Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - xechnao

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 76
Shootin' the Breeze / Re: If there were any doubts...
« on: December 01, 2005, 11:57:16 PM »
... in Communist Russia, in Communist China, in Vietnam after pulling out, in North Korea to this day, the cost in lives of non-intervention, or more tepid Neville Chamberlain style intervention, is often greater than if the US is, as you say, "Aggressive."

This is western fiction.

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: If there were any doubts...
« on: December 01, 2005, 10:00:14 AM »
Hitler considered the Catholic church to be an enemy, and religion in general to be an obstacle to nationalism. (Because, you see, religions tend to, by and large, emphasize the humanity of all people, whereas nationalism seeks to put people of a specific national origin in a position of primacy.) Mussolini & Pinochet had to be on good terms with the Catholic church, mainly because the Catholic church is a powerful political institution in its own right (both in Italy and in South America).

I don't know, and am not particularly interested in Indonesian politics, but from what it looks like Suharto used religion, or lack thereof, as a way of identifying Communist political opponents... A strange example since it doesn't fit in exactly with the author's agenda. What agenda exactly? Well, if you look at the original article it comes from the "Secular Humanist" website, and the author conveniently defines [his conception of] "fascism" in such a way as to allow him to ignore autocratic governments that are more similar to his examples (USSR, Khmer Rouge, Cuba, etc etc.) but without a strong religious element so that he can pretend that an example that is less similar is in fact more similar than the other examples.

The problem with this, of course, is that it relies upon a perception of the US as a theocracy like Iran... Which it might be if you're a "Secular Humanist" (Note: Usage of secular humanism here is synonymous with fanatical anti-Christian). So, yes, if you're like Michael Newdow the US might be a "theocracy."

Is having mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our coinage an establishment of religion? -- Maybe. However, the problem with Michael Newdow (and also with this little take off on Larry Britt's article) is absolutism. The people who wrote the First Amendment and voted for it also voted to ... have a minister present in Congressional meetings. By any rational standard this is a more substantial establishment of religion. The things that Michael Newdow prosecutes fall under the legal category of de minimis otherwise known as, "Too small to rationally care about."

Which of course, brings us back to where we started. One of the things the original article attempts to do is to posit "atheism" or "secular humanism" as the lack of a belief system, and thus allow the author to ignore (as I mentioned before) more similar examples, and instead draw a more outlandish (and politically motivated) one. You'll note in Larry Britt's original article that he mentions prosecutions of "secularists" specifically. Oh the humanity, Larry! Woe is you! Your local government might want to put up a nativity scene beside Santa. The oppression of having to see that other people don't share your religious views must be completely unbearable.

Since the article flows from a position of absolutism wherein even the permissability of religious expression constitutes the establishment of religion, its ability to make meaningful distinctions between things is destroyed. For virtually every claim that this author makes, you can point to pretty much any nation and see the same thing in action. Ex. Britain. Nationalism? Check. Established state religion? Check. Control of the media (BBC)? Check. Allegations of sexism? Check. Allegations of corporate favoritism? Check. Allegations of "suppressing labor power"? Check. Allegations of election fraud? Check. Etc, etc.

What this amounts to is a Yoda-like philosophy of politics. "Anger, fear, aggression" the fascist side of the government are they! -- A statement that may be true, but one that is completely banal, void of context, and which captures no important information. Relying on it as some sort of guide to figuring out what's "good" and "bad" is foolish because it's really easy to see "bad" motivations for people who don't agree with you... And, well, that's pretty much what this garbage is about, trying to impugn the US with the moral depravity of Nazi Germany. As far "bad" motivations for anything, Hitler is as high as you can go without crossing over into supernatural beings.

I am sorry but I cant' follow you. What I know about the Vatican is that it didn't oppose Hitler (on the contrary they rallied to his side).
But this isn't what I am argueing about. The whole "arianism" thing's way was nothing but the religion they are talking about.

Personally, I feel that if you feel comfortable making moral comparisons of anything to Nazi Germany without discovering mass graves, your judgement is already questionable beyond belief. The questionableness of the author's judgement is confirmed with essentially every one of his "14 points," as they're all picked not from the reality of the expression of common traits in the "governments we historically agree are bad," but from the author's own preconceived ideas about how the US is fascist. He thus structures each and every single one of his points around the goal of demonstrating "Fascism!" in the US. If you pick your facts selectively enough and spin hard, you can misinterpret anything.

North Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have had hundreds of thousands of victims becuse of US' aggressiveness. Liberal goverments are believed to have been far less aggressive historically.

The rest of us who aren't off in la-la land see the guy picking his cherries (for one, calling all of these governments Fascist, because the connotation of Fascism is "right-wing," whereas the connotations of Socialism, as in the National Socialists, is "left-wing") and shaking our heads when he comes up with completely uncredible claims (The US Government controls the mass media? In your dreams.) or completely misguided interpretations of the politics of these past governments (Rampant Sexism? Uh, okay. Integral rather than ceremonial role of religion? Sure... "Protection of Corporate power"? A more legitimate assessment is the assumption of previously Corporate power into the powers of the State.)

Do we need even more demonstrations of questionable judgement? Well, some more examples: Writing for a journal titled "Free Inquiry" with the headline "The Republican War on Science." Yeah, totally a war there. Nope, Liberals/Democrats aren't waging "war on science" regarding genetic differences between Sexes/Races, only the Republicans are waging a war. Being published in the "Council for Secular Humanism" isn't really high ranking, on my list, but the content of the article itself is so iffy itself that it reflects badly on that site as well. And, of course, having the article re-re-published on a website titled "Project for the Old American Century" is probably the worst of all. Presumably the "Project for the New American Century" is some secretive Neoconservative plot for world domination. "Neoconservative," in case you're unfamiliar with the term, means "Jew." The "Project for the New American Century" is pretty much the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for the 21st centry, so suffice it to say this website is not exactly gleaming with credibility. I didn't check every one of the so-called "evidence" links, but most of them, from what I saw, went to your usual nutjob sites. The few that I saw that went to real news sites pretty much relied upon bizarre contortions of the facts to fit them with the authors prejudices.

So why did Peter Arnet got fired? Or why do the reporters have to be embodied to US troops in Iraq otherwise risk to be shot?

Shootin' the Breeze / Re: If there were any doubts...
« on: December 01, 2005, 04:54:53 AM »
(Historical note: Yeah, looks like Hitler and the rest of these guys were pretty popular with religions...)
Duh, since you are so positive to allow yourself some irony, then enlighten me please on this.
Because my take is that your point here is wrong.

Fraudulent because I say so!
So, perhaps you didn't see the links?

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 265
« on: November 22, 2005, 03:36:56 AM »
Perhaps Daiba reported that a makara was slain by somebody back then.
 As he confessed, this was extraordinary, perhaps worth noting and perhaps initially suspected having to do with Griffith.
Or perhaps it's Daiba looking for Guts...dunno
The core of this question is if this makara encounter could be more than the random chaos at Vritannis

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 265
« on: November 22, 2005, 01:01:25 AM »
Thanks for the episode!

A thought: could it be that Ganishka is watching the man that killed the first makara?
I mean could it be something more of a coincidence this one?

Character Cove / Re: Is Griffith a Sociopath?
« on: November 01, 2005, 05:45:52 PM »
Regarding Xechnao's comment, sure, it's possible the demon baby has nothing to do with Griffith's feelings. Griffith wants it to be the child; if it's not, the alternative is problematic. But I doubt this is the case. Like I said, Miura isn't a "tricky" writer; he's more into teasing hints than misleads. If Griffith believes it's the baby's influence causing him to feel, that's probably what it is.

But it's Griffith that wants to trick himself here, not Miura his readers. How would you depict Griffith tricking himself without assuming a narrative stance but instead keep with a first person view?

Character Cove / Re: Is Griffith a Sociopath?
« on: November 01, 2005, 12:47:42 AM »
I want to mention also over here the possibility that Griffith could have lied to himself about the source (demon child) that made his heart beat for Guts.

In fact the first time Griffith thinks of the demon child, that thought is clearly a product of Griffith's mental progress. The demon child seems to be just a thing of his memory, being depicted with it's eyes close as it was in the egg apostle's belly. And he isn't even sure himself :he says "perhaps..."

On the other hand, the second time we see the demon child (this time because of Casca), it is with it's eyes open. Griffith thinks nothing at that point. It seems that the demon child is alive and active. The fact that the heart beat is due to the demon child seems definately true in this case. But the first case doesn't seem exactly the same as this one.
It is a possibility...


We will see pure skills after both of their weapons break and the duel changed its course from sword fighting to bare-handed wrestling.  :zodd:

Apostle Zodd vs Guts with Berserker Armour

Beast vs Beast.
Guts biting off Zodd's ears would be funny to see

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 31, 2005, 07:57:50 PM »
Grunbeld more or less publically declared he needed to be stopped for Griffith's protection.
I disagree.  :void:
I think it was all about how happy he was about himself that he found a challenge.

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 31, 2005, 11:26:12 AM »
There are only two directions that you can go on a one dimensional continuum:

  -n  ...   -3   -2  -1    0    1    2    3  ...  n

 i.e. You can travel toward n or -n.

Yeap, this is the one I meant but without the numbers. Griffith seems to be a one dimention character, his dimention being the dimention of his dream or idea's plan. But Griffith as a character must have the possibility to go by himself either ahead or backwards in this dimention.
And this Griffith's one dimention is valid for whatever point he seems to be on the above axis. Ie he is always the hawk of light and the hawk of darkness (the dimention now seen from another spectator's POV (aka people)). So, I guess the numbers on the above axis don't really fit.

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 30, 2005, 08:15:17 PM »
Whether Griffith wants to admit it or not, Guts is a major threat to him at the moment. even if he did Guts' threat status has grown so much since then

Griffith visited the hill of swords for a certain reason. This reason must be linked to how Griffith reacts to Guts and Casca.

See in my post above the rhetoric questions I made.

Even if Griffith seems one dimentional (his dream), he is not a 100% one direction character. Even one dimention has to bear at least 2 directions, no?
Remember that as Femto after he called Guts insignificant back then, he did turn his face to look him again, didn't he?

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 30, 2005, 06:37:34 PM »
While he does put on airs about it, he doesn't seem to have trouble acknowledging Guts as a possible problem. The first thing Griffith did after getting some pants (probably to hide his huge Guts boner =), was to implicitly make sure his feelings for the big guy weren't going to destroy him again. So, why wouldn't Griffith acknowledge him as a problem now? Guts has already cost him, and is potentially the greatest threat to him out there. Sure, after what happened before, maybe he has something to prove, but if it was anybody else, would Griffith ignore such a threat?

Then why hasn't Griffith killed him allready?
Is it because whatever "tale" one might be, the mere propierty of it's existance is such that it has to indorse a quality of insecurity? And Guts or Casca are the only ones that he can properly be linking with this quality?
Or is it perhaps Griffith has to still gain their forgiveness?

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 29, 2005, 04:21:32 PM »
So... you THINK he will order the allied army to attack, right? You're not some kind of oracle are you?

Anyway, do they even need an order to attack? The battle has already begun.  I'm sure the generals and soldiers of the alliance arent just waiting around for the official order to defend themselves.

Well they could retreat if they are facing unfavourable odds and thus live to fight another day, no?
Instead it seems, the way I think as you say, that this possibility is ruled out now.

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 29, 2005, 02:25:47 PM »
Yeah, shows that there's more to Griffith's power than just pretty illusions (if that still needed proof after Zodd's confrontation with the Falcon of Light).

I think it was the psychology of the pontiff that really changed, influencing of course his physical stature.

Im pretty sure now that the Pontiff is going to go really extreme with what ever he does now. Seeing how he has said that he has had nothing really happen in his life... no real intense love, no hate, no nothing... now that he thinks that "Fate's" hand (haha god hand) is reaching out to him, he is probably going to go all out since he near the end of his life. Just my thought.

Yes, he will order the HS allied armies to fight the Kushans thus bringing them(HS armies) to their destruction.

But I think that the important outcome of this episode's event, if the pontif survives will be the answer to the question what will happen as soon as the pontiff meets with Griffith. Will the later officially become the Holy See's Hawk of Light for every single authority that is alleged to the Holy See (including every noble etch...)?

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 28, 2005, 07:14:10 PM »
What are you talking about? Who said anything about the Qliphoth? It doesn't relate in any way. And I concur with Walter's post about the signification of the panel.

Hmmm, I think I have misunderstood Kart's post. I thought he was pressuming that the shadow of the hawk and the hawk of darkness were the same.

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 28, 2005, 05:33:17 PM »

The idea of "the shadow of the hawk" may be those who trail him, the apostles. We are not sure whether or not griffith intends to hurt midland, he may still want it as his own kingdom. But im sure the apostles are really going to cause problems once the war is over. The shadow of him, being his dark army.

qlipoth weren't apostles (by that I mean it's manifestation to interact with the real world which came to be with Griffith.)

1)Kart was saying that the hawk of darkness or the shadow of the hawk has to do with the apostles, right?
2)I answered him to refer to Qlipoth and so to show him that the darkness the hawk brings is not just the apostles...since Qlipoth is not something that had to do with apostles but relates with the new era of darkness Griffith has brought.

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 28, 2005, 01:01:34 AM »
Well, it may play a role in the battle, since a full moon brings out the astral powers, as said by Schierke in ep 239 ("a time when magic exhibits greatly increased power.")

Honestly, I'm suprised a full month has passed since the last one. Though, time has always proven tricky in Berserk.

Yeah, I think it is definately drawnn there for a purpose, whether be it this one or something else.

Btw, though, do I remember wrong or was it full moon again too little time ago?

EDIT: Oh well, you noticed the same thing too   :chomp:

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 28, 2005, 12:52:27 AM »
It's not necessarily the moon that's important, but it's the white feathers on Mule's and Sonia's helmets.

So the moon is a random decoration you say?

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 28, 2005, 12:15:40 AM »
ok, just checked it and I can't but wait for the traslation  :judo:

What I have to ask now though is about the moon...what was that picture?

Speculation Nation / Re: Griffith and Alexander the Great
« on: October 27, 2005, 04:40:42 PM »
No, you're thinking of Egypt. 

For information on the Persian empire, I refer you to wikipedia

Yeah, I thought it was the same.
Thnks for the reply  :griff:

Speculation Nation / Re: Griffith and Alexander the Great
« on: October 27, 2005, 02:34:46 PM »
Yea, pretty sure thats bullshit too.

Wasn't in Persia the ruler worshiped as a God?

Speculation Nation / Re: Griffith and Alexander the Great
« on: October 27, 2005, 11:51:58 AM »
Some days ago i read somethings about Alexander the Great.
And after it, it seemed like Griffith's and Alexander's story were similiar.

1- Brilliant and young tactician
2- His men loved him and would follow him anywhere
3- He died after his love died of tifu's (dont know if i wrote it right..)

So let us see..
Griffith was brilliant, decided the 100 year war, his men loved him.
And Guts.. lol
If we think about it, when Guts left the Hawks it was like he had "died" for Griffith, he didnt own Guts anymore. So he made a mistake that costed him is dream (trying to hump Charlotte).
When Hephastion died Alexander was heart-broken like Griffith and died (fever).

Appart the Beherit thing, they have some similiar things in their stories..

What do you guys think?

About the #3 I am not sure if this is something accepted by historicians.
Legend says though that Alexander's closesest friend saved him in battle but Alexander later killed him because he denied to worship Alexander as a God.

Current Episodes / Re: Episode 264
« on: October 27, 2005, 02:24:08 AM »
And Griffith's location is still speculation at this point.

Griffith's location is not farer than a day's march from Vritannis. At least when we saw Sonia and Mule meet him.

Spoilers:  Pontiff dies, and is replaced with a dark, more evil figure
This sentence makes me thing of Rakshas as an agent in Mission Impossible.

Berserk Miscellaneous / Re: Ars Magica Possible Berserk Influence
« on: October 26, 2005, 06:36:51 PM »
I judge them by their content only, and you happen to often "mix two different subjects in a way that doesn't help the thread's purpose". It has nothing to with you as an individual, it's just something you do frequently as a member, and I think it applies to this thread. Now please stop the martyr act... No need to go on forever about this.

Ok, then it should be something I wrote somewhere in this thread and I didn't notice that I was mixing two different subjects in a way that doesn't help the thread's purpose.
Please tell me where it is, so I can see if I can clear it up.

Berserk Miscellaneous / Re: Ars Magica Possible Berserk Influence
« on: October 26, 2005, 06:12:40 PM »
It has to do with you and with this thread, or any thread you post in. Capito?

Yes, that you primaly judge threads and posts by who is making them (ie me) and not by the actual message of the posts. Sorry again, but I don't agree with this.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 76