Durakken

The number of cities compacted into similar area suggests it.

Star & Central City are in the same area as their City of origin (i dunno what it is). Metropolis, Gotham, Bludhaven, and New York are all in the same area...

This suggests that the world has to be quite a bit bigger for those cities to all be in the same area as the original city.

I don't know that I characterized you. I was talking directly to Rylas.


Here's the thing.

"All acts of atrocities committed are from those in the position of power."

The question is, what is the position of power? Is it the ability to do harm? If that is your definition then it's incontrovertible that if I am able to kill you and do so that I was in a position of power because I obviously had the ability to do harm. It's a stupid statement then. Any act of harm comes from the ability to do harm...If I don't have the ability harm you then I certainly can't do so.

Can one commit an atrocity by not acting? Such as in the phrase, "evil only wins when good men do nothing"

I don't think the position of power IS the ability to do harm. It is who has control of the situation.

So when we look as Woman vs Attacker who is in control? Regardless of whether the woman has the gun or not she may not be in control of the situation, and as such it can not be said that she is in the power position.

In the Columbine situation, those children were reactions to what was happening and were never in control of the situation. The school authorities, their parents, and those who may have bullied them are. One might even say that their mental illness was in control of them and thus weakening their position even more.

Germany was in a weak position from every stand point. That is why they went to war. They wanted to strengthen their position and conquer the world. Again what they did was a reaction and the further they got into it the less control they actually had.

And 9/11 those attacks, we from countries and groups from the position of weakness. They more or less ran out of options and tried to attack.

All of these "atrocities" are desperate reactions against the position of power.

a) It's not hypothetical, it's happened in the past.

b) They were both mentally ill and/or bullied (it really doesn't matter which and neither is conclusive) and it just makes them the weaker position even more so.

c) I didn't discuss what you are talking about because that doesn't matter in this argument. Germany in their position was in the weaker position.

d) No fact I presented is untrue or even spun. Again, the facts beyond are unimportant as it only matters that we establish position and atrocity committed not the why.

you are not addressing my facts at all. You are saying that I didn't speak of the "Why" for the most part. I did that purposefully because it was not my intent to give a lecture on all the various reasons and such, but rather, again, to establish position and atrocity committed. What you are doing is one of two things...you don't understand presenting an argument... or you are trying to make a fallacious argument by way of "he has his facts wrong therefor his argument is wrong" even though you didn't present any facts or even mention how the facts are wrong, and the one point where you did do that, there is no consensus one way or the other.

#1. Power doesn't corrupt. Power makes the corrupt able to act more freely.

#2. Powerful people are not often less moral.

#3. "all the atrocities committed ... have been committed by people in positions of strength." What are you considering "positions of strength" And we can look at a few examples... now in one circumstance of what you mean, there is no way that you could be wrong if I shot you and killed you I was in the position of strength, right? So let's look at some examples where I would like to hear your opinion on who had the "position of strength"

a) A woman walks down a desolate alley and suddenly a guy with a gun comes out and attempts to **** her. The woman struggles and gets hold of the gun, turns it and shoots the attacker in the head. I consider murder an "atrocity" which this is, once she had the gun she could have stopped the attacker in a number of ways that wouldn't have resulted in death, and she is still being attacked and still knows less about the gun than the guy. The woman is not in a position of strength in this circumstance, but the woman committed the atrocity.

b) At columbine high a group of guys are bullied and picked on by their classmates so they lose it and shoot up the school and eventually kill themselves. Sure these guys had the guns and shot up the place, but were they the ones coming from the "position of strength"? If they didn't do what they did they'd have continued to get bullied, had they not killed themselves they would have gone to jail and gotten more or less the same treatment. These people never operated from the "position of strength"

c) WWI left Germany a poor country racked with debt. They were looking for someone to blame and someone to lead them through these unfair conditions that the end of WWI left them in. Hitler arose, promised revenge and such, pointed the finger at jews, and the started the campaign to rule the world a purge it of the jews. Germany clearly was weaker and than just about any country in the world, and yet it is responsible for WWII and the holocaust. Did it have the "position of power" while it committed it's atrocities I would say no. (and yes, invoked godwins law)

d) Now we take this a bit closer to home with The USA has been interfering with the middle east and it's people for decades/centuries and largely leaving it as a wasteland due to its practices. The middle east pleaded with the US to stop, pleaded with the UN to stop them, but nothing was done. They used the political routes and they got no where. What then was left to do but an attack? And this is the cause behind 9/11/01. They were left with no choice. Clearly they couldn't stop the US and clearly they still haven't. And more than likely you consider 9/11 an atrocity...And on the individual level the hijackers were not in the "position of power" as any person among the passengers could have stood up and stopped them, but didn't. This all screams in no way were these people in the "position of power" and yet we call what they did an atrocity.

So you are left with recanting your statement or saying some thing you likely don't want to.

yeah I know... also with Mars... it is likely bigger as well because it seems to be able to hold an atmosphere considering the recent plant life springing up on it.

An assumption is something that you assume to be the case about something, and in common vernacular it is implied to be unfounded. I very much know how programmers program and how programming is done. If we are talking about AI then we are talking about a programmed intelligence that can learn and grow. An AI that is programmed to have x personality is not what we are talking about...we already have that to some degree. And even if we didn't we would still require a basic program that would operate before extra data to form that personality would be tacked on as that sorta of data could only be compiled after the program had run initially.


As far as me saying I find what some have posted to be
Disturbing: Yeah, I find it disturbing that some of you think that it would be perfectly alright to destroy a sentient being if you didn't like it. Regardless of it being technological and not biological I find that eliminating any sentience atrocious.

Pessimistic/Optimism: More minds contributing their thoughts on a subject is always a good thing. And developing sentient weapons doesn't change the situation. We just are using different weapons...so to me it's different day, same stupidity and until we have some major change i don't see how that can be overcome. AI would most likely lead to either the same **** or a betterment of our civilization so I don't see where there would be a problem.


starpheonix: "I guess we could send the AIs out into space to do exploration, but that could end up with either mad AIs travelling the universe or robotic civilizations."

Why would that be a bad thing.

Joker is somewhat 2nd tier to me in terms of a comic reader. Sure he's violent and notable and all, and in terms of who Batman says is his biggest enemy it's him, but in all reality he's not really the star everyone thinks he is. Black Mask, HUSH, Penguin, Two-Face are all much bigger problems and are much bigger stars within the comic as far as who they are and what they do. Likewise Croc, Ivy, Harley, Catwoman, Riddler, and The Ventriloquist are also bigger problems and have to be dealt with more from the heart than just beating them down to really solve their problems and they are because of that bigger threats.

Joker is however a first tier character in terms of recognition, how he plays to peoples' fears, and to base level philosophical principal of the reaction. Joker is without a doubt a Reaction to everything that Batman stands for and because of that it touches on a nerve that we all find interesting, but I don't think he is well explored and those issues where he is done justice are few and hence why he's not in as many comics.


Johnathan Crane, The Scarecrow, is in my opinion another character that fits into that "not quite first or second tier" tier. And it largely has to do with he simply doesn't have much name recognition outside of comics and when you bring up The Scarecrow our first thought is to Oz and not Batman. He also suffers from the fact that his whole persona is based on the fact that the Bat-family thrives on fear to a degree. He has this mega cool schtick and his primary enemy just nullifies him and as such I'd really like to see him expand his role in the DCU, perhaps even become a permanent Sinestro Corps member.

because i think wildsider deleted his posts.

I is a cyborg ^.^

Anyways, the point was more or less to establish an outer limit for what Batman can do roughly for how long Batman has to respond to recognizing that Superman has gone rogue and where there is a point where victory for one or the other is absolute.

My point is more so that if more than x fractions of a second pass before Superman can stop him, Batman wins 100%.

Anyways, since you're better with the maths and all like that How far does Superman have to be for Batman to have adequate time to trigger a Superman Stop-gap if Superman's full speed is light speed and he is going full throttle.

For, even rough estimates, I would say that any time Superman is out of the country or half way across the country (considering the Earth in the DCU is like 4x as big) from Metropolis Batman has more than enough time to stop Superman.

v.v This is what I said earlier. They aren't dodging the lazer, they don't need to. That's the whole point. of what I said.

How is it an order of magnitude when the fastest draw, a skilled timed event is the same speed. I'm saying I can touch anywhere on my body in x amount of time... I should say not anywhere, but anywhere i'd care to in x amount of time... And we're not talking precise movement either. A quick draw's speed is limited by the fact the gun has to move up from the holster making the arm pull back first and then turn and horizontal and pointed at something, and completely change the direction of movement.

The question is more so how fast can the quick draw grab his gun or get his arm to any point of his body, without the gun, than it is how fast can he grab his gun pull it out and fire it which is several movements over what is actually needed and once we eliminate that complexity we see that his moving to get his gun is faster than mine even though mine would still be within what i said and according to you too fast.

Either way you put "fast for a human," even though it is for an overly complex set of event, at 1/16 a second. Because of this the rest of the stuff just needs to be doubled divided/multiplied by 2 and it's accurate.