Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will suspend his Republican presidential campaign after a disappointing showing in this week's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses, GOP sources said today. Romney is expected to announce his decision this afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, three Republican sources told CNN.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
AAAAAAAAAh!
I mean, I support McCain, but AAAAAAAAAh!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And now, because he is "suspending", we get to become acquainted with another bit of byzantine primary minutiae.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Noooooo. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm guessing most states will give his delegates out proportionally to the people remaining in the race?
It certainly creates an interesting impression of... fluidity in the delegate count, particularly as it involves Michigan and Florida.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Frak. Although, if they do give out the delegates proportionally, Paul will still get some.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Odd as it sounds, I think Obama might benefit the most from this latest casualty.
A lot of people will say this was a calculated business decision, but I think Romney is motivated by a desire to unite the party again. or at least stop some of the in-fighting.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, Lisa, I guess he wins Nevada now! Come to think of it, most of the Romney supporters I know well will probably flock to Paul.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So how exactly is "suspending" different from withdrawing?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Withdrawing means you take your ball and go home. Suspending means you leave the ball and go home. Each state decides what to do with Romney's delegates.
It will be most interesting to see what the winner take all states do with his things.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Do you think Romney may attempt to get in as McCain's running mate, or is there too much animosity there?
I admit, I haven't been keeping track of the GOP race that much, so that could be a really stupid question.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
How does this help Obama?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's kind of up to McCain, but such a move would do a lot to resolve the corner that the conservative media have painted themselves into.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Yeah, Lisa, I guess he wins Nevada now! Come to think of it, most of the Romney supporters I know well will probably flock to Paul.
I think I will swing my support to McCain. Of course, my ambivalence between McCain, Clinton and Obama is enough that, given the right running mate/campaign, I could vote for any of them in the general.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Well, crap. I don't know who to vote for now. I mean, I've been centering my attention on Romney for most of the campaigning, and I don't really know what the other candidates' policies are. My bad.
Time for some serious researching...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's interesting, though. McCain is known widely as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I suspect quite a lot of former Romney supporters may swing their vote to Ron Paul now.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How does this help Obama?
Well it could mean that Independents or Republicans who would have voted in Republican primaries will conclude that race is over, and so instead vote in the open Democratic primaries. I would think those people would favor Obama over Hilary.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Lisa:
Huckabee isn't out yet.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:How does this help Obama?
Well it could mean that Independents or Republicans who would have voted in Republican primaries will conclude that race is over, and so instead vote in the open Democratic primaries. I would think those people would favor Obama over Hilary.
These are my feelings exactly.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Makes sense.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The "Lesser Evil" just keeps gettin' eviler...
Now I have to support McCain?
At least whoever is president next will most likely be a one termer.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It should also be noted that polls have pretty consistently shown that Clinton would lose to McCain, but that Obama would beat McCain, as of late. So, I'd think that knowing McCain is the likely candidate would make that another factor in Obama's favor.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
He's making me cry. He did not say "I endorse McCain" but he is the only Republican he mentioned, and emphasized the war on Terror and that McCain would do that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tresopax, stop picking on pooka.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wyoming is a big question mark. It was winner take all and everyone who had votes is now out of the race (Romney, Thompson, Hunter, plus 3 uncommitted). 9 delegates, but still.
I'm so sad.
I don't know what to do with these numbers. I have each state that awarded Romney delegates. I have the number of delegates awarded, and I have the percentages won by McCain, Huckabee and Paul.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From the AP article:
quote:"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"
:shakes fist:
This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Gosh, you could have at least talked about how attractive he was. That's the courtesy we extended John Edwards.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Pardon?
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Withdrawing means you take your ball and go home. Suspending means you leave the ball and go home. Each state decides what to do with Romney's delegates.
It will be most interesting to see what the winner take all states do with his things.
That is all true on the Republican side of the coin. For Democrats, John Edwards, who also suspended his campaign will still keep all his delegates that he has won so far and any he wins subsequentially.
Scott:
quote::shakes fist: This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
Were you being facetious? If not, I hope you realize that both Obama and Clinton say they favor a withdrawal schedule from Iraq. Their language of getting out is equally as strong as the Republican talk of staying in.
And I say this as somebody who likes Obama alot, and will likely vote for him now if he gets the nomination.
edit: I think it would help the Democrats if they could frequently discuss what they are going to do after they pull troops out. I like Obama better because he talks about getting the Iraqi government to step up, while Clinton says things like, "I'll have them all out in 90 days."
For many conservatives they hear this talk of, pulling out and then nothing is discussed concerning, "What then?" So they just think about the worst case scenario and think the Democrats are going to pull us our of Iraq and then just hope the terrorists go away.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Pardon?
--j_k
My parents believe that if a Democrat gets elected to office this country will become a safe haven for terrorists and we will all die at the hands of Islam.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's only one way to find out...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:And I say this as somebody who likes Obama alot, and will likely vote for him now if he gets the nomination.
This is what I meant by Romney's departure helping Obama, directly, and not in the way that hurting McCain helps the Wahabists.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
Not that I would've supported the GOP in any case, but it's that kind of language that I find most infuriating in political discourse. And I find it even more disheartening that it's a type of language that tends to work on a large number of people.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The "Lesser Evil" just keeps gettin' eviler...
Now I have to support McCain?
Not really. You can support Paul.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't know that a withdrawal schedule helps the terrorists. That's a logical leap I'm not willing to make just yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't know that a withdrawal schedule helps the terrorists. That's a logical leap I'm not willing to make just yet.
Understood. I'll put my gun down now. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How long would you have stayed in 7th grade if you didn't know it was going to end?
Okay, my guesstimates which are just kind of eyeball proportions on what happens to Romney's delegates: McCain gets 165 delegates, Huckabee gets 64 and Paul gets 48. This does not included WY, though I rather suspect they will wind up with McCain when all is said and done I also assumed Utah's 36 would stay in a bloc going to McCain, though he only got 5% of the vote. Spreadsheet The second sheet shows percentages taken from CNN.
[ February 07, 2008, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From the AP article:
quote:"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"
:shakes fist:
This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
Ron Paul is a GOP candidate who disagrees.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
So, what a jackass quote there. It's like he wanted to make sure he wasn't too missed when he left.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Were you being facetious? If not, I hope you realize that both Obama and Clinton say they favor a withdrawal schedule from Iraq. Their language of getting out is equally as strong as the Republican talk of staying in.
The problem with the language Romney used is that he seems to be equating the democratic process with aiding terrorism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: How long would you have stayed in 7th grade if you didn't know it was going to end?
As somebody who had to go back to 1st grade while in 2nd grade I'd say I had my doubts that school would ever end.
Now I am almost 26, and there is still no end in sight for school, but I am still glad I made the investment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Were you being facetious? If not, I hope you realize that both Obama and Clinton say they favor a withdrawal schedule from Iraq. Their language of getting out is equally as strong as the Republican talk of staying in.
The problem with the language Romney used is that he seems to be equating the democratic process with aiding terrorism.
No, he like many Republicans think the Democrats are going to be too soft on terrorism especially if Clinton is elected. So helping the Democrats win in 08 to many of them is like a vote for Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of "appeasment" fame.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And the mighty plastic sword of Godwin falls...
Now what was important about this speech is it reframes people who are already conservative as to what's important, rather than being charmed by Huckabee and his Amway taglines.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And the mighty plastic sword of Godwin falls...
Technically speaking I did not talk about nazism but rather the doctrine of appeasment when it comes to dictators.
Or does Godwin's jurisdiction cover the whole of Europe during the 1930s and 40s?
Had I referenced 1920's Imperial Chinese appeasment of Japan would that really have made a difference?
edit: Or Native American treaties with the United States?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Godwin is invoked any time you use a metaphor.
You frikkin' Nazi.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Godwin is just another nazi trying to stifle dissent.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
A vote for Clinton is a vote for Hitler.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Hilter for Lower Minehead City Council!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
1920's Imperial China?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I am so glad this is not a website where those last few posts would actually be serious.
I believe I've seen kinds like that. That's why I'm here, not there, and am enjoying the joking atmosphere.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
A vote for Sen. Clinton is a vote for the Clintonistas to gain control of America. I hope I am joking.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If Clinton is elected, she'll appoint Marilyn Manson as head of the NEA.
And Richard Dawkins as head of the NSF.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Technically speaking I did not talk about nazism but rather the doctrine of appeasment when it comes to dictators.
I don't know, Neville Chamberlain is pretty specific.
I mean, I obviously agree that the war on terror is important, though like you, I am also attracted to Obama despite his stance on the war. It's because I believe him that he always opposed it to the degree that it would be responsible for an elected official to do so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
She'll ask for Judge Ito as attorney general.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: 1920's Imperial China?
Sorry, it was a reference to emperor Pu Yi being established as a puppet of the Japanese empire and him urging the Chinese to join Manchukuo in welcoming Japanese "assistance" in their affairs.
edit: I should have written 1930's but I feel like the folks in Chinese government who wanted to try to stay out of the way of Japan's no behavior and instead deal with the communists first, precedes that decade.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
You know, I probably wouldn't have voted for him, but I'm really surprised that his campaign turned out this way. There was a time when I thought he'd easily win the nomination.
--j_k
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A vote for Sen. Clinton is a vote for the Clintonistas to gain control of America. I hope I am joking.
Knowing you, I'm sure you're not.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From the AP article:
quote:"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"
:shakes fist:
This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
Ron Paul is a GOP candidate who disagrees.
Exactly! Thank you, Lisa! Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Were you being facetious? If not, I hope you realize that both Obama and Clinton say they favor a withdrawal schedule from Iraq. Their language of getting out is equally as strong as the Republican talk of staying in.
The problem with the language Romney used is that he seems to be equating the democratic process with aiding terrorism.
Oh, come on. You have to know that's not true. He's equating the Democratic candidates with a philosophy of appeasement and surrender.
You, on the other hand, are equating the Democratic candidates with the democratic process. I disagree.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Uuhhhmmmm Blackblade, the Qing empire collapsed in 1911 with the founding of the Republic of China. Which never could control more then a quarter of the country so it makes a tad amount of sense why they could never offer serious resistence to Japan when the rest of the world could care less.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And... drink!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: Oh, I just didn't know what you were referring to. I thought you meant either the earlier Qing agreements with Japan (i.e. earlier than 1911) or the Nationalist agreements (i.e. not Imperial). Most people probably would not refer to Puyi's puppet government as "China" at any point which is why it did not come to my mind. (Arguably, it wasn't particularly imperial in anything but name either)
Blayne Bradley: For the record, I use gVim daily too Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You are dead to me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Someone said McCain or the Wilderness for Conservative Republicans. I choose wilderness because in four years that opens Romney up for another chance instead of possibly 8 years. As I have said, McCain is someone I loath both for his views and his personality. Trust me, if Democrats pick Obama then they might (ready to gasp) get my vote for him as President. He at least comes across as a likeable guy. Where I don't like the views of either candidate I guess personality is the only deciding factor.
And yes, if Hillery gets the nod then I won't vote this year. It won't be the first time as an adult I didn't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have heard speculation that this might mean a loosening of the iron grip on Mormons the Republicans have enjoyed.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No, he like many Republicans think the Democrats are going to be too soft on terrorism especially if Clinton is elected. So helping the Democrats win in 08 to many of them is like a vote for Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of "appeasment" fame.
Perhaps, but it would still be absurd to suggest that doing anything which might, even indirectly, help get Chamberlain elected is equivalent to aiding the Nazis.
Posted by seven (Member # 5367) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I like Obama better because he talks about getting the Iraqi government to step up, while Clinton says things like, "I'll have them all out in 90 days."
I actually think that Clinton has been saying she wants to START bringing them home within 90 days, not have them all home- huge difference. But I could be wrong.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:"As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for president, that's of course, less than Senator moccasin's 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he's doing quite a bit better with the number of delegates he's got," Romney said.
(But heck, maybe Romney does like referring to McCain as "Senator Moccasin.")
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have heard speculation that this might mean a loosening of the iron grip on Mormons the Republicans have enjoyed.
How so?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From the AP article:
quote:"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"
:shakes fist:
This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
And precisely why I have never supported Romney and why I have a hard time seeing Romney supporters going to Paul.
I can't think of a single important issue where Romney and Paul are on the same side.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe Mormons will realize that while we've enthusiastically been a part of the party often dominated by evangelical conservatives, they've only tolerated us for our votes and do not return the favor of respect.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And the democrats will respect us?
P.S. Those third party bids are always circling.
Did anyone else find it fishy that Bloomberg Inc. was sued by the EEOC this week, for alleged discrimination against pregnant women? It's almost as fishy as Rezko suddenly being indicted. I'm not saying these people are all innocent, but the timing intrigues me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Weren't you the one talking about Mormons being a huge voting bloc earlier?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think my observation was more along the lines that if even 1/2 of Mormons voted for Romney (and I think this was in another thread) he'd plenty of votes. There were many ways the juxtaposition of those two numbers could be read.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't think that Mormons will walk out of the Republican party in any great numbers. They will be more willing (like the ultra-conservative such as myself)to become more moderate in voting record if not in politics. It is possible Mormons will look more like Orson Scott Card and Ken Jennings.
Democrats have a chance to increase some of those Mormon votes if they have any political brains. Obama seems to be the only Democrat to get it, and you would be amazed how many Mormons have indicated a willingness to vote for him.
However, when it comes to Mormons both sides are idiots. I do not sense Democrats will be able to start building good will any more than Republicans have this election cycle.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Obama's webpage indicates a 16 month time frame, continuous troop presence to protect our interest and bombing the hell out of any al Queda that try to take advantage of use not being their. Also, we would continue working with the UN to help Iraq and provide humanitarian aid, as well as negotiations with the rest of the region to protect Iraq. That is hardly cut and run.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aaaaaand Slate is nasty and personally insulting about Mitt Romney to the very end. They suck.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It is possible Mormons will look more like Orson Scott Card and Ken Jennings.
Nerdy white guys?
We're already there.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
mph, you know what I meant - conservative Democrats. Although, statistically Mormon are looking more like Jose crossing from Mexico. Don't know if that is true in activity rates.
Posted by happysmiley (Member # 9703) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: AAAAAAAAAh!
I mean, I support McCain, but AAAAAAAAAh!
Wait...McCain?
Are you serious?
Of all the possible candidates...McCain?
Wow.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: mph, you know what I meant - conservative Democrats. Although, statistically Mormon are looking more like Jose crossing from Mexico. Don't know if that is true in activity rates.
Huh?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Statistically, many denominations are growing faster outside of the USA than inside it. I don't know if that's true of the LDS, but that is how I interpreted the comment.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I know it's ancent history. But, prior to the Nixon era, Republicans were not the majority in the Mormonverse. And even then, they were moderate Republicans for the most part. The "Bob Salter" capture of the Utah Republican party in the early 80's was the actual start of the conservative scourge.
[ February 07, 2008, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Uuhhhmmmm Blackblade, the Qing empire collapsed in 1911 with the founding of the Republic of China. Which never could control more then a quarter of the country so it makes a tad amount of sense why they could never offer serious resistence to Japan when the rest of the world could care less.
Are you insane? The Qing empire managed to eventually squash the Taiping Rebellion which was FAR larger in number than the Japanese forces of WWII. You of all people keep saying their influence over Tibet was absolute, and now you are saying they could only control North Eastern to central China?
Pu Yi was still given special accommodations his entire life, and had to be strictly watched as MANY Chinese considered him to be the son of heaven long after his abdication from the throne. Hence his natural appeal to the Japanese as a puppet figure head.
edit: I do think Mormons are slowly shifting from their absolute Republican loyalty, but it won't really be noticeable this election. Mormons definitely do not like how Romney was treated, but not enough that they will break ranks and vote for Obama or Clinton instead of McCain.
[ February 07, 2008, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Aaaaaand Slate is nasty and personally insulting about Mitt Romney to the very end. They suck."
To be fair to Slate, i'm not sure Romney has a political track record that indicates he's anything other then a total dickhead... the man earned personal disrespect the way he managed his run for president, starting with how he treated the people who gave him any sort of foundation to run off of.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
*MA resident, for those who don't know*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Are you serious?
Of all the possible candidates...McCain?
Wow.
Gosh, I guess I just need a blog to post to when people keep questioning me about my support of McCain. Of course, I did choose a women's scripture study group over meeting McCain tonight.
I'm pro life and pro immigration. Well, at least I favor getting immigrats onto the tax rolls. I'm also confused about when conservatives got so passionate about free speech.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: I think he's conflating several issues and oversimplifying, but he's not entirely off base.
First, the Qing victory over the Taiping Rebellion was a very close run thing which required several strokes of luck, intervention from foreign powers on the Qing side including a rather famous "Ever Victorious Army", and a fair amount of time (14 years). In fact, the Taiping Rebellion is often quoted as one of the factors that lead to the decline of Qing Dynasty China To say that the Qing Dynasty could have defeated the Japanese Army if it had not conceded territory to the Japanese is probably wrong. The full analysis would take much more time but the short and big clue is that the Qing did have the First Sino-Japanese War and Qing did get smoked.
Second, I actually believe Blayne Bradley's second sentence refers to the KMT under Chiang Kai-Shek during the late 1920s and early 1930s (rather than the Qing as I think you assumed). Even when the KMT did well in this era, they did in fact only have proper control over about a quarter of China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_civil_war_map_02.jpg The rest was usually under the control of the warlords that survived the chaos of the Warlord era. This part is more debatable, but I believe that the Nationalists would not have won any wars with the Japanese either during the time when they conceded territory to the Japanese before the Second Sino-Japanese war.
As for Pu Yi, I think you're overestimating his appeal to the Chinese. After all, the Manchu Dynasty *was* briefly restored in Beijing in 1917 under Puyi and he was kicked out in less than a year with great gusto (and his regime probably made a very satisfying thump as it hit the floor;) ) Sure, he had to be watched carefully by the CCP, they always watch any potential threats to their power. However, in the end very few people would have listened to the puppet emperor. Not only was Pu Yi hated for being Manchu, but collaboration with the Japanese would have sealed the deal. After all, even Chiang Kai-Shek was often hated for conceding territory to the Japanese.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Correct Mucus, which bit him in the ass in the Xian Incident where his own Officer(s) arrested him and held him under house arrest until his relatives could negotiate a compromise between him and the Communists to fight the Japanese. The compromise was while the CPC was allowed to exist the Red Army had to fight nominally under KMT control, this didnt last too long and there were alot of bumps along the road but the CPC had a grueling several years before 1946 but they fought as a roughly unified front while the war lasted.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seriously Blayne, I use gVim every day. Keep your promises
:x!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Correct Mucus, which bit him in the ass in the Xian Incident where his own Officer(s) arrested him and held him under house arrest until his relatives could negotiate a compromise between him and the Communists to fight the Japanese. The compromise was while the CPC was allowed to exist the Red Army had to fight nominally under KMT control, this didnt last too long and there were alot of bumps along the road but the CPC had a grueling several years before 1946 but they fought as a roughly unified front while the war lasted.
Read your history books again. The communists were not destroyed by KMD forces on several occasions because Chiang Kai Shek's son was a de facto hostage of Stalin. There are several well documented cases where Chiang Kai Shek assembled his forces and clearly demonstrated that he COULD completely destroy the communists. He falsely believed that Russia would give him his son back in exchange for him letting the communists leave but was always disappointed.
He was not arrested by his own men, his liason between him and Mao turned into a spy for Mao and purposely set up a situation where Chiang Kai Shek would attend a good faith meeting with Mao where neither side would bring forces with them. He walked into the trap and Mao used Chiang as a bargaining chip.
Mucus: You are right that it took a long time for the Qing to stop the rebellion, but then again a big part of it was that they failed to properly assess how strong the rebellion really was, and they constantly sent mediocre forces against the Tai Ping rebels. I think that coupled with the fiasco of the Boxer Rebellion is what did in the Qing. Well...those Opium wars did not help either.
Interestingly enough Pu Yi was actually very obnoxious for the Japanese to control, but he did enough for them to get severely reprimanded by the communists. I was not suggesting that he ever became anything close to emperor after the fall of the Qing dynasty, only that symbolically he was important to the Chinese people and his being setup as a Japanese puppet was clearly a message to the Chinese people that they should not resist the Japanese.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And... drink!
lol. That's the most hilarious thing I've seen today.
Some quick comments:
I'm wondering how many Republicans cross over and vote for Clinton in an attempt to poison the well because they hope McCain can beat her? Probably not as many as vote for Obama because they actually like him.
Clinton has never said she wants everyone out in "90 days." She's pretty much agreed with Obama that she'd like them out in a year. Obama I think is better with this question because he honestly says that how the drawdown works will be dependent on the situation on the ground. They'll still come home, but he won't just pull them out willy nilly.
Polls have recently shown pretty much a statistical tie between Clint and McCain and Obama and McCain. Though after awhile you have to wonder if that margin of error really exists or not. The election is still 9 months away however.
Democrats are finally starting to make smarter arguments about the environment, tying it in directly as a defense issue, not a global warming issue. Getting us off foreign oil means billions of dollars out of the hands of people who hate us. It'll have a much longer lasting effect, and will free up our foreign policy options a lot more than being bogged down in a quagmire. I think we'll see a lot more of that, and a lot of finger pointing at Democrats as being the roadblock. Any Republican who voted against the renewable energy tax credit TWICE now in the Senate will get hammered for it, and I think McCain did twice. If Democrats spin it the way REPUBLICANs like to, they'll say McCain voted twice to raise taxes on renewable energy while voting to lower taxes on oil companies. Then they'll show a photoshopped picture of him hugging a Saudi Prince with an oil derrick in the background. But I don't think Democrats are as clever as Republicans at the dirty politics, so, we'll never see that ad.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Pardon?
--j_k
My parents believe that if a Democrat gets elected to office this country will become a safe haven for terrorists and we will all die at the hands of Islam.
My parents hold similar beliefs. Or at least my dad does. My mom doesn't voice her political views much, but Ericka and I somewhat seriously suspect that she might be a closet democrat.
But anyway, I just found out yesterday that my dad believes most/all democrats (but not me, interestingly) are strong socialists. Honestly, I can't decide if I should be amused or depressed by our vast political differences, but I couldn't help feeling some satisfaction when I informed him of Romney's dropout (he voted for him on Tuesday, much to my surprise. I'd pegged him as a Huckabee fan).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When did Republicans use photoshopped pictures? I really don't know, honestly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright I got a bit melodramatic when I said photoshopped pictures
The rest is pretty much from the Republican playbook though.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: Where did you come across the bit about Chiang Kai-Shek's son being a major factor? I have not come across that before and online I can only find references that lead back to one controversial book by Jung Chang link
Edit to add example:
quote: RE: The Long March bridge crossing incident
The bridge was not defended at all by the KMT side, they say. "Chiang had left the passage open for the Reds," the authors state, in one of the most astonishing assertions of their book. ... The reason: Chiang was desperate for the return of his son Chiang Ching-kuo, kept since 1925 a virtual hostage in Moscow by Mao's main backer, Stalin.
The authors claim this is supported by archived KMT cables. And they claim to have met a local woman - "a sprightly 93-year-old" in 1997, running a bean curd shop near the Luding Bridge - who remembered the Reds firing a few sporadic shots across the river but no gunfire coming back, and who said very little of the planking had been removed.
...
Oxford University's Steve Tsang says the Chiang Kai-shek archives show the KMT chief did in fact order the senior warlord in the area to hold the crossing on pain of court martial, while his 100,000-strong Central Army tried to catch up with the Reds from the south.
Some of the Sichuan warlord's forces arrived before the Reds at Luding, but their commander panicked as the Reds' main force arrived. He fled, leaving behind only a few of his notoriously opium-dazed soldiers to defend the bridge. The attempt to burn the bridge could not have amounted to much, as the timbers were soaked by rain.
"The Maoist story of the battle was a lie, and a huge exaggeration but there was a battle," Tsang said. Above all, Tsang insists, Chiang Kai-shek did not on this occasion or, as far as the Chiang Kai-shek papers reveal, on any other occasion let the Red Army escape during the Long March.
Tsang said that in this case, as generally in the book, the authors had been "appallingly dishonest" in the use of sources they claimed to have accessed. "Mao was a monster," Tsang said. "(But) their distortion of history to make their case will in the end make it more difficult to reveal how horrible Mao and the Chinese Communist Party system were, and how much damage they really did to the Chinese people."
The list of historical errors and far-fetched theories builds up. Chiang Kai-shek's son had gone to Moscow in 1925 with his father's permission, to study, rather than being virtually kidnapped there as Chang and Halliday imply, pointed out Leeds University emeritus professor Delia Davin in the Times Literary Supplement. "Concern for his son's wellbeing did not stop Chiang from massacring communists in Shanghai in 1927," Davin said.
As for Pu Yi, I have no doubt that is what the Japanese intended. I just disagree that the Chinese would have particularly seen it that way
[ February 07, 2008, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Romney's as qualified and probably competent a potential president as there was in the field this year, comparable to McCain and Clinton on that score, I think.
That said, he ran an astonishingly poor campaign. He alienated, in order 1)moderate, competence-oriented independents, the folks he should have been running at from the beginning and started to in Michigan 2)the supporters of both his main rivals, by running negative ads against them (Jay Cost notes that folks who supported Giuliani had much more favorable opinions of Romney than supporters of the candidates Romney ran negative ads against), and 3)Those folks who only began to pay attention to politics in 2008, by ineptly and transparently politically manufacturing a public image for himself that reeks of expediency and dishonesty (not merely policy flip-flops, but going around the country mocking Massachusetts and France to the red-meat Republican base while 1)serving as governor of Massachusetts and 2)having served a mission in France).
If he had run as the Romney of the past two weeks or so from the beginning, he probably would have done much better.
Edit to fix code.
[ February 08, 2008, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: MattB ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Jung Chang's book was the first one to make the assertion that Chiang's son was being held hostage thus explaining why the Red's were not eradicated. I am well aware that some East Asian scholars have called the book's integrity into question but their criticisms have yet to convince me. It sounds like a whole lot of, "That's not the conventional wisdom on the subject, and I've never heard of these sources."
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Also, I think Romney should endorse Huckabee. That'd stir things up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: I've been reading up on the controversy. I think that it is more fair to say that it is "That's not the conventional wisdom on the subject, and I've never heard of these sources. Plus, we have plenty of *conflicting* sources"
I think we can both agree that this is far from a generally accepted reading of history and that there is plenty of room for disagreement.
Blayne's said a lot of questionable things, but I for one would be very wary of simply declaring by fiat that this is a fact. Or that one should simply "read your history books again" to be convinced of something like this.
It certainly was not in mine and mine are hardly glowing portrayals of the CCP.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: I think it would help the Democrats if they could frequently discuss what they are going to do after they pull troops out.
I'm worried about what is going to happen to the already-shakey US economy if & when a flood of now-unemployed (?) troops come back into the mainland needing jobs that just aren't there.
Is the general assumption that the federal government will keep all of the troops -- officers to grunt level -- on military payroll at the same payrates as when deployed? Because it was hard enough for many military families to make ends meet on that salary as it was.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Woah wait. Why would they be now unemployed just because the war is over?
They'll get the same pay that troops at home, troops overseas that aren't in Iraq and other US Armed forces members gets, they just wouldn't get the massive resigning bonuses for new reuppings that they used to get.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Woah wait. Why would they be now unemployed just because the war is over?
Lyrhawn, I was asking, not suggesting. I am worried about contracts not being renewed. Could that happen -- e.g., someone signed up for three years, was required to stay a fourth, and now is not offered a renewal? How does this work? (I honestly do not know the practicals of it.)
---
Edited to add: GoArmy.com suggests service on active duty can range from two to six years. Once that time initially enlisted for is up, is there any regulation prohibiting the armed forces from declining to re-enlist that person past that original commitment? Given how long the current situation has gone on, as well as the enforced holdovers that have been in place, there must be many for whom there time of enlistment is nearly or already completed. So, can they be "let go" afterward without legal repercussions?
If yes, how likely is it that they will be "let go" (whatever the proper phrasing is, I'd be happy to edit tomorrow) if the federal government goes very short of funds in a recession?
quote: For an Active Duty Soldier, your length of service can range from two to six years. Typical deployments are 12 months in length, and after six months, Soldiers are usually eligible for a two-week Rest & Relaxation (R&R) leave. The exact length of deployment depends on each unit’s specific mission.
[ February 08, 2008, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BlackBlade: I've been reading up on the controversy. I think that it is more fair to say that it is "That's not the conventional wisdom on the subject, and I've never heard of these sources. Plus, we have plenty of *conflicting* sources"
I think we can both agree that this is far from a generally accepted reading of history and that there is plenty of room for disagreement.
Blayne's said a lot of questionable things, but I for one would be very wary of simply declaring by fiat that this is a fact. Or that one should simply "read your history books again" to be convinced of something like this.
It certainly was not in mine and mine are hardly glowing portrayals of the CCP.
See that's the thing, often the oppositions remarks are along the lines of, "Well we could not locate that particular person on the day we just happened to be in the area, but we did find a random person who says they were there and they said something different!"
It took them 8 years to gather material for the book, sort through what looked like good information, and print. I agree the book makes several radical assertions, but I think some of it's critics operate on the premise that Mao couldn't have been, "as bad as he is portrayed in that book." Or that Jung Chang is letting her emotion muddle reason and historical truth.
As for me telling Blayne to read his history books. I can be wrong about Chiang Kai Shek's son or even Chiang Kai Shek's tacit agreement to allow the Red's to leave. But he was definitely wrong that Chiang's own men disliked him, arrested him, and turned him over to the communists.
That is an idea straight out of the CCP's handbook. That, along with Mao turning into a fish and swimming across the Yang Tze river."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
They get out when they get out. They have on the job experience. It would only create a crisis if people were prejudiced against hiring them when they come back -- which was exactly the scenario all the war protesters said they regretted about Vietnam and hoped not to have happen.
But EEOC guidelines for Veterans preference in hiring is already in place, so hopefully it will not be an issue.
Hopefully a certain proportion of them will use their G.I. Bill and go to school.
No one is coming back to anything cushy, but I'm not worried about it causing a massive crisis.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That is reassuring to read. I hope it does work out well for them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
CT - They'll stay in the service for the remainder of their enlistment. If it's a 2 year enlistment, they're in for 2, etc. Near as I can tell the budget for the defense department actually calls for an increase in active duty troops, so, if they want to reenlist, even if Iraq is no longer a conflict for us, they'll likely be able to reenlist so long as they want to. None of them will be kicked out of the army because Iraq is over. Also remember that a large chunk of the troops over there are National Guardsmen, and thus already have jobs at home. It's the law that they can't be fired if they are called into service, so, they already have jobs. Even so, like Pooka said, when they come back they'll have their GI Bill, so hopefully they'll go to school when they get home. Military service these days generally aids one in getting a job, I can't think of an area where it's a hindrance.
I didn't think you were suggesting it CT, I was just wondering what made you consider that.
And I wouldn't worry about a lack of funding. With the current lovefest for the military in the US right now, it'd be political suicide to vote to cut funding for the Armed Forces. They'd cut funding to a lot of things before they cut that. Besides, pay raises are in the pipeline too, though it's hard to say how anything will look since Bush's budget was almost summarily dismissed by the Democrats.
In summary, I wouldn't worry. They'll get benefits when they get out, they won't be booted out before their enlistments are up, and most who want to reenlist will be able to.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"That said, he ran an astonishingly poor campaign."
He ran an astonishingly wonderful campaign where bad luck was his demise. The proof is that at this point in time we are talking about him steping out of the running with McCain as the nominee. The person that the traditional Republicans hate the most.
Somewhat like McCain, his running went from 0 to 60 mph in a short time. Again, as Romney pointed out he got almost as many votes as McCain did and fell behind in deligates only because of winner take all states. Even then, he won a few less states than McCain and was second in most of the others. By contrast Huckster could only win the Southern states and was in third or fourth in most of the rest. Interesting enough, and the reason I think Huck was both a spoiler and anti-Mormonism contributed to Romney's defeat, just about the only states Romney didn't get second place was in the Southern States.
Remember, from the start the MSM was blowing Romney off as an also ran. He was predicted to be the first, if not one of the first, to drop out of the race. Instead, he has been (besides lopsided deligates) neck and neck with McCain who I think won by pure luck and an unfair primary system. I think the final straw was Hucks' religious attacks and identification in Iowa and his continued focus group pandering. You can never prove it absolutely, but I think had Huck not become the "Christian" candidate that Romney would be at least slightly ahead of McCain.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BlackBlade: Actually, I was not discussing the Xian incident in my response. I think that would be covered under "Blayne has said many questionable things."
The problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The "Chiang Kai-Shek's son conspiracy" idea is entertaining and appealing on a primal level. However, like the "United States knew about, provoked, and let Pearl Harbour happen" or the "9/11 was a fake" conspiracies its just not plausible. It requires too many people at the time to know about the conspiracy, too many people to keep quiet, and an impartial academic community (outside China, in the US often to boot) to conspire to suppress the idea for unknown motives. It also ignores the fact that the KMT and the CCP were essentially at war and *did* find many opportunities to kill each other, conspiracies notwithstanding.
As for your specific points, first, the opposition did not find that random person that Jung used, but the real question is why Jung needed to use random evidence from some random person in the first place.
Second, you're also wrong that the opposition works on the assumption that "Mao couldn't have been as bad". If you note the section that I quoted
quote: Tsang said that in this case, as generally in the book, the authors had been "appallingly dishonest" in the use of sources they claimed to have accessed. "Mao was a monster," Tsang said. "(But) their distortion of history to make their case will in the end make it more difficult to reveal how horrible Mao and the Chinese Communist Party system were, and how much damage they really did to the Chinese people."
The determination has already been made is that Mao was bad, but the issue here is not whether Mao was bad, but whether we should distort Chiang Kai-Shek's motives and other sources just to propose a conspiracy to explain something that can be explained much simpler. Occam's razor and all that.
There is also a pattern of behaviour of playing fast and loose with random accusations. The accusation that Sun Yat-Sen's wife was a Soviet agent, that CCP spies successfully infiltrated the KMT leadership to such a degree that they not only were able to order KMT troops to their deaths but that they *provoked the war with the Japanese.*
This is serious conspiracy theory stuff and requires extraordinary evidence for just those claims, each one could be a book unto itself, not as a side-note in passing in a biography.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't think his campaing can hold a candle, in the astonishment department, to Giuliani. It was more like Edwards - mostly bad timing, but also some quirks of his own.
The only person I'd say who's running a brilliant campaign is Ron Paul. He won't win, but he's exceeding expectations all over the place. As someone said when Edwards left, the primaries is all about exceeding expectations.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Is Ron Paul actually running his campaign?
It seems to me like he's simply the product of the confluence of a whole bunch of libertarian (of diverse stripes) leaning Internet junkies who decided to become activists. Any number of minor candidates could have had the same thing happen to them over the past several decades if the Internet had been around with the same influence it has now.
I fail to see what's brilliant about any of what he has done.
Now what would be incredibly interesting is how a Ross Perot-like candidate* would do in the new media environment.
* I don't mean actually like Ross Perot who is a weird little dude, but I mean someone with a decent amount of personal wealth, a good business track record, and a libertarian-lite platform.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I don't think his campaing can hold a candle, in the astonishment department, to Giuliani."
*blink* *blink* you mean can't get past 3rd or 4th place in any state and couldn't get 2nd in the one he had hoped to get? I suppose if you mean, and you could, the astonishingly bad performance of his campaigning.
Oh, and I think the South is slowly going down into irrelavancy even in the Republican party. Although, that is more of a prediction than having any real evidence. I guess the evidence is in who has been picked this year on both sides of the political divide. The East and the West are rising.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think Ron Paul's performance is strongly linked to the unpopularity of the war even among republicans.
He is the only republican candidate to have taken a strong stand against the war and I know quite a few people who are supporting him because of their opposition to the war despite skepticism about his libertarian views. When you add those people to the growing libertarian wing of the republican party, Ron Paul's showing in the primaries is not at all surprising.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I suppose if you mean, and you could, the astonishingly bad performance of his campaigning.
I'm quite confident that's what she meant. Giuliani was dubbed the front runner early on by the media so it is very astonishing that he has done so poorly.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Oh, and I think the South is slowly going down into irrelavancy even in the Republican party.
If it wasn't for the south (and the mountain west to a much lesser extent, since they have few electoral votes), the republicans wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the general election.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think Romney ran a good campaign, not a great one. I hope he'll run again in 2012.
He made mistakes: pandering to social (rather than economic) conservatives, starting his push too early, alienating too many opponents.
He also had some bad luck (although you could also say some lack of foresight), with Huckabee getting as much free publicity as he did, Charlie Crist endorsing McCain at the last moment, and a McCain ad campaign in NH that hit just the right notes. Perhaps the worst luck was Giuliani fading so fast; Mitt's early campaign was obviously targeted at competing against Guiliani. When Guiliani faded and McCain surged, I think Romney lost a lot of momentum in reacting to the change.
In the end, I think the thing that sunk him the most was the prominence of Southern states (particularly SC and FL) in this year's primary calendar. I think if equivalently sized and contested (in the general election) states replaced FL and SC, (say OH or PA replaced FL and CO replaced SC) that Super Tuesday would have had a different flavor, and the race would either be still up in the air, or McCain would have been giving his concession.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Oh, and I think the South is slowly going down into irrelavancy even in the Republican party.
If it wasn't for the south (and the mountain west to a much lesser extent, since they have few electoral votes), the republicans wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the general election.
Unless, of course, by changing message they were able to sacrifice the South for gains elsewhere. I tend to agree, to some extent, with Occ. The issues that made the South the bedrock of Republicanism in the 80s and 90s are losing national relevance. I'm not sure whither the GOP, but I do think that focusing on the strong military and pro-life planks is a sure path to political irrelevance in twenty years.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zalmoxis: Is Ron Paul actually running his campaign?
I don't think he is—I think Lisa is running it for him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lisa? What about lem? For a while there, he was giving per-minute updates.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Before Reagan, the solid south used to mean democrat. But I guess so was Utah at the first.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Before Reagan, the solid south used to mean democrat. But I guess so was Utah at the first.
Here's a wiki link (I think I posted it in the Primary news thread, too) showing the dynamics of which states went R/D in each election. It shows the South solidly R as early as '68 and not solidly democrat since about '48.
I think the switch had a lot to do with civil rights and that it's been maintained primarily due to abortion <edit>as an issue</edit>.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ah, maybe it was before Johnson. That does make sense. You'd think I'd remember... I was 10 and we talked about Reagan in class and I said "the guy has run 3 times, I don't see why he'd be elected now.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Lisa? What about lem? For a while there, he was giving per-minute updates.
I guess I've been reading the wrong threads. Somehow I missed that.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Would anyone care to speculate on McCain's running mate/strategy in selecting a running mate?
I still have misgivings that perhaps McCain and Huck have a deal struck. But assuming McCain doesn't owe anything to Huckabee (or Charlie Crist), who/what characteristics should he look for in a running mate?
Should he play regional politics, picking someone to shore up his support in the South or Mid-west? Should he play identity politics, picking someone to balance his oldness/maleness/whiteness? Should he pick a conservative to shore up his base or a (relative) liberal to appeal to Dems/Independents? Should he choose an executive to shore up his lack of managerial experience?
Here are some possibilities off the top of my head:
Elizabeth Dole Michael Bloomberg Mike Huckabee Fred Thompson Charlie Crist Joe Lieberman Kay Bailey Hutchinson Condeleezza (two "e"s, two "z"s) Rice
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Some are suggesting that Ron Paul is building up a strong Republican backed war chest, but is not spending much. He will switch all that $ over to the Libertarian Party to give them a fair shot as a 3rd party, also pulling in a lot of conservatives from a McCain Dem-light Republican party.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I'd think Thompson would be the smartest pick for McCain. Huck's loathed by the Republican establishment almost as much as McCain himself is; Dole's a lightweight, Kay's old, Bloomberg brings zero to the ticket except for cash, Lieberman is actually a Democrat, Condi' not running.
Crist, I think, is another possibility.
quote:Remember, from the start the MSM was blowing Romney off as an also ran. He was predicted to be the first, if not one of the first, to drop out of the race
Who was this? The Post's Line, I recall, had he and Giuliani fighting for frontrunner status most of last fall.
Romney could have picked up most of McCain's backers back when McCain was floundering last year if he had run as the Romney of 1994-2005. Instead, he kept fighting Huck (who did, to be fair, come out of nowhere) for the evangelical vote, which was a losing battle to begin with.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Condeleezza (two "e"s, two "z"s) Rice
Except that you've got three "e"s in there. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Some are suggesting that Ron Paul is building up a strong Republican backed war chest, but is not spending much. He will switch all that $ over to the Libertarian Party to give them a fair shot as a 3rd party, also pulling in a lot of conservatives from a McCain Dem-light Republican party.
I hope to God that if he does run as a third party candidate, he doesn't do it with the LP. <shudder>
He should declare himself the candidate of the Constitutionalist Party. As a matter of fact, I think it'd be a good idea for the Ron Paul supporters to create a party based on the kind of platform Ron Paul is running on one way or the other.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
People have been talking about a Ron Paul 3rd party run from the get-go. Or, at least from the You Tube debates, and he said at that time he wasn't.
Kay Bailey Hutchison is only 4 years older than Hillary, but I agree that she looks more like a grandmother. P.S. Not everyone thinks that is bad, it's better than trying to look young and not pulling it off.
[ February 08, 2008, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Hutchinson would be a decent choice for McCain. I'd worry about it looking like the AARP ticket, but, she's qualified and has good bonafides. Rice won't do it. Bloomberg IS what everyone is accusing McCain of being; a liberal. He'd drag the ticket. I'd worry about Lieberman too, regardless, he's on the other side of the aisle. Rice won't accept the nomination, and I think Fred Thompson would look like McCain's Dick Cheney, even though McCain would actually be the Cheney in the ticket. But that might not be horrible.
Thompson's problem is that he's flatout boring. He's a horrible campaigner. But McCain needs an attack dog so he doesn't have to do the smearing himself, and I think Thompson would be good at that. He's certainly not good at any positive public speaking. He just drones on boringly. McCain/Thompson is an undynamic ticket. I think the contrast would make Obama look like superman in comparison in terms of vitality and energy.
Huckabee is still a candidate to consider, but I think for all the help he does to gain Conservatives, he turns off moderates and independents, and I don't think he can do the attack dog thing either.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We don't know exactly how it will shake out, but Romney did cede a truckload of delegates to McCain by suspending rather than withdrawing. I think the conservatives are still too much in an uproar for Romney to have endorsed McCain outright, but eventually the talk radio will go back to picking on the democrats.
My prediction is that Romney will wind up VP, whether or not that is actually in anyone's head right now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It seems to me like he's simply the product of the confluence of a whole bunch of libertarian (of diverse stripes) leaning Internet junkies who decided to become activists. Any number of minor candidates could have had the same thing happen to them over the past several decades if the Internet had been around with the same influence it has now.
One pretty smart guy had this to say about it.
quote:Ron Paul's primary significance is that he's a crystallization trigger for the only element of traditional internet culture that leans republican: Libertarian-leaning technophiles. Where the Free Republic/RedState crew are barely coherent (in every sense of the word) under the best of circumstances, the libertarians are much more intelligent. However, Ron Paul can't win (and most of his supporters will admit it), and they're more likely to vote for Democrats in actual elections right now than anyone else. Politically Democrats aren't a danger to anything but the second amendment and will not be in a position to do anything to it for a generation at least. Slightly more likely they'll get on board for censorship of games and porn for political pandering purposes, but for me at least those are lower on the priority list.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: My prediction is that Romney will wind up VP, whether or not that is actually in anyone's head right now.
I'll be very surprised if that happens. I doesn't make any political sense to me. But hey, stranger things have probably happened.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, it depends on if the economy continues to worry people, because I think Romney will provide some reassurance there, he will want someone younger, and Romney has proven himself a pretty ruthless attack dog, or at least people have said. I never saw one of his ads, though.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I guess I can see how Romney would balance the ticket as far as foreign vs. domestic focus. He is younger, but not that young. However, I think the last point about his ability to attack is a bit weak; he definitely had some negative ads (I saw several in NH markets), but in debates he was no pit-bull, which is what McCain really needs, as far as that goes.
I guess to me the most interesting option (and this goes to the Ron Paul subthread) is actually choosing someone (ala Bloomberg/Lieberman) who is to his left. I think the primary political divide is tending away from morality issues, and toward a centrist big government ideology vs. a federalist small government ideology. Maybe not, but that's what I think, and I think if McCain ran with another centrist big government type from the other side of the aisle he'd be recognizing the political terrain of the next 50 years.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Last night's News Hour had a good piece, and couple of laughs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: I'll get to you excellent points later. It does not seem we are arguing about much.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Romney's as qualified and probably competent a potential president as there was in the field this year, comparable to McCain and Clinton on that score, I think.
Bull. I lived in MA, and I wish I could have seen his face when he realized he had to quit. The man is arrogant, rude, and lies all the time. He lied to his supporters and opponents alike, and ran MA into the ground.
His record in MA was worse than Dukakis's was, to be honest.
[ February 09, 2008, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Zhang and another general Yang Hucheng kidnapped Chiang Kai-shek and imprisoned the head of the Kuomintang government until he agreed to form a united front with the communists against the Japanese invasion.
Chiang Kai-shek, Half Month in Xian Fenby, Jonathian, Chiang Kai-Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation he Lost Mao: A Life by Philip Short.
Also Chiang was forced to let the Chinese Red Army retreat on many occasions because he's an incompetent Generalissimo and had his armies smashed every single time until he listened to his German advisors and used more methodical tacts and finally commited his German trained field divisions to crushing the Jiangsi Soviet Republic.
The history of the Chinese civil war is of appalling lack of tactical or strategic sense by the Nationalists, to tke the civil war between 1945-1949 for example the Nationalists had nominally 5 million soliders to the Red Armies 500,000 and yet miraculasely by 1949 this was reversed.
It is impossible to deny that the Red Army had much better moral and leadership compared to the nationalistsand this is what helped them win.
Read Mao: A Life for a in detail look of the actually campaign regiment movement by regiment movement.
quote: he [Chiang] immediately turned his attention on rooting out the remaining pockets of Communist activity in a series of encirclement campaigns. The first and second campaigns failed and the third was aborted due to the Mukden Incident. The fourth campaign (1932-1933) achieved some early successes, but Chiang’s armies were badly mauled when they tried to penetrate into the heart of Mao’s Soviet Chinese Republic. During these campaigns, the Nationalist columns struck swiftly into Communist areas, but were easily engulfed by the vast countryside and were not able to consolidate their foothold.
Finally, in late 1933, Chiang launched a fifth campaign that involved the systematic encirclement of the Jiangxi Soviet region with fortified blockhouses. Unlike in previous campaigns in which they penetrated deeply in a single strike, this time the Nationalist troops patiently built blockhouses, each separated by five or so miles, to surround the Communist areas and cut off their supplies and food source. Villages in the region were organized into units known as baojia, as a security measure to prevent Communists from obtaining supplies and intelligence from the locals. Once the front line had been secured, a new ring of blockhouses were built to close in on the Communist base areas. This strategy was very successful, and by the fall of 1934, the Communists faced the possibility of total annihilation. It seemed that the time was now ripe to finish off the Communists, and then turn against the remaining warlords.
In October 1934, the Communists took advantage of gaps in the ring of blockhouses (manned by the troops of a warlord ally of Chiang Kai-shek's, rather than the Nationalists themselves) to escape Jiangxi. The warlord armies were reluctant to challenge Communist forces for fear of wasting their own men, and did not pursue the Communists with much fervor. In addition, the main Nationalist forces were preoccupied with annihilating Zhang Guotao's army, which was much larger than Mao's. The massive military retreat of Communist forces lasted a year and covered 6000 km, and was touted as the Long March.
These actions hardly seem the actions of a man scared of losing his son, Stalin was apathetical to the CPC's plight, while sending aid in the form of advisers the Soviet Union was reluctant extremely so of ever giving the CPC aid and constantly gave counter productive strategies unsuitable for China's situation, Stalin prefered KMT China as a buffer zone and didn't think the CPC stood a chance of winning only giving marginal aid once they had already largely defeated the American weapon equipped armies of Chiang-Kai-Shek between 1945 and 1949 and even then, the Japanese were of far greater help with abandoned weapons caches then the Soviets ever were until they normalized relations in 1949/1950 when Mao visited the Soviet Union.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
:cough:
quote:BlackBlade your are very very wrong.
I just want you to know that I burst out laughing after reading this.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Bull. I lived in MA, and I wish I could have seen his face when he realized he had to quit. The man is arrogant, rude, and lies all the time. He lied to his supporters and opponents alike, and ran MA into the ground.
His record in MA was worse than Dukakis's was, to be honest."
Ouch. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: You should read the sources you are citing, they don't agree with you.
This history where you believe the Chinese communists were a tenacious bunch who managed somehow to repulse the KMT over and over again, while KMT were a bunch of blundering fools does not exist in this reality.
You might also consider researching how the communists managed to convince the Chinese populace that their tiny army had somehow done all the fighting when Japan invaded, while the KMT sat around twiddling their thumbs. I'll give you a hint to start you off, communists in China were not constrained to be truthful in what they said.
And you keep saying the KMT immediately turned on CCP forces after the Japanese were stopped. The CCP turned on KMT forces WHILE they were supposed to be fighting the Japanese.
Also you might want to consider why warlord Zhang would be willing to risk his life, and agreed to be a political prisoner the rest of his days, in exchange for the communists being left alone by Chiang. I'd like to believe he did it because he believed that without communist support they couldn't stop the Japanese, and yet he allowed Stalin, Mao, Peng De Huai, Zhou En Lai, and co to have a say in what happened to Chiang. What could the communists possibly offer Zhang, being as weak as they were then? After answering that, consider why it is that once Zhang got out of prison he had NO desire to go back to China and to the applause and accolades that would have surely awaited him. For some reason he was willing to risk his skin for the survival of the communists and China, yet later in his life he does not want see the communist party leaders. Hmmm.....
But I will concede one thing, a verb you have yet been willing to try in all our discussion. You are right that I was wrong about Chiang being lured to a good faith meeting with Mao.
In reality he was lured to a meeting to discuss what ought to be done about Japan and the communists, he was kidnapped and then Mao and co were invited to come down and discuss with Zhang what ought to be done.
Stalin was not supportive of the CCP as much as the KMT because he did not think the CCP was anything but rabble rousers with no base. But he still kept them from being eradicated, always giving them just enough help to not die. It was only when Mao ruthlessly rose enough to emerge as the clear leader of the CCP, and started winning the ideological battle against Chiang that Stalin changed his mind.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The November turnout is going to be yuuge, for so many different reasons. ___
On another note, has anybody noticed how the stars have kept their yaps shut? I wonder if someone issued a gag order. It's as if, they said, "All right, I know all of you celebrities are for Obama, but you can't say it in public, 'cause we have to talk as if the ground swell of support is coming from a working-class white woman in South Dakota, so Clooney, Damon, Affleck, Jackson, Sharpton, keep your pie-holes closed, and I don't want to hear anyone talk about the moveon.org announcement. All you guys came out loudly against Bush and for Kerry, and you lost us the whole middle of the country."
[ February 09, 2008, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
That's because an endorsement from the Hollywood establishment can kill you just as quickly as an endorsement from the Washington one.
--j_k
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Communists fought an extensive geurilla war against the Japanese making about 2-3 attempts of open battle with them, however it must be understood that the Japanese didnt have it a priority to attack in their direction, the geurilla campaign was instrumental in expanding their base of support inside Japanese occupied lands. Also, the CPC has recently changed their view syaing that the two parties were equally important in resisting the Japanese in a woeing effort with the KMT party.
What happened in 1946 is not easily said as who turning on who, both sides skirmished with each other but it is undeniable that it is the Communists who attempted the most to accomodate the Nationalists in the hopes of a coaltiion government as victory wasn't assured then.
Blackblade you see patterns and conspiracy where none exist, Zhang never returned because he was overrall neutral in the political dispute beween the KMT and CPC, and never returned to either Taiwan OR Mainland China, remeber he was only released in 19 friggin 90 he longest served polotical prisoner, at that age what? 95? 99? You generally wish to live a quiet life away from politics.
Also remember he was the warlord of Manchuria before the Japanese invaded and was angry at Chaing's refusal to do anything about, Chiang was focusing all of his efforts on crushing the Communists not doing anything about the "cancer of the skin"
Not one of my sources comes form the CPC but from western and primarily British sources, Mao A Life by Philip Short, and Political Leaders of the 20th Century Mao Tse-tung by Stuart Schram, the reason why Zhang risked his life and career is because he is a patriot who believed that China is being invaded and eveyr political group and person should fight the Japanese.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The Communists fought an extensive geurilla war against the Japanese making about 2-3 attempts of open battle with them, however it must be understood that the Japanese didnt have it a priority to attack in their direction, the geurilla campaign was instrumental in expanding their base of support inside Japanese occupied lands. Also, the CPC has recently changed their view syaing that the two parties were equally important in resisting the Japanese in a woeing effort with the KMT party.
What happened in 1946 is not easily said as who turning on who, both sides skirmished with each other but it is undeniable that it is the Communists who attempted the most to accomodate the Nationalists in the hopes of a coaltiion government as victory wasn't assured then.
Blackblade you see patterns and conspiracy where none exist, Zhang never returned because he was overrall neutral in the political dispute beween the KMT and CPC, and never returned to either Taiwan OR Mainland China, remeber he was only released in 19 friggin 90 he longest served polotical prisoner, at that age what? 95? 99? You generally wish to live a quiet life away from politics.
Also remember he was the warlord of Manchuria before the Japanese invaded and was angry at Chaing's refusal to do anything about, Chiang was focusing all of his efforts on crushing the Communists not doing anything about the "cancer of the skin"
Not one of my sources comes form the CPC but from western and primarily British sources, Mao A Life by Philip Short, and Political Leaders of the 20th Century Mao Tse-tung by Stuart Schram, the reason why Zhang risked his life and career is because he is a patriot who believed that China is being invaded and eveyr political group and person should fight the Japanese.
You explanation does not say why he would not want to return home. A politically neutral Chinese person is STILL Chinese. Even Zhou En Lai had the guts to admit that the communist treatment of Zhang was "regrettable." Or perhaps he saw the results of his actions and realized that Chiang was right about the cancer within being important. Of course the CCP wanted a coalition government, they were a tiny insect with no power, it would be in their best interests to get the heat off and build their ranks.
I'm sure Zhang was genuinely convinced that Japan was the more important threat to himself and the country. But he was wrong, Chiang could have easily wiped out the communists during the long march, and once he was cooerced into completely leaving them alone his forces had to deal with inept communists who did not know how to wage war, just fight skirmishes. Mao knew exactly what he was doing when he allowed the KMT to do most of the fighting and dying while simultaneously sabotaging them. Once the Japanese were gone the peasants were ripe for his message of change, and they blindly followed him into the worst years of Chinese history.
But I am not really interested in having this discussion anymore because you have no interest in actually working out the truth. You'd rather just keep saying what you think is right and say I am wrong. There are glaring inaccuracies in many of your statements both in this thread and others, and until you grow up alittle you just won't admit to it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You have no wish to see the truth I have several well documented sources that say otherwise.
- Chiang did not "let" the Communists get away during the long march, if that was the case then why bother with the encirclement campaigns? To say that Stalin forced him to elt them go and go only by Jung as evidence of this is retarded given the huge critisisms her book faces inregards to professional integrity.
- The Communists DO know how to fight otherwise the encirclement campaigns would not have taken 5-6 tries before finally succeding. They fought a prolonged geurilla campaign versus the Japanese, the desire to preserve their core forces in what would eventually become an enevitable civil war is not wrong simply smart, considering who won the war in the end I think it was justified. Also The KMT also attempted the save holding and delaying actions expecting that the allies would win anyways so why bother fighting more then the minimum required?
- The CPC while initially weak through the 20-30's was not by no means an "insect" in 1945, they had roughly 500,000 active troops and a large and great deal of populare support as the KMT was seen to have been notoriously corrupt, incapable, and put pro-japanese collaborators in charge of former Japanese occupied lands FACT.
- The United states gave billions of dollars in aid, billions more in arms, and even airlifted entire divisions to Manchuria so that Chiang could secure the cities in Manchuria relying on "bullies" and anti-red militias to keep the countryside in line, making a deal with the Soviets to stay longer before leaving. The deal went something like this: stay longer and pillage Manchuria of 2 billion dollars of heavy industry so we can secure the cities before the Reds do.
How can you think of Chiang as anything less then a sell out?
When Chiang never controlled the land there except by proxy? The warlords didnt want to waste their strength and why should they?
-Also your fabrication of the years that followed, GPCR and GLF as somehow being the "worst years" is interesting considering that once Unified China became a great regional power again, successfully stood up to western imperialism in Korea, achived double digit grouth and most importantly of all overall stability. The achievements of the Chinese nation Post Liberation are undeniable, mistakes were made, many died but there is no doubt that China of 1960 was better then China of 1937/45, and that the China of 2007 is greater, more powerful and wealthier then ever before and growing moreso still.
Blackblade you see conspiracies where none exist, so far you have yet to show a single source for anything that the scholarly community has deemed credible, if you find confirmed sources that does not rely on or use Jung Chang, or the Epoch Times then I'll listen, but until then your no better then a conspiracy theorist.
Also how did the Communists treat Zhang? Was never treated in anyway as beyond a few meetings with them, it was the KMT who arrested him not the CPC, he was held as a political prisoner for decade after decade by Chaing Kai Shek not Mao or Zhou.
With your above comments you are doing nothing more then alleging this and alelging that claiming richteous enitlement to what conveniently for you dead man may have thought, all we have are his official comments, which is neutrality in the matter of the CPC and KMT post 1949, going to China would have put the political spotlight for him and a media life that simply for a man pushing his first century he could live without, Occam's Razor favours me, the simplest solution is that he is an old tired man who simply wants ot live quietly without all these darned kids fighting witheachother for his approval.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You have no wish to see the truth I have several well documented sources that say otherwise.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its unfortunate for a debate to devolve to semantics but it seems enevitable once people start attacking the person rather then the evidence. He could have not responded.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that you would pull the "I frustrated you out of bothering to respond to me, therefore I win the internets" card.
But what really sells it is 'he could not have responded' which is pretty lol
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not a big fan of stepping into the middle of the firefight so I'm explicitly not going to answer any of points following mine directly.
Instead, I'm going to make one general point. It is *entirely* possible that *both* Mao and Chiang were to put it in the colloquial tongue, "tools."
In fact, given the chaos of the fall of the Qing, the collapse of the early republican government, the viciousness of the Warlord Era, the cynical and immoral exploitation of China by foreign powers, and the fact that people in Beijing only seem to like awful spicy food : I submit that it is even entirely possible that the *only* kind of person that could have emerged in power is a back-stabbing Machiavellian SOB.
But here's the thing, just because Mao turned out to be a ruthless, socially unforsightful, and brutal leader with pretensions of godhood does not in fact mean that Chiang was by default some benevolent future leader thwarted by those "dang Reds."
Similarly, just because Chiang was one corrupt, incompetent tyrannical dictator that held purges like they were going out of fashion and made some African dictators look like the paragon of virtue does not in fact make Mao a saintly gift to China from the heavens.
Instead, Blayne your hopeless fanboy worship of Communist China, has warped the facts and likely compelled BlackBlade to (unconsciously or consciously) take a much harder line simply in opposition to your views, as if to establish the truth almost by averaging out your views, making the discussion pretty much unsalvageable.
*sigh*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Really? It is because of virtrolic hatred of Communist China and Mao on the internets that so woefully clashed with my early highschool history book on the subject that I've taken a similarly hard line.
My history book was very fair, "here is what happened, here is a few explanations of could it happened, here's a few questions the reader can answer and for fun here's some statistics and sources." My apparent fanboyism I assure you is only out of desire to balance a terrible red china bias Ive seen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The thing I think about the most with Mao is that it's sorta surprising — even inexplicable — that he is only a fraction as vilified as people who were less fatally inept than he was. I guess he had a good generational image campaign policy, or sommat.
I mean, seriously? He was responsible for the biggest, most tragic misuse of government power in the history of the modern era. Given the scale involved he may yet be responsible for more deaths than anyone else who has ever lived. Even crazy dynasties like the Kims and brutal little men like Stalin or Pol Pot couldn't replicate the sheer and terrific size of his failure, though like the good little communist utopian morons they were they sure did try.
I mean, you all have studied this pretty significantly. Is there anyone I'm missing with a higher probable killcount than Mao?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes very much so, Jung Chang stats using heavily admitedky politically scewed sourced that the death toll was 40-80 million deaths.
The CPC claims 15-20 million, who we must remember wanted to denounce Mao's economic policies as incorrect under the consistency policy of "70 Right, 30 No" to make it easier to facilite the political support for open market reforms after the arrest of the "gang of four" (you'll remember OSC making a reference to them in Xenocide).
Several things must be cosnidered:
A) There is not a single shred of evidence that any of the mass famines were intentionally orchestrated by Mao, there is considerable records on the subject, what happened was heavy industrial investment at the expense of agricultural investment that happened to coincide with 1) the launch of sputnik and the euphoria of "burying capitalism" 2) overzealous local party leaders being overenthusiastic with Mao's economic policies of "surpasing USSR on the road to Communism" of expanding the rate of collectivization (which on a voluntarily basis was going at a good rate so they decided to make it go faster as Mao got impatient). 3) a series of famines some of the worst recorded famines in the history of China, and finally 4) a period of giddy eating binge by the cities at a time when the information of food stores levels getting perilously low wasn't widely availiable.
Once the extent of the famine was known China began importing foodstuffs from Canada, South America, Austrailia and secretly the USA.
This would imply that yes a famine happened and Mao in his overeagerness was at fault which interestingly he admitted though in a sorta clever face saving way. Another interesting tidbit that even during the supposed high peak of the famine years industrial growth and agricultural growth still increase by a good 10% overall, and the population increased from 450 million to 600 million in this timeframe.
While yes a famine happened and yes there were starvations and it was some bad years due to bad policy and bad weather but the death toll is nowhere near as bad as many people would lead you to believe.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
A Singaporian Prime Minister during the period says it best, "had Mao died in 1950 China would have remembered him as the greatest leader China had ever known and his reputation would have been nearly godlike. Had he died in 1960 the people will remember him as a great man who made tragic mistakes, 1975? Who knows?"
Mao is remembered very fondly by a large portion of China as the one who reunited China and allowed the Chinese nation through his actions to finally "stand up", Chinese culture has it as a given to venerate your ancestors and he very effectively was seen as "father of the nation" and is even moreso fondly remembered by the poor as being the one who stood up for them as many of his policies were aimed at helping the poor aka "bare foot doctors" as an example. When compared to the open market policies of today that have lead to a wealth income disparity never seen before and the cutting of social services to the poor and the decollectivization of the countryside many poor farmers are bitter and remember the "good old days" try it, ask any random farmer or a member of a farming family and they';ll give a favorable opinion of Mao.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh and to answer Hitler you can consture as having killed 60 million people as being the cause of WWII, this is fair since Mao's 80 million count by Jung also includes casulaties of war. So Hitler with his 50-60 million + intentional extermination of 6 million I am sure beats Mao's confirmed 12-20 million by government negligence.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*facepalm*
What is that saying, "with friends like these..."
Edit to add:
I don't suppose you could focus your fan-boy energies on something like Star Trek vs. Star Wars, a gaming console, a faction in WOW, or something similar.
Your hopelessly one-sided view of things makes me almost feel like I'm a fictional character *by association* if only by virtue of being Chinese. As if you're promoting the Night Elves in WOW and your blind devotion is making me realise that I'm actually *not real.*
[ February 09, 2008, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:While yes a famine happened and yes there were starvations and it was some bad years due to bad policy and bad weather but the death toll is nowhere near as bad as many people would lead you to believe.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Okay. How am I supposed to respond to this, exactly? 'Oh thank god, it turns out mao's incompetence killed a few less tens of millions of people than previously anticipated! Whew, I was really thinking I was going to have to dislike that guy there but just a few tens of millions of people ain't no thang! Let's just mark it off as 'some bad years' and move on' ... ?
quote:This would imply that yes a famine happened and Mao in his overeagerness was at fault which interestingly he admitted though in a sorta clever face saving way.
So, it's never too early to put a positive spin on 'whoops I killed a hojillion people with a very very very incredibly stupid plan, but let's move forward by starting my next most disastrous plan and terrorize the entire nation so I can maintain power.'
quote:Oh and to answer Hitler you can consture as having killed 60 million people as being the cause of WWII, this is fair since Mao's 80 million count by Jung also includes casulaties of war. So Hitler with his 50-60 million + intentional extermination of 6 million I am sure beats Mao's confirmed 12-20 million by government negligence.
So, okaaaaaaay. If it's 'fair' to include casualties of war as mentioned, 80 million is a larger number than 56-66 million.
But also, let's jump forward and say you convince me that Mao isn't responsible for as many reprehensible deaths as Hitler. What's the upside to that. "Mao: Not Quite As Terrible As Hitler" is probably the worst selling point for a cultural icon perhaps ever!
this is all so weird
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
samprimary: I'd answer, but you can understand that I'm very hesitant to answer in a thread like this. How receptive to a nuanced answer would you be given the Blayne Albatross that I'm working with here?
Also, when you say "a fraction as vilified," do you mean among mainland Chinese, overseas China, Taiwanese, average Americans, or Western academics? I believe that your measure of "insufficient vilification" can be quite off the mark depending on which community you're talking about and many of the possible reasons would probably differ a lot between each community, if you're interested in pursuing them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think that western academics have done okay with wrapping their head around Mao. The puzzlement for me comes with average people around the world.
I mean, I first thought about it when my friend told me that her mother (my tarot teacher) used to be a big Mao-head. Still occasionally pimped out the red book and everything. And I thought about that and compared it to if someone walked around talking about Stalin or Kim Il-Sung as though they were great men. Of all the pretty patently terrible horrible no-good leaders of contemporary history, right down to Pol Pot and all those half-baked African dictators, nonw of them have established even an inkling of a cult of personality compared to Mao. Response to the little red book is drastically different to the incredulity or hostility that one would receive for hawking Genius of Revolution or Mein Kampf or whatever.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now I've heard that Romney isn't ceding his delegates. It's very confusing.
Back to your regularly scheduled argument about early 20th century China.
I guess it's not really a huge derailment, since Romney had that bit in his speech about how Asia was going to kick our asses in the not too distant future if we don't wake up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:this is all so weird
C'mon Samp, that's not a fair complaint to make.
You knew that when you got started talking about this!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Samprimary: Well, as a start which of those categories I listed would your friends mother fit into?
Alternatively, which of those categories are you most interested in?(I'd be most familiar with the viewpoint of either the overseas or mainland Chinese communities though)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary: Well, as a start which of those categories I listed would your friends mother fit into?
German national, lived most of her life in germany. Pretty sure she picked it up there, or otherwise trapezing around europe.
Probably, I'd be interested in the interest of american lefties who are pro-mao. I imagine there's a lotta crossover with college-age marxism.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Now I've heard that Romney isn't ceding his delegates. It's very confusing.
Of course he isn't ceding his delegates. Those are power. He'll give them to whomever will do him the biggest favor. A VP candidacy, if he thinks that's possible, or a say in who get it otherwise. Whoever suggested that he was ceding them? That's the whole reason he's "suspending" his campaign, rather than simply dropping out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Samprimary: Really? Germany? East or West Germany?
I'm very unfamiliar with American fans of Mao. I think its safe to say that I've never even conversed with one.
If I *had* to be pressed to make a guess, I'd guess that there are elements of counter-culture in there. In the same way that some people grow up in the Christian tradition, feel angry/betrayed at it, but never quite leave it behind and become Satanists rather than non-religious, there are probably some anti-capitalists that become attached to Mao simply because there are no other big alternatives to capitalism. Because some people cannot define themselves in opposition to something without finding a specific person to identify themselves with.
There are probably some elements of naivety, "the grass is always greener," in the sense that most people are more familiar with the crimes of Stalin and Hitler and both are very much grounded in the Western tradition. On the other hand, the East is still "mysterious and inscrutable", so you have Hollywood types latching onto the cause of Tibet and on the other side of the spectrum latching onto Maoism.
There are probably other reasons and these are really guesses (since you asked me about one of the the groups I'm actually least familiar with), but I hope that helps.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The difference in tone is that those declaring that Mao is a "mass murderer" are fundamentally flawed in their assertions, it is correct to say that he is at fault but in no way is the excesses of the GLF or CR anywhere near as deserving of such vile and venonous hate as it currently recieves compared to Hitler's intentional extermination of the Jews and the Slavs. They cannot be compared and yet nearly every single time Mao is listed as somehow being equivilent or worse. If anything the mistakes made are to be learned from and so far I think the 4-5th generation of China's leadership today are learning from it.
My fanboyness is currently booked for the Playstation 3 (although I play Halo and would get a 360 for Halo 3), Blood Elves in WoW, PC over Macintosh. Babylon 5, Haloverse, and Stargate as being better then Star Trek overall.
Forgotten Realms over Eberron.
Katana vs Western swords.
Kenjutsu/Iado vs Fencing.
Barack Obama over Hilary CLinton.
And least I forget the AK47 over the M16.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If anything the mistakes made are to be learned from and so far I think the 4-5th generation of China's leadership today are learning from it.
I would certainly hope so.
I fail to understand why horrendous, negligent stupidity (which fits Mao, if we accept all of your fanboyism) is to be deemed so much less awful than willful evil in a leader.
Both should be scorned and shunned, utterly.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention that part of the deaths of those people are laid at his feet because they happened so he could maintain his own personal power. When 60-80 million people have died, but you still have enough to eat and you refuse to accept that your own policies are making the situation worse, there is a problem.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Now I've heard that Romney isn't ceding his delegates. It's very confusing.
Back to your regularly scheduled argument about early 20th century China.
I guess it's not really a huge derailment, since Romney had that bit in his speech about how Asia was going to kick our asses in the not too distant future if we don't wake up.
As long as McCain takes 40% on average, or better, in every state that remains, he'll just barely get the nomination. Huckabee's only hope is that Romney does not swing his votes to McCain, and that he can utterly crush McCain in the remaining states, of which there are still quite a few. If that happens, no one will get enough votes and it'll go to a second ballot, where all of Romney's support flies over to Huckabee, and we see who else jumps ship.
But really, I think Romney and Huckabee are dreaming at this point. Huckabee has a one in a million chance, and Romney holding out to try and broker a deal won't work very well when McCain doesn't even need his delegates.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Not to mention that part of the deaths of those people are laid at his feet because they happened so he could maintain his own personal power. When 60-80 million people have died, but you still have enough to eat and you refuse to accept that your own policies are making the situation worse, there is a problem.
Except its not 60-80 thats a lie, a complete fabrication. Also "refuse" is an interesting word as it turns out he did awcknoledge he was to blame and for a time stepped down. Those deaths served nothing to maintain his power they infact weakened it and his standing in the party, they were a byproduct of a economic policy designed to increase economic growth in one massive leap at the dark, literally so as China lacked enough decent economists to give them an informed opinion on what would happen if industry is overly emphasied at agriculture's expense.
quote:In agrarian policy, the failures of food supply during the Great Leap were met by a gradual de-collectivization in the 1960s that foreshadowed further de-collectivization under Deng Xiaoping. Political scientist Meredith Woo-Cumings argues: "Unquestionably the regime failed to respond in time to save the lives of millions of peasants, but when it did respond, it ultimately transformed the livelihoods of several hundred million peasants (modestly in the early 1960s, but permanently after Deng Xiaoping's reforms subsequent to 1978.)"
It is illogical to assign equal vile to both criminal acts and acts of negligence, no government does so, no honest ethicist would, why should random people on the internet? The punishment for murder is not the same as the punishment for a CEO whose polcies and negligence led to someone's death by accident. The former is met by prison at best execution at worst case, the former a fine/lawsuit at best and dismissal at worst.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The difference in tone is that those declaring that Mao is a "mass murderer" are fundamentally flawed in their assertions, it is correct to say that he is at fault but in no way is the excesses of the GLF or CR anywhere near as deserving of such vile and venonous hate as it currently recieves compared to Hitler's intentional extermination of the Jews and the Slavs.
There we go again. He's a mass murderer, you concede that he was at fault, but then paradoxically it's also 'fundamentally flawed' to say that he's a mass murderer. And then we get a second pass at you saying 'well gee guys he wasn't as bad as HITLER' as though that were even a remotely redeeming argument.
quote:Also "refuse" is an interesting word as it turns out he did awcknoledge he was to blame and for a time stepped down.
And then came back in a suitably brutal fashion with the cultural revolution, one of the most creepy dystopian periods of 19th century world history. Apparently his little 'oopsie' period just left him redoubled as a bad bad man. None of this is very redeeming at all!
Well, okay, maybe there's something that could redeem Mao a little bit but you are clearly not up to the task of supporting it!
quote:Katana vs Western swords.
Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Strangely of all the things being discussed here, this is the one I'm the most interested in. Weigh in dammit!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:As long as McCain takes 40% on average, or better, in every state that remains, he'll just barely get the nomination.
I thought I read that all three of the Potomac contest are winner take all. I expect Maryland and DC to go McCain, but Virginia could very well go to Huckabee. Well, actually...
This is what I wonder, if Utah is anything to judge by, Mormons are splitting between Obama and Paul. If Mormons in Maryland don't get behind McCain, He might lose here too. Romney all but endorsed McCain, I'm just not really in tune with what Romney supporters think or feel. I gave up on Romney back in November, when Robertson endorsed Giuliani and I saw that evangelicals would vote for a pro-choice candidate rather than a Mormon. People who have persisted in denial of that fact are not people whose behavior I can predict.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Katana vs Western swords.
Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Yeah, I don't. (Have enough self-control, that is)
But it's late so I won't go into too much detail, I'll just get the ball rolling.
Blayne, why do you think Japanese swords are superior to European swords?
The most common myth that pops into my head would be folded steel. The idea is that katanas are made by folding the steel over and over and over, and so that makes it super strong!
The fact of the matter is that Japan has lousy iron, especially compared to most of Europe. They folded the steel because it helped gloss over imperfections in the metal. Sort of like Anglo-Saxon pattern welding... or, you know, European folded steel, which also existed.
There are myths of katanas being able to cut through helmets and such things. All the verifiable tests of this resulted in an utterly thrashed blade, totally unusable.
Contrast this to some of the better blades of Europe, which *could* penetrate mail or even heavy plate. The best armor Japan had to offer was... well, not very good. So, of course, their blades were not particularly designed with armor penetration in mind.
The Japanese developed a number of martial styles, and some of these incorporated the use of the katana. But Europeans, too, developed very effective martial styles, close-quarters fighting, and the like. European swords were usually designed with a ricasso, which allowed for even more variation in use and technique.
A lot of information on the martial arts of the middle ages has been lost, whereas most from similar periods in Japan has survived. But fencing, it was not.
Anyway, it's way too late and I need to go to work in a few hours. So, I'll stop now, but I'm sure Samp can fill in all the places I left out.
Edited for clarity. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm still staying out of Chinese arguments for now, but I will say that Mucus is right in that I do think Chiang Kai Shek had serious flaws and that his party lost control of China because they were obscenely corrupt. But because Blayne is determined to play along with the whole, "Mao isn't REALLY as bad as one is lead to think," I end up sounding like a KMT fanboy.
And now I will admit to being a liar and ask Blayne.
Is intentionally killing millions really worse then being indifferent towards the millions you are killing indirectly?
Hitler simply played the angle that the Jews are less than human. Mao's angle, (and this is still said by many Chinese today) was "what's one Chinese death when we have millions here?"
Your wonderful Western scholars still agree that the Cultural Revolution was designed by Mao to keep himself in power in the wake of his disastrous Great Leap Forward.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They didn't need economists, they just needed to ask people who knew how to make the things in question and find out if it was feasible for untrained villagers to do them.
Such people were available. Was Mao making decisions about the entire course of his nation without consulting people with the most basic abilities in the things he was going to force people to do?
And, of course, even when it was proved that it was not possible for the plan to work (by trying it, and seeing it fail catastrophically), Mao kept it in place for quite a while.
Many of those millions upon millions are dead due to willful acts of Mao that he could foresee would lead to millions of deaths at no particular gain. He was one of the most brutal, callous, and morally bankrupt political leaders of the twentieth century.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Actually, Romney said he is "suspending" his campaign for a legal reason--so he can still receive the already promised federal funds to pay the bills of his campaign. Those funds would be cut off immediately if a candidate said his campaign was ended. Every other candidate who has dropped out has said the same thing, for the same reason. Business types like Romney, and lawyer types like John Edwards, are no fools when it comes to money.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"The Japanese developed a number of martial styles, and some of these incorporated the use of the katana. But Europeans, too, developed very effective martial styles, close-quarters fighting, and the like."
Umm, comparing European swordplay skill level to Japanese is like comparing good Greco-Roman wrestlers to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Morihei Ueshiba (O Sensei) or Chow Yun Fat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Umm, comparing European swordplay skill level to Japanese is like comparing good Greco-Roman wrestlers to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Morihei Ueshiba (O Sensei) or Chow Yun Fat.
If you mean that the 'two' (not that there are really two, 'European' is hardly a set) are wildly different, you're right.
If you mean that the latter is drastically superior to the former, I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion.
Why should feudal Japanese people be better at killing each other with sharpened metal sticks than European feudal people?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well, for one thing, the training is lifelong. Even today, Japanese boys start training in iaido, the art of swordfighting, at age 4. That's right, 4. They take it very, very seriously. It's the discipline aspect, I would say, right offhand.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, you imagine feudal European men didn't practice swordplay from a very young age, too?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Are you expressing doubt as to what I'm saying, or are you looking for an explanation as to why it's true? Because if it's the former, I hardly know where to start.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What I'm expressing doubt about is the idea (if that's what you meant) that feudal Japanese were much better with swords than feudal Europeans. The one 'point' you've advanced is hardly in your favor; European men had very high discipline in their swordplay, too.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Find yourself an Olympic-level fencer. Take him to Beijing or another large city in China. Pit him against some balding, slightly paunchy Chinese martial artist in his 50s using either European of Japanese-style swords. You could probably also do this with some of the better swordfighting teachers in Japan, and still get a similar result.
I've wrestled, I've boxed, and I've seen fencing, though not done it myself. I've also practiced Asian martial arts for years, with and without weapons. At the highest level, the sword or weapon is incidental. The very same principles (of leverage, of movement, of psychology, etc.) that are part and parcel of unarmed combat are the same for close-quarters armed combat. You move pretty much the same way.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Are you expressing doubt as to what I'm saying, or are you looking for an explanation as to why it's true? Because if it's the former, I hardly know where to start.
European boys trained as pages, squires, and then knights as well, (with very few making the knight tier.)
I must admit until recently I took it as a given that katanas were better then anything Europeans came up with because of the folding technique, and that, even with the knowledge that Japanese iron was relatively poor in quality.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Find yourself an Olympic-level fencer. Take him to Beijing or another large city in China. Pit him against some balding, slightly paunchy Chinese martial artist in his 50s using either European of Japanese-style swords. You could probably also do this with some of the better swordfighting teachers in Japan, and still get a similar result.
I've wrestled, I've boxed, and I've seen fencing, though not done it myself. I've also practiced Asian martial arts for years, with and without weapons. At the highest level, the sword or weapon is incidental. The very same principles (of leverage, of movement, of psychology, etc.) that are part and parcel of unarmed combat are the same for close-quarters armed combat. You move pretty much the same way.
I have to admit, your comparison is strange. Fencing has very specific rules, and uses a weapon and a style drastically different from other weapons, such as (for example) a katana or a broadsword.
Iaido and kendo involve advanced kicking and sweeping techniques, often performed simultaneously with slices and stabs. Fencers are like boxers, the y are relatively unskilled at this. Who do you think would win in a fight, a good boxer, or an equally-good MMA/thai boxer/shootfighter? Simultaneous action from legs and hands, or legs and swords, is clearly harder to deal with, all other things being equal.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Katana vs Western swords.
Oh man. I could so own in this debate but I have just enough self control to drop this one now nnngh
Yeah, I don't. (Have enough self-control, that is)
But it's late so I won't go into too much detail, I'll just get the ball rolling.
Blayne, why do you think Japanese swords are superior to European swords?
The most common myth that pops into my head would be folded steel. The idea is that katanas are made by folding the steel over and over and over, and so that makes it super strong!
The fact of the matter is that Japan has lousy iron, especially compared to most of Europe. They folded the steel because it helped gloss over imperfections in the metal. Sort of like Anglo-Saxon pattern welding... or, you know, European folded steel, which also existed.
There are myths of katanas being able to cut through helmets and such things. All the verifiable tests of this resulted in an utterly thrashed blade, totally unusable.
Contrast this to some of the better blades of Europe, which *could* penetrate mail or even heavy plate. The best armor Japan had to offer was... well, not very good. So, of course, their blades were not particularly designed with armor penetration in mind.
The Japanese developed a number of martial styles, and some of these incorporated the use of the katana. But Europeans, too, developed very effective martial styles, close-quarters fighting, and the like. European swords were usually designed with a ricasso, which allowed for even more variation in use and technique.
A lot of information on the martial arts of the middle ages has been lost, whereas most from similar periods in Japan has survived. But fencing, it was not.
Anyway, it's way too late and I need to go to work in a few hours. So, I'll stop now, but I'm sure Samp can fill in all the places I left out.
Edited for clarity.
I actually much prefer Japanese and Chinese sword styles as being much more pleasing to the eye and inellectually due to that they tend to favour speed and agility over strength and impegnable defences. Take a Olympic fencer vs a Kensei and the Kensei would win merely because a Samurai is also trained to resist pain for the sake of that final blow. As for whether a masterwork Katana could slice through platemail I do not know, but if you have a Japanese swordsman unarmoured vs a European swordsman unarmoured I am fairly sure I know where to put my money.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: They didn't need economists, they just needed to ask people who knew how to make the things in question and find out if it was feasible for untrained villagers to do them.
Such people were available. Was Mao making decisions about the entire course of his nation without consulting people with the most basic abilities in the things he was going to force people to do?
And, of course, even when it was proved that it was not possible for the plan to work (by trying it, and seeing it fail catastrophically), Mao kept it in place for quite a while.
Many of those millions upon millions are dead due to willful acts of Mao that he could foresee would lead to millions of deaths at no particular gain. He was one of the most brutal, callous, and morally bankrupt political leaders of the twentieth century.
From what I read the program with the backyard furnaces were allowed to quietly die out rather then disappoint the revolutionary enthusism of the masses once Mao saw for himself in Manchuria that good quality steel could only be made in large furnaces.
Also this was after the 100 Flowers Campaign, there werent many intellectuals eager to stick their necks out, with a better more entrenched history of educational institutions and favoruing trained eningeers and professional opinions it would have been easier to trust expert opinion and seek it out.
quote:Well, okay, maybe there's something that could redeem Mao a little bit but you are clearly not up to the task of supporting it!
Other then the leadership who took over afterwards saying to themselves "okay these works, these others didnt work, lets go with the ideas that worked" and learning from the mistakes of the past pray tell what in your mind would redeem Mao in your view. As I see it, he was instrumental in preserving the Communist party in the face of adversity, rallying millions of Chinese to resist the Japanese, and reunited China as a single stable nation once more. Severe mistakes were made but that shouldn't call into question his role in the founding of a modern China.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... one of the most creepy dystopian periods of 19th century world history.
For the record, 20th century
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... But because Blayne is determined to play along with the whole, "Mao isn't REALLY as bad as one is lead to think," I end up sounding like a KMT fanboy.
And now I will admit to being a liar and ask Blayne.
Thank you. I appreciate that. I would also add that I never accused you of intentionally lying.*
My main concern was actually that someone less in the know such as Ron Lambert might walk in, read over the main thrusts of your posts and draw the simple conclusion "KMT good, Reds incompetent and bad, if only the US had pushed the KMT into power with overwhelming force, China would be a garden utopia by now"
*(although I did start to have doubts about a particular source)
The truth is far more complex than that and deserves a far more nuanced take (although I totally emphasize that it is hard to work under these kinds of conditions)
quote: Is intentionally killing millions really worse then being indifferent towards the millions you are killing indirectly?
Unfortunately (and depending on your metric of "worse"), I'd have to be contrary here and answer "yes." As Blayne notes, our legal system is predicated on this basis, manslaughter for killing without intent and murder for killing with intent.
Intent is important. When we compare something like the Rape of Nanking and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both probably killed roughly the same number of people but instinctively the first argument most people would bring up when drawing that comparison is intent. What did one hope to accomplish by doing such an act?
The tricky question comes up not when you compare something like 1 unintentional death with 1 intentional death but when you compare that to 10 million unintentional deaths to 5 million intentional deaths. At this juncture, I submit that it is probably beyond the capability of *anyone* to judge which is "worse" and that it is sufficient to say that both are severe crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, I see no benefit in debating which is "worse" because neither are things that we wish to repeat anyways.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:ask Blayne.
I do not in all honesty understand this sentence, what are you asking me? Perfectly honest hear, I do not know your intention.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Umm, comparing European swordplay skill level to Japanese is like comparing good Greco-Roman wrestlers to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Morihei Ueshiba (O Sensei) or Chow Yun Fat.
I'm honestly puzzled as to what point you were trying to make here. What was it?
Also, I would quickly point out that Chow Yun Fat has very little in common with Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan aside from being Cantonese and successes via the Hong Kong film industry.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Iaido and kendo involve advanced kicking and sweeping techniques, often performed simultaneously with slices and stabs. Fencers are like boxers, the y are relatively unskilled at this. Who do you think would win in a fight, a good boxer, or an equally-good MMA/thai boxer/shootfighter? Simultaneous action from legs and hands, or legs and swords, is clearly harder to deal with, all other things being equal.
Well, duh. But dude, the comparison with European fencing is totally misleading. Fencing is a sport; it's done for fun. You might as well pit tennis players against target-pistol champions. The relevant comparison is European knights of the feudal period versus samurai.
We'd better have two categories, also: One is the individual duel, tournament-style (although here is a problem: Lances from horseback, or swords on foot?) and combat, 100 men on each side. The dynamics are very different. I think the European would win the duel just because his armour is so much better; I'm not sure about the battle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You forget. Steven also thinks that martial arts masters can do magic. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
100 Samurai could win vs 100 Knights, as the military discipline and tactical knowledge of Samurai are superior to the average tactical skill and discipline of 100 knights regardless of time period, the Samurai lived for war, Bushido born out of war, the Knights of Europe war was more of a sport to gain the grace of god not a militerized tradition aimed for the conquest of europe.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I ki strike Tom for 1d8 from 10 feet away.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, yeah, whatevs. And emacs is clearly superior to vi. Also Macs suck, Linux rules, C++ is better than Java because it's faster, and DirectX is a tool of Micro$oft to make us all into two-dimensional peasants.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
This thread is well on it's way to becoming another argument about Pirates vs. Ninjas.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Can we please get back to the relevant topic? Now that Romney is out, who will the extra-auto canine placement vote go to?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that the "samurai vs. European knights" argument predates "ninja vs. pirates," actually. It goes back to the earliest origins of fantasy wargaming, at the very least.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think it's funny that people with little-to-no martial arts experience are arguing with me.
Tom, we're not getting into this here, or anywhere, ever. I don't expect to change your mind, nor do I think it's even possible to do so. Suffice to say, sitting in front of a computer all day, RPGing, and reading comic books do not qualify you to talk down to me about martial arts. I taught regular garden-variety Okinawan karate for years, to both adults and children. Then I stumbled across a much more serious martial system, and got caught up in that. Whatever. Really seriously, though, I am speaking from direct personal experience with everything I have ever said here or on Ornery about martial arts. I have no reason not to. I have the experience.
But seriously, this is a goofy derail. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Can we please get back to the relevant topic? Now that Romney is out, who will the extra-auto canine placement vote go to?
"honking idiot..." I like that!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As it happens, I do have some martial arts experience. What I am lacking in, though, is the delusion that this qualifies me to speak about combat with real swords where people genuinely die with cold iron running through their kidneys. It's not the same.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Um, yeah, whatevs. And emacs is clearly superior to vi. Also Macs suck, Linux rules, C++ is better than Java because it's faster, and DirectX is a tool of Micro$oft to make us all into two-dimensional peasants.
VB.NET.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Tom, we're not getting into this here, or anywhere, ever. I don't expect to change your mind, nor do I think it's even possible to do so. Suffice to say, sitting in front of a computer all day, RPGing, and reading comic books do not qualify you to talk down to me about martial arts. I taught regular garden-variety Okinawan karate for years, to both adults and children. Then I stumbled across a much more serious martial system, and got caught up in that. Whatever. Really seriously, though, I am speaking from direct personal experience with everything I have ever said here or on Ornery about martial arts. I have no reason not to. I have the experience.
So does that mean you'll just ignore that entire discussion by a person with more experience than you have in the argument?
Also, does this mean you'll shut up about stuff you don't have that degree of experience in? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
vb sucks.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"So does that mean you'll just ignore that entire discussion by a person with more experience than you have in the argument?"
You mean the invisible discussion? 'Cause I don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Steven, regardless of whatever experience in martial arts you have, you clearly don't know very much about historical European martial arts.
For instance, you said that Asian styles are superior because they utilize their legs. Am I to understand you believe that European martial styles did not utilize their legs?
An old European martial arts buff I knew once told me about a bizarre European martial art. I wish I could remember the name, so that I could try and dig up some information on it. But, essentially, the practitioner would use a sword, usually a two-hander, to bind up his opponents weapon and get in close. Whereupon, he would repeatedly kick his opponent in the shins until he went down.
I'm not kidding. The primary goal of this fighting style was to kick the other guy in the shins.
Obviously, this is not the only European martial art to utilize the legs. Just the funniest.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
but it is not standard nor relevent to the overarching discussion of can a Samurai in single combat decaitate a Frankish Knight? Or To phrase it cooler, can a master Martial Artist of Asian style defeat the master martial artist of western styles in a winner take all fight to the death?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
All I know is Chuck Norris could take them both out with a single round house kick to the face.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
...
oh god i should have said nothing about swords
nothing
quote:Strangely of all the things being discussed here, this is the one I'm the most interested in. Weigh in dammit!
... but .. but ..
quote:So, I'll stop now, but I'm sure Samp can fill in all the places I left out.
but .. the .. i ..
OKAY FINE AARGH
I'll get started later today.
quote:Other then the leadership who took over afterwards saying to themselves "okay these works, these others didnt work, lets go with the ideas that worked" and learning from the mistakes of the past pray tell what in your mind would redeem Mao in your view.
Probably something "redeeming" as opposed to "what Mao actually did" — I can't invent a historical retcon for the man, so it's pointless asking what he could have hypothetically redeemed himself with if he didn't.
quote:For the record, 20th century
chgrghk
quote:I think it's funny that people with little-to-no martial arts experience are arguing with me.
Tom said that you think that martial arts masters can do 'magic.' Do you actually think this or anything approaching or resembling this, and what exactly does it mean?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, Blayne, considering that historically, samurai were as much mounted archers as swordsmen (if not more), I really don't think they have any special advantage. Unless they start really far away from eachother, I suppose.
Of course, if we do that then we could compare Samurai to English Longbowmen.
Look, it's a silly debate. They were very different cultures, with different things to focus on. I'm not really trying to say European martial arts were better, I'm simply saying they existed and were extremely effective, as much so as their Asian counterparts.
Coincidentally, from what we know of them, many of them were surprisingly similar to their Asian counterparts as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Steven, you can find the argument linked about 3/4 down on page 4.
quote:but it is not standard nor relevent to the overarching discussion of can a Samurai in single combat decaitate a Frankish Knight? Or To phrase it cooler, can a master Martial Artist of Asian style defeat the master martial artist of western styles in a winner take all fight to the death?
This right here makes my head hurt. Just what, pray tell, is a 'master Martial Artist of Asian style'? Now, I'm not as much of an expert on the subject as steven, who undoubtedly with his badass kung-fu could kick all of our asses with a pinky, but I don't recall ever hearing about 'Asian style' martial arts.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I'm simply saying they existed and were extremely effective, as much so as their Asian counterparts."
No, but I can see why you'd think that, based on your level of Chinese martial experience.
One thing the European arts are all lacking is simultaneous three-limb coordination combined with seamless transitions. In other words, I, as well as anyone with sufficient training and practice, can throw (with or without weapons) a kick/sweep, as well as two totally separate hand techniques simultaneously, then change the direction and type of attack without the slightest slowing. In other words, the punch in one hand becomes a chop with a totally different angle and target, and the opposite may be happening with the other hand, and the foot is doing a similar seamless transition. In defense, this is nearly unstoppable. I don't really know how many samurai had this level of loose multi-limbed coordination, but I know plenty of Chinese martial artists have trained it to a very high level. I admit, I can't directly speak to the ability level of the samurai, only to Chinese martial artists. However, the Chinese arts are unquestionably the best, in my experience.
"Tom said that you think that martial arts masters can do 'magic.' Do you actually think this or anything approaching or resembling this, and what exactly does it mean?"
I've experienced this myself, and it wasn't particularly pleasant. IMO, the years and/or decades it takes to learn to do things like throw someone without touching them aren't totally worth it. I do know at least one person with this skill. Call me a liar or a fool, and I'll just smile, because I was there, and you weren't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, but I can see why you'd think that, based on your level of Chinese martial experience.
Just curious: what is your level of experience with feudal European fighting styles, by chance?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think 100 Franks vs. 100 Samurai would be a big win for the Franks. Motorcycles are far more maneuverable and slick than a tank, but, it's a TANK. The Franks would roll over them. If they were mounted I think the Franks would do even better.
Knights didn't just go to war for fun once in awhile, a lot of them were warriors for money, and made their living at it. If you aren't good, you don't survive, to say nothing of the fact that Europe NEVER had a shortage of experienced warriors for hire. The fact that they had so many is part of what led Urban II to call for the Crusades.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Just curious: what is your level of experience with feudal European fighting styles, by chance?"
The genius of the better Asian arts is that you use the same forms with and without a weapon. This is physical martial arts at a very high level, much higher than dividing martial practice into boxing, wrestling, fencing, etc. It all becomes one single thing. It's the next level. It's a paradigm shift. It's simpler and it's more effective.
I sound like I'm selling men's safety shaving razors. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, so since you went out of your way to turn a one sentence answer into a...six sentence paragraph that isn't an answer, I think I'm safe in assuming that you have little or no experience in feudal European fighting styles.
Which calls into question all of your other statements on this silly subject about how funny it is that those without experience are arguing with you, who has experience.
Did you read the link I posted?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Steven, what, exactly, makes you think Europeans could not master "multi-limbed coordination"?
Teenage drummers in garage bands can manage completely different actions with each hand and a foot. Why on earth do you imagine it would be so much more difficult for a European swordsman or wrestler?
quote:However, the Chinese arts are unquestionably the best, in my experience.
... And as to the completely different topic of what modern martial art is "best", Krav Maga is probably the most lethal. But, on second thought, I think I won't touch this one anymore. It's way too likely to degenerate into a "My kung-fu is greater!" type of argument.
Edit: Apparently, no matter how hard I try, I can't type your name correctly, Steven. Further Edit: Dang, I post slow. This is why I usually lurk. Half a dozen people reply while I'm making a single post.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Krav Maga is probably the most lethal."
Oh, dear, I can't let this go. Everything that you can find in any Western martial art was already in a Chinese art 1500 years ago. Believe me, I've studied this stuff.
"Stevem what, exactly, makes you think Europeans could not master "multi-limbed coordination"?"
If you actually take a look at the tremendous kicking abilities of the Northern Chinese and the Koreans, you will realize that someone who can do those types of kicks while simultaneously doing complex attacks with both hands is far more deadly than any boxer, wrestler, fencer, etc. The level of development in China was and is simply higher. Not all Chinese martial arts are equally great, though, and the quality of the teacher makes a difference.
I can't really say that the samurai were definitively superior, although it wouldn't surprise me. I just wasn't there 500 years ago, to see their skill level. As far as Chinese arts go, it is possible to comment intelligently, because they are still practiced at a high level today. So, tough to say.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The franks did not have tanks nor motorcycles.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Just curious: what is your level of experience with feudal European fighting styles, by chance?"
The genius of the better Asian arts is that you use the same forms with and without a weapon. This is physical martial arts at a very high level, much higher than dividing martial practice into boxing, wrestling, fencing, etc. It all becomes one single thing. It's the next level. It's a paradigm shift. It's simpler and it's more effective.
Sorry to post twice in a row.
But this, especially the italics (which I added, of course), clearly demonstrates that the answer to Rakeesh's question was: "No. I know nothing about historical European fighting styles."
Yes, modern Western fighting is divided into different sports. Actual European martial arts frequently combined unarmed moves with their weapon tactics.
I will of course admit, Europeans never had the focus on unarmed combat that Asia did. Primarily because, the people studying European martial arts were, by and large, legally allowed to carry weapons. Somehow, this doesn't feel like a disadvantage to me.
But they utilized unarmed maneuvers alongside weapon tactics, and you so clearly know nothing about them that I ponder why you're continuing to argue this point.
You know, this took me so long it's probably not a double post anymore. Oh well.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You should add a smiley face so I know you're kidding. Otherwise I have to add Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
The Chinese (and the Hindus) had incorporated pressure-point attacks into their martial arts at least 2000 years ago. It's all well and good to be quick and strong and big...but if you don't know the pressure points, you're going to be working a lot harder, and fighting a lot longer. The carotid sinus is a perfect example of this. A medium-hard hit to that area generally produces a knockout, and a hard hit produces death. It's not some tiny little point, it's very easy to hit, and law enforcement are often trained in its use, although I think they avoid using it if possible. It really can be a kill point.
There are other points too, but that's the big one that I'd use if I had to fight. There are also points that respond mainly to pinching-type pressure, you know, whatever, it's a big topic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
by saying that western martial arts were sports is merely coming up with excuses, find the most lethal martial art form that the west can offer, and pit it against the most lethal that Asia can offer, and who would win?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think we've all been ignoring the really pertinent question, considering what thread we're in:
Which would Mitt Romney pick, Knights or Samurai?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Blayne, I'm saying that Western fighting styles in their modern form are sports, and bear little resemblance to their historical origins.
In point of fact, it's hard to get accurate information on their historical origins. Because European martial arts were designed for killing people, and when they found better ways of doing that, they moved on. Something Asia didn't do until much later.
Let's pit a 19th century European martial artist against a 19th century Samurai! I know how that one ends.
With a gunshot.
[ February 10, 2008, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Tom said that you think that martial arts masters can do 'magic.' Do you actually think this or anything approaching or resembling this, and what exactly does it mean?"
I've experienced this myself, and it wasn't particularly pleasant. IMO, the years and/or decades it takes to learn to do things like throw someone without touching them aren't totally worth it. I do know at least one person with this skill. Call me a liar or a fool, and I'll just smile, because I was there, and you weren't.
It just means that I and everyone else pretty much should disregard your 'expert' input on the matter of the effectiveness of fighting styles since it's heavily infused with belief in wildly unproven mysticism that casts serious doubt on your ability to reasonably judge these things. If you're willing to believe that martial arts masters gain The Force through their practices then you're exactly the person not to listen to when it comes to a debate about fighting effectiveness. Matters of home-team bias entirely aside, too.
I'll ignore it as handily as I would ignore someone saying "I know the Samurai were superior fighters because their swordplay makes voodoo magic happen. I was there and you were not, qed."
Sorry dude! I don't see why I should entertain hearsay and ye olde tales of kung fu majick.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Let's put it this way. Go pick a fight at an American bar. What's the guy's fighting technique? Simple and crude, punching, basic wrestling moves, maybe a wild swing or two with a pool cue.
Try the same thing in China. Depending on who you pick, you have an excellent chance of being out cold real, real quick, no matter how much boxing and wrestling you've studied.
"Let's pit an 19th century European martial artist against an 19th century Samurai! I know how that one ends.
With a gunshot."
Actually, most good cops with the proper training will tell you that, when the distance is less than 17 feet or so away, it's questionable as to who will come out on top. Guns aren't so great at grappling range. They can be turned on you very easily.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I find it funny how every time any topic is brought up, you twist it around in bizarre ways to make a point.
When we discuss knights and samurai, you explain how an unarmed European would be beaten by an unarmed Asian. That's nice. What does that have to do with anything, though?
Likewise, when I make a joke about a European shooting a samurai from the same era, you explain that, actually, it's hard to shoot someone when they're very close to you. Again, that's nice. Um, so what?
Bah, I will give you one thing, though.
You've got a knack for quoting my typos.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Let's put it this way. Go pick a fight at an American bar. What's the guy's fighting technique? Simple and crude, punching, basic wrestling moves, maybe a wild swing or two with a pool cue.
Try the same thing in China. Depending on who you pick, you have an excellent chance of being out cold real, real quick, no matter how much boxing and wrestling you've studied.
Barfights in both countries are actually pretty much the exact same thing. You're just making stuff up, now.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not think he has done any twisting that instead everyone else here has done the twisting. We are not comparing a prussian footsoldier with a Chinese foot soldier, with the same equipment and training it all depends on terrain and leadership.
What we are comparing is a feudal matchup between of equal skill in their respective arts.
To dismiss this as trivial because the west developed guns is evading the question, Japan and China had guns as well, the political climate simply dismissed them as unnessasary once political leadership consolidated itself centrally over the land. Japanese gun tactics were well on their way to 18-19th century standards until Tokugawa won the sengoku jidai.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Once again, the gun thing was a joke.
And, if you'll recall, this conversation started with a discussion of whether Japanese swords were superior to European ones (actually this discussion started with Mitt Romney. Man, that's some crazy thread drift right there). Peripherally, we considered knights as a whole, and samurai as a whole. Even more peripherally, we considered the martial techniques of Europe and Asia.
Steven seems to consider the weaponry aspect negligible, which is kind of insane, considering the whole point was the weapons. And as I said, most European fighting styles were weapon-centric, for the simple reason that European martial artists were legally allowed to carry them, whereas a number of Asian forms developed specifically out of a lack of legal weaponry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Suffice to say, sitting in front of a computer all day, RPGing, and reading comic books do not qualify you to talk down to me about martial arts.
On the other hand, having a fully functional brain qualifies me to talk down to you about magick.
(Edit: And seriously, dude, why are you so hung up on my hobbies? I can't imagine what you'd go on about if I were really into needlepoint and fly fishing.)
[ February 10, 2008, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: vb sucks.
Producing good code in VB is an art. Like catching a large fish with weak line. You just don't have the proper appreciation for getting good results from bad tools.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: by saying that western martial arts were sports is merely coming up with excuses, find the most lethal martial art form that the west can offer, and pit it against the most lethal that Asia can offer, and who would win?
Ok. The most lethal Western style of martial arts would be the classical knight, either on horseback or on foot. He has better armour, equally good coordination (ignore steven on the subject, he doesn't know anything about it), a better sword, and he's likely got more reach and strength. Advantage: Knight.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"ignore steven on the subject, he doesn't know anything about it"
Ignore KoM, he's a self-aggrandizing egotistical blowhard.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: And, if you'll recall, this conversation started with a discussion of whether Japanese swords were superior to European ones (actually this discussion started with Mitt Romney. Man, that's some crazy thread drift right there)...
I will quickly point out that this particular conversation started with my comparison of Blayne's worship of China to the stereotypical one-sided fanboy.
Thus I find it vaguely amusing that this *negative* comparison has triggered a genuine fanboy "versus" debate
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Seriously, no asianophilia is complete without "katana > all other swords" entering the debate.
I honestly think it's sometimes good to blow out all the nerdy fantasy wargaming, so I welcome the Samurai vs. Knights vs. Boxers vs. Judo vs. Jackie Chan vs. Broadswords vs. Katanas vs. Sport Fencing vs. Mao vs. Goku vs. Superman vs. Pirate vs. Ninja — I just don't know if I'm a bad person for unleashing it in a mitt romney thread :/
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Steven seems to consider the weaponry aspect negligible, which is kind of insane, considering the whole point was the weapons."
The misconception on your part is that samurai would try a toe-to-toe approach with a heavily armored opponent. No, they'd be dodging, weaving, tripping, and kicking his lower body, until the big overarmored lumbering oaf overbalanced and fell on his overconfident tuchus. At that point, he becomes human sushi, because he can't get up, and he's too heavy and overarmored to effectively fight from the ground.
Not only that, the more maneuverable samurai is probably going to be able to use stepping techniques to get behind the slow, lumbering oaf, and, since the katana is a fairly flat blade, he'll be able to slide that flat blade in between the chinks, so to speak, and pierce organs/sever tendons. Human sushi.
You're missing the usefulness of the dodging/weaving/kicking. Sneaky cheap stuff like that often wins out over brute strength and size.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I've thoroughly enjoyed this. I always thought the pirates vs. ninjas debates were jokes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Btw, in case anyone is wondering, all participants in this debate have been automatically granted an extra 10 points on the geek scale.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Armored knights being unable to get up from the ground is a myth. To people strong enough to handle its weight, and practiced with it, even heavy plate armor was not nearly as restrictive as you think it was.
You seem to thing being strong precludes being quick, but it doesn't. It's quite possible to be both.
Mucus, I really don't consider myself a Europe fanboy. I'm just objecting to the rather bold claims Blayne and Steven have made.
Biased, generalizing statements like "Big, lumbering oaf" don't strengthen your argument, Steven, they weaken it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Hey guys...we have a girl in the thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No, they'd be dodging, weaving, tripping, and kicking his lower body, until the big overarmored lumbering oaf overbalanced and fell on his overconfident tuchus. At that point, he becomes human sushi, because he can't get up, and he's too heavy and overarmored to effectively fight from the ground.
Maybe you should, you know, learn something about armored combat. Knights, Parthian cataphract, all of that. If you're suggesting that they were 'lumbering oafs' who would not be able to stand up if (or in your words, when) they fall down because they were wearing about 45 pounds of steel then it's easy to conclude that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
None.
The additional assumption that they will be by nature overconfident (apparently a necessary character trait of anyone who fights in armor now) is also pretty out there. I mean, along with the whole Barfight In China argument, I'm seeing you as a person who is just imagining things at convenience.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Hey guys...we have a girl in the thread.
And shes gay as well.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What does that have to do with anything?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do not think you understand, the stereotypical nerd is even more amazed at a openly gay woman in their midst then a heterosexual woman in their midst to the point of shock.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Seriously, no asianophilia is complete without "katana > all other swords" entering the debate.
I honestly think it's sometimes good to blow out all the nerdy fantasy wargaming ...
But seriously, the whole thing is so silly. In fact the whole debate is so incredibly ill-defined.
We don't know which kind of knight we're talking about: are we talking about heavy calvary, light calvary, dismounted knights We don't know where the knights are from: are we talking knights from Germany, Britain, or are we talking brain dead Knights Templar from the Crusades? We don't know what time period they're from, who is on the offensive, the environment, how each side is even motivated to fight, does either side have time to plan, or even if they've had anything to eat or drink recently
The whole thing is made even more ludicrous by the fact that in any historical engagement between military forces from what we would call "the west" or the "the east", without clear technological advantages, battles are not decided by tiny differences in hand-to-hand combat or equipment but by that most important feature that humans have: the brain.
What kind of tactics does each side employ? Can one side determine the field of battle? Can one side identify the other sides weaknesses? These are all questions that have to be answered.
Without answers to these questions, the whole thing is just a test of what you like best, what you're a biggest *fan* of.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Usually it's just a question of a straight-up duel between an elite heavy infantry commonly associated with frankish/western armies (or even middle eastern intermediaries, like jannisaries or sipahi of the porte).
Sometimes people have fun with the whole thing by pitting romans against samurai.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny!
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Cavemen or Astronauts?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The misconception on your part is that samurai would try a toe-to-toe approach with a heavily armored opponent. No, they'd be dodging, weaving, tripping, and kicking his lower body, until the big overarmored lumbering oaf overbalanced and fell on his overconfident tuchus. At that point, he becomes human sushi, because he can't get up, and he's too heavy and overarmored to effectively fight from the ground.
Thank you for going out of your way to make it clear you know next to nothing about the way feudal European knights were actually equipped and armored.
You're at least as ignorant about feudal European military skills, methods, and equipment as you insist everyone disagreeing with you is about Asian methods.
Seriously, are you going to even read the link I posted, or just dig your cranium further into your rectum?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Mucus, you're absolutely right. It is ridiculous. But, hey, it's fun! And apparently, we're amusing other people, too, so all the better.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Obama could take the West with the help of the Mormon vote
quote:As one blog contributor noted recently, this election was never about the Mormons supporting Evangelicals, as they have done so in record numbers in the past; Rather, this was about turn around and fair play. Mormons expected that as the Republican Evangelical base in the southwestern portion of the United States, would accept a Mormon candidate on values, despite religious differences. In other words, Mormons incorrectly assumed that where common values prevailed over theology, Evangelicals would allow the past dedication of the Mormons to Evangelical causes and candidates to permit a courtesy in return in supporting an LDS candidate -- who was in all other respects prepared as a leading conservative nominee.
Sadly, the Mormons have been soundly rebuked and the results will have an important impact in the presidential election. The most significant result will be the defection of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Mormons for Obama, a Democrat. Obama has appealed directly to Mormons, expressing the need to place religious and racial differences aside for the best interest of the country. His message is being heard loud and clear by those who have been subjected to the narrow-minded thinking of Southern Evangelicals, both on race and on religion.
My dad - my very conservative, Mormon, capitalist, independent, pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps, "unwed parents are irresponsible," doesn't-believe-in-giving-money-to-his-adult-children-much-less-non-related-adults, "failure is a choice" father - is considering voting for Obama over McCain if it comes down to it.
That has to mean something.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Identity politics?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My brother, who just got back from a year in Afghanistan, is voting for Obama.
I'm kind of puzzled by the whole thing, since it seemed pretty obvious to me from the get go that evangelicals would reject Romney, which was why I backed McCain against Giuliani in the first place. But with Giuliani out of the picture and probably Clinton as well, I can got back to my initial impressions of Obama, which were that he did remind me of Ronald Reagan more than any of the Republicans.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Republican party has had a stranglehold on Mormons of decades. I'm fascinated to see if this election cycle breaks it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Reagan certainly had his flaws, but the fire he was able to light under people was his love of the idea of America, which takes us back to the party's roots with Abraham Lincoln -- and that's what Obama seems to understand.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think you can say that Clinton is probably out of the picture. It's anyone's game still, though Obama seems to have the edge...for the moment. Remember Clinton had the edge a few months ago, and we still have a few months to go.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I'm seeing you as a person who is just imagining things at convenience."
I'm not making a blanket statement about samurai. I said that I can't draw an absolute conclusion, because they're not here today.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That did not in any way stop you from creating a fully implausible conceptualization of both
1. the difference between chinese and american barfights
and
2. the silly overconfident oaf knight becoming human sushi after he falls down and cannot get back up
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shh, shh, don't bring that up! Don't you see? We're ignoring statements like that and pretending they were never made in the first place, instead of actually responding to rebuttals!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Identity politics?"
Agreed. This has been the most identity politic primary that has ever existed on both sides. I wrote a post here about it recently that was ignored or rejected. Yet, exit polls are proving there is a huge rift forming in the United States that even the MSM recognizes and exploits. You have Huckster with the evangelical vote, you have Romney with the Mormon vote, you have Hillary with the women vote, you have Obama with the black vote.
It really makes me wonder what this means for a country that is supposed to be a melting pot. Perhaps it is that we all feel like underdogs and want some group power. Even atheists have gotten in the act "screaming" they want a president that openly doesn't believe in God. We don't want freedom, we want power and respect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're wrong in your analysis about Obama and Hillary. Hillary doesn't have a lock on women and Obama appeals to more than just black americans.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And plenty of Mormons had problems with Romney.
quote:Remember Clinton had the edge a few months ago, and we still have a few months to go.
No, Clinton was the presumptive nominee a few months ago, and she's done nothing but slip since actual voting began. I believe that in states with open primaries, Romney's withdrawal will boost Obama almost as much as Edwards' did. The talk show hosts who hate McCain and make me tear my hair out also compare Obama to Reagan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To back up kat -
Obama is making in roads with women, has split the white vote by 50/50 in many places, and even beating her in others. He also has the youth vote, which seems to transcend race and gender, and he's captured the church going crowd in most states as well. Clinton is strong with older voters, working class voters, and latinos as well. Defining them by what they are is lazy, they have draw that far exceeds the fact that one is a women and the other is black.
pooka -
Despite her slip, she's still ahead of Obama in actual delegates, she's polling ahead in two of the three remaining big delegate states (Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania), though admittedly, data in Ohio is sketch and pre-Edwards drop out. My point is that things could just as easily swing wildly back to Clinton, who, though it appears is floundering, is not out of it. The fact that she just changed campaign managers though isn't awe inspiring.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
All I'm saying is Obama won a blue state (WA), a red state (NE) and a swing state (LA) this weekend, and he should take two blues and a magenta state tomorrow. He only has to run close in the blues, because he buries her in the reds.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Another reason to want Obama - he could be the president of places like Kansas and Nebraska instead of just pretending they don't exist like the democratic party has been doing. We could start to get away from the whole red/blue ideology.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It would be really wonderful if as a side line to this election, Mormon's end up more evenly distributed between the two parties but I'm far from confident it will happen.
My sense is that many LDS republicans have never really considered many political issues. They've never been challenged to think about whether or not republican values outside the abortion and gay marriage issues line up with their values. Many have no idea what issues are important to progressive left politics beyond the stereotypes promulgated by right wing talk show hosts.
I'd really like to see more LDS people recognize that poverty and medical care are moral issues too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rabbit they may recognize that poverty and medical care are moral issues. But they may not agree with you about what to do about them.
I'm willing to forgo my desire to see abortion end in order to get someone into the executive office who I feel will invigorate the populace and challenge cynicism in politics. Obama is pro-abortion; at this moment, I think the healing he's capable of bringing to other issues is MORE important than the disgust I feel on learning he supported partial-birth abortion rights in October 2007.
Just because someone disagrees with me-- giving greater weight to abortion-- doesn't mean that they haven't thought things out as much as I have. It doesn't mean that they don't see other problems as being moral problems.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Just because someone disagrees with me-- giving greater weight to abortion-- doesn't mean that they haven't thought things out as much as I have. It doesn't mean that they don't see other problems as being moral problems.
My conclusion that many LDS people haven't thought much about alot of issues is not based on the fact that they disagree with me but rather on many discussions with those individuals.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What part of partial-abortion rights did he support? Abortion isn't black and white, there's a lot of gray.
kmb - Just to throw my two cents in, it's not just the Democrats who ignore the places they can't win. But I don't blame the Democrats or the Republicans, I blame the electoral college.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh, I know. I was just addressing the issue in my own party.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What part of partial-abortion rights did he support? Abortion isn't black and white, there's a lot of gray.
kmb - Just to throw my two cents in, it's not just the Democrats who ignore the places they can't win. But I don't blame the Democrats or the Republicans, I blame the electoral college.
Absolutely, the electoral college system actually encourages candidates to focus all their efforts on swing states. Its a grossly undemocratic system.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It does mean that in Illinois we haven't seen an ad for the presidential race in quite some time. Which is kind of nice.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I have got to agree with Rabbit on this one. A lot of LDS have a very shallow view of politics, not all, but many. Of course, this is based only on my conversations with them, not some polling or anything.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks scholar. I should add that I don't think that Mormon's are particularly different than a lot of other Americans in this regard. Growing up in a republican strong hold, I found that the few democrats I knew had generally thought harder about the issues than most people. Then I moved to Seattle where liberals were a strong majority and found that shallow thingk was more a feature of majority politics rather and not specific to one branch or another.
When all ones friends hold the same opinion, its easy to accept those opinions as facts without giving them serious consideration.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?
A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007
Even if it's only 1% of abortions performed, it's still a death that doesn't need to happen.
I dislike his stand on abortion; but I don't think he's going to do anything to make it worse, from my point of view. And I think he will be able to do things better in other areas that are important to me.
quote:this is based only on my conversations with them, not some polling or anything.
Precisely my point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's driving me crazy that the ad at the bottom shows Romney as a contender.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just a guess but, I think he's referring there to a case where the life of the mother is in danger, which is something I personally fully support, even as I have a personal disdain for partial birth abortion, and really for most abortion in general.
I'd have to see the actual text of the bills he voted on, but I'd be surprised if he actually supported partial birth and it wasn't just because of no amendment being there for the life of the mother, which is where a lot of Democrats in Congress get tripped up.
If you have more information on it on hand I'd gladly read it, but if not I can go looking myself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm going to have to agree with Rabbit. But in political science classes at UVU it's better in some ways, and worse then you can imagine in others.
You have these staunch Republicans who claim to be equally staunch Mormons. They have to negotiate a veritable obstacle course of chaos to marry the two together sometimes but somehow they've done it. They scream about the evils of socialism and the virtues of capitalism and when you point out that social security is socialism and that even Mormons believe a type of theocratic socialism is GOING to be practiced sometime in the future they look at you like they missed every single one of those Sunday school classes. It's almost as if they have been trained to believe that we don't really have any socialistic elements in Mormonism or in our Republic, neither of which is true.
To their credit some of the smart ones see some of the hypocrisy of the past 8 years, what with record deficit spending, bigger government, and virtually no moral legislation getting passed.
Fortunately we get tons of Californians, and a smattering of other states who come here and add a touch of flavor to the debates. A few of us can even raise our hands and say we support Obama at this point and nobody sneers.
But I think Rabbit is right in that political ignorance is endemic to no particular place. I myself must admit that being raised conservtive have been forced to reevaluate my take on things in the face of increasing knowledge.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I'd have to see the actual text of the bills he voted on, but I'd be surprised if he actually supported partial birth and it wasn't just because of no amendment being there for the life of the mother, which is where a lot of Democrats in Congress get tripped up.
Typically, the argument is over the inclusion of health of the mother.
I was pretty young when I sorted out most of my conservative and not conservative issues. The problem is the evolution towards neoconservatism and how few people have woken up to that. If it weren't for his willfully ignorant attacks on Mormonism and his disrespect for the constitution, I'd agree with Mike Huckabee on a lot of issues, I think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Even if it's only 1% of abortions performed, it's still a death that doesn't need to happen.
But the partial birth abortion ban doesn't ban the abortion, just the method that is used to do it. I suspect it hasn't stopped even one abortion, instead they just use a method that is less safe for the mother.
Most states already have bans on late term abortions except in cases of medical necessity. I'm not sure what the partial birth abortion adds to those bans.
I personally think that the partial birth abortion ban is highly misguided. It depended on sensational descriptions of the method to rouse public sentiment but ignored the big issue.
Abortions aren't wrong because of how they are done. They are wrong because of why they are done.
I largely agree with Obama's stand on abortion because I believe, as the Mormon church teaches, that their are some cases where abortion is a morally acceptable choice.
Although I don't believe most abortions are chosen for morally acceptable reasons, I believe that once a woman has chosen to have an abortion the method should be chosen based on medical grounds not political. If a friend or family member of mine needed an abortion for medical reasons, I would want the doctors to have every possible option available for her treatment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Abortions aren't wrong because of how they are done. They are wrong because of why they are done.
I disagree. They are wrong because of what happens when you do them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Abortions aren't wrong because of how they are done. They are wrong because of why they are done.
I disagree. They are wrong because of what happens when you do them.
So do you think its wrong for a woman to get an abortion if she has been raped?
If you don't think abortion is wrong for a woman who has been raped, how do you reconcile that with your statement?
If you do, how do you reconcile that with the LDS Church's stand on the issue?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You think abortion is wrong only because of the motives? Why, specifically, is wrong about it? Do you feel the same way giving up chlidren for adoption?
What is the "why", specifically, in abortion that you feel is morally wrong? Do you feel the same way about birth control? If so, how do you reconcile with the LDS church's stance?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Less than 5 percent of cases are for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Obama is pro-abortion
*wince*
No, he is pro-choice.
I'd think after almost 9 years of abortion threads that I've seen (and many more before that I'm sure), we've at least agreed to use some common terminology.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The problem with partial birth abortion is that unless the baby has birth defects (which is another issue) the baby could be born instead of aborted and survive. However, it is not optimal for the baby to be born early. So in order to avoid an unethical treatment that endangers the fetus, they kill it. It's not just the gruesomeness of the procedure. It's a real ethical conundrum.
Unless you factor in the concept of the woman not wanting to have born a child and have it adopted and be hers but be out there somewhere. That is such a stupid argument I can't really fathom it.
For the record, I don't agree with aborting for birth defects either, but I can somewhat see some points of view on that.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Even with the law, a woman can get an abortion at that stage in pregnancy. They just can't use the safest procedure. In the Supreme Court decision, that was specifically pointed out (that the law would not actually stop any one from getting an abortion). I also was under the understanding that women who get abortions that late in the game almost never do it for elective or convenience issues.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You think abortion is wrong only because of the motives?
You added an only there which was not in my original statement. I think that there are cases where an abortion is a moral choice. The thing that distinguishes those cases is not how the abortion is performed but why.
And yes I think the same is true for birth control.
In fact, I think the same is true for killing another person.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I largely agree with Obama's stand on abortion because I believe, as the Mormon church teaches, that their are some cases where abortion is a morally acceptable choice.
I don't think that the Mormon church has ever viewed abortion as a morally acceptable choice. No, not even in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger.
They've very carefully delineated that in those very rare cases, it's a REGRETTABLE choice that can be made without sin on the part of the mother or doctor performing the procedure.
That's not the same, IMO, as saying it's "morally acceptable."
quote:I think he's referring there to a case where the life of the mother is in danger,
If he is, that isn't clear from the context. Obama DID vote against a bill that was designed to illegalize partial birth abortion procedures-- I can't say why he didn't vote for it, but at the time, lots of Dems said they voted it down because it contained no provision for the health of the mother.
In the bit I quoted, he does not give reasons, other than 'Mother knows best.'
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:They've very carefully delineated that in those very rare cases, it's a REGRETTABLE choice that can be made without sin on the part of the mother or doctor performing the procedure.
That's not the same, IMO, as saying it's "morally acceptable."
How is "without sin" different from "morally acceptable"?
In my mind, they aren't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Something being the preferable of two evils doesn't stop it from being an evil.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I get hung up on the idea of abortion being "acceptable" in any way, shape, or form.
Sorry to bog down the discussion in semantics; I'm cautionary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:All I'm saying is Obama won a blue state (WA), a red state (NE) and a swing state (LA) this weekend, and he should take two blues and a magenta state tomorrow.
Incidentally, how well is he polling with tope, burgundy, and mauve?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Scott, The Gospel Principle book says
quote:If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any excuse for abortion. "The only exceptions are when--
1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; 2. The life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or 3. The fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
"Even in these cases the couple should consider an abortion only after consulting with each other and their bishop [or branch president] and receiving divine confirmation through prayer"
I have a hard time believing that one could receive divine confirmation for any choice that wasn't "morally acceptable".
I can't imagine how difficult it would to be for a righteous woman to be in one of those 3 situations. I can only begin to imagine how agonizing it would be to make that choice even if you received divine confirmation that it was the right choice.
What I would find morally unacceptable would be any law that would make that decision more difficult by placing restrictions on the abortion that might endanger the mother.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I answered you questions Kat, perhaps you could try to answer mine.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't weigh all forms of abortion as being one type of act, and that's what the partial birth abortion is about. If you see an abortion at 35 weeks as being the same as a menstrual extraction at 5, we've got nothing to talk about.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Scott, The Gospel Principle book says
quote:If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any excuse for abortion. "The only exceptions are when--
1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; 2. The life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or 3. The fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
"Even in these cases the couple should consider an abortion only after consulting with each other and their bishop [or branch president] and receiving divine confirmation through prayer"
I have a hard time believing that one could receive divine confirmation for any choice that wasn't "morally acceptable".
I have a hard time seeing how the phrase 'morally acceptable' applies to those criteria.
This isn't likely to be a productive conversation. I'm cautionary about using terms like 'morally acceptable' in regards to abortion because I don't want ANYONE to think that abortion is something that Heavenly Father actually considers...well, acceptable.
The 'acceptable' solution to two of the three situations would be for the founding reason to not occur at all. For rape and incest, given the impregnation, 'acceptable' is right out of the window. There remains only...a regrettable choice that can be made without sin after prayer, study, and counseling.
I agree that women who are in danger from their pregnancies should have access to the safest abortive procedure possible.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't weigh all forms of abortion as being one type of act, and that's what the partial birth abortion is about. If you see an abortion at 35 weeks as being the same as a menstrual extraction at 5, we've got nothing to talk about.
Who in this thread has equated the two?
If you think I have, then you haven't been reading what I've posted.
What I've said is that if, for example, a woman was at 35 weeks gestation when it was discovered that the baby had severe birth defects such that it could not survive birth, I think that partial birth abortion should be an option if doctors feel it is the safest option for the mother?
I recognize that this is an extreme case that rarely ever happens. But when it does happen, should women and doctors have the choice to use this procedure.
I would find that a far more morally acceptable choice, than, for example, a woman having a menstrual extraction because she'd slept with five guys at a party the previous week.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You're discussion church policy on abortion generally as though it applies to all cases equally. It doesn't.
Women who have late term fetal death don't have doctors recommend destruction of the fetus to ease delivery, that I am aware of. Maybe they do and just don't speak of it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I have a hard time seeing how the phrase 'morally acceptable' applies to those criteria.
This isn't likely to be a productive conversation. I'm cautionary about using terms like 'morally acceptable' in regards to abortion because I don't want ANYONE to think that abortion is something that Heavenly Father actually considers...well, acceptable.
Morally acceptable is a term applicable to the choice not the situation.
The church handbooks are quite clear that under those circumstances, the choice to have an abortion may be acceptable in the eyes of Heavenly Father.
I'm not sure how you can understand the teaching in any other way unless you have some different definition of "acceptable". The Church (and presumable its head, Jesus Christ) accepts those reasons as valid -- i.e. they are acceptable in the eyes of the Church and Jesus Christ.
I sincerely hope you never have a daughter, wife, friend or any one you need to counsel in one of those situations. If you do, I certainly hope you could overcome your aversion to the term morally acceptable or you made twisting the knife in the wound.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Where does the phrase morally acceptable or without sin appear in that definition? The main word I hear quoted is "heinous act".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think I can see my way to being a good husband, father, or friend while still maintaining my current stance, Rabbit.
But thanks for the well-wishing.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: You're discussion church policy on abortion generally as though it applies to all cases equally. It doesn't.
Women who have late term fetal death don't have doctors recommend destruction of the fetus to ease delivery, that I am aware of. Maybe they do and just don't speak of it.
When the supreme court ruled on partial birth abortion, they talked a lot about that situation. From the articles that argued partial birth abortion should be legal, it sounded like that is exactly what drs do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: You're discussion church policy on abortion generally as though it applies to all cases equally. It doesn't.
No pooka, I posted in response to a Mormon in a discussion about Mormons political views on abortion as part of a dialog about whether the events of this election could lead more Mormons to break with the republican party. I have been specifically addressing issues raised by two posters who are known as Mormons on this board.
My post to you was to clarify my position since you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I thought partial birth abortion at 35 weeks was the equivalent to menstrual extraction.
I never had any delusion that what the my Church policy would apply to any one other than its members. I am fully aware that the views of my Church are quite different from those of many other Christian Churches on this issue.
quote:Women who have late term fetal death don't have doctors recommend destruction of the fetus to ease delivery, that I am aware of. Maybe they do and just don't speak of it.
It may not be standard procedure but I know that this is sometimes done and that the partial birth abortion procedure is often considered preferable to other abortion methods because the baby remains sufficiently intact for a burial. I would suspect an abortion would be recommended rather than a normal delivery if their were other factors involved that would make delivery of the baby risky for the mother.
I'm fairly sure that even the Catholic church would not object to this if the fetus was confirmed dead prior to the procedure (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
In the specific example I had intended, the fetus was still alive but had confirmed birth defects that would make it impossible for the child to survive beyond birth. I think this illustrates a case in which the Mormon Church position differs from those of many other Christian Churches. If I understand correctly, the Catholic Church would not see abortion as a permissible option while the LDS church does.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm impressed with the number of topics covered in one thread.
quote:IMO, the years and/or decades it takes to learn to do things like throw someone without touching them
.
For the record, I've thrown people without touching them, and I'm no expert. I think it's all psychological, and I'm convinced that "ki" is a very useful concept for getting my body to do what I want it to do, not some sort of mystical force.
Scott, would you say that abortion in those cases is permissible, but not desirable? Because when I hear "morally acceptable" I hear the first word, not the second. I think Rabbit has a good point that banning a particular procedure is counterproductive given that it would not prevent abortions, but simply limit options. One thing I've been considering is the relative risk levels of having an abortion versus going through childbirth. It's my understanding that the risk of childbirth is higher, so there is actual benefit to the mother beyond mere convenience. I don't think that justifies abortion as birth control, but I do think it justifies leaving abortion as an option in various other cases (particularly when the mother's risk is significantly higher than normal).
As for the elections, I'm still waiting to see whether I'll get a say when the Oregon primary rolls around in May. We'll see...
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Apropos of nothing, everytime I see this thread title I mentally apend "of the closet" and giggle like a 3rd grader.
--Enigmatic
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. Please could we have the knights-vs-samurai discussion back?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:No pooka, I posted in response to a Mormon in a discussion about Mormons political views on abortion as part of a dialog about whether the events of this election could lead more Mormons to break with the republican party. I have been specifically addressing issues raised by two posters who are known as Mormons on this board.
I never presume that someone's Mormonness excuses me from communicating clearly with them, and partial birth abortion was the first mention of abortion is this thread.
It seems to me that you have the position (and I'm just describing it here) that partial birth abortion is no different from any other kind of abortion in the church's "book".
I don't agree.
But in the end we can both acknowledge that this is a medical matter and that the church demures from making definitive statements on medical issues. When one gets into areas like date rape and mental health, and how much medical intervention would be needed for a child to survive birth, it is very difficult to say what is justified or not under the church's guideline.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:permissible but not desirable...
I'd say it the way I've said it here: that it's a regrettable choice that can be made without sin.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Regrettable as I've used it != the mother should feel regret or guilt.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, someone's death from pneumonia is also regrettable, without being a cause for guilt.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What do you mean by "regrettable" if you don't mean the mother should feel regret.
You are using words in ways that I don't understand.
I will agree that the situations that the church has said excuse abortion are regrettable. Certainly anyone who has been raped, has a life threatening illness or an baby with extreme birth defects regrets the situation. But under those circumstances, if the Lord gives the woman his devine confirmation that she should have an abortion -- she should not regret making that choice. The choice under those circumstances is not regrettable even though the situations which lead to the choice are.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The baby can regret it. God can regret it. Speaking as Mormons.
Guilt and regret are not the same thing. I don't feel guilt for sins I have given to the Lord and repented of. But do I regret them? Maybe I shouldn't. But I'm young yet.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The whole problem I've got is the phrase "regrettable choice".
Yes, pneumonia is regrettable. But no choice was made. I'm fine with the situation being regrettalbe but not the choice.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I wouldn't think that regret is an emotion that God would have.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It could be regrettable that the choice was placed before one.
In that sense, is there every anything that we could not transcend regret for, through the infinite atonement? In an ultimate sense, no one should feel permanent regret for anything.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
God repents and grieves all the time in Genesis.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
This is a sticky conversation because of how ambiguous the LDS Church's official position is.
Abortion is not murder under the church's current position. Women who have had an abortion for one of the three reasons above are eligible for temple recommends. Both of these positions are made clear in the Church Handbook of Instructions. Indeed, the handbook also makes clear that church discipline or ecclesiastical counseling is not necessary for women who have had abortions for one of those reasons.
However, it's also clear that abortion for a reason other than one of those three is considered grounds for such action. So, it's unclear exactly what the 'sin' of abortion is. It's not what it does to the fetus; otherwise, it's hard to see why such exceptions above are acceptable. Rather, it seems to have to do with the nature of the woman's choice.
It's also worth noting that popular Mormon belief (as represented by 3 Nephi 1:13 and Saturday's Warrior, in which a woman miscarries, and the pre-existent spirit, who had not yet entered the fetus, is simply assigned to another body) until the 1980s was that a spirit did not enter the fetus until birth. This began to change (to the extent it has, which is also unclear) I think, with the growing participation of Mormons with the religious right - which itself did not began activism on abortion until the 1980 election.
The Catholics are the ones with a truly consistent and clear position on abortion - indeed, they were the first to began activism against it.
edit: changed an awkward 'positions' to 'reasons.'
[ February 12, 2008, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: MattB ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Tammy - the Mormon God is one who feels emotions like regret and sorrow; see, for example, here .
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I find it outrageous to cite Saturday's Warrior as an authoritative source on Mormon Doctrine.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So about gay marriage....
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Okay, he feels emotions and regrets. I just don't think that he feels them in the same way that we do.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
He didn't cite it as a source of doctrine but as an example of popular belief.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:However, it's also clear that abortion for a reason other than one of those three is considered grounds for such action. So, it's unclear exactly what the 'sin' of abortion is. It's not what it does to the fetus; otherwise, it's hard to see why such exceptions above are acceptable. Rather, it seems to have to do with the nature of the woman's choice.
Is this really any different than the Mormon position on Murder. A person who commits murder is excommunicated from the LDS church with no chance for rebaptism yet someone who kills in self defense, or in a war, or as an accident or under command from God (Nephi) is considered innocent of any sin. Clearly our intentions matter in the site of the Lord.
A person is just as dead if you ran them over in a crosswalk as if you shot them to take their wallet. From the point of view of the victim, they are the same. Yet we as we understand it, God does not consider these to sins the same.
[ February 11, 2008, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: He didn't cite it as a source of doctrine but as an example of popular belief.
Yes, but some how the way he included it along with a scriptural citation really rubbed me the wrong way.
The seeming inability of many Mormons to distinguish doctrine from culture is one of my pet peeves. I had an argument with a member one time about whether there was a donkey in scriptures describing Christ's birth. They insisted that the story of Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem and then to Egypt was in the Bible. Even when I showed them it wasn't in either Matthew or Luke, they persisted in arguing that I just hadn't found the right verse yet.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Rabbit - I'd say that someone who kills in a war is not, strictly doctrinally speaking, committing murder; or indeed, is even committing sin. So, I think we're more or less in agreement. Abortion, like murder, is relative, dependent on context. What it _is_ is less important than why we do it.
And dkw's right about my use of Saturday's Warrior. It's not doctrine, but it's a rich, rich grist mill for religious culture and pseudo-theology. I know a lot of folks whose primary theological ideas about the pre-existence, for example, are based on it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Please could we have the knights-vs-samurai discussion back?
Hmmm. I *somewhat* regret not giving into the fanboy side of the Force and exacerbating the debate Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And dkw's right about my use of Saturday's Warrior. It's not doctrine, but it's a rich, rich grist mill for religious culture and pseudo-theology. I know a lot of folks whose primary theological ideas about the pre-existence, for example, are based on it.
So do I which is why its one of my pet peeves.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Oh, sure, it's kind of silly, but we would be remiss if we denied the pervasive influence it's had on the way Mormons think.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:we would be remiss if we denied the pervasive influence it's had on the way Mormons think.
I'd be even more remiss if I didn't express my displeasure over the fact that many Mormon's are more influenced by Saturday's Warrior than the scriptures.
Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not living in Utah any more. No one** in Trinidad and Tobago has heard of Saturday's Warrior and with any luck its dead enough now that they never will.
**Edited: Technically I guess I'm in T&T and I've heard of Saturday's Warrior. I hope I'm the only one.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:we would be remiss if we denied the pervasive influence it's had on the way Mormons think.
I'd be even more remiss if I didn't express my displeasure over the fact that many Mormon's are more influenced by Saturday's Warrior than the scriptures.
Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not living in Utah any more. No one** in Trinidad and Tobago has heard of Saturday's Warrior and with any luck its dead enough now that they never will.
**Edited: Technically I guess I'm in T&T and I've heard of Saturday's Warrior. I hope I'm the only one.
As long as we can still count Johnny Lingo as doctrine, I'm happy. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Rabbit, when did you end up in T&T? Is it permanent or a sabbatical?
(and are there other jobs for chemical engineers down there?) AJ
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I moved here day after Christmas. I'm now a professor at the University of the West Indies. Its more or less permanent.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
hmmmm *ponders how to get away from negative windchills... to someplace permanently warm and tropical*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As long as we can still count Johnny Lingo as doctrine, I'm happy.
The 10 cow wife doctrine. When are they going to add that chapter to Gospel Principles.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The seeming inability of many Mormons to distinguish doctrine from culture is one of my pet peeves.
Hey, mine, too.
Funny.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'd be even more remiss if I didn't express my displeasure over the fact that many Mormon's are more influenced by Saturday's Warrior than the scriptures.
Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not living in Utah any more.
Yeah, because that sort of problem is unique to Utah.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yeah, because that sort of problem is unique to Utah.
Its not unique to Utah, but it is more prevalent there.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Is it even possible to separate culture from doctrine? I'd be interested in reading some sort of comprehensive attempt to do that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I heard Dallin Oaks (or was it Russell Nelson) speak not too long ago on how the inability of members to separate culture from doctrine is the major thing holding the church back in the world, so I hope that its not as impossible as you imply.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Well, then I guess it's a good thing that nobody here was (as far as I can tell) making the mistake of conflating Church doctrine with Mormon culture.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Oh, sure, to some extent everybody who weighed in here was conflating the two. This is because the 'official' position on abortion is (perhaps intentionally) ambiguous, so people tend to read it through things like political leanings and/or pre-established feeling about abortion.
That's why it's possible to ask a Mormon question like "What does 'preside' mean?" or "Does God care if we use birth control?" and get multiple answers depending on factors like age, gender, cultural and geographical background, political affiliation, and so forth. This also applies to general authorities.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Yeah, because that sort of problem is unique to Utah.
Its not unique to Utah, but it is more prevalent there.
Oh I don't know about that, you should see some of the craziness that passes as normal in Taiwan churches.
edit: I guess the problem Utah has is that we see ourselves as the center of the church and so our false doctrines are less likely to be so, and without a general authority specifically calling a doctrine out, time simply continues to convince folks that what's wrong is right.
[ February 11, 2008, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It occured to me during the leadership meeting that while there are some cultures (as they alluded to) where men and women don't relate as equals, those are less often the cultures also dealing with pluralism and relativism. My point is not that it would be better for women to be silent and submissive, but that no culture is the one true culture to which all must aspire. There have been two near perfect cultures in recorded scripture, the city of Enoch and 1-4th century America, and we are told much less about them than the Nephalim, the Gadianton Robbers, and various other folks with problems.
But it gets back to a question about what culture actually is.
I always thought the popular doctrine was something Brigham Young said about the spirit entering the body at "quickening", c. 15-17 weeks.
I'm fine with that doctrinally, since it deals with the question of how God could allow so many spontaneous abortions (miscarriages). However, my political standpoint is based on the categorical imperative and the refusal of science to establish a point at which life begins, and until they decide such a thing, I think society should not be involved in the destruction of anything that might be a human life. In the same sense that we should not execute criminals who might be innocent.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Please could we have the knights-vs-samurai discussion back?
Okay, here's one for you.
Who would win in a presidential primary? A knight, or a samurai?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, if it's a Frankish knight and Japanese samurai, I'd think the native born clause would exclude them both from running, but let's say they are born here citizens.
They're both in the military, so that's good from the point of view of electability, but I think a lot of GOP voters might shy away from an Asian president, plus he's probably Shinto, so, an animist religion will turn off the Conservative base of the party, though given Japan's view of illegal immigrants at the time, I'm sure his policies on the border would play well with the party's base.
The Frankish knight on the other hand would be strong on defense, probably a highly religious Christian, and very much interested in defending our interests abroad. He'd probably be quite wealthy, which means he'd be able to provide some of his own funding perhaps for the campaign, and I think he'd play well in the Bible Belt and the plains states.
Conclusion? I think the Samurai takes California, and the geek vote nationwide, but overall the knight is innately more electable. I'm guess the Democrats would run a wizard or mage against him in the General though. That'd be a tough one.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Would Romney still be in the race had he been running against these two?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, if it's a Frankish knight and Japanese samurai, I'd think the native born clause would exclude them both from running, but let's say they are born here citizens.
They're both in the military, so that's good from the point of view of electability, but I think a lot of GOP voters might shy away from an Asian president, plus he's probably Shinto, so, an animist religion will turn off the Conservative base of the party, though given Japan's view of illegal immigrants at the time, I'm sure his policies on the border would play well with the party's base.
The Frankish knight on the other hand would be strong on defense, probably a highly religious Christian, and very much interested in defending our interests abroad. He'd probably be quite wealthy, which means he'd be able to provide some of his own funding perhaps for the campaign, and I think he'd play well in the Bible Belt and the plains states.
Conclusion? I think the Samurai takes California, and the geek vote nationwide, but overall the knight is innately more electable. I'm guess the Democrats would run a wizard or mage against him in the General though. That'd be a tough one.
A wizard? Tsk tsk, the Democrats always make the mistake of running Ivory Tower intellectuals that the common man has a hard time understanding. The knight would win for sure.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hang on, though, the Frank is likely to be a Catholic. That wouldn't be so good for the Evangelicals. He's also likely to support the Inquisition, torture as a means of getting information, and white supremacy; which isn't so good for, basically, anyone.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Actually, the using torture as a means of getting info doesn't seem to upset that many Americans. It means he is tough on terror. And his pro-Inquisition viewpoints will go well with Huckabee's Constitution rewrites.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Can I say how much I loathe that "like torture for others" has become part of the Republican platform?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think its high time for a national leader that is willing to commit seppuku in response to mismanagement of military events Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Can I say how much I loathe that "like torture for others" has become part of the Republican platform?
You loathe that it has or that people speak presumptively as though it has?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, if it's a Frankish knight and Japanese samurai, I'd think the native born clause would exclude them both from running, but let's say they are born here citizens.
They're both in the military, so that's good from the point of view of electability, but I think a lot of GOP voters might shy away from an Asian president, plus he's probably Shinto, so, an animist religion will turn off the Conservative base of the party, though given Japan's view of illegal immigrants at the time, I'm sure his policies on the border would play well with the party's base.
The Frankish knight on the other hand would be strong on defense, probably a highly religious Christian, and very much interested in defending our interests abroad. He'd probably be quite wealthy, which means he'd be able to provide some of his own funding perhaps for the campaign, and I think he'd play well in the Bible Belt and the plains states.
Conclusion? I think the Samurai takes California, and the geek vote nationwide, but overall the knight is innately more electable. I'm guess the Democrats would run a wizard or mage against him in the General though. That'd be a tough one.
But the Frankish knight would be both Catholic, and French. Those could work against him if the samurai had a good PR director.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Very likely that he'd be Catholic. For all intents and purposes, he's American for this discussion, but even if he wasn't there's no guarantee that he'd be French. He could be any of a couple dozen different kingdoms or principalities. If memory serves, Frank comes from the Arabic "franj" which meant something like "outsider." It was a generic term used by the Arabs in Outremer to describe pretty much any Western knight, regardless of nationality or allegience.
But I'm 99% positive that if religion were an issue, they'd vote for a Catholic before they vote for an animist. At least a Catholic is still Christian. Though ironically, the stuff they were afraid of in the 60's about Popes giving orders would probably have a lot more truth to it, depending on the time period.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
They'd both piss off the female vote immediately.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Okay: So the knight gets the Republican nod.
For the Democratic side we have an even more epic struggle: The pirate and the ninja.
Which would win the Democratic nod, in this most epic of all presidential races?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm not sure even the Democratic tent is THAT big.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hang on, though, the Frank is likely to be a Catholic. That wouldn't be so good for the Evangelicals. He's also likely to support the Inquisition, torture as a means of getting information, and white supremacy; which isn't so good for, basically, anyone.
First, the Inquisition was a Spanish thing, so the Frankish knight wouldn't necessarily support it.
Second, "white supremecy" would not have been in the mindset of a Frankish night, as we know racism today. One theory is that institutionalized racism actually started with the Spanish slave trade, when they started buying primarily for west African slaves. The mindset spread throughout Europe from there.
(I'm taking a course on the History of the Jewish Sepharad this semester)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:the Inquisition was a Spanish thing
No it wasn't. The Spanish Inquisition was a Spanish thing. The Inquisition was pan-Catholic. The office of the Inquisition still exists today, but with a name change. The current Pope was head of it at one time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, a knight for the Republicans? Well, as long as it is not a Templar Knight, those guys could be seriously bone-headed on the battlefield.
As for the democrats, if we're considering a pirate versus a ninja. I think a pirate would play well to the base, with lax intellectual property stances (that would annoy the establishment), ambiguous sexuality (which would play well to the gay marriage crowd), and with a rather instinctive detachment to the military which would tend to shorten a stay in the Iraqi theatre.
On the other hand, a ninja, while suffering from both being Asian and non-Christian, would be much more of a hawk, albeit with an rejuvenated and welcomed emphasis on intelligence and special forces operations rather than conventional military.
What other issues are there? Abortion? Pirate might be more liberal, wanting more access to and less consequences for the companion to "pillage and ..." Gun rights, a pirate would be for gun rights. A ninja would be less predictable. Drugs, a pirate would be all for legalised drugs. A ninja would be more conservative.
Hmmm, I'm starting to get the sense that a ninja would be more of an establishment candidate while the pirate would be more of a populist, playing well to the base. But between intellectual property rights (hostile to corporations), ambiguous sexuality (gay marriage), and abortion plus the ninja advantage on military I'd say the better choice for the democrats would be the establishment ninja to attract the independents and attack the swing states. That said, the democrat party may well pick the unelectable populist pro-base pirate candidate and shoot themselves in the foot.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That's okay, chicks dig the wooden leg.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:the Inquisition was a Spanish thing
No it wasn't. The Spanish Inquisition was a Spanish thing. The Inquisition was pan-Catholic.
This is true. As recently as 100 years ago the Inquisition was still active in rural parts of Brazil. Not as active as it was in Spain, but still.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Moreover, "the Inquisition" encompassed a range of activities, from torture and execution to tribunals who determined whether someone had committed heresy and prescribed solely ecclesiastical punishment (up to and including excommunication and laicizing priests).
The latter functions are still carried on today by an organization within the Church that is a direct successor to the organization that oversaw the Roman Inquisition.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
OK, I admit my wrongness. I was tired last night.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As for the democrats, if we're considering a pirate versus a ninja. I think a pirate would play well to the base ... ambiguous sexuality ...
Um, Is the "ambiguous sexuality" taken from Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow? I can't think of ANY other sexually ambiguous pirates. I'm not sure we should assume our theoretical pirate is sexually ambiguous based on one recent popular film series.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I can't think of ANY other sexually ambiguous pirates.
I take it you haven't read Billy Budd.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Nope.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As for the democrats, if we're considering a pirate versus a ninja. I think a pirate would play well to the base . . . with a rather instinctive detachment to the military which would tend to shorten a stay in the Iraqi theatre.
Are you forgetting that many pirates actually had a contract with the queen of England and some of the more famous pirate captains, (Francis Drake for example) were promoted to captains in the royal navy
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Obviously we're talking about the romanticized and fictionalized sort of pirate found in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, where the military is a fascist and imperialist regime and the pirates are just a bunch of freedom-loving sea-hippies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed. And if I had more knowledge of anime (not that I want to), I would pick a similarly colourful, romanticized, and fictionalized ninja character
The Rabbit: Voters would go for Jack Sparrow over Francis Drake. Charisma counts, saavy?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...pirates are just a bunch of freedom-loving sea-hippies.
*snort*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:As for the democrats, if we're considering a pirate versus a ninja. I think a pirate would play well to the base . . . with a rather instinctive detachment to the military which would tend to shorten a stay in the Iraqi theatre.
Are you forgetting that many pirates actually had a contract with the queen of England and some of the more famous pirate captains, (Francis Drake for example) were promoted to captains in the royal navy
Those were privateers. You're only a pirate if you don't have a letter of marque and reprisal.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Whether they or not there was any difference between a pirate and are privateer depends mostly on whether you were Spanish or English.
Isn't the hispanic vote important to you?
quote:Obviously we're talking about the romanticized and fictionalized sort of pirate found in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, where the military is a fascist and imperialist regime and the pirates are just a bunch of freedom-loving sea-hippies.
Pirates of the Caribbean aside, the Buccaneers that ran pirate ships out of Tortula might well be described as freedom-loving sea-hippies. Likely the most democratic group to ever sail the seven seas, they frequently elected new captains several times during a campaign.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Sea-hippie" is my new favorite word.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pirate for President? been there. Done that.
Now Ninja--talk about a dark horse candidate. Face it, he would Steal the election.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Pirate for President? been there. Done that.
Now Ninja--talk about a dark horse candidate. Face it, he would Steal the election.
Are you sure he can?
*ducks*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Any self respecting Ninja wouldn't run for President. He'd use his resources to secure a much easier post, like President Pro Temp. Then he'd assasinate the president and VP, elevating himself to power through guile and trickery.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Mitt would still be in the race if kids knew how hardcore he was (language, questionable use of Jesus Christ). As if pirates or samurai could stand a chance.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If Mitt were in the race, a ninja would have to run against him, as per the age old rivalry between ninjas and robots.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No self respecting pirate would ever assume the office of President. He'd announce his campaign, amass an enormous war chest of donations, then suspend his campaign, use the money to buy an Island in the Caribbean and spend the rest of his life drinking rum and enjoying the brown sugar.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Romney? Is that you?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If Mitt were in the race, a ninja would have to run against him, as per the age old rivalry between ninjas and robots.
I believe you are confused, sir. Everyone knows that it's pirates versus ninjas and monkeys versus robots.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:No self respecting pirate would ever assume the office of President. He'd announce his campaign, amass an enormous war chest of donations, then suspend his campaign, use the money to buy an Island in the Caribbean and spend the rest of his life drinking rum and enjoying the brown sugar.
Ohhh, so that's what Ron Paul is doing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought the robots were against the giant radioactive lizards.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No, that's the Japanese (which may or may not include samurai and ninjas).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I read the Nova episode about how they craft katana yesterday. It was really awesome. Someone tried to explain it to me when I was about 7, and I totally didn't get it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I read the Nova episode about how they craft katana yesterday. It was really awesome. Someone tried to explain it to me when I was about 7, and I totally didn't get it.
I love the fact that, in a thread entitled "Mitt Romney's Out", someone can say the above, and just the above, and have it be completely on-topic.
I'm sure there are even better examples of thread drift in this forum's history, but this is definitely the best one I've ever participated in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I read the Nova episode about how they craft katana yesterday. It was really awesome. Someone tried to explain it to me when I was about 7, and I totally didn't get it.
I've seen a special on it before. All I remember is that they heat it, fold it, pound it, and between each layer they mix something, but I can't remember what it is. Then they heat it to bind it all together, fold, pound, etc. And eventually you're left with a giant razor blade.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Anyone see the Mythbusters where they tried to cut off the barrel of a machine gun with a samurai sword? As I recall, the sword came out much worse, even when the gun barrel was heated to make it softer.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Anyone see the Mythbusters where they tried to cut off the barrel of a machine gun with a samurai sword? As I recall, the sword came out much worse, even when the gun barrel was heated to make it softer.
Your recollection is correct, on all points.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I saw a show, recently, where they compared the effects, both on the sword and on the target, between a modern forged sword of high grade carbon steel and a katana.
It was great.
[ February 15, 2008, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I saw a show, recently, where they compared the effects, both on the sword and on the target, between a modern forged sword of high grade carbon steel and a katana.
It was great.
What happened?
Edited to include the quote, since this tops a new page. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Anyone see the Mythbusters where they tried to cut off the barrel of a machine gun with a samurai sword? As I recall, the sword came out much worse, even when the gun barrel was heated to make it softer.
Your recollection is correct, on all points.
And his assessment of your recollection is correct on all points.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Anyone see the Mythbusters where they tried to cut off the barrel of a machine gun with a samurai sword? As I recall, the sword came out much worse, even when the gun barrel was heated to make it softer.
I wanna see the mythbusters where they find out if any of those famous 5 body blades in the museums can really cut through 5 bodies.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Anyone see the Mythbusters where they tried to cut off the barrel of a machine gun with a samurai sword? As I recall, the sword came out much worse, even when the gun barrel was heated to make it softer.
Your recollection is correct, on all points.
And his assessment of your recollection is correct on all points.
We can't just say "Hey, I saw that episode too! It was cool!"
We have to pretend we're adding something valuable to the conversation. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We have to pretend we're adding something valuable to the conversation.
Why would we participate in any online discussion if we weren't under the dilution we had something valuable to add to the conversation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Under the dilution" is one of the more amusing malapropisms I've seen this week.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, I think most people DO have something valuable to add.
But I was stretching. And Blackblade called me on it. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you gain weight, are you diluting yourself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Only if it's water weight.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Only if it's water weight.
Does this mean you find fat and muscle but not water to be part of your essential essence?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Well, I think most people DO have something valuable to add.
But I was stretching. And Blackblade called me on it.
Oh I wouldn't say calling you out so much as playfully adding to the inanity. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I saw a show, recently, where they compared the effects, both on the sword and on the target, between a modern forged sword of high grade carbon steel and a katana.
It was great.
What happened?
Edited to include the quote, since this tops a new page.
The katana won, although there were a few things the modern sword did as well as it. The modern one wasn't as sharp, but it held up far better than they thought it would.
They measured how well it cut though dummies, and armor, and then they fired a bullet at the modern one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'd like to see this contest as part of an inclusion into my incredibly over-studied judgment of swarrrds
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Only if it's water weight.
Does this mean you find fat and muscle but not water to be part of your essential essence?
No, it means I think I'm water soluble. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I suppose that's possible, but it would be hard to test, given that there is only one Rivka particle (which if divided would cease to have the properties of the whole). We would need a larger quantity of Rivka particles in order to see if they would dissolve.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, my oldest strongly resembles me in many ways.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Anyone see the Mythbusters where they tried to cut off the barrel of a machine gun with a samurai sword? As I recall, the sword came out much worse, even when the gun barrel was heated to make it softer.
OMG this is so untrue! Samurai swords totally cut thru anything! Japan ROXXORS!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And if you and your oldest are both swimming in the ocean, do you tend to separate?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Never tried. However, in my parents' pool, yes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We can accept your water solubility as a working hypothesis, then.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yet another great quote in this thread which has nothing to do with the original topic Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Okay, I'll admit I'm just messing with you guys with this particular bump-up to the front page. Sigh... I can resist everything except temptation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This thread isn't about romney. It's about knights, samurai, and steven's magic eastern fighting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also Not-Nazis, Chiang Kai Shek, and Mao.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I never vote for the winning Republican in the primary.
2000 - McCain 2008 - Romney 2012 - Goldwater
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Pardon?
--j_k
This quote is even sillier now than it was four years ago.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Mitt Romney's out
oh?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This thread isn't about romney. It's about knights, samurai, and steven's magic eastern fighting.
You forgot Necromancy Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I forget what was decided, but is it safe to assume that the general conclusion was that knights > samurai, real swords > katanas, and Steven's eastern fighting wasn't as magical as he thought?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Hey, that was way less excruciatingly awkward than I expected!
Just a little lilt to his voice. I'm actually rather impressed. I see way more over-the-top flamboyant caricatures on TV all the time.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I do love a good double entendre
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Fine, let's pillory this.
To average out the "Knight" — in a category which was wildly diverse and could have run the gamut from a Hospitalier in 1090 to the Baths in the 1700's — you probably end up with a spanish or hungarian knight which has all the advantages and would win the great majority of fights if you modeled a thousand 1 on 1 fights.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm enough of an Anglophile that I'm confident you could take a Western knight from nearly any era and he'd still win, Sam.
Calligraphy is vastly overrated as a fighting style. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
meh Any decent bowman or halbeard/pikeman could take knights out with ease. For that matter, in mano-a-mano, so could any decent fencer or knife fighter (using a lengthened&stengthened ice-pick equivalent).
[ April 12, 2012, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm... not sure what you're basing that latter assertion on.
The erroneous assumption that knights lacked any significant mobility and could be toppled and then incapacitated with ease?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anglophilia ain't got nothing to do with it. If I'd had any opportunity to be partial towards one or the other, I'd have chosen the samurai, because his crap just looks better.
UNFORTUNATELY.
One: Average Knight would be larger and more physically robust versus Average Samurai. Taller, too. Sorry, this is unambiguously a benefit in terms of martial combat. The supposed magical benefits of eastern martial combatants have, so far, been unable to match the benefit of just being physically larger and having larger reach. This becomes particularly important when we factor in how readily a melee scrap between two people will frequently end up resolved by grappling, usually on the ground. And anyone who romanticizes the fighting form of either knight or samurai to the extent that they believe that grappling and knockdowns won't end up being a significant occurring event in these modeled fights has an image of fights which has long ago become informed primarily by what choreographed cinema interpretations of fights are, as opposed to what we actually know about martial combat. Anyone who thinks the Average Samurai is going to compensate or surpass the physical difference using ~mystic eastern fighting arts~ that the clumsy overconfident oaf knight cannot match ... is steven.
Two: Average Knight will be wearing unambiguously better armor. Japanese armor is ingenious. It's very well crafted. It has an artistic flair. It's very pretty. I like it. We have two full and real sets of the stuff. It was outclassed by western armors thousands of years before it even existed. Japanese lamellar is a very creative way to compensate for the region's extremely lacking materials and limited variety of construction methods, but you could go back as far as Mycenaean linothorax and find better armor. Average Knight is probably wearing something around 45 pounds of armor (ten pounds lighter than Average Samurai's armor, by the way) which is going to provide superior protective coverage, mainly through the benefit of good metalworking methods and un-terrible steel. Average Knight's armor is most likely not going to be one of those gothic style hunks of full plate, by the by. It's most likely to be a varied type of composite mail construction.
Three: Average Knight will be using an unambiguously better weapon. Katanas are ingenious. They're very well crafted. They have an artistic flair. They're very pretty. We own at least 12 of them, and an impressive library of exceptionally artistic tsubas. They're shitty weapons. The curve is a liability. The weight is a liability. Folded steel blades are strictly inferior to the frankish blades that Average Knight is using. Folding steel does not magically make it better than unfolded steel. Japanese folding is a method to compensate for the terrible steel and ugly coke that Japan had. The whole japanese swordsmithing process is one I have plenty of respect for, because it was their way of making lemons out of lemonade, and managing to eke a pretty good strip of sturdy-enough steel out of disastrously irregular, wonkily carbonated, utterly crap metal. But the end product is not better because of majick metalsmithing. It is a compensation. Katanas are ungainly, blade-heavy, and curved in a way which draws the user towards reliance on ridiculous, equally compensatory forms and moves like draw cuts. Average Knight is using a sword which is more efficiently balanced, more efficiently crafted (if even simply because it's made out of non-terrible steel to begin with), and straight. A straight sword is a better sword. Sadly, but truthfully. It is not a matter of differing aesthetic or style. It's just better.
Four: Average Knight's swordfighting and combat practices are, as far as we can guess, better than samurai fighting styles. This at least grants ambiguity, but it's still not looking good for the Japanese. Certainly, Knight sword arts (or what of them has survived) were modeled in a crucible of much more competition versus a much wider variety of fighting styles, and grew (or got skewered, usually by turks hurrr) in this environment. Samurai swordfighting styles languished in a much more insular environment and ended up largely just designed around the one thing it was most often tested against: fighting other japanese combatants. It's too bad that so many of their fighting manuals and training methods have been lost to time, but there was no two ways around it — they'd stopped being really relevant as combatants, generations before steamships pried into Japanese harbors and discovered a culture that had dutifully preserved an archaic swordfighting style.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sam, political and philosophical differences aside, if I could I would gay marry you right now.
I knew all of that, but it's still so much fun to see it again and you express it so wonderfully.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Except your silly insistence that Japanese arms and armor look better. Bah! The devil you say! The gritty practicality of Western arms and armor has an aesthetic appeal all its own!
Hm, trouble in paradise already.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I'm... not sure what you're basing that latter assertion on. The erroneous assumption that knights lacked any significant mobility and could be toppled and then incapacitated with ease?
Nope, speed&maneuverabiliy combined with the fact that thin non-edged weapons with points could puncture armor quite readily. ie The Three Musketeers could defeat any three armored knights without resorting to their muskets.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sorry, I think Japanese lamellar strips and the organization of thigh guards on samurai armor tend to have a much better aesthetic appeal than the weird, bulbous apportionments of frankish plate.
this just looks better than this and all the other stuff on plate and composite armor which I think is painfully ugly (shoulder nipples!) but which is there for a well-tested reason.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Second link isn't working. Edit: Now it is.
I'll grant you shoulder nipples, I suppose. I never really thought of rondels as shoulder nipples before, but now I can't unsee it. Thanks for that, by the way.
Still, I'm not terribly crazy about the boxy look of Japanese lamellar either. Makes 'em look like a person in Minecraft.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"One: Average Knight would be larger and more physically robust versus Average Samurai. Taller, too.
You're making the mistake of thinking that a Samuri was physically equivalent to a malnourished peasant. Compare the peasant with the peasant, and the Privileged with the Privileged. The differences aren't much in regards to size and strength.
[ April 12, 2012, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Nope, speed&maneuverabiliy combined with the fact that thin non-edged weapons with points could puncture armor quite readily. ie The Three Musketeers could defeat any three armored knights without resorting to their muskets.
You are thinking of this in way too much of a rock-paper-scissors mentality. A categorical statement like "Any decent bowman or halbeard/pikeman could take knights out with ease." requires a LOT of qualifying analysis (halberdiers are not particularly conceptually adept at duels and a 'decent' one is not going to hard-counter a knight). Not that I doubt that the heroic and fictional musketeers would win an even fight against three unnamed knights; fictional characters tend to be written to do so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: You're making the mistake of thinking that a Samuri was physically equivalent to a malnourished peasant.
I'm not making that mistake at all. Average Knight would just be taller still than Average Japanese Peasant. Knights were just bigger.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Halbeards and pikes were used to stop armored mass charges. Once off the horse, the knight was vulnerable to warhammers(maces/etc) and non-edged pointed long knives. And totally helpless against a non-edged pointed sword.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
"Totally helpless" is a strong assertion!
Re: polearms, you're taking mass combat tactics and applying them to a "duel" scenario, which is fundamentally erroneous. There's no compelling reason to believe any individual pikeman had particularly impressive accuracy against a mounted charge. He didn't need to.
But one on one, that would translate to a strong possibility of completely missing an individual charging knight, at which point his sole advantage completely evaporates.
Oh man this is fun! I haven't bickered about knights in years! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
None of what you are saying is very credible at all and comes off as an overly simplistic analysis. Halbeards (sp) and pikes are close-order formation weapons; they're not designed for individual combat. I guarantee that they're not a good duel weapon. Likewise, I guarantee you that I'm not going to render Average Knight completely helpless before me just by waving a dirk around. Your analysis is .. disregardable.
But I'm glad that we can keep this as silly as a knights vs samurai vs ninja vs pirate vs caveman vs astronaut battle analysis should be.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
To say nothing of the problems a sole pikeman would face if a knight simply opted to approach him on foot with sword & shield.
In mass combat, polearms were magnaflorious. Far better than, say, swords.
But in a fictional duel scenario they have a pretty fundamental problem, which is that they have a very, very small margin for error in a one-on-one fight.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Aw I was too slow on the draw. As suits the thread, Sam ninjas my point out from under me.
Aaaah, ninjas. An entire iconic warrior invented out of whole cloth. Should we talk about them next? And how there's, generously, a single instance of a ninja-like agent actually accomplishing anything, ever, in all of history?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
(btw Sam I think the Astronaut wins, since he can open the airlock)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The Three Musketeers could defeat any three armored knights without resorting to their muskets.
It'd be an all or nothing fight. The musketeer would have greater maneuverability by virtue of being unarmored, yes, but if you know much about fencing, he'd have to put his weight behind the sword to puncture armor. (A thrust isn't simply a function of the arm - even with knife fighting you put your back and shoulders in to it and pivot your foot) If he missed his thrust, or even made a less than lethal blow, the knight could close the distance and grapple him, in which case having his neck and groin and face protected by armor as well as wearing armored gloves will make him the superior fighter.
And that's assuming the musketeer could get in place to make that thrust in the first place. He might be able to run faster* and move a bit better, but the knight's sword is light and very maneuverable, and at close range there wouldn't be much difference. You're thinking of it as a lumbering hulk barely able, which is the wrong image.
*I frequently run wearing 45+ lbs of armor. There's some speed lost, but not as much as you think. Especially when you train with it on a daily basis.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
One of the stranger things I see in these arguments is as if people believe that if you are wearing <x> pounds of armor, it slows your attacks down as if the full <x> pounds is hanging off of your attacking arm. Or something. So many people also seem reliably unaware of what an actually fit combatant is capable of doing in armor, that a knight is a 'lumbering oaf,' or are surprised to learn, yet again, that samurai armor was heavier than knight armor.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's a misconception started by Hollywood, specifically due a belief (at least in earlier years) that slow, dramatic sword fights (with the combatants frequently locking swords and glaring at each other in a slightly homoerotic fashion) were more interesting and easier to follow (and easier to shoot!) than at normal speed, coupled with the belief that medieval swords were heavy, clumsy chopping weapons. In reality, even 3 and a half foot longswords only averaged 3 lbs, and were perfectly balanced (using the hand as a fulcrum)... a knight could strike anything within arms reach really, really quickly. The advantage of using a bladed weapon is not every strike has to be a giant, lumbering two-handed chop (like in the movies), you could cut an unarmored opponent to shreds while absorbing his own blows with your armor.
Sam: I'd tell them, if they're inclined to going to the gym, to grab a weight vest, put 45 lbs on it, and strap it on. Then go and be amazed by the fact that they can curl or bench or row the exact same amount of weight.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
This is a great series to watch for those interested. Pay attention to just how quickly they move the blades, even going slowly for demonstration.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: (btw Sam I think the Astronaut wins, since he can open the airlock)
Oh Yeah! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Aaaah, ninjas. An entire iconic warrior invented out of whole cloth. Should we talk about them next? And how there's, generously, a single instance of a ninja-like agent actually accomplishing anything, ever, in all of history?
To give credit to ninjas, they were not invented out of whole cloth. They were a thing, but they were not much of a thing. And they were not much of an effective thing. They were actually kind of a really ineffectual and abandoned thing. Then later on, edo period theatre needed some ghosts in the machines to make fun silly stage things happen for dramatic effect and so they dressed people up in black pajamas and had them as theatrical elements in entirely fictional stories where they summoned great toads and blended into the black backdrop of fantastical stories.
Cut to the 19th century and stage ninjas become this myth that goddamned nerds everywhere think were a real goddamned thing that really ran around in black stage pajamas and killed people with laser death efficiency with things that are actually incredibly stupid and impractical, like throwing stars.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Besides, a ninja making history kinda defeats the whole purpose of ninjary, don' it? Might as well have world famous secret agents. I mean if I had change the course of world history, I'd certainly never admit it.
[ April 20, 2012, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Besides, a ninja making history kinda defeats the whole purpose of ninjary, don' it? Might as well have world famous secret agents. I mean if I had ever made world history, I'd certainly never admit it.
Secret agents reveal that sort of thing when they write their memoirs after retirement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ninjas don't retire, BlackBlade. You can never retire from being the embodiment of flawless amazing eastern awesomeness.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ninjas don't retire, BlackBlade. You can never retire from being the embodiment of flawless amazing eastern awesomeness.
Sure, but secret agents blab all the time. It's just so frustrating to know you're responsible for bringing down the USSR but you can't brag about it. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: One: Average Knight would be larger and more physically robust versus Average Samurai. Taller, too. Sorry, this is unambiguously a benefit in terms of martial combat. The supposed magical benefits of eastern martial combatants have, so far, been unable to match the benefit of just being physically larger and having larger reach. This becomes particularly important when we factor in how readily a melee scrap between two people will frequently end up resolved by grappling, usually on the ground. And anyone who romanticizes the fighting form of either knight or samurai to the extent that they believe that grappling and knockdowns won't end up being a significant occurring event in these modeled fights has an image of fights which has long ago become informed primarily by what choreographed cinema interpretations of fights are, as opposed to what we actually know about martial combat. Anyone who thinks the Average Samurai is going to compensate or surpass the physical difference using ~mystic eastern fighting arts~ that the clumsy overconfident oaf knight cannot match ... is steven.
You brought out many excellent points in your post, but can you cite scientific studies on this part?
While size is a huge benefit in hand to hand combat, and especially grappling, I don't think eastern fighting arts are by default magical or mystical at all. These days, a lot of the teaching is crappy and impractical, but a lot of it is also very effective. I'm rather familiar with the subject, having done two seasons of martial arts documentary series about the subject. We included both traditional and modern martial arts.
When two untrained opponents meet, size is extremely beneficial. But when a well-trained martial artists meets a non-trained or little-trained martial artist, the well-trained tends to have clear superiority, even if he is considerably smaller.
I'm a big guy. I know that a a much smaller BJJ practitioner with a few years of devoted practice (a couple of hours three times a week) would win me in a grappling match every time. No question about it.
Unfortunately our knowledge of Samurai training is scattered, so it's hard to say how good an average samurai was in martial arts combat. If there are good studies on the subject, I'm in interested in reading them.
On the other hand, we do know that the European non-weapon martial arts training was rather limited.
[ April 17, 2012, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: You brought out many excellent points in your post, but can you cite scientific studies on this part?
I would hope I have no need to. Size is an unambiguous and direly significant benefit in physical fighting. There is a very straightforward reason why fighting sports utilize weight classes. When they don't, the field is not just preferenced to the heavyweight combatants, it's solely viable to heavyweight combatants. In spite of all the romantic mythologizing of eastern martial arts, there are none that are going to overturn the advantage of size versus a non-eastern practitioner. You're not going to have older and/or smaller shaolin monks and Master Ninjas utilizing a base eastern martial superiority of form to reign supreme over Junior dos Santos, or anything.
The point being discussed here involves arguments reliant on the idea that there was something demonstrably inherent to eastern martial arts that was, in practice, going to give them the edge in lethal armed or unarmed closed scrapping — which is what typically results in a fight when combatants close beyond weapon range and end up clutching at each other's bodies and arms. And it's ugly. It's very ugly. It's every romanticized concept of martial combat thrown right out the window and reduced to MMA-style grappling between adrenaline-soaked combatants desperately trying to bring knives or picks or arm-breaking holds to bear against someone they're locked against.
Which leads to: ...
quote:we do know that the European non-weapon martial arts training was rather limited.
We do not know this. If anything, we have indications of the exact opposite. The west has just as storied a history of martial combat, from at least Pankration onward; the only practical difference is that in the west, the mythologizing of unarmed combat forms ended and faded away. Even given thousands of years of decay and the loss to time of most of the training knowledge of western martial training from the timeframe of the knights, we still have manuscripts like the surviving works of Fiore dei Liberi — when we look at not only the armed combat but the abrazare / grappling manuals, we find out that (unsurprisingly) trained medieval western combatants and duelists and gladiators and so forth were well trained in, if you'll pardon my medieval french, The Shit That Goes Down When You Get Tangled Up With Your Opponent. These fighting styles are detailed in manuscripts often more technically complicated than their eastern equivalents, are specifically related to quarters-closed grappling between armed opponents, and when practiced and tested by dedicated HEMA reconstructionists, look just as elegant and deadly as oft-mythologized eastern arts.
Knight Vs. Samurai is just talking about two separate cultures with two cultural instances of privileged fighting class/caste, both possessing the same general level of practical and tested military grappling know-how — no testable 'obvious superiority' or 'obvious insufficiency' of either — in the same range of an objective plateau of the practical efficacy of these sorts of techniques in pursuit of the same goal ("he grabbed me; how do i shank him before he shanks me").
Which leaves, from a reasonable perspective, only the weight, height, and size difference to consider in the event of a common grapple or takedown scenario (This is ignoring the differences in armor, and remember — japanese armor is heavier and not quite as good). The disparity in size between knights and samurai is fairly easy to measure, considering that both wore armors that were specifically sized and fitted to them and can be measured today to compare averages. In conclusion, it is now two in the morning and I'm insane what is wrong with me.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Aaaah, ninjas. An entire iconic warrior invented out of whole cloth. Should we talk about them next? And how there's, generously, a single instance of a ninja-like agent actually accomplishing anything, ever, in all of history?
To give credit to ninjas, they were not invented out of whole cloth. They were a thing, but they were not much of a thing. And they were not much of an effective thing. They were actually kind of a really ineffectual and abandoned thing. Then later on, edo period theatre needed some ghosts in the machines to make fun silly stage things happen for dramatic effect and so they dressed people up in black pajamas and had them as theatrical elements in entirely fictional stories where they summoned great toads and blended into the black backdrop of fantastical stories.
Cut to the 19th century and stage ninjas become this myth that goddamned nerds everywhere think were a real goddamned thing that really ran around in black stage pajamas and killed people with laser death efficiency with things that are actually incredibly stupid and impractical, like throwing stars.
Come on Samprimary, history only reads this way because ninjas didn't want the truth out. Did anyone ever see ninjas out and about assassinating people? No? Then they did their job well Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's every romanticized concept of martial combat thrown right out the window and reduced to MMA-style grappling between adrenaline-soaked combatants desperately trying to bring knives or picks or arm-breaking holds to bear against someone they're locked against.
(Links to a comic with slightly racy language, use your best judgment.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The ninja played an important role during the Sengoku Jidai, they were assassins, arsonists and spies and almost certainly dressed either as people who would go by unnoticed, like farmers or gardeners.
I forget if it were either Toyotomi Hideyoshi or Ieyasu Tokugawa who was allied with an actually pretty infamous Ninja-Pirate. Obviously they would fade into obscurity because well, the century of protracted conflict that necessated their use was well, over.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
But their ability to run on water was never forgotten.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There's actually an excellent documentary on Western and Asian sword fighting on Netflix. I'm forgetting the title but it talks extensively about the lost art of Western martial arts, and the rediscovery of manuals and relearning it.
Also, see the episode of Mythbusters on samurai swords. It was disappointing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But their ability to run on water was never forgotten.
Are you denying Jesus Christ?
quote: There's actually an excellent documentary on Western and Asian sword fighting on Netflix. I'm forgetting the title but it talks extensively about the lost art of Western martial arts, and the rediscovery of manuals and relearning it.
Also, see the episode of Mythbusters on samurai swords. It was disappointing.
Recalling from the Wiki and my memory I don't think they really had an episode on Samurai swords, only "can a sword cut another sword and can a sword gut the barrel off a gun"?
Not really an indicative episode on whether a Japanese Katana by say, Masamune is superior to a Toledo sword.
I would prefer the Katana to a Longsword under general situations due to the higher mobility afforded by a katana since you could have lighter armor and eschew a shield as more useful practically speaking. Presuming the quality of either weapon and the quality of the materials and craftmenship were equal for all practical purposes.
European weapons tended to be for piercing do to the prevalence of armor at the time with primary weapon being the mace to knock a knight unconcious to be ransomed. A tradition that never developed in Asia as the crossbowman was developed relatively early as a counter against nomadic cavalry.
There's this really awesome documentary on Musashi that details the parallel evolution of European and Asian weapons and tactics that saw a split on the theoretical and practical deployment of cavalry.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think he's saying that Jesus was a Ninja. That would explain a few things...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ninja'ed!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I forget if it were either Toyotomi Hideyoshi or Ieyasu Tokugawa who was allied with an actually pretty infamous Ninja-Pirate.
...
one of them is.
in an anime. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually no you are wrong.
e: Actually I made a slight mistake it was a Ninja-Samurai Hattori Hanzo, don't know why I thought Pirate. But considering the knee jerk and unnuanced nature of your response you are still wrong while I was half right.
And it was Tokugawa Ieyasu.
Probably because Pirates were quite endemic to the region during that period, though I can't seem to find any Samurai-Pirates or Ninja-Pirates or Ninja-Pirate-Samurai. Though considering what existed as "Bushido"* at the time being a Samurai and a Ninja is pretty amazing in of itself.
*Bushido as we know it didn't actually exist until about 1920ish, it was a result of the Japanese government wanting to instill "Samurai Values" into its soldiers after seeing them flee en mass to Russian shock charges during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904~ish.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: Yes, but they also measured the swinging strength of the sword if wielded by a man. It just doesn't stack up. Much like a cable under tension can't slice a person in half or even cut off a limb in most cases.
There's also an episode where they stack traditional samurai armor up against a specially designed paper armor. While the paper armor was destroyed after extended use, initially both paper and traditional armor had the same stopping power, even when wet.
If I was dueling, I'd take whatever weapon was available. If I was in battle, a samurai sword would not be my weapon of choice. I'd take a gun. If I had to choose a non-gun, I wouldn't choose a sword, I'd choose a bow and arrow. And if I had to choose a melee weapon, it wouldn't be an authentic samurai sword from the period. I'd choose a polearm of some sort.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was choosing between a long sword and a samurai sword, your kinda shifting the parameters there, almost any weapon becomes preferable to any other weapon depending on circumstances. I was assuming you were IN the period of question and no access to fire arms or to particularly rarer weapons.
A polearm I believe requires significantly more training in order to achieve the requisite mobility, otherwise its too slow and cumbersome to fend off a charge by a sufficiently skilled swordsman, the reach advantage is negated by the lack of speed in to retracting it for the next strike or parry.
Just like how a bow and arrow ALSO likewise require significant amounts of training, I'ld say if you were valuing survival over all else pick a combat knife.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
OK. So your trained swordman is better than my peasant who is picking up a spear for the first time. Cool.
My trained spearman/men are going to defeat your trained swordsman/men.
edit: And I'm not shifting the parameters. I was detailing just how far down the list a samurai sword goes in terms of applicability.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My argument is that a samurai sword is more versatile because it acts as both a sword and a shield and can do piercing. Which is why I would choose it over a longsword, also a long sword is meant to be complemented by heavy armor and protection, a samurai sword training tends to favor mobility from lighter armor which I argue is more important in all purpose situations.
Also spears are actually meant for women and peasants, there's a reason why phalanx charges were phased out in favor of men at arms, your thinking of a lance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: But considering the knee jerk and unnuanced nature of your response you are still wrong while I was half right.
This makes no sense, but it at least makes no sense in your particularly consistent way.
quote:My argument is that a samurai sword is more versatile because it acts as both a sword and a shield and can do piercing.
They are not more versatile. They're bad at lunges, they're too heavy, they're not as sturdy, they're awkwardly weighty, they're easier to break, and the curve is not a beneficial trait. In addition, it does not 'act as a sword and shield;' it acts as a sword. In terms of defensive capacity, it's actually worse than a longsword, which is lighter, better balanced, and easier to lever and block on the flat.
quote:Which is why I would choose it over a longsword, also a long sword is meant to be complemented by heavy armor and protection
No, it is not. It was a trend to pair longswords with heavy armor as such swords were trending obsolete, but they have no such intent design towards use with heavy armor.
quote:a samurai sword training tends to favor mobility from lighter armor which I argue is more important in all purpose situations.
Samurai armor is bulky and heavier on average than knight armor.
quote:Also spears are actually meant for women and peasants,
You don't actually believe this, do you? It would mean you know next to nothing about spears.
quote:there's a reason why phalanx charges were phased out in favor of men at arms, your thinking of a lance.
Lances are for mounted combat. Phalanx charges weren't phased out in favor of men at arms, they were put in decline by more mobile roman infantry tactics. Around *190 BC*, not the high medieval/renaissance period of the man at arms.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Don't assume he's lying, Sam, that's disrespectful. I'm sure he believes it.
I mean, he's wrong. But I'm sure he believes it.
Also Blayne I assure you that while the level of skill needed to use a bow to its fullest is certainly high, the skill needed to hit a man sized target in the open at close range is not particularly high.
So if we're talking about some sort of made-up one-on-one fight and both parties just get a weapon and go, and bows are on the table, BB is 100% correct to opt for one of them over a melee weapon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lying? Or joking? It's pretty straightforwardly wrong, to an extent that I have to ask if it's real or if it is an attempt at a joke.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary:
quote:In addition, it does not 'act as a sword and shield;' it acts as a sword. In terms of defensive capacity, it's actually worse than a longsword, which is lighter, better balanced, and easier to lever and block on the flat.
Oh you couldn't be more wrong! Have you seen Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Did you see how many poisonous darts Li Mu Bai parried before one finally got through?
(I spent an hour looking for the clip on the intarwebs but to no avail)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look, until/unless a council of the most historically revered feudal Japanese warriors (of all stripes) and smiths are resurrected and have ample time to evaluate the situation, is there even the slightest chance that Blayne would acknowledge even a likelihood that European weaponry was superior, much less admit that it actually was?
Hell, I guess while we're waiting for that we could wait for Dan to pour forth praise for psychiatry, Orincoro to disavow impolite posting, or me to resist pokin' in situations like this;) They're all pretty damn unlikely.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Much like a cable under tension can't slice a person in half or even cut off a limb in most cases.
Just curious what you meant by this. In the context of cables used as weapons I'm sure you're right though I can't imagine when that comes up...
If you meant without restriction... well prestressing strands do this, in fact they'll slice through pretty much anything if someone or something screws up and and breaks one before it's fully set in concrete.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh you couldn't be more wrong! Have you seen Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Did you see how many poisonous darts Li Mu Bai parried before one finally got through?
(I spent an hour looking for the clip on the intarwebs but to no avail)
Green Destiny is not a katana, obligatory angry face here
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Much like a cable under tension can't slice a person in half or even cut off a limb in most cases.
Just curious what you meant by this. In the context of cables used as weapons I'm sure you're right though I can't imagine when that comes up...
If you meant without restriction... well prestressing strands do this, in fact they'll slice through pretty much anything if someone or something screws up and and breaks one before it's fully set in concrete.
Hobbes
Not sure what to tell you. They put the cables under a whole lot of stress then allowed them to whip into a pig cadaver. It only bruised it.
---------
Samprimary: Li Mu Bai would have lived if he'd used a katana.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Look, until/unless a council of the most historically revered feudal Japanese warriors (of all stripes) and smiths are resurrected and have ample time to evaluate the situation, is there even the slightest chance that Blayne would acknowledge even a likelihood that European weaponry was superior, much less admit that it actually was?
Hell, I guess while we're waiting for that we could wait for Dan to pour forth praise for psychiatry, Orincoro to disavow impolite posting, or me to resist pokin' in situations like this;) They're all pretty damn unlikely.
Since the conversation has degenerated to laughably pathetic strawmen I take my leave.
quote: This makes no sense, but it at least makes no sense in your particularly consistent way.
You went and replied "Oh yeah, those exist in weeaboo fiction" which was actually wrong as there was in fact a Samurai-Ninja who served Tokugawa Ieyasu, so will you admit you were wrong?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Since the conversation has degenerated to laughably pathetic strawmen I take my leave.
Hehe, it is quite the straw man to suggest that it would be almost impossible to get you to acknowledge the possibility of Japanese or Chinese (maybe all of Asia, actually) on any front at all, much less awesome swordage.
Man, where do we come up with this stuff? Pulled completely out of thin air! (and man, smart money says you'll take back your leave in under twelve hours.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually no you are wrong.
e: Actually I made a slight mistake it was a Ninja-Samurai Hattori Hanzo, don't know why I thought Pirate. But considering the knee jerk and unnuanced nature of your response you are still wrong while I was half right.
And it was Tokugawa Ieyasu...at the time being a Samurai and a Ninja is pretty amazing in of itself.
Hattori Hanzō was also a master of the spear. Go figure.
Also, Guan Yu was way cooler than Hanzo. Most people only know the name Hanzo because of that Tarantino movie about Bill.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hell, I guess while we're waiting for that we could wait for Dan to pour forth praise for psychiatry, Orincoro to disavow impolite posting, or me to resist pokin' in situations like this;) They're all pretty damn unlikely. [/QB]
Actually I think that's vastly more likely than Blayne conceding anything re: Japanese weapons.
I have some strong opinions about certain aspects of psychiatry, but in general I still hold them tentatively and am open to being persuaded otherwise. Maybe not on the issue of psychiatric imprisonment, barring something world-shaking.
Anyway, I think if you replace "psychiatry" with like "socialism" or something then you'd be spot-on. That's an issue where I'm probably close to Blayne-levels of adamant self-righteousness. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Not sure what to tell you. They put the cables under a whole lot of stress then allowed them to whip into a pig cadaver. It only bruised it.
Who is they? Pig cadaver makes it sound like the Mythbusters. Anyway, "whole lot of stress" can mean various things. A typical prestressing strand is 0.6" diameter and had about 45,000 pounds on it, or around 200,000 pounds per square inch. If it should get loose it rips through just about anything.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You went and replied "Oh yeah, those exist in weeaboo fiction" which was actually wrong as there was in fact a Samurai-Ninja who served Tokugawa Ieyasu, so will you admit you were wrong?
You claimed one was friends with a notorious 'ninja-pirate.' Now that you've corrected yourself and stated that you apparently meant 'samurai-ninja' I apparently have to admit I was wrong about ... something.
Like I said, your demands make no sense. But they make no sense in your very consistent ways.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Not sure what to tell you. They put the cables under a whole lot of stress then allowed them to whip into a pig cadaver. It only bruised it.
Who is they? Pig cadaver makes it sound like the Mythbusters. Anyway, "whole lot of stress" can mean various things. A typical prestressing strand is 0.6" diameter and had about 45,000 pounds on it, or around 200,000 pounds per square inch. If it should get loose it rips through just about anything.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You claimed one was friends with a notorious 'ninja-pirate.'
Ninja-Pirates are so Web 1.0.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I thought samurai were mounted archers and that ninjas were just prostitutes who were paid to kill certain clients Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Interesting, I guess people's descriptions probably dramatized what happened then. Certainly the prestressing plant I toured had several accidents that resulted in lost limbs due to cable snaps but I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was "crushing" rather than clean cuts. Learned something new, always a good thing even if a bit grizzly.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I'm not sure a mythbusters test will cover a lot of potential cable snap injuries, but it does seem that that kind of thing is a lot less potentially deadly than I would have expected.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Well, I'm not sure a mythbusters test will cover a lot of potential cable snap injuries, but it does seem that that kind of thing is a lot less potentially deadly than I would have expected.
That's pretty much how I felt about it after watching the episode. Though it's always fun to watch one where you and the hosts both expect something, but can replicate it.
It was much the same reaction to the episode where they tried to fire guns into the water to see if being in the water made a difference, and surprisingly if you are about five feet under the surface almost nothing can get to you with enough force to penetrate.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Many people have been cleaved in half or had limbs severed by mooring lines breaking (in the Navy). True, they're generally ropes (as opposed to cables). It's from the snapback of the crazy amounts of force placed by a drifting ship on a nylon rope.
I met a guy who lost a leg while I was in the service.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually no you are wrong.
e: Actually I made a slight mistake it was a Ninja-Samurai Hattori Hanzo, don't know why I thought Pirate. But considering the knee jerk and unnuanced nature of your response you are still wrong while I was half right.
And it was Tokugawa Ieyasu...at the time being a Samurai and a Ninja is pretty amazing in of itself.
Hattori Hanzō was also a master of the spear. Go figure.
Also, Guan Yu was way cooler than Hanzo. Most people only know the name Hanzo because of that Tarantino movie about Bill.
Guan Yu? He's cool, but still doesn't hold a candle to Lu Bu. Then again....
Lu Bu: I am the greatest warrior of all time! Nothing can beat me!! Guan Yu: Hey look! It's a puppy! Lu Bu: I don't fall for that. Guan Yu: Three Headed monkey? Lu Bu: Nope. Guan Yu: Giant Talking beard with a dragon tail? Lu Bu: ah-ah. Guan Yu: Eva Longoria? Lu Bu: WHERE!?!??! *turns around* Guan Yu: *kills lu bu*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Can't let this idle, have to keep the ancient combat controversy flowing:
- If you have to duel and are forced to choose a sword, don't choose a katana or a longsword. Choose a smallsword. as late era as you are allowed.
- If you can choose any melee weapon, choose a spear. they're way better than swords (length, control, speed, almost everything) and they're much, much easier to learn to use effectively.
- no seriously swords are junk compared to spears
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Do lightsabers count as a melee weapon?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think AchillesHeel is on to something there.
I'm picking a lightsaber every time.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Why not? depending on what movie and or video game you rely on when defining a lightsaber, they do just about everything but process whole foods into a healthy breakfast.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Do lightsabers count as a melee weapon?
If you are able to give yourself any fictional melee weapon, you can do a lot better than a lightsaber, which is a straightforwardly designed weapon with fairly well-defined abilities and limitations. No, you'd want some dumb legendary weapon from some dumb anime that lacks meaningful restraint.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
It can block laser blasts, cuts through living beings while cauterizing the wound behind it and in some of the LucasArt games it can shoot energy like a laser pistol. All in the size of a cop flashlight. I rest my case.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Why not? depending on what movie and or video game you rely on when defining a lightsaber, they do just about everything but process whole foods into a healthy breakfast.
If you can't use your lightsaber to make a healthy breakfast, the force is not with you.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The width of the average orange > the apparent width of a lightsabers 'blade'
But not by much, it can't even help to make fresh orange juice and everyone knows that the most important part of a Jedi's breakfast is fresh o.j.
Although it could be very efficient when making toast. I have no idea why my mind is so happy to be concentrating on the everyday failures of the lightsaber and its uses.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
But you wouldn't have the force to help not chop your leg off!
I'd prefer a nice blaster myself.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The phaser is the vilest personal combat-weapon ever. Nah, not the Trekkie explanation but something that is compatible with other Treknology. ie The phaser is a portable teleporter that doesn't. On stun, it phases the body into teleport mode, then realigns the distances between atoms in molecules during reintegration just enough so that when those molecules self-assemble back to normal shape, the excess energy causes the victim to lose conciousness. On kill, it phases the victim into teleport mode, then never reintegrates the ever-scattering components. Leaving no body to feel guilty over... ...and no body for mourners to provide proper service to.
Good enough reason for the Klingons to despise the Federation. Their disruptors disable or kill painfully: so that the warrior can learn from their injury; or experience their last act in life, their own death. And leave the body nearly intact; so that the warrior can truly know what it means to kill... ...and mourners can give proper respect to the fallen.
[ April 20, 2012, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*pushes glasses up nose*
Just so that everyone knows, pretty much every part of aspectre's description of phasers is wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not all Trekkies wear glasses.
I wear contacts.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
There's Trekkies, and there's Trekkers. Ask the CIT, RIT, and MIT folks about the difference between Techies and Techers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Most rabid Trek fans I know loathe, hate, and detest the term "Trekkers". We are Trekkies, and proud of it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Most rabid Trek fans I know loathe, hate, and detest the term "Trekkers". We are Trekkies, and proud of it."
Back around 1980 (before TNG), I was talking to some friends and made a comment about Star Trek. One of the guys who I didn't know very well, said "Oh, do you like Star Trek?" I replied "Yeah, I'm a bonafide Trekkie." He then asked "How come I've never seen you at the meetings?" This was my first encounter with a true Trekkie and the moment that I realized that as much as I enjoyed the show I would never care about it enough to be a "Trekkie".
Thirty years later, I've enjoyed Star Trek in all it's incarnations but I can't tell you the names of more than a handful of episodes. I've never read any of the fanfiction, built a model of the enterprise, learned Klingon, worn a Star Trek costume, or been to a meeting. I see myself being that caught up in any series - - -
except maybe Doctor Who. I could see myself knitting a Tom Baker scarf and displaying a model TARDIS or K9 in my living room.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The phaser is the vilest personal combat-weapon ever. Nah, not the Trekkie explanation but something that is compatible with other Treknology. ie The phaser is a portable teleporter that doesn't. On stun, it phases the body into teleport mode, then realigns the distances between atoms in molecules during reintegration just enough so that when those molecules self-assemble back to normal shape, the excess energy causes the victim to lose conciousness. On kill, it phases the victim into teleport mode, then never reintegrates the ever-scattering components. Leaving no body to feel guilty over... ...and no body for mourners to provide proper service to.
Good enough reason for the Klingons to despise the Federation. Their disruptors disable or kill painfully: so that the warrior can learn from their injury; or experience their last act in life, their own death. And leave the body nearly intact; so that the warrior can truly know what it means to kill... ...and mourners can give proper respect to the fallen.
Psh! It ain't got nothin on a Turbo-Laser! Just a few shots can decimate a whole country! A few more and you can wipe a planet clean! Showing sympathy for your enemies and letting them give proper respect for their dead is pure weakness, and the First Galactic Empire is strength incarnate!
*SNORT*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "Most rabid Trek fans I know loathe, hate, and detest the term "Trekkers". We are Trekkies, and proud of it."
Rabbit, I haven't been to a con in over 15 years. (For lack of time and money, not desire.) Not sure I get to call myself that anymore either, although I do still read the occasional fanfic, many of the books, and know most of the episode names. So maybe I still qualify after all. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
Not all Trekkies wear glasses.
I wear contacts.
The important thing is that everyone understand that phasers are not miniature teleporters that de-sequence people. They are plasma weapons. There are also lethal settings that do not disintegrate; these are the most frequently used in lethal use situations by federation officers.
*takes hit off inhaler, goes to aspbergers support group*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, yeah. All Trekkies are socially-maladjusted, mouth-breathing, polyester-wearing nerds.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's not socially maladjusted, it's differently-socially-abled
*lives in mom's basement, decorates walls with 440 stainless steel fantasy swords*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*wears DBZ and dragon flame shirts*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
*actually watched Evangelion any later than 2007*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Many people have been cleaved in half or had limbs severed by mooring lines breaking (in the Navy). True, they're generally ropes (as opposed to cables). It's from the snapback of the crazy amounts of force placed by a drifting ship on a nylon rope.
That could have been the limitation of the test. it was just steel cable, right? Well, when those snap, it's mostly nonelastic breakage. Whereas with a more springy substance, that just becomes a lot of recoil energy as the substance forcefully contracts.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The real question is, do they have the proper pizza slicer? "Most rabid Trek fans I know loathe, hate, and detest the term "Trekkers". We are Trekkies, and proud of it." " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rabid " "Your point? That I'll use any means to keep this thread going? Then again, this thread has derailed itself so far from the original topic -- Romney being outted -- that having a point may well be pointless. Unless ya wanna pierce knights' armor, of course. However I do leave you with this to contemplate as clue to why describing the phaser as a plasma weapon is irrational.
[ April 22, 2012, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Many people have been cleaved in half or had limbs severed by mooring lines breaking (in the Navy). True, they're generally ropes (as opposed to cables). It's from the snapback of the crazy amounts of force placed by a drifting ship on a nylon rope.
That could have been the limitation of the test. it was just steel cable, right? Well, when those snap, it's mostly nonelastic breakage. Whereas with a more springy substance, that just becomes a lot of recoil energy as the substance forcefully contracts.
That does not make any sense from a materials science perspective.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Then I don't know how to make it make sense, but either way it appears that the more elastic materials are capable of whipping off arms and stuff when they snap back, whereas mythbusters couldn't get the same results with metal cable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I haven't seen the Mythbusters episode so I can't really speculate on what was wrong with their experiment. Very little of what's done on Mythbusters is scientifically rigorous and they often get misleading results.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A google video link for "mythbusters cable" will give you links to the full episode.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Apparently news that Romney is out isn't exciting enough to keep this thread on the front page... so it's time to bring out the BIG light sabers.
Dark Resurrection: Volume I A web-based fan-funded (Kickstarted before there was a Kickstarter) hour-long fan-film that matches or betters any individual episode in the Lucas franchise. StarWars belongs to the space opera subgenre of science fiction; the label derived from the horse opera description of westerns. Now imagine that StarWars had been turned over to a talented writer/director such as SergioLeone (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). Voila, the spaghetti space opera... and the Italians know their opera.
Then watch its prequel, Dark Resurrection: Volume 0 The second one filmed... and it could be STRONGLY argued that it was designed to be the second one viewed. ie Like Brust's Dragaera series, one would miss a LOT by using the timeline to set the viewing order. ie By viewing Volume 0 before Volume I : The tensions of Volume I would be spoiled by a previous viewing of Volume 0 . The mysteries/unknowns introduced in Volume I are explained and/or explored in Volume 0 ... and sets up the background for the (as yet uncompleted) Volume II . Angelo Licata has grown as a writer/director through what he learned from making Volume I, so have the actors, so have the set designs and special effects. Imagine that RidleyScott had been working on a project to create a proper vision of Dune, then decided to meld that vision's feeling into SergioLeone's StarWars...
In Italian, but subtitle-translations are available (through YouTube's closed-caption option) for Volume 0 as well as automaticly subtitled for Volume I Personally I liked following the storyline in Italian: good voices, great vocal phrasings.
[ April 30, 2012, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
._.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, accidently used the Volume I web-address in the links to both parts. Volume 0's link has been corrected.
So, Samprimary, is that a good ._. or a bad ._. ?
[ April 30, 2012, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't know yet. Can't see.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Speaking of ninjas and world famous secret agents, You Only Live 4,662 Times
And speaking of covert activities... ...I deleted the link, leaving only the title, because apparently dotUK news websites have been hijacked by some sort of a re-address malware program. There was a problem earlier in the year in which some hackers managed to deeply penetrate one of the European main-address/code servers.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)