Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:especially if it were a hate crime merely to present a criticism of another religion.

Ahh ... then the term I'm looking for is "hate speech laws", not "hate crimes".

quote:merges them in a way that produces an unreasonable and false result

Forcing people to defend themselves in "human rights court" whenever they criticize religion is censorship.  If you can't see that it is you who is being unreasonable.
However, it is not the government Levant says is censoring him before conviction but the complainants.  He has argued they have a free hand to censor him without cost or consequence because the government has unwisely granted them that power.
Then in his hearing he rejects the authority of the CHRC outright, calls the process a farce, and says that whatever reason is the worst reason for publishing the Muhammad cartoons, that was his reason, and he dares his inquisitor to punish him.  As administrative proceedings go it was a stemwinder.
He has also attacked CHRC attempts to censor libraries through "prior restraint", so he's aware of the difference.

quote:While being investigated, Ezra Levant continued to publish the cartoons on his web site without punishment ...

"The process is the punishment." -Ezra Levant
You may disagree with his point-of-view, but you're not the one paying the legal bills and facing the inquisitor.
He continued publishing the cartoons despite the punishment.

quote:Familiarly horrible.

And yet it is the inquisitor who has resigned in shame amidst public derision and Ezra Levant who has become the rockstar of Canadian free speech.  I think you're compounding your needless nitpicking of de jure versus de facto with the deeper error of mistaking a legal process with a political one.
Legal situations require legal arguments; political situations political ones.  Confusing the situation and using the wrong tools almost guarantees failure.  Ezra Levant's success is proof he knows the difference.  You would be wise to learn it yourself.
To anyone but a lawyer, Ezra Levant was railroaded by the CHRC and fought back by recording his inquisition, giving a rousing defense of freedom of speech, and putting the exchange on YouTube for all to see.
To a lawyer, Ezra Levant made horrible legal arguments.  Oh dear me.

quote:I would not have made this comparison because I didn't know Ezra made such false arguments.

It doesn't surprise me you did little to no research on Ezra's writings before comparing me to the Nazi instead.  What would've been the point?  It would hardly have done Wiles justice to say to me, "Your argument is just as bad as Ezra Levant's!"

[Kagus]

If you want to amp up the numbers a little bit for your slaughtering pleasure, run a few searches for the "Ork swarm" mod.  I managed to get it to run in Dark Crusade, so I don't know if it will work in the previous games.

What it does is change several of the aspects of all the races in the game.  Most notably the orks, who now only have slugga boyz, killa kans, and looted tanks (squads of looted tanks, actually), along with the 'hero' classes.  Here's the fun bit:  The infantry pop cap has been removed, and slugga boy reinforcements cost a single req point.

Imperial guardsmen get just about the same thing.  Guardsmen squads have larger per-squad troop numbers, and are free to make.  You get what you pay for, though.  They really fall like flies.

Ork swarm is easily my favorite mod.  There's just something utterly cool about seeing your baneblade tearing a hole through hundreds upon hundreds of orkz, sending green bodies flying everywhere and getting each and every barrel smoking like it's on fire, because not a single gun can let up the barrage lest the bellowing horde inches closer.

Again, it's most likely only for Dark Crusade.  Dawn of War mods are notorious for their incompatibility.

[Forumsdwarf]

Hordes of cannon fodder versus small groups of elite enemies ... are Zerg too obvious to even mention?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Enormous Edit:

To Forumsdwarf: I had a long post here, it was up for about 30 minutes, and I'll keep a copy in case you want to see it or you end up replying, but I figured, what the hell. I'm done fighting with you. I can't much walk out right after getting last word in, so I'll withdraw my last word like a gentleman and bow out. I think we've both got better things to do that kick each other in the shins for another few days.

[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]

[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Forumsdwarf:
<STRONG>Hordes of cannon fodder versus small groups of elite enemies ... are Zerg too obvious to even mention?</STRONG>

Zerg define the concept! Though certainly not the first, they did it so effectively, and in a way that was so interactive for so many people, that the word zerg has become synonymous with that kind of warfare.

[Kagus]

I've seen zerg, and I've seen ork swarms in ork swarm.

Ork swarms in ork swarm trump zerglings in the cannon fodder aspect.

[Earthquake Damage]

quote:Forcing people to defend themselves in "human rights court" whenever they criticize religion is censorship. If you can't see that it is you who is being unreasonable.

Haven't yet read past this, but I'd like to add that when people are afraid to criticize religion because they're afraid of a legal battle (monetary costs aside, the process itself is long and irritating), then there's a problem.  That problem may not be accurately described as censorship.  I'm also not saying many people are afraid.  Just saying that if and when there is such a situation, there is a real threat to free speech (sure, you're free to speak, but if you do we'll make your life miserable for weeks or months).

Words muddled.  Summary:  If X, then Y.  The veracity of X remains unknown.

[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Earthquake Damage:
<STRONG>

Haven't yet read past this, but I'd like to add that when people are afraid to criticize religion because they're afraid of a legal battle (monetary costs aside, the process itself is long and irritating), then there's a problem.  That problem may not be accurately described as censorship.  I'm also not saying many people are afraid.  Just saying that if and when there is such a situation, there is a real threat to free speech (sure, you're free to speak, but if you do we'll make your life miserable for weeks or months).

Words muddled.  Summary:  If X, then Y.  The veracity of X remains unknown.

[ March 06, 2008: Message edited by: Earthquake Damage ]</STRONG>

Excerpt from my withdrawn response:

I do not disagree with you to an extreme extent here. The objective of the complaints was to silence and suppress political cartoons deemed offensive and force an apology. The objective was censorship. If they are able to even scare people into submission, they would have achieved that objective, and I would agree with you. I do not believe that has occurred.

The people of Canada do not get hauled in front of human rights tribunals every time they criticize religion, despite your presumably hypothetical argument that my point of view would be unreasonable if made in an imaginary world in which they are, and nor do they live in daily fear of doing so. Even the two cases that we are discussing have seen the defense continue to publish their ostensibly offensive speech. While this could qualify under some strained definition of censorship, it is certainly an amazingly weak form if it fails at actually censoring anything.

In other words, if X then Y. But there is no evidence of X. The argument is valid, but inapplicable.

[Forumsdwarf]

At what numerical trigger-point do compulsory quasi-criminal proceedings for religion critics become censorship?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

(In case you missed it, the conversation is over.)

[Kagus]

What about WH40k?  Is that still an open topic?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by Kagus:
<STRONG>What about WH40k?  Is that still an open topic?</STRONG>

Sure.  

[Cajoes]

I think tyranids are more swarmy than orks.

Orks WAAAGH!

Zergs and Tyranids swarm.  

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:in case you missed it ...

Yes sir, your majesty ... until you decide it isn't over anymore and chime in again.

For a rules stickler you sure can bend 'em.

[Forumsdwarf]

Master of Magic Halfling hordes.

Talk about a game that never ends ... I think I've played maybe twice to the end.  Once you're winning, it's boring.

Master of Orion had the same 4-step narrative arc:
1.  Fear and terror!
2.  Acquisition and deployment of key military technologies
3.  Sherman's March to the Sea
4.  If (!win) Goto 3

What makes a good strategy game is for the Stage 4 Victory Condition gremlins to not be too stingy with the win, which is what made Master of Orion the greatest strategy game ever.  And the cookie, of course, a nice pat on the back, a movie about the new era of peace you'll bring the universe, a casual chat with the Zoq-Fot-Pik on the finer points of Frungy, something.

Master of Magic would grind on and on well after the outcome of the game was no longer in doubt.  You got the cookie, but the cookie jar was at the far end of a 700-mile treadmill.

But the Halfling Hordes ... yeah, they didn't always win, but you always had more.  No city could stand against them, and because of certain technical aspects of the game buff spells multiplied their effectiveness eightfold instead of the usual 6, so once you got a few good buffs your army of fodder became an unstoppable hammer of righteousness (Life Magic and Halflings go together like steel tubes and gunpowder.)

Heh, old memories.