible job the democrats did in Libya - aaron
[2011-03-23 09:47:39] - paul: yeah i agree that rhetoric like "can you blame him" places this piece definitely in the "opinion" category. i don't think his point was that republicans in congress suck, just that their recent congressional strategy has been to deliberately slow things down, which doesn't work very well in time-sensitive military situations - aaron
[2011-03-23 09:33:13] - aaron: I mean, two of his points were basically that the Republicans in congress suck and Obama isn't GWB, which are good reasons why this action is ok to undertake without congressional approval.
-Paul[2011-03-23 09:29:35] - aaron: That article actually sounds a bit more like opinion than fact to me. I'm not saying he mis-stated anything, just that it sounds more like he is giving his opinion and backing them with facts rather than just trying to present them unbiasedly. -Paul
[2011-03-23 09:27:39] - I think the latest financial crisis in Europe demonstrates pretty clearly that countries will be extremely loathe to give up financial sovereignty. How else can they run perpetual deficits? So, no world currency any time in the foreseeable future, IMO. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-23 09:25:42] - a: I'm not sure that's what Aaron is talking about. I figured he was referring to one world central bank rather than any kind of decentralized banking. -Paul
[2011-03-23 09:24:21] - aaron: I think we're probably looking further (farther?) down the road than 20-30 years for a single world government, although I could see the single world currency as being possible if/when the current post Bretton Woods system fails. -Paul
[2011-03-23 05:03:31] - wow, decentralized banking? never would have thought of it. bitcoin
~a[2011-03-22 18:46:59] - http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/g8uip/seriously_reddit_either_i_need_some_some_clarity/ oh! cool! here's a nice succinct wrap-up of what's going on in libya. assuming he didn't radically missummarize something or another this is really helpful for me - aaron
[2011-03-22 17:59:36] - i almost feel like there's some sort of inevitable information-based world governmental style that we're headed towards, you know, where like in 20 or 30 years we'll laugh remembering that major world powers used to have their own distinct monetary systems, or their own distinct courts and prison systems - aaron
[2011-03-22 17:57:40] - xpovos: i thought it was largely the "domino effect" too, and it also seems like cell phones/internet access are giving poor people access to information they didn't have before - aaron
[2011-03-22 17:54:10] - aaron: I think there's been an uptick as well, although I also can't say with any certainty. -Paul
[2011-03-22 17:47:38] - In general, it takes a lot to spark a revolution, but lots of people suddenly being unable to eat will definitely spark something. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-22 17:47:08] - aaron: While it's impossible for me to state as a fact, it definitely seems like an uptick in the rebel activity. A lot of this is domino effect, but they've also been spurred to more noticeable action as a result of cost of living problems. Food and energy spikes affect the poorest people first and the hardest. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-22 17:32:53] - for political reasons... what do you guys think? - aaron
[2011-03-22 17:32:45] - paul: yep yep. i guess like daniel said, we'll see if we're still there in a week (although i'd draw the line at more like a month, but my sentiment is the same.) living in america it's hard for me to tell whether or not there's an increase in the amount of rebel activity in the middle east over the past year, or whether it's just suddenly becoming newsworthy - aaron
[2011-03-22 17:19:37] - aaron: They have destroyed tanks from Libya's army, which helps the rebels even if the intention is only to prevent civilian casualties. -Paul
[2011-03-22 17:18:29] - aaron: That's what I've heard too, but in my opinion, it's hard to differentiate between a "stop him from killing civilians" and "stop him from fighting the rebels" and "help the rebels". -Paul
[2011-03-22 17:13:27] - yeah i heard what daniel heard, that like - they were just intervening to establish a no-fly zone because somehow that would reduce civilian casualties. i could be misinformed though, i only heard like - 40 minutes of blurbs on NPR so i'm not particularly well-informed - aaron
[2011-03-22 17:12:07] - xpovos: wait i didn't think they were attempting like, a military overthrow of qadaffi... i thought they were just trying to employing military for other reasons (establishing a no fly zone, if i heard right) and that the US gov't realized (like you) that there were better ways of "dealing with" qadaffi - aaron
[2011-03-22 16:50:34] - It's complicated, though. I'm not so opposed to it, especially given that I don't have the full facts that our leaders (hopefully) do. So while I'm opposed, it's a civil opposition. I'm unlikely to even bother attending a protest march, should one ever occur. I just think it's a bad idea. But I thought health care reform bill was a bad idea too. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-22 16:49:07] - Daniel: I'm not "OK" with mass slaughter. I just don't see our actions to wage war for the rebels decreasing the death toll any. It might be slightly less atrocious that way, but the end result is still something remarkably unpallatable. And the cost is not insignificant. Lives, money, sure. But also moral and other standing with the rest of the world. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-22 16:45:16] - Daniel: It's a war, people die in a war. I think the excuse that one side is going to get it's ass kicked is a bad reason to rush into war without thinking about why or what our goals are. -Paul
[2011-03-22 16:42:45] - Daniel: Sounds admirable enough, but it puts us in an awkward situation where we are encouraging perpetual war. We destroy pushes by Gaddafi's forces so he can't gain ground, but refuse to support the rebels, so they can't gain ground either. -Paul
[2011-03-22 16:38:07] - Paul: I get that wanting to define our long term goal is important and that really "long term" should be like Friday but I think we debate and decide on that and then its to late cause they are all dead. -Daniel
[2011-03-22 16:35:50] - Paul: I think the immediate goal was to prevent the massacre of an entire city plus of population. -Daniel
[2011-03-22 16:35:02] - Xpovos: So you're cool letting him truck in the mercs and 'cleansing' Bengazi one house at a time (phrase I heard used on NPR at some point)? I think I'm ok stepping in to prevent that, however I don't think we should just become the air force for the rebels. -Daniel
[2011-03-22 16:33:23] - Aaron: I've been somewhat following the situation in Libya. I'm against our intervention for a few reasons, but I feel like the biggest unanswered question is, "What is our end goal?". -Paul
[2011-03-22 16:30:28] - I'm opposed to the intervention. I'm not in favor of Qadaffi at all, and his actions are pretty reprehensible, but we are pretty well convinced that his opposition here isn't substantially better than he is. I'd be much more in favor of some covert work, even an assassination attempt. But that's something we're not very good at, even when we want to attempt it. -- Xpovo
[2011-03-22 16:29:42] - Daniel: The (most?) important thing missing in Franken's definition of NN is how he wants it enforced. If that was a declaration that google and comcast and a bunch of internet giants decided to give, I would be fine with it. -Paul
[2011-03-22 16:28:54] - ISP's aren't* discriminating
[2011-03-22 16:28:40] - mig: I think as long as ISP's are discriminating against one site vs another I'm ok with different tiers of service. I mean fios costs different than dsl for different speeds. Its just that this message board should load just as fast as amazon whatever speed that is that I pay for. -Daniel
[2011-03-22 16:22:08] - daniel: Franklin's definition doesn't really make that clear, which is why I ask. - mig
[2011-03-22 16:20:51] - mig: That still doesn't make one website load differently than another does it? You are just paying for one set of wires or another then? Also I have no idea how you tell if they are doing it or not. But at least they aren't coming out in the open and saying they are and if you do figure it out they can get in trouble. /shrug -Daniel
[2011-03-22 16:03:35] - ok well that's one question answered. Another one I have though (with this definition of NN), what about tiered service plans (pay more to ISP, get more speed)? are those considered a violation of NN by that definition? - mig
[2011-03-22 16:03:29] - daniel: yeah i'm typically willing to give the US government benefit of the doubt on stuff like this, plus it might just be my perceptions but it seems like the US intervention in Libya is more popular on the world stage, than our involvement in Iraq/Israel/etc - aaron
[2011-03-22 15:58:46] - mig: monitor the TCP congestion avoidance algorithm to determine how the congestion is getting handled? ~a
[2011-03-22 15:54:25] - daniel: how do you know for sure if it's the pipe owner deciding your stuff is not important or if it's a problem of just server load? Sometimes the source of connection slowdowns are obvious, sometimes they're not. - mig
[2011-03-22 15:50:12] - a: sure that seems reasonable. then its not the pipe owner deciding this info is more important than that info. Its just under heavy load and all info hits the same traffic jam. -Daniel
[2011-03-22 15:46:43] - aaron: I've been reading some online about it and NPR. I think I approve so far. Its a tricky situation in that I think most people don't think we should just become the airforce for the rebels but its difficult to know where the line between prevent slaughter and aid in overthrowing existing gov are. I think it will depend on if in a week if we are still there. -Daniel
[2011-03-22 15:44:38] - daniel: his definition sounds non-technical for a non-technical audience. i might agree with that definition i think. it moves at *about* the same speed . . . since speed is clearly dependent on temporary changes in load. ~a
[2011-03-22 15:12:27] - has anybody been following libya? listening to NPR, most people they're interviewing are in favor of US intervention, although think that obama should have waited for congressional approval - aaron
[2011-03-22 15:09:53] - xpovos: not at all, unless you want to do ladder matches this week, in which case I'm not sure how it would work. - mig
[2011-03-22 15:03:53] - SC2: So how does this affect people like me who aren't on any ladder yet? I've only played MP in pick-up games with you guys and like three games in the practice league. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-22 15:02:36] - Al Frankens definition of net neutrality: "Net neutrality means that content--a web page, an email, a download--moves over the Internet freely, and it moves at the same speed no matter what it is or who owns it in a content-neutral manner." I don't remember exactly where we eneded up on our definition of it. -Daniel
[2011-03-22 14:56:40] - mig: Yeah, I've heard that I should really try to figure out how to use them. Never been great with the spell casters. -Paul
[2011-03-22 14:50:02] - paul: have fun with infestors now, btw. - mig
[2011-03-22 14:48:56] - so next week you'll play your one placement game, get placed, and then be able to move up and down as normal. - mig
[2011-03-22 14:47:43] - paul: correct. - mig
[2011-03-22 14:46:33] - mig: But they're only locked in for that week, right? Once the new season starts people can move from league to league as performance dictates? -Paul
[2011-03-22 14:45:21] - speak of the devil! 1.3 is now live. - mig
[2011-03-22 14:37:47] - xpovos: essentially, recognition for being top x in a particular ladder/division once the first sc2 season ends. - mig
[2011-03-22 14:11:45] - Milestones? -- Xpovos
[2011-03-22 14:02:23] - Yeah and I suppose that's the carrot on the stick to keep people playing the week before the season ends. And locking people in their respective leagues makes some sense otherwise the milestones are kind of meanginless. - mig
[2011-03-22 14:01:06] - paul: from what I understand a milestone seems to be just a special category of an achievement. So yeah it'll carry over, so you'll have some sort of recognition on your profile for being in the top 8 or whatever of the current division you're in. - mig
[2011-03-22 13:59:03] - xpovos: I dont know, but it seems like a company like amazon with a big old legal team would know if appstore was trademarked before releasing an appstore... ~gurkie
[2011-03-22 13:53:04] - mig: I'm confused, we get to carry over milestones to the next "season"? Is that why people are going to want to play for that weekn after patch 1.3 comes out? -Paul
[2011-03-22 13:50:25] - gurkie: Does Apple have a TM on that? They probably do, in which case, Amazon is probably toast. But if not--man what fun. IP lawsuits for everyone! -- Xpovos
[2011-03-22 13:44:27] - xpovos: indeed! i like free... and I hear that apple is suing amazon over the use of the term "appstore" ~gurkie
[2011-03-22 13:03:20] - daniel: sort of. Supposadly you only need to do only 1 placement game after the reset, so your initial placement may take into account how well you played the previous season. - mig
[2011-03-22 13:00:54] - mig: I have to earn my diamond all over again?! -Daniel
[2011-03-22 13:00:07] - gurkie: And free Angry Birds to U.S. customers right now.
-- Xpovos[2011-03-22 12:55:03] - sc2_people: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2494686#blog all the sc2 ladders will be reset approximately 1 week after the 1.3 patch hits. In addition, when 1.3 is released you will be locked into whatever division you are currently in (meaning no more promotion/demotions until the reset). - mig
[2011-03-22 12:43:26] - driod_people: amazon is launching an appstore for android apps... and giving away a free app daily... ~gurkie
[2011-03-22 10:53:32] - Stephen: Hmmmm, sounds like it's a game I should skip then. It's sad, I seem to really enjoy Bioware's sci-fi games (Mass Effect, Kotor), but have trouble getting into their fantasy games (Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age). -Paul
[2011-03-22 10:43:53] - Paul: My biggest complaints have to do with the reduced emotional attachment to the characters/plot compared to DA: Origins. - Stephen
[2011-03-22 10:43:21] - Paul: Combat seems largely unchanged to me on "standard" difficulty, but I know Miguel has a lot of valid gripes about the harder difficulties. - Stephen
[2011-03-22 10:37:19] - Paul: ah I figured it might be a lightning deal... ~gurkie
[2011-03-22 10:34:58] - Gurkie: I believe it is on sale all day today (or at least until they sell out). -Paul
[2011-03-22 10:30:22] - paul: how long is it on sale for? daily? ~gurkie
[2011-03-22 10:26:20] - or just download the PC version one and try it. - mig
[2011-03-22 10:26:04] - paul: i dunno, supposadly the control scheme for console versions was made more "console friendly". There was a demo available for the PC, there might be one available for the xbox, so in that case download it and see if you like it. - mig
[2011-03-22 10:17:16] - Dragon Age 2 is on sale for $40 on Amazon today. For the Dragon Agers here, should I buy it if I only got halfway through the first game before getting too frustrated with overly tedious (on easy difficulty) or overly hard (on hard difficulty) combat? I played it on the PC and would likely buy the sequel on Xbox360 if I bought it. -Paul
[2011-03-22 10:08:12] - Stephen: I think his resemblance was just the eyebrows! Ugh
~gurkie[2011-03-22 08:52:32] - Xpovos: Thanks! Tom was incredibly fast on the buzzer. I guess that's why he won over $130k on the show, and I won $2k. - Stephen
[2011-03-22 08:52:14] - Haha, I'm just glad I didn't roll my eyes when Tom mentioned looking like Sylar. I saw the resemblance, but only if you tapped Sylar very lightly with an ugly stick. Admittedly, after five days on the show, you start running out of funny stories. - Stephen
[2011-03-22 08:46:11] - stephen: Clearly Sylar cheated and used his powers to his own advantage. Its tough to beat Sylar, Peter and Hiro never quite managed, what chance did you have... Came close though. -Daniel
[2011-03-21 22:25:09] - Stephen: Nicely played. Tom seemed to be quicker on the buzzer, but you acquitted yourself very well. -- Xpovos
[2011-03-21 14:59:11] - stephen: yea since I didnt go to public school they had to prove residency, I think there was a bit of a scramble as to what they had to do in order to do so... They kept it so Amrit could go to public hs too... ~gurkie
prev <-> next