I don not even see the appeal of no kill / violent interaction run throughs, it just seems tedious and boring. I like the dynamics of stealth... and getting caught and having to outsmart or out violent your foes. You see people wanting to stealth/no kill with any game that has some sort of stealth element. New Vegas was not made for pure stealth although its open world, I mean scorpions seem to know you are around much before you can even see them on screen... and most recently in the newest Deus Ex; it was clearly made for some level of violent interaction as displayd with the boss levels, plus it was pretty linear so I do not know what the appeal is.

I mean I hope someone takes on the Thief series again in a game engine like Oblivion because I think a real stealth game would require a larger world, large open spaces and a lot of fucking patience. The last attempt was good except for the supposed open world part.

If you want to play a real Stealth game play Operation fucking Flashpoint. I dont even like war but that game was amazing but even then you probably cant stealth nonviolently to the end.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.

It seems I got the left/right hand part mixed up, but the point stands...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/13/what-does-t
urn-the-other-cheek-really-mean/
http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek


Hey, thanks for the links... every single one of which refutes your original point that:

"it was an act of defiance, not pacifism..."

I think you're a bit confused about what "pacifism" means. Pacifism is not against defiance; pacifism is against the use of violence to achieve political or personal aims. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was both defiant and pacifist in nature--she used non-violent means to protest the unjust laws of that time. Turning the other cheek--in the historical sense you described--therefore is indeed both an act of defiance and pacifist in nature.

So @ChaosEngine 's original point stands--people who are Christian and support the death penalty would seem to indeed be ignoring Christ's teachings (in addition to the mounds of evidence that show the death penalty is neither cost effective nor a strong deterrent to crime).

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.

It seems I got the left/right hand part mixed up, but the point stands...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/13/what-does-t
urn-the-other-cheek-really-mean/
http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek


I went to none of those links...it's too bad you have NO evidence to support what you claimed.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.


It seems I got the left/right hand part mixed up, but the point stands...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/13/what-does-turn-the-other-cheek-really-mean/
http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

>> ^longde:

I have a right to not be exposed to some disease-ridden fool.


Now we're getting to the source of the fear. I've often wondered what makes others want to control the behavior of the masses. It's this. It's that people are afraid of the uncontrollability of freedom. It's uncertainty. What the fringe may do with it.

So let me ask you this, @longde, do you agree that those who consume raw milk or choose not to vaccinate should be raided by men with guns drawn and thrown into cages for it? Is violent reaction to fear better than reasonable, nonviolent persuasion?

Wikipedia re bonobos cf. w/chimps: "The Bonobo, on the other hand, has a mostly frugivorous diet and an egalitarian, nonviolent, matriarchal, sexually receptive behaviour. Bonobos are well known to have frequent sex, with bisexuality the norm for both males and females, and also to use sex to help prevent and resolve conflicts."

I think I am done with this human business; where do I sign up to become a bonobo?

>> ^hpqp:

Every action has some form of motivation, even a psycho's mass murdering spree; it's all good and fine to look for it, but in the meanwhile it's the protective action that counts, something the police force in GB took ages to do. As for the "bonehead militias", most of them were simply groups of neighbours and friends trying their best to protect their livelihoods. Most of them were immigrants who had worked hard to build a life for themselves abroad, only to find everything ruined because of unruly misguided youths high on violence.
As for blaming the violence on the bad decisions concerning social services, I beg to differ. Look at the protests/riots in Greece, Spain, etc. All of them had major peacefull counterparts, with actual demands being made. It's not like the so-called "disenfranchised youths" (and they were not all poor, nor young btw) of London and elsewhere did not have recent examples of protests that did not involve using social networking to best loot the fashion shop, and burning people's homes (Arab Spring anyone?).
I agree about the ridiculous consummer identity we have going on in society... "you are what you buy" really sickens me to the bone. As does the corporate criminels going on with their billionaire, society-crushing lifestyles. But is it possible to send a more counterproductive message than the one we've seen in England?
p.s.: what's and ASPO?
Judging by the public statements of officials, the "protective action" is bound to overshoot. Like I said, pillories, assembly-line-justice, the calls for harsher sentences, the calls to have the rioters' housing/benefits stripped, the thought of using the military -- civil liberties are put on notice, and that's putting it mildly. Let the rozzers do their job within the regular frame of the law, play it by the book, don't give them any reason whatsoever for another backlash. Take the kettle off the stove. Forcing a lid on the spout will only make matters worse sooner than later.


As for the Greece/Spain comparison, I would like to submit this: UNICEF 2007: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Prior to the economic meltdown, Greece and Spain were paradise for kids, compared to the UK. I wouldn't dare to make comparisons nowadays, not with 40%+ youth unemployment in Spain and Greece. But it's clear that the UK has been growing worse over years and years. The lid was bound to blow someday. I figured it would be mass protests, nonviolent ones I might add. I certainly didn't see it taking the shape it has, but in retrospect, signs were abundant -- and ignored. The alarming streak of suicides among kids in recent years alone should have been more than enough.

These are long-term developments, long-term failures, not just the recent cuts. But they sure as hell didn't help, and neither does the prospect of even more cuts down the road. Small example: youth centers are closed down, so now you have kids bored out of their minds who are not allowed to loiter (see: ASBO).

That's what I meant when I said disenfranchised. The state has been on the retreat since Thatcher, the educational system is focused on testing, intolerance for kids in public places has been on the rise for decades and the social gap is wider than anywhere else in Europe. So the ones who drew the short straw are fucked. And so are their children. And theirs, until the cycle is broken. Look at the UN report, page 22: "Relationships" and page 26: "Behaviour and Risks". That doesn't appear overnight, it's at least two generations of failure. No stable relationships, no communities, no values, no respect, no prospect.

As for ASPOs: that's a typo. Or more precisely, a brain failure, because typing a P instead of a B is not an error I can blame on my fingers.

ASBO or anti-social behaviour order is the tool of choice to stop kids from loitering. Anywhere. The street, the park, the yard, the staircase, you name it. It is the formalized dislike for children in the public space. There are, of course, reasonable uses for it, but in certain areas it is used to harass kids. At least it was, no idea if it still is.

Quasi ein Platzverweis, der keines Anlasses benötigt.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not answer some tough questions?

@blankfist, since you seem to be too chicken to take up DFT's challenge, how about I try to play devil's advocate and try to argue the libertarian position for you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

We wouldn't return to those days. To take on each in turn:

1. Slavery
   
   No one would be compelled by violence to do anything they like. People may choose to sell their entire lifetime worth of labor voluntarily if they so choose, but they will not be coerced to do so with violence.
   
   
2. Child labor
   
   Again, no one would be compelled by violence to do (or not do) things. If children don't want to work, they may choose not to. But if you're 9 years old and want to work 80 hours a week to help your family, what right does the government have to coerce people not to?
   
   
3. Monopolies
   
   Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.
   
   Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
   
   
4. Labor abuse
   
   Everyone is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. It isn't abuse if you voluntarily subject yourself to it.
   
   
5. The Great Depression
   
   This was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
   

Of course there's no guarantee that none of these dark things will come back, I'm just saying it's totally legitimate for them to come back provided no violence is used to coerce people. Coercion in the form of economic desperation is totally okay though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story. Ditto for China, Ireland, southeast Asia, etc.

On the other hand, the economies of Cuba and North Korea have remained depressingly stagnant. Everyone's equally poor.

To use John McCain's turn of phrase "I'm not worried about who's getting a bigger slice of the pie, I'm trying to grow the pie!"

Just...don't ask me about Sweeden, they give me a rash with their high equality, high tax, high growth model. Must be something unique and exceptional about Scandinavians that's superior to us Americans.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

It's about doing what's right. When Lincoln tried to free the slaves, no one knew how the economy could function without slave labor. They did it anyway, because you have to do what's morally right!

In this case, we're talking about ending violent coercion, because everyone knows that only people who work for the government ever use violent coercion. Eliminate government, and it'll be gone forever!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Good question, it must be patriotism, or altruism. Rich people are actually really nice, and very generous!

They're willing to adopt a radically unregulated, untaxed world, knowing that it's somehow against their interests. Much more altruistic than agreeing to let their taxes go up so the government can waste it on children's education, helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, maintaining roads...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

No, you must adopt my narrow conception of liberty! Government telling you that you have to serve black people = tyranny, businesses telling you that you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment = liberty.

Once properly understood, it's about fealty to nonviolence, at least government-based nonviolence. Corporations using violence to enforce their rules on the use of their property is self-defense, and therefore totally morally justifiable. Duh.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...

I was saying that the police officers behaved badly. You know that, right?

I wasn't "scrutinizing" -- I asked a simple question. What happened?

We have been here before, mr blank. We approach the world differently. I want all the facts. I want the whole story. I am not interested in propaganda, no matter what the source. I try to be intellectually honest in all my dealings, even if it is uncomfortable for me personally.

And I just don't dehumanize these public safety officers (who risk their lives daily) so utterly as to think that they will behave perfectly in all situations.

Something happened, don't you think? Why did the park cops go talk to them in the first place? Something happened and we don't know what it is.

I have no idea of how it started. It ended badly. I think it is likely that this will be used in training vids in the future, of how not to react when you, as a public safety officer, feel ... what? Disrespected? Disrespected is not a reason to arrest someone.

We're all on a learning curve. I believe cheap accessible video cameras are going to be the most democraticizing force in the world. With those cameras will come some costs that we aren't going to like, but there are some great benefits. Keeping cops honest is number one on the list.

And I think we all agree, being a smart ass is not a reason to arrest someone. Good thing, huh, blankie? (that was meant as a gentle joke, sweetie.)

>> ^blankfist:

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

Big government is bad. I also agree with you.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Military dictatorships are bad. I agree with you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Nazi Germany? Maoist China? Soviet Union? Reality agrees. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

Military dictatorships are bad. I agree with you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Nazi Germany? Maoist China? Soviet Union? Reality agrees. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

Nazi Germany? Maoist China? Soviet Union? Reality agrees. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.