plus01

does anyone know if mods can be used for the steam version?

I would, but my absentee ballot didn't come in yet

Originally posted by: krbe Originally posted by: plus01 Alright, so before I go any further I understand that you are attacking the video/poem. What I don't understand is whether your views are solely based against this youtube video (which has its flaws/misplaced references) thus discrediting the views of Chinese nationals in general. In other words, are you seriously denying all other viewpoints based on an amature youtube video? This is the theme i'm sensing from your posts. quote> It is you who extrapolates.quote> This isn't a rhetorical question. (If it was, I admit it does sound like I am inferring something). I just want to know what is your point, since you are focusing on the video's faults rather than the overall message it brings (that there are other viewpoints and opinions out there). Well I thought about it even more, and then I realized that you are dismissing the video because it has false information. And you stated that you only base your viewpoints on fact. Then you argued against the video with sources against it debunking it. That I understand. But taking a step further instead of moving on, the next question should have been: why are those perceptions there in the first place? What drove the author to make the video in the first place? Maybe finding counter-evidence (that is not as bias as this video's imagery) to your own references would have been a better course of action. Don’t stop once it agrees to a pre-existing viewpoint, but dig deeper. If you found none after rigorous research in various sources, then indeed it is closer to reality and your viewpoint is valid. However this was not the case. To exemplify what I mean by digging deeper, I will refer to what krbe posted in his second to last post from now. He argues that “China Threat” perception was false since he had evidence against it. Originally posted by: krbe But what is The China Threat? Does it portray all Chinese as (I’m not going to repost a racist comment in my post) trying to take over the world and put Americans in concentration camps, or is it a call for the nation not to let their guard down? Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. This goes for both the Chinese and the Americans, and The China Threat is supposed to remind the Americans of just that. quote> Originally posted by: krbe"We are called The China Threat" is written over the book of the same name. Do the editor and the author (which is probably the same person) know what this book is about? It is about China policy, how the Americans were unable to catch the mole inside the FBI when they uncovered spies, about the PRC's plans to use nuclear arms against Taiwan and the PRC's long term perspective v. America's short term perspective. It's not called Mein Kampf, because it isn't Mein Kampf. In comparison, China Inc is the one which is "afraid" of China and the Chinese, and not the PRC policies; but The China Threat is much better to use visually for all those out there who don't know what exactly Gertz is writing about. quote> For the "China Threat", krbe points out that the book in the video refers to a different kind of threat, a military one rather than on an individual basis. Someone might say, "These examples are invalid because it is based on perception on false facts." However, the fact that people do have these perceptions (economic, environmental, and/or military threat) in the fir

Originally posted by: krbe Originally posted by: plus01 {Explanation} quote> As I've said before: I'm not talking about the poem per se, I'm talking about the video, where images accompany the verses. ... To remind you again: I'm talking about the video. quote> Alright, so before I go any further I understand that you are attacking the video/poem. What I don't understand is whether your views are solely based against this youtube video (which has its flaws/misplaced references) thus discrediting the views of Chinese nationals in general. In other words, are you seriously denying all other viewpoints based on an amature youtube video? This is the theme i'm sensing from your posts.

Originally posted by: fukuda Originally posted by: plus01 Originally posted by: krbe And European powers wanting their "fair share", that's hardly unique to China. Ask the Poles how they felt about such arrangments. And no words about how effective the Chinese were in partitioning their own country? The Europeans got an International Settlement in Shanghai, access to some Chinese ports and a few consession territories, but the warlords were the ones that got the large slices. quote> wow...this is the most ignorant thing i have read/heard this year.quote> Why? Because not all chinese peeps are shown as the good ones? yes, it's not only the fault of the "Western Powers"... Yes, Chinese lords helped immensely to ruin their own country, europeans were not acting alone, and that's history, but I guess that it hurts the nationalism of some people.quote> To put my comment back into perspective, krbe's comment was referring back to one of the poem's stanzas. When We were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your "fair share". Originally posted by: krbe The Europeans got an International Settlement in Shanghai, access to some Chinese ports and a few consession territories, but the warlords were the ones that got the large slices. quote> Here, the author fails to realize that when the poem references China falling apart, it was not during the Warlord Era (between 1910s to 1930s) like he cited in his Wikipedia Link, but around the mid 1800s mainly after the Opium Wars, namely the Taiping Rebellion (1850-64) and the Boxer Rebellion (1900). The European troops marched into China demanding "free trade" (by free trade is selling more opium into China and taking a lot of money when mercantilism was prominent in Europe). The time when major concessions were given to European powers was during the late 1800s. The warlords in China were about 50 years later. The "fair share" concessions towards European powers were a result of many one-sided wars and unequal treaties where China really had no say in. In short, China was exploited. How dare he ask how the Poles felt when the question should be how China felt. The Opium wars instigated by the British preluded the fall of the Qing Dynasty because many Han Chinese were frustrated at the weakness under the rule of Manchus. Then there was the 1911 Revolution which ended the Qing Dynasty and formed a republic. However there were disagreements in how to run the new republic and there was some chaos that led to regional Warlords who ruled by the size of their armies. Originally posted by: krbe And no words about how effective the Chinese were in partitioning their own country? quote> Indeed, the Chinese were relatively ineffective in ruling their own country during the Warlord Era. This was because of the upheaval after the fall of the Qing Dynasty. But remember, revolution in China to overthrow the current regime was sparked by wanting to become stronger as a country and eventually gain liberty from foreigners (namely Europeans). I

Originally posted by: krbe And European powers wanting their "fair share", that's hardly unique to China. Ask the Poles how they felt about such arrangments. And no words about how effective the Chinese were in partitioning their own country? The Europeans got an International Settlement in Shanghai, access to some Chinese ports and a few consession territories, but the warlords were the ones that got the large slices. quote> wow...this is the most ignorant thing i have read/heard this year.

And actually, the sudden apllication of freedom would greatly help the "ills" you are talking about.quote> If China were to suddenly and instantaneously have complete freedom and democracy many Western nations have today, it would probably follow the same path as the Soviet Union did after 1991. Back then, the whole nation's government and economy collapsed and took them more than a decade to recover. In order to regain stability and reinstate Russia's clout in the world stage, Putin had pushed for many reforms that can be considered un-democratic at best. What would happen if China were to do the same thing? By the way, I'm all for wanting China to enjoy the freedoms of a democracy, but by the tone of what many people in this thread believe in, instant change will be irresponsible.

More recently I've been using my friend's last names or variations of them

are the fences terrain conforming, like if i wanted to use them on hills will they be jagged or not?

San Francisco? Never mind, I say Seattle

well when someone become bias in what they read, doesn't that seem to imply they are selectively ignoring those against their own viewpoint...

Again, to be fair, the worst that can happen is that governments around the world loose billions to trillions of dollars to absolutely nothing but a joke. That's the worst.quote> No, the worst that can happen is that governments around the world loose the ability to sustain life under the extreme weather conditions caused by Global Warming is not a joke. Sure, I acknowledge that this statement assumes that Global Warming is true, but in order to combat against it in the first place, wouldn't we invest in new environmental technologies and industries. And in effect, this would benefit ourselves by creating a new green economy, which creates new jobs. At the same time, we are limiting CO2 emissions in the air while creating a new industry that will definitely produce surplus. Don't think about it as we are wasting money on a lost cause, we are investing money (with the side effect of cleaning our air). What's the worse of the two evils, living in poverty or not living at all. Besides, if Global Warming isn't human caused, what is so bad about creating new technologies that benefit our lives at the present. Sure, we are at risk of losing trillions of money, but aren't we already doing that now with our current deficit. Creating a new industry is an answer to our deficit problem, and researching and investing in it now would allow us to provide goods and services that no other country has. If we invest now for the future, we can have the upper hand in the world economy with green economy. Also new environmentally friendly power sources lessens our dependence on foreign oil, and oil in general. Sure, some scientists say the the Middle East still has enough oil to provide for the next 150 years, but why put off something later when you can do it now. Especially with the rising tensions in the Middle East, this is the best time if anything. This is our opportunity to do something about our problems, and acknowledging Global Warming is a problem and must be dealt with, we are "killing two birds with one stone" so to speak. We are planning for the future.

Sure, scientists can't agree whether the cause is natural or human, but wouldn't it be better to do something about what happens to be a very strong correlation, if not causation, between global warming and human industrial activity. If in the end Global Warming is caused by nature, then what you said the worst that can happen is that there will be a "nice doomsday clip." What other reasons are there? Yea, one can say that factories would have to put a cap on emissions and destroy the economy, but wouldn't this open up new industries that are economically friendly. Then one would say that we would be wasting billions if not trillions of dollars investing in preventing something that is normal in the first place, which brings me to my original stance, greed. Another point, we can also alleviate dependence on foreign oil (US point of view), and if that's not an incentive enough I don't know what else. Also turning down the factories can also help the current health conditions like asthma (iono, this was randomly at the top of my head), water pollution, etc. AS WELL AS for the future (if Global Warming is true). But if Global Warming is caused by humans, and we don't do anything about it, then we will continue destroying out planet, raping the land of our resources, etc. What is wrong with being environmentally friendly. We lose our dependence on foreign oil (again with the oil i kno =/), create new jobs, increase our living conditions, while also improving our lives for the future. What is the worse of the two evils? A doomsday news clip, and loss of money....or continuing to destroy our planet via Global Warming, until we are at a point where money is useless. And I'm from the SF Bay Area...it definitely felt like an ice age a few weeks ago. My car frosted over, which isn't normal...

What really pisses me off is how people who deny global warming have no legitimate reason other than greed "aka to keep the factories running," whereas those who have identified that humans are the cause of global warming are doing so to save ourselves from destroying our planet.

ilikehotdogsalot: The wide avenues lay empty since no one can afford gas or a car.quote> Just some additional info...I learned from a Geography course I took last year that the reason why the avenues are so wide and large is because they can double as airstrip runways for fighter jets just in case the United States attacks North Korea. Now that I think of it, do they even have fighter jets .