Burma Massacre

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You guys (funk / mid / nick) keep screaming at each other until you're the only ones posting here, and see how much fun that is .
.

Re-read your own posts. You'll notice the only screaming.......is you. Have a wonderful day.

[Bagar-]

I'm too weak minded not to be provoked? Are you kidding me? I get it from all angles like a fucking porn star every time I open my mouth, I don't know of anyone else here on either side of the fence that has got as much shit as me and not started to snap back.

I thought this was an interesting comment, and i'd like to explore it some more with you.

I'll begin by asking a simple question.

Why would people do this? Do they innately hate you? Why do they hate you, if so? Is it because you disagree with them? Is it because they're wrong and you're right, and they can't accept that? Why?

Answer at your own conveinence .

To Mid:

Why is it that you believe i'm "screaming"

I personally am using the word in such a context as to imply that you're just saying things to one-up the other side with no real intent of discussion or debate. It's pointless, and neither side will ever win. Much like the american political system!

In what manner have I done this? If you're meaning that neither you nor I (nor funk) will "win" (succede in being "correct") then you're right, but i'm actually trying to get you on an even level so I can better understand why you are the way that you are, not to best you. I just want to know why you (and funk, and nick to a point) have devolved this forum into your own personal boxing match in which you derail every thread in an effort to best each other. Just some explaination or understanding would be nice.

And all you do is post one-liners. Very disappointing. So i'm going to ask you a question: Why do you feel it is nessecary to be correct? Is it because you believe your opinions are infalable? Is it because you do not regard this board as worthwhile and would rather post your one-sided arguments and be done with it (no real thinking involved)? Why?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I personally am using the word in such a context as to imply that you're just saying things to one-up the other side with no real intent of discussion or debate. It's pointless, and neither side will ever win. Much like the american political system!

You couldn't be more wrong. I would love to discuss things. The reason I come to this board is to discuss topics. If you filter through all the flaming and elitist bullshit, you will find people discussing the topics at hand.

In what manner have I done this?

Your tone in many of your posts seem angry and are filled with name calling and typical "flaming".

And all you do is post one-liners. Very disappointing. So i'm going to ask you a question: Why do you feel it is nessecary to be correct? Is it because you believe your opinions are infalable? Is it because you do not regard this board as worthwhile and would rather post your one-sided arguments and be done with it (no real thinking involved)? Why?

This is a prime example of the questions I normally ignore. I do not feel it necessary to be correct. Numerous times over the past 7+ years, I have learned my opinion to be false and have changed my viewpoint on the topic at hand from arguments made by others or by the links others have posted to support their side. You come here with a lot of pre-conceived notions. If you care to engage in a conversation, I'm more than willing to.

[Funkmasterr]

I'm too weak minded not to be provoked? Are you kidding me? I get it from all angles like a fucking porn star every time I open my mouth, I don't know of anyone else here on either side of the fence that has got as much shit as me and not started to snap back.

I thought this was an interesting comment, and i'd like to explore it some more with you.

I'll begin by asking a simple question.

Why would people do this? Do they innately hate you? Why do they hate you, if so? Is it because you disagree with them? Is it because they're wrong and you're right, and they can't accept that? Why?

Answer at your own conveinence .

To Mid:

Why is it that you believe i'm "screaming"

I personally am using the word in such a context as to imply that you're just saying things to one-up the other side with no real intent of discussion or debate. It's pointless, and neither side will ever win. Much like the american political system!

In what manner have I done this? If you're meaning that neither you nor I (nor funk) will "win" (succede in being "correct") then you're right, but i'm actually trying to get you on an even level so I can better understand why you are the way that you are, not to best you. I just want to know why you (and funk, and nick to a point) have devolved this forum into your own personal boxing match in which you derail every thread in an effort to best each other. Just some explaination or understanding would be nice.

And all you do is post one-liners. Very disappointing. So i'm going to ask you a question: Why do you feel it is nessecary to be correct? Is it because you believe your opinions are infalable? Is it because you do not regard this board as worthwhile and would rather post your one-sided arguments and be done with it (no real thinking involved)? Why?

Who the fuck are you, my counselor? Get over yourself dude.

[Bagar-]

I personally am using the word in such a context as to imply that you're just saying things to one-up the other side with no real intent of discussion or debate. It's pointless, and neither side will ever win. Much like the american political system!

You couldn't be more wrong. I would love to discuss things. The reason I come to this board is to discuss topics. If you filter through all the flaming and elitist bullshit, you will find people discussing the topics at hand.

In what manner have I done this?

Your tone in many of your posts seem angry and are filled with name calling and typical "flaming".

And all you do is post one-liners. Very disappointing. So i'm going to ask you a question: Why do you feel it is nessecary to be correct? Is it because you believe your opinions are infalable? Is it because you do not regard this board as worthwhile and would rather post your one-sided arguments and be done with it (no real thinking involved)? Why?

This is a prime example of the questions I normally ignore. I do not feel it necessary to be correct. Numerous times over the past 7+ years, I have learned my opinion to be false and have changed my viewpoint on the topic at hand from arguments made by others or by the links others have posted to support their side. You come here with a lot of pre-conceived notions. If you care to engage in a conversation, I'm more than willing to.

Excelent. Can you show me one or two examples of this?

[Zaelath]

This is a prime example of the questions I normally ignore. I do not feel it necessary to be correct. Numerous times over the past 7+ years, I have learned my opinion to be false and have changed my viewpoint on the topic at hand from arguments made by others or by the links others have posted to support their side. You come here with a lot of pre-conceived notions. If you care to engage in a conversation, I'm more than willing to.

Excelent. Can you show me one or two examples of this?

If there's 2, they haven't been in the CE forum in the last 5 years. However, what he says isn't a lie, zero is a number too.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This is a prime example of the questions I normally ignore. I do not feel it necessary to be correct. Numerous times over the past 7+ years, I have learned my opinion to be false and have changed my viewpoint on the topic at hand from arguments made by others or by the links others have posted to support their side. You come here with a lot of pre-conceived notions. If you care to engage in a conversation, I'm more than willing to.

Excelent. Can you show me one or two examples of this?

You made the claim against me. It is not my burden to sort through my over 5,000 posts. Nor does my life caese to exist beyond this board. I as a person have grown a lot over the past 7+ years. Much of it is due to my life experiences and a decent portion to the discussions and experiences on this board. I have expressed this many times here and yet I have failed to see this growth from anyone else on this board. I have mentioned I was wrong to everyone on this board a few times, when I was wrong. Show me this humility in others. Stop trying to pigeon hole me. You don't know me. If it is the truth you really seek, then sift through and read my over 5,000 posts. If you walk in with a pre-conceived notion though, you will see in me what it is you want to see. I am edgy and love to use colorful words. I can be very crass at times. But, intent and context is what it is all about. You may refuse to acknowledge this publically, because it sure is the popular thing, to shit all over teh Midnyte, but inside you know.

You liberals claim to be filled with empathy and compassion, but you exhibit the opposite on these boards towards anyone who dares to question you or even express an alternate viewpoint. You are the very definition of a hypocrit.

Have a wonderful day.

[Zaelath]

This is a prime example of the questions I normally ignore. I do not feel it necessary to be correct. Numerous times over the past 7+ years, I have learned my opinion to be false and have changed my viewpoint on the topic at hand from arguments made by others or by the links others have posted to support their side. You come here with a lot of pre-conceived notions. If you care to engage in a conversation, I'm more than willing to.

Excelent. Can you show me one or two examples of this?

You made the claim against me. It is not my burden to sort through my over 5,000 posts.

You made your own counter claim, and you have the benefit of being the only person in the universe that thinks your mind has been changed due to intelligent discourse, and it also follows that you should be able to remember off the top of your head at least 2 topics in which this occured. I think the burden of proof is on you.

[Sueven]

I think it's you fuckers constantly saying they're ruining the forums that's ruining the forums. Could we ever possibly just fucking talk without someone blaming someone else for a non-existant problem that has nothing to do with the discussion? This isn't a nerf playground, we're not required to like everyone or treat everyone like our brothers. The forums aren't being ruined, you're just being assholes. It's just like racism... if people would stop talking about it, it would go away. Stop attacking them personally or telling them to leave, and things will probably improve (by your fucked standards)

Of all the horrifically stupid things that have been said in this thread, this is the worst.

You don't think there's a problem? What's this thread about? BURMA. FUCKING BURMA. How long has it been since anybody said anything about Burma? That's the fucking problem. I personally would like to talk about Burma. True, no-one's stopping me. But it's tough to talk about Burma when the thread has been about a typical Iraq/you're a moron shitfest between the usual offenders. And then it turned into a 'is the typical shitfest between the usual offenders ruining the boards or not.' Guess what: Without the shitfest, we wouldn't be talking about who's responsible for the shitfest, and instead maybe we'd be talking about FUCKING BURMA.

And that's without even getting into the "if we just ignore racism, it'll go away" moron twaddle.

Do all of you "everything's just fine if you just ignore the shitfest" folks honestly think that reading/participating in this forum is every bit as interesting and worthwhile as it's always been? Newsflash: It's not.

Because everyone seems to need to have a fucking opinion: Bagar made the point that Mid and Funk lash out at everyone indiscriminately, while Nick lashes out only at Mid and Funk. This is a good point and probably helps to explain why Mid and Funk are typically pointed out as offenders more often. However, Mid and Funk have a point that, despite the fact that Nick's attacks go after limited targets, they tend to be more constant and virulent than anyone elses.

Funk, Mid and Nick are all capable of not being shitfesters. All of them have constructively engaged me before. It's just that seeing that side is rare, and getting rarer.

I might be biased, but I also second this:

The biggest problems I see with debate on this board is it seems no one reads each others posts.

Seriously.

Goodbye then. Go start your own forum where everyone shares similar opinions and isn't edgy, interesting, colorful and engaging.

I am edgy

edgy?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Edgey? LOL

Fash's point on racism is valid. It's really not that difficult to see what he's saying. Race is constantly being brought up over every situation. The sensitivity to racial comments is out of fucking control. If these media whores stop bring to light the many bullshit racial scenarios and focus on the real ones like the Jena 6, then when things like Jena 6 happen, more people will pay attention. It's no different than the boy who cried wolf. It numbs people after a while.

[Keverian FireCry]

Back to Myanmar. Rather than contributing to the destructive and divisive piece of shit this thread has become, perhaps it would be helpful for us to read some basic modern history of the country.

Colonial era (1886–1948)

To stimulate trade and facilitate changes, the British brought in Indians and Chinese who quickly displaced the Burmese in urban areas. To this day Yangon and Mandalay have large ethnic Indian populations. Railroads and schools were built, as well as a large number of prisons including the infamous Insein Jail, then as now used for political prisoners. Burmese resentment was strong and was vented in violent riots that paralyzed Yangon on occasion all the way until the 1930s.[19] Much of the discontent was caused by a perceived disrespect for Burman culture and traditions, for example, what the British termed the Shoe Question: the colonisers’ refusal to remove their shoes upon entering Buddhist temples or other holy places. In October 1919, Eindawya Pagoda in Mandalay was the scene of violence when tempers flared after scandalised Buddhist monks attempted to physically expel a group of shoe-wearing British visitors. The leader of the monks was later sentenced to life imprisonment for attempted murder. Such incidents inspired the Burmese resistance to use Buddhism as a rallying point for their cause. Buddhist monks became the vanguards of the independence movement, and many died while protesting. One monk-turned-martyr was U Wisara, who died in prison after a 166-day hunger strike to protest a rule that forbade him from wearing his Buddhist robes while imprisoned.[20] Kipling’s poem 'Mandalay' is now all that most people in Britain remember of Burma’s difficult and often brutal colonisation.

On 1 April 1937, Burma became a separately administered territory, independent of the Indian administration. The vote for keeping Burma in India, or as a separate colony “khwe-yay-twe-yay” divided the populace, and laid the ground work for the insurgencies to come after independence. In the 1940s, the Thirty Comrades, commanded by Aung San, founded the Burma Independence Army. The Thirty Comrades received training in Japan.[21]

During World War II, Burma became a major frontline in the Southeast Asian Theatre. The British administration collapsed ahead of the advancing Japanese troops, jails and asylums were opened and Rangoon was deserted except for the many Anglo-Burmese and Indians who remained at their posts. A stream of some 300,000 refugees fled across the jungles into India; known as 'The Trek', all but 30,000 of those 300,000 arrived in India. Initially the Japanese-led Burma Campaign succeeded and the British were expelled from most of Burma, but the British counter-attacked using primarily troops of the British Indian Army. By July 1945, the British had retaken the country. Although many Burmese fought initially for the Japanese, some Burmese also served in the British Burma Army. In 1943, the Chin Levies and Kachin Levies were formed in the border districts of Burma still under British administration. The Burma Rifles fought as part of the Chindits under General Orde Wingate from 1943–1945. Later in the war, the Americans created American-Kachin Rangers who also fought for the occupiers. Many other Burmese fought with the British Special Operations Executive. The Burma Independence Army under the command of Aung San and the Arakan National Army fought with the Japanese from 1942–1944, but switched allegiance to the Allied side in 1945.

In 1947, Aung San became Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council of Burma, a transitional government. But in July 1947, political rivals assassinated Aung San and several cabinet members.[21]

Democratic Republic (1948–1962)

On 4 January 1948, the nation became an independent republic, named the Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first Prime Minister. Unlike most other former British colonies and overseas territories, it did not become a member of the Commonwealth. A bicameral parliament was formed, consisting of a Chamber of Deputies and a Chamber of Nationalities.[22]

The geographical area Burma encompasses today can be traced to the Panglong Agreement, which combined Burma Proper, which consisted of Lower Burma and Upper Burma, and the Frontier Areas, which had been administered separately by the British.[23]

In 1961, U Thant, then Burma’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former Secretary to the Prime Minister, was elected Secretary-General of the United Nations; he was the first non-Westerner to head any international organization and would serve as UN Secretary-General for ten years.[24] Among the Burmese to work at the UN when she was Secretary-General was a young Aung San Suu Kyi.
Democratic rule ended in 1962 when General Ne Win led a military coup d'état. He ruled for nearly 26 years and pursued policies under the rubric of the Burmese Way to Socialism. In 1974, the military violently suppressed anti-government protests at the funeral of U Thant.

Military rule (1962–present)

In 1988, unrest over economic mismanagement and political oppression by the government led to widespread pro-democracy demonstrations throughout the country known as the 8888 Uprising. Security forces commited the massacre of hundreds of demonstrators, and General Saw Maung staged a coup d'état and formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). In 1989, SLORC declared martial law after widespread protests. The military government finalized plans for People’s Assembly elections on 31 May 1989.[25]

SLORC changed the country's official English name from the "Union of Burma" to the "Union of Myanmar" in 1989.

In May 1990, the government held free elections for the first time in almost 30 years. The National League for Democracy (NLD), the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, won 392 out of a total 489 seats, but the election results were annulled by SLORC, which refused to step down.[26] Led by Than Shwe since 1992, the military regime has made cease-fire agreements with most ethnic guerrilla groups. In 1992, SLORC unveiled plans to create a new constitution through the National Convention, which began 9 January 1993. To date, this military-organized National Convention has not produced a new constitution despite well over ten years of operation.[27] In 1997, the State Law and Order Restoration Council was renamed the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

On 23 June 1997, Burma was admitted into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The National Convention continues to convene and adjourn. Many major political parties, particularly the NLD, have been absent or excluded, and little progress has been made.[27] On 27 March 2006, the military junta, which had moved the national capital from Yangon to a site near Pyinmana, officially named it Naypyidaw, meaning "city of the kings".[28]

In November of 2006, the International Labour Organization announced it will be seeking "to prosecute members of the ruling Myanmar junta for crimes against humanity" over the continuous forced labour of its citizens by the military at the International Court of Justice.[29]

Mass public demonstrations reappeared on August 18, 2007, when the government raised the price of gas and diesel oil by 500% in order to cover a budget deficit that resulted from a salary hike for civil servants.[30] The junta’s move of the Burmese capital to Pyinmana, now called Naypyidaw (King’s Royal City), may also have contributed to the budget deficit. The military government usually covers these deficits by printing new money or by declaring some denominations void. Its privatizations since 1988 have enriched a new class of well-connected business people or oligarchs at the expense of the impoverished majority.

The August 2007 demonstrations were led by well-known dissidents, such as Min Ko Naing (with the nom de guerre Conqueror of Kings), Su Su Nway (now in hiding) and others. The military quickly cracked down and still has not allowed the International Red Cross to visit Min Ko Naing and others who are reportedly in Insein Prison after being severely tortured. Reports have surfaced of at least one death, of activist Win Shwe, under interrogation. [31]

Following the August protests, the monks of Burma, coordinated by an underground organization, stepped into the foreground and added new life to the movement. Under Suu Kyi’s leadership, passive resistance, with Suu herself worshiping with leading monks, has been the norm since 1988.[32]

On 19 September 2007, several hundred (possibly 2000 or more) monks staged a protest march in the city of Sittwe.[33] Larger protests in Rangoon and elsewhere ensued over the following days. Security became increasingly heavy handed, resulting in a number of deaths and injuries.[34] By 28 September, internet access had been cut[35] and journalists reputedly warned not to report on protests.[36] Internet access was restored by at least midnight of 5 October, Burmese time.[citation needed] Sources in Burma[attribution needed] said on 6 October that the internet seems to be working from 22:00 to 05:00 local time.

Various global corporations have been criticized for profiting from the dictatorship by financing Burma's military junta.[37]

World governments remain divided on how to deal with the military junta, countries calling for further sanctions include United Kingdom, USA and France, but neighbouring countries including China claim that sanctions will not help solve the issue.[38]

On October 19th Military Junta of Myanmar made its people march in the Governments rally.Junta officials also approached local factories and demanded they provide 50 workers. If they didn't they would be fined.[39]

Now, instead of this thread being a toilet full of diseased diarrhea, we might have a toilet full of compounded and relatively healthy chunks of bullshit!

Really though. Instead of using any VV thread to promote individual ideologies, political views, or spiritual/philosophical views, could we each try to maybe...i dunno...discuss the fucking topic(s) at hand??

[Bagar-]

Alrighty, i'll give it a shot.


My thoughts on Burma / Myanmar are this:

The united states should not feel obligated to help countries in dire need, such as Burma currently is, as it should be the responsibility of the united nations (useless) or other various, willing countries. On the flip side, while the united states government may not be obligated, I think it would certainly be some decent PR (we could use a bit of that) to go and mediate in such a situation. It would also help their Iraq cop-out if they (Bush) less arbitrarily applied their "aid" to only oil-bearing countries (i'm not saying this is the situation, heheheh, just saying it might help their... argument). I also believe that the citizens of this country that feel compeled should go and assist in whatever means they have (donating or personally going over, granted the latter isn't feasable for most).

As I understand it, Bush spoke out very strongly against the Junta's actions. I believe if he would put his money where his mouth was, it would considerably put him in better standing with people (not just americans). But i'm also pretty sure Bush is a hopeless case.

Personally, i've monetarily donated to various organizations trying to establish peace in Burma (not much =/), it's about all I can do. I wouldn't expect the U.S. government to rush over there, but it would certainly be nice is someone did something signifigant. Sanctions aren't really enough for a country that gets all of it's needed resources funneled in through China. Again, while the U.S isn't and shouldn't feel obligated, people also probabaly shouldn't make the inane suggestions that the U.S should never help anyone again, ever. That's extremely degressive if we're to hope that some day the entire planet won't regard the united states government with a sense of disdain. And yes, there's certainly a valid reason for it, no matter how you paint the picture.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The world, the UN, has failed the people of Burma.

[Sueven]

In an ideal world, responsibility for intervention would fall to the United Nations or some other sort of international multilateral institution. Unfortunately, as you point out, the United Nations is fairly worthless (it's caught up in an ugly cycle where it's impotent because the powerful nations (including us) refuse to fully support it until it becomes effective, but it can't become effective until the powerful nations fully support it). In my view, this does not mean that we can just say "oh well, it's the UN's job, and they can't do shit, so looks like no intervention will occur and our hands are clean!" Instead, we (and by 'we' i mean 'the entire first world') should be figuring out how we can work together to improve the situation in a multilateral way, with as many nations as possible contributing, and as many nations as possible exercising a voice.

Of course, a unified, well-organized, multilateral effort without the benefit of any coordinating institution is really difficult, because there are way too many conflicts of interest and little political games being played by all the parties. This sort of situation is why I advocate creating an international institution (or reshaping a currently extant one) such that the institution is accountable to it's member states, and is empowered to perform substantive military intervention. Unfortunately, we don't have such an institution, so we're going to need to wait for a multilateral arrangement to develop organically (doubtful) or hope that one country will take the lead and do it themselves (also doubtful). The United States could take the lead in intervening unilaterally, but there is absolutely no reason that it should be the United States as opposed to most any other country.

I think that this would be a great opportunity for China to step out onto the world stage a bit more. China has been fairly non-interventionist as they seek to avoid stepping on toes while they climb to great-power status. At some point, however, great powers are forced to take on some responsibility for the well-being of the world as a whole, and their geographic region specifically. I don't think there are many people who would be offended by the notion of Chinese intervention in Myanmar, and it would provide China an opportunity to demonstrate the competence of their military and foreign policy apparatus, as well as demonstrating that they're committed to global peace and security. Again, doubtful.

[Boogahz]

Would Chinese intervention really be a good thing though? It just seems with the reasons for disagreement there, they would be more likely to support the junta than not.

[Sueven]

I think that China is pretty much committed to joining the rest of the first-world community. Obviously, there are trouble spots-- democracy for instance, or religious freedom. Eventually, China will join the rest of the world on these issues, or China's presence will spark a rethinking of what the essential elements of those ideals are.

But basically, I think China is much closer to a functioning first-world liberal democracy than to an authoritarian/communist state. I feel confident that they're close enough to privilege democracy and transparency over military authoritarianism.

[Bagar-]

The problem with creating an organization that functions like the UN should function is that most nations (like the U.S) don't WANT to feel obligated to or be held accountable by a higher power. So until that isn't the case I think we won't see anything like this.

It would be really good if China stepped up and did something, because of all nations they hold the most influence in Myanmar, however it's very unlikely given their own civil rights history in the past few decades that they'll do so.

[Funkmasterr]

I think it's you fuckers constantly saying they're ruining the forums that's ruining the forums. Could we ever possibly just fucking talk without someone blaming someone else for a non-existant problem that has nothing to do with the discussion? This isn't a nerf playground, we're not required to like everyone or treat everyone like our brothers. The forums aren't being ruined, you're just being assholes. It's just like racism... if people would stop talking about it, it would go away. Stop attacking them personally or telling them to leave, and things will probably improve (by your fucked standards)

Of all the horrifically stupid things that have been said in this thread, this is the worst.

You don't think there's a problem? What's this thread about? BURMA. FUCKING BURMA. How long has it been since anybody said anything about Burma? That's the fucking problem. I personally would like to talk about Burma. True, no-one's stopping me. But it's tough to talk about Burma when the thread has been about a typical Iraq/you're a moron shitfest between the usual offenders. And then it turned into a 'is the typical shitfest between the usual offenders ruining the boards or not.' Guess what: Without the shitfest, we wouldn't be talking about who's responsible for the shitfest, and instead maybe we'd be talking about FUCKING BURMA.

And that's without even getting into the "if we just ignore racism, it'll go away" moron twaddle.

Do all of you "everything's just fine if you just ignore the shitfest" folks honestly think that reading/participating in this forum is every bit as interesting and worthwhile as it's always been? Newsflash: It's not.

Because everyone seems to need to have a fucking opinion: Bagar made the point that Mid and Funk lash out at everyone indiscriminately, while Nick lashes out only at Mid and Funk. This is a good point and probably helps to explain why Mid and Funk are typically pointed out as offenders more often. However, Mid and Funk have a point that, despite the fact that Nick's attacks go after limited targets, they tend to be more constant and virulent than anyone elses.

Funk, Mid and Nick are all capable of not being shitfesters. All of them have constructively engaged me before. It's just that seeing that side is rare, and getting rarer.

I might be biased, but I also second this:

The biggest problems I see with debate on this board is it seems no one reads each others posts.

Seriously.

Goodbye then. Go start your own forum where everyone shares similar opinions and isn't edgy, interesting, colorful and engaging.

I am edgy

edgy?

I think you are the one being horrifically stupid here buddy. If you care to go back and read the beginning of the thread again, I said what I thought about Burma (anything small reference I may have made to Iraq would be relevant, because Iraq and the way things are going there, and the worlds reaction to us being there is why I feel how I do about Burma.)

And guess what, people (not me, not in any way shape or form was it me) turned it into another bash funk because he isn't a peace loving liberal. And yes, it was nick that did it, but it wasn't just him.
So fash was right, you are off base by saying this, and frankly I would like an apology directed at myself and at fash for you furthering the fucking ignorant bullshit constantly tossed around here while blaming it on someone else.

Fuck you and fuck burma, seriously.

[rhyae]

As for you, Mid. There aren't many people here who could affirm that i'm not Kyo, as I said, the only people that even have a chance of remembering me when I played EQ are Xatrei, Nneena (haven't seen her in awhile), Hesten (doesn't come to the CE forums) and Rhyae (also doesn't come to the CE forums). However the fact that all you can say is that i'm Kyo shows a lot.

I still come to the CE forums! I just don't post much, because apparently they have been RUINED!?
Or if you are from Tennessee like Bagar, they are ruint. At least I think that's where you were from.

[Bagar-]

Haha

Yup. Shithole of the southeast. I don't have an accent though .

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I think that China is pretty much committed to joining the rest of the first-world community. Obviously, there are trouble spots-- democracy for instance, or religious freedom. Eventually, China will join the rest of the world on these issues, or China's presence will spark a rethinking of what the essential elements of those ideals are.

But basically, I think China is much closer to a functioning first-world liberal democracy than to an authoritarian/communist state. I feel confident that they're close enough to privilege democracy and transparency over military authoritarianism.

They might be.

The Central Committee of the CPC had recently held a seminar to solicit the advice and suggestion from non-Communist members and personages with no party affiliation on the draft political report to be submitted to the 17th CPC National Congress.

[Sueven]

frankly I would like an apology directed at myself and at fash

hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahha

no.

[Funkmasterr]

way to completely ignore/avoid the valid point I made asshole. That's the funny thing though, whenever I make a valid point here, or when someone makes a valid point in my (or anyone else that's not like by the majority) defense, it is completely ignored. Pretty convenient.

[Sueven]

Fine, in the interests of counteract your whining, I'll try to respond to your "point."

I think you are the one being horrifically stupid here buddy. If you care to go back and read the beginning of the thread again, I said what I thought about Burma (anything small reference I may have made to Iraq would be relevant, because Iraq and the way things are going there, and the worlds reaction to us being there is why I feel how I do about Burma.)

Good for you.

And guess what, people (not me, not in any way shape or form was it me) turned it into another bash funk because he isn't a peace loving liberal. And yes, it was nick that did it, but it wasn't just him.

Good for you.

So fash was right, you are off base by saying this

No he's not. Your two previous statements, which I'm not disputing, do not even approach leading to this conclusion. I was supporting Tanc's statement that the "Mid, Funk and Nick dog and pony show" ruins discussion (I phrased it "the shitfest between the typical offenders.") If you want to argue that the shitfest in this thread is not your fault, then yeah, sure, your statements would mean something. Unfortunately for your "point," I didn't accuse you of anything, and this entire post of yours is fucking irrelevant.

and frankly I would like an apology directed at myself and at fash for you furthering the fucking ignorant bullshit constantly tossed around here while blaming it on someone else.

I hope you now realize that I reacted dismissively to your post because, contrary to what you said, you did not make a "valid point." And you're not getting an apology.

Fuck you and fuck burma, seriously.

Read my posts before you respond to them, dipshit.

[Keverian FireCry]

That's the funny thing though, whenever I make a valid point here, or when someone makes a valid point in my (or anyone else that's not like by the majority) defense, it is completely ignored.

I'm sure we've all shed a tear for your benefit, now shut the fuck up or talk about the topic.

[Nick]

Well, I can understand where some people are coming from.

I do indeed tend to take little shit from people like Funk and Mid, and it does indeed tend to "bring me down to their level" or whatever. But frankly, at least they have the ability to stand by their beliefs with a degree of compassion, which although I may find said points to be retarded and illogical, I can at least respect the passion.

If all we had on VV were Tanc's bi yearly bullshit posts, the forum would be closed. As if you contribute anything at all.

As for Sueven, well I tend to find you unnecessarily verbose and middle of the road, a fence sitter so to speak, so to be honest man I see little point in discussing anything in a particularly serious manner with you, because I already know that your reply, on virtually every issue no matter what, is going to be somewhere directly in the middle on the fence. I can respect your intellect, although you tend to be needlessly (and irrationally) pedantic (imo) and the lack of conviction gets really fucking boring really fucking fast. Sorry, but that's how I feel buddy!

As for Sylvus' point, I can accept that, so yeah, maybe I should just stop rising to the challenge of Funk and Mid. Then again, if I don't, none of you will, and then we may as well just pack the fuck up and go home.

Nevertheless, I'll cut down the insults.

[Spang]

Just about everyone proves their point in the first page of the first thread that starts any discussion. Most everything after page 1 is name calling coupled with the beating of dead horses. If someone calls you a name, let it go. Who gives a shit if someone calls you a retard or inbred or whatever? You don't have to retaliate by calling them names. You don't even have to retaliate, just stick to your point and somehow have it relate to the fucking topic.

If you don't want people calling you names, stop saying stupid shit. It isn't rocket science!

[Sueven]

As for Sueven, well I tend to find you unnecessarily verbose and middle of the road, a fence sitter so to speak, so to be honest man I see little point in discussing anything in a particularly serious manner with you, because I already know that your reply, on virtually every issue no matter what, is going to be somewhere directly in the middle on the fence. I can respect your intellect, although you tend to be needlessly (and irrationally) pedantic (imo) and the lack of conviction gets really fucking boring really fucking fast. Sorry, but that's how I feel buddy!

That's cool, you're welcome to your opinion. I have found that when people actually take the time to become educated on an issue, they tend to realize that there are smart people with valid opinions on both sides of the argument, and they tend to develop fairly moderate (or at least nuanced) opinions on the subject. I view moderation and nuance as signs of serious engagement with the issues in question.

We shouldn't form our political opinions because they're exciting. The truth is the truth whether it's 'boring' or not (not that I have a monopoly on the truth, but at least I'm willing to try to find it).

I'll also admit to being a fence sitter at times, but would point out that I think it's wiser to stay on the fence until you have an answer to the question, and not choose a side based simply on emotion or uninformed opinion.

[Nick]

I have found that when people actually take the time to become educated on an issue, they tend to realize that there are smart people with valid opinions on both sides of the argument, and they tend to develop fairly moderate (or at least nuanced) opinions on the subject. I view moderation and nuance as signs of serious engagement with the issues in question.

Yes, obviously.

I also think that being overly concerned with subtle moderation (fence sitting) regardless of the issue being discussed, even on very obvious issues, just for the sake of being seen as an intellectual, somewhat defeats the purpose of whichever point you're actually trying to make.

[Sueven]

Well, if I'm being overly moderate, I'm usually trying to further develop my own opinion, rather than actually make a point. I try to criticize the arguments of others from a moderate position in order to see where I think they hold up and where they fail.

This means that I'm more often in the role of critic rather than advocate, and I certainly understand that this can be obnoxious.

[Boogahz]

News | 31.10.2007 | 13:00 UTC
Burma monks march again

Up to 200 Buddhist monks have marched in central Burma, the first time they've done so since the military junta cracked down on monk-led protests last month. The monks made their way through the town of Pakokku. During the September protests that emanated from Pakokku, Burma's military leaders said about 10 people were killed. Western governments claim the death toll was much higher. The United Nations special envoy Ibrahim Gambari is due to return to Burma this weekend to urge Burma's generals about re-starting talks with detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

[Somali]

Well, if I'm being overly moderate, I'm usually trying to further develop my own opinion, rather than actually make a point. I try to criticize the arguments of others from a moderate position in order to see where I think they hold up and where they fail.
This means that I'm more often in the role of critic rather than advocate, and I certainly understand that this can be obnoxious.

Personally i enjoy reading your posts Sueven. I generally find them well thought out and not to be knee-jerk statements. Obviously there are exceptions to that given that you are a human being and not a machine.

Back to the previously scheduled programming:

I suppose the fact that they were able to conduct a march was a good thing. the fact that the UN is going to have talks seems similarly good, and given that the article doesn't report a wholesale beatdown of the Marching Monks, perhaps military intervention is not required at this point.