>> ^bluecliff:
wow. calling burqas fascist really tells you went to the best schools. Just a scare word for idiots to flock about.
wikipedia:
The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. – George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.
And Orwell knew this in 1944!


True, the word "fascist" gets used far too often, but when it comes to describing Islam, it's pretty accurate.

FYI, fascism is defined as: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, [...] and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

It's not exact, but it describes Islam pretty well... then again, it describes Christianity too...

wow. calling burqas fascist really tells you went to the best schools. Just a scare word for idiots to flock about.

wikipedia:

The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. – George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.

And Orwell knew this in 1944!

rychan wrote:
It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself.

What you are describing is more the difference between "cowardly" and "brave" rather than "right" and "wrong." It is certainly more cowardly to attack a defenseless person, but its also kind of "intelligent" or "strategic" isn't it?

If you consider the meaning of the words more closely, defenseless doesn't just mean "having no defense" it means "not having enough defense (for the attack at hand)." Thus, anyone who cannot successfully repel an attack is defenseless, and this it true of any fight all the way up to a high level such as MMA. Nobody has ever won a fight against someone who wasn't defenseless.

What you really mean to say is that her defense is pale in comparison to his attack, thus making him a coward for choosing such an lopsided opponent.

In terms of right and wrong, when you COBRA-KAI LEG SWEEP someone, their response determines their morality, not yours. It doesn't in any way excuse your behavior if they retaliate; nor does it condemn your behavior if they are unable or unwilling to retaliate. As such, the victim's response cannot affect the level of "wrongness" or "immorality" of your action. It makes you appear like more of a dick, sure, but thats a different word.

There aren't many English names that end up alright when translated into Chinese. One exception is "Kevin." In Chinese, it's "kai wen" which means "triumphant and civil."

You can make other names sound good in translation, but then you need to get VERY creative with your pronunciation and choice of characters.

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

-George Orwell

Hey, I just noticed your entry here, and thought I might shed some light. I've been living in Taipei for almost eight months now, and while I'm neither an expert on Taiwan nor politics generally, I do know that many Taiwanese (particularly those in the current ruling KMT party) do NOT want to be alienated from China. This party is in fact the one founded by Sun Yat-Sen and later led by the separatist Chiang-Kai Shek (the general who lost to Mao in the People's Revolution and took those loyal to him to settle in Taiwan), and they have some cred as far as Taiwan's interests go. Now this is not to say that members of this party have not come a long way since the "pure" old days (everything in Taiwan that's old is "pure"); indeed most are embroiled in corruption charges that would make their dirty Chinese counterparts cringe. Their argument is that the benefit to Taiwan of reunification would outweigh the costs of remaining socio-politically and economically free. To virtually all outsiders this is a fucking bullshit sham, but demagoguery is powerful, especially in collectivist societies. The former president from the other major party (the DPP) has recently been thrown in jail on corruption charges and has been defamed. His trial transcript reads like a Monty Python sketch, seriously. Also, to give you an idea of the tone here, we recently got two pandas as gifts from the Chinese government to the Taipei City Zoo. Their names are Yuan-Yuan and Tuan-Tuan. Apart the names don't really mean anything, but together, "yuan tuan" means reunification.

Dunno why everyone seems to call me "luh-kee seven sixty." I've always pronounced it "loo-kai" or sometimes "loose-K-Y" if I'm feeling frisky.

For others, I always say "ih-see kitty," "matt see," "gee whiz," and "dee eff tee," to name a few.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

---
They're dead, so their eternal suffering, joy or nothingness affects only them. As far as our need to see rewards and punishments: I do not believe eternal suffering, nor eternal reward to be an aspect of justice, for it serves only the purpose of satisfying a lust, not a function. If their postmortem reward or punishment (not the idea of it, but the truthful existence of it) affected us in a positive, progressive way, only then would it be a worthwhile system of dealing with what we consider injustice. However, because it is uncertain that there is a force which doles out afterlife justice, we have no business worrying about it. We can appreciate what dead people did while they were alive, or be glad they're dead because they were a hinderance to the progress of life.

I don't disagree (ha!) with the idea of religion; I believe it serves a function, especially at our point in evolution, where we are only beginning to come to terms with these absract concepts. But religion all too often is a closed system, causing divides that need not exist. Yes, religion has done good -- let's keep that aspect; but it needs to be fluid. All philospohy of worth should be as an ocean, whether it be concerned with possible existence/nonexistence of gods or scientific understanding of our universe.
---

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

---
I'm assuming that the interpretation of the majority of mainstream religions are to live in a Heaven forever, because that is how I have encountered them with almost everyone I've ever known or known about. I'm not opposed to the idea of an afterlife, I simply find it a moot point. As the living, we should be concerned with life, not death.
---

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

---
Your points are not silly at all, merely common interpretations -- and I don't mean that pejoratively. I do not believe in evil in such a rigid, unrealistic way. Evil could be considered any action which seeks or causes an end to life. But evil is not necessarily bad. Cancer kills, human dies, human returns to earth, new life begins. From "evil" comes "good". A supernova could be considered evil, but it also gives birth to new life, which is good. I believe our existence within a realm of constant destruction dictates to us the sanctity of life, and thus morality. Life is the underdog in this universe, which will become apparent (to whatever exists in this solar system) when our sun decides to stop behaving as it is now. It's not always a struggle for power, but a struggle for life itself. Yes, in a relative universe you may decide to kill your fellow man, but on a macro level you become in conflict with life, in favor of destruction. Just as truth is valued over the lie, life is favored over death for very practical, and often poetic reasons that need not stem from God.

Concepts such as "morality" exist on the human level to illustrate and teach. Ideas and concepts are not so rigid as to dictate what is always right and wrong, nor should they ever be used to represent an absolute; espcially one as silly as "evil".
---

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

---
God as perfection is an assumption lacking observation. The nature of God (assuming it exists) cannot possibly be determined; though I'm not in opposition to the idea of that possible explanaion, let's not kid ourselves that the idea is anything but assumed. (Assumption not necessarily being a bad thing, but also not something to base your existence on.)
---

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

---
Lies are available for all to use. I wouldn't dream say otherwise.
---

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

---
On the contrary, faith is perfectly logical. I have faith in my senses enough to walk outside on a cool, winter day and not expect to walk into lava. Unless I smell sulfur... then I'd become suspicous, maybe I'd notice the increase in heat, and my faith will change. No longer can I have complete faith that outside is a good place to go. Just as my faith in Santa Claus went to zero, and my faith in God went to near zero, based upon observation and learning.

As humanbeings, we do not have the capacity to say anything with 100% certainty, so we must be careful to organize our minds into tiers of belief/faith. (Forgive my semantics; tier is perhaps not the best word, but I'm tired right now) Your immediate senses being on the top tier, followed by recognized patterns from experience, down to intellectual knowledge from schooling, on down to some philosophical interpretations, religion, God or gods, etc. (The existence of smurfs being, obviously far down at the bottom -- much farther than God even.)

Humans are unique in that we are deeply affected by ideas; but ideas have no corporeal nature that we are aware of (yet), so we cannot let any one idea rule our lives, but rather let us rule them. We are the makers of dreams, and need not suffer otherwise -- unless Kai'ckul visits my dreams and says otherwise.

Wow, this must be old. Kai Tak Airport closed in 98.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crosswind, steep turn, landing, hong kong' to 'crosswind, steep turn, landing, hong kong, kai tak airport' - edited by yoghurt

I'm a pilot and I'm novoting this -- the tone is too smarmy for me. These are people falling to earth and getting maimed or killed (usually not even doing particularly Darwinesque things).

I won't give my opinion on all of the clips (unless you're really interested) but I will say that the second one appears to be a not-uncommon approach and landing on the incredibly challenging Runway 13 at the now-defunct Kai Tak airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Tak#Runway_13_approach

The last one, though, unlike the others, *is* a total Darwin award; the asshole Air Force pilot had a reputation for being a cowboy and had long sworn that he would manage to roll a B-52 heavy bomber before he retired. Unfortunately he took his crew with him when he augered in.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982358-1,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

Remember when that no-name kid from the Miagi school of karate kicked that dude from Cobra-Kai in the face?

Industry-Friendly != Fascism.

The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. — George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944

1998 - good catch Ant, thanks.

Cost to live there? Very expensive. Almost on par with living 30 minutes from downtown New York. Kai Tak airport is 30 minutes from downtown. Now HK's new airport is about an hour away - they created an island for it.

AH HA HA!!! Yippy kai yea Mr. Falcon!!!!