"Violent" Video Games To Be Banned In Venezuela 420
An anonymous reader writes "The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches has decided to ban 'violent' video games because they 'promote violence and can alter the behavior of children.' The new legislation in Venezuela says, 'The violence found in video games is translated into the real world.' This new law affects people who sell, 'use,' produce, import and distribute these games. Video games as a whole have been labeled as 'a consequence of savage capitalism' by PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), which is the political party led by Hugo Chavez. Days before this law was approved by the National Assembly, Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.' Just today the AFP released a report showing Caracas as the second most violent city on the planet — even more violent than Baghdad. I guess all those violent gangs in Venezuela are addicted to video games."
Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Individualism? Oh, no!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A socialist country passes a law that curtails individual liberty for the greater good?
Oh my God how did this happen! The Left are the good guys aren't they? Clearly Chavez has become right-wing.
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sufficiently far-left philosophy is indistinguishable from a far-right philosophy.
The reverse is also true.
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Intresting choice of words (Score:3, Interesting)
Sufficiently free society.
Sufficient as far as I know means something like good enough. Not compleet. My income is sufficient to live on does not mean I am rich or I am without money worries. A diet that is suffcient to survive on would hardly be called optimal.
So just how free should society be? Completly free?
One of the problems in the world is that we wants simple things, left/right, while politics tend to be very complex. Take Cuba, you had a system before Castro that had the majority of the public
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. In a free society, people are free to be as immoral as they want, as long as they don't infringe upon somebody else's rights
Does not compute.
I'm saying that a government that has no power other than to protect human rights, but that does a good job protecting human rights
Define human rights. If you say "not being fucked over by the megacorps" and "managing to live a decent life even if you're poor", then you're a socialist. If you say "not having the government meddle with my business" and "not having to pay most of my hard-earned paycheck to support those who didn't earn it" then you're a capitalist (of a certain kind).
There are more answers for Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, Monarchy, etc.
[...] has no 'favors' to sell to corporations (the excesses of capitalism), and no means of seizing property for 'the state' (the excesses of socialism). The biggest reason our senators and executives are corrupt is because we've foolishly let them have more and more power to be corrupt WITH.
It seems to me you're making a case against corruption, and I agre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What people's rights are, are derived from one's morals, metaphysics and ideology. Some people believe that the right to, for example, move freely is more important than property rights. Some believe that beaches can be owned, some can't. Some also believe that children belong to their parents, others don't.
If everyone shared a consistent view of what "rights" were, then there wouldn't be a problem. But any political theory that relies on a non-existent consensus and an equally non-existent standard of huma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ONLY example of a truly oppressive "right-wing" government is ... () the national socialist party of Germany.
The Nazis were't socialist and neither was Hitler. And it's amusing that you try to equate them as being left-wing.
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:4, Informative)
More than any other country, Germany â" Nazi Germany â" then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.
The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn't look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries. Corporate profits boomed, and unemployment sank (and not because of slave labor, which didn't become widespread until later). Harold James, an economic historian, says that the young liberal economists studying under John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s began to debate whether Hitler had solved unemployment.
I emphasized the important parts bold. The part in italics isn't true. The autobahn was mainly built with forced labor. That's why unemployment sank. Corporate profits boomed (later on) because of slave labor and war (see IG Farben for example).
You may also notice, that socialism != stalinism. You may also find this [wikipedia.org] interesting.
Re:Individualism? Oh, no! (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly does one promote "capitalism" as in the free and unfettered enterprise of individuals ... while eliminating individualism. That's a contradiction. How does the state "get out of the way" AND destroy personal liberty ?
Take a look at the US and see how they do it. By granting enterpreneurs the ability to screw everybody else for their own gain (see: copyright, patents), they manage to both incentive the free enterprise of individuals *and* destroy personal liberties. Take it just a bit farther and you get corporatism first, then fascism, two extreme right-wing philosophies which you somehow missed in your effort to Godwin the discussion.
Now, I'm a right-wing capitalist, what in the US would be called a "libertarian" I believe, but seriously: stop pretending only one side of the political spectrum holds a monopoly over stupidity, you aren't helping your own credibility by doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just wondering ...
How exactly does one promote "capitalism" as in the free and unfettered enterprise of individuals ... while eliminating individualism.
I suppose that you never heard of Augusto Pinochét? On September 11th 1973 he lead a bloody coup against the elected government of Chile and started a bloody oppression of the Chilean people while liberalising trade to allow the rich and powerful to become even more rich and powerful. At the time he got a lot of support by famous monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, who conveniently ignored his atrocities.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, that's a translation of what Chavez said, rather than what he actually said. From the context, I wouldn't be surprised if the word he actually used has negative connotations similar to "loner," "isolation," and "exile" have to us.
banning make hulk smash! (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe banning violence would help to cut down on the violence in that country.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy - you just have to kill all the violent people.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Mod parent up!
Although, to be fair, being a violent murderous asshole is even better of you're a righty. You get to defer the assassination and go straight to the presidential palace.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, but your reason is wrong. It's better 'cause you get to send in the military, and leave the dirty work for the hired help.
Re: (Score:2)
Piensas de los niños! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You outlaw wooshing and only outlaws will fail to get the joke
Re:citation needed (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez#Ch.C3.A1vez_and_the_media [wikipedia.org]
Now I know you're saying "that just wikipedia" but maybe read the cites. Or do a google search. Educate your self. You might find that the US government has done far worse in acting out foreign policy goals... And publicly acknowledged it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change [wikipedia.org]. Almost as bad as the Brits.
But I understand your need to deny anything that the US does that could be construed as bad since this might force you to take personal responsibility for your own life.
Ah I get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Crush the thought of dissent before they spill out into the streets. Actually shouldn't be promoting the use of violent video games to keep his citizens under control?
Egoism, Individualism and Violence. (Score:3, Interesting)
Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.'
Because we all know what a danger Individualism is.
Re: (Score:2)
Individualism interferes with your proper sense of duty to do whatever El Jefe tells you to.
Re: (Score:2)
You must realize that Latin American countries are far more collectivist. Our notions of individual rights (which are eroding today even here in the USA) aren't as held there as they are here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this mean that this collectivism should be enforced by law?
European culture is more collectivist too, but the Europeans realize that this cultural trait doesn't need to be enshrined in law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must realize that Latin American countries are far more collectivist.
No, we aren't. Don't generalize the whole population of Latin America based on what the Supreme Idiot of the Venezuelan Republic does or says.
Re: (Score:2)
"Because we all know what a danger Individualism is."
Certainly
And the yo-yo and trompo are the perfect solution because they...err...ummm...ahhhh....well, nothing brings the community together like a good yo-yo.
Perhaps the plan is to only allow one yo-yo and one top per 10 kids?
(neither the spell-checker nor myself knew what trompo was without a little help)
awesome, it's get my troll submitted day! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches has decided to ban 'violent' video games because they 'promote violence and can alter the behavior of children.'
What the hell does this have to do with the actually meat of the issue? NOTHING. Nice troll.
Re:awesome, it's get my troll submitted day! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent insightful. As bad as Hugo is this summary is stupid. You could write a story in the same style about the US, and how they are the source of much pornography but is still trying to outlaw or severly restrict. Just pure trolling.
Please critize Venzuela on sound ground. It is not that hard.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No. Your excuses are stupid.
Venezeula is much more tightly controlled. In order for your lame analogy to
work, it would have to be Bush or Obama that is encouraging the production of
pornography. The fact that such activity exists in America (or any other normal
democracy) is a reflection of the inherent CHAOS of a truely free society. People
at large are free to engage in conflicting activities.
You can have as many pornographers as you have anti-porn crusaders.
Either and both can thrive without government enco
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Your excuses are stupid.
No, you're a big stupid head!
Seriously, there's no need for name calling or putting down people. Your point is (somewhat) valid, you only weaken your position with derogatory remarks.
Re:awesome, it's get my troll submitted day! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think criticizing Venezuela for hypocrisy, as the summary did, is just fine.
Just because the same criticism is also valid for the US doesn't make it any less valid elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ridiculous part about that line is that Venezuela spends significantly less on defense spending than Colombia, it's oft-foe. And the "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Militarization demands increased violence in at least some segment of the population. Basically, it's not that Chavez opposes violence, it's that he opposes non-state-sanctioned violence. Boot camp doesn't turn you into a pacifist, and a more placid people are more easily ruled.
Jack Thompson moved to Venusuela? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe if there were MORE violent videogames there, there wouldn't be so much violence. In the US, the most violent places are the slums, places where the folks living there can't afford videogames.
Violent crime has dropped in the US since videogames were invented.
OTOH I played Quake with my daughters on our home network when they were teenagers, and my youngest (now 22) tried to beat the hell out of my girlfriend a couple of weeks ago. Maybe Quake is responsible? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hehe. Sources would be nice.
Yeah, the story about having daughters and a girlfriend is convincing but I'd like to see some solid evidence of a /.er having life, for once.
Wikipedia or GTFO
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go [newscientist.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't, you disgusting troll. My GF's 44 years old, twice my daughter's age. Now get back under your goddamned bridge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, she is, but the GF's half your weight and twice your IQ.
banning video games.. (Score:5, Insightful)
was never about actually reducing crime, it is about enforcing morality on others and controlling what media people are allowed to consume.
Re: (Score:2)
yup. If they could make a video game that somehow was a propaganda vehicle for Chavez then they would allow it. This has more to do with the fact that video games have more of a anti-communist and pro freedom and thinking point of view. Also I bet he doesn't want to see anything that promotes a pro-American view of history (Rambo, anyone?)
If they had the know how to build a video game where Hugo Chavez conquers the fat capitalists it would be legal. Apparently they don't have programmers in Venezuela.
Re: (Score:2)
Not about reducing? That depends on the intent and motive... whether it does or not is the motive-ignoring debate.
Enforcing morality? Somehow, I doubt that Chavez is interested in "enforcing morality." He's so moral himself.
GTA Caracas (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
About the Editorializing (Score:4, Interesting)
The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches has decided to ban 'violent' video games because they 'promote violence and can alter the behavior of children.'
Just because a country purchases utilities of force says nothing. What they do with them says everything. If a country employs them for their own protection from genuine threats, there is nothing wrong with them building or purchasing automat kalashnikovs.
As for the video games promoting violence and altering the behavior of children, I do not believe this has been scientifically proved or disproved. And it may be hard if not impossible to do. I would recommend, when dealing with a populace, that you stick to common sense like 'acts of violence have been around long before video games' and point out that there is no statistical correlation between increased violence and increased violence in video games.
Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.'
Right, because it would be horrible if your kids got video games that made them think. We're dealing with politicians, not the populace here. I feel horrible for Venezuelan gamers but I wonder if this doesn't have to do more with the feelings that games convey to people more so than the violence. I can't help but think that CoD and other games that tell the stories of men who fought and died to stop fascists like Hitler and Mussolini must make other dictators afraid of that sense of freedom being conveyed -- and the violence to stop them being employed! It's possible this ban is more so a significance of the importance of games as a cultural medium. That might be reaching a bit far but I would guess there's some truth to it. Probably just as simple as Chavez trying to appeal to the older generations for support and using video games as a scapegoat.
2 points (Score:2)
What violent games do: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110202392.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a government accused of (and denying) providing aid insurgents within its enemies' borders!
Thank God we'd never do anything like that...
Re: (Score:2)
I do not believe this has been scientifically proved or disproved.
Of course their behavior is affected. Just look at how the politics of an adult is driven by what they see on the TV over and over. They never vote, or even discuss beyond what's being spoon fed to them. Propaganda works, whether it's intentional or not. "The Game" can be a very useful tool.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess there is no easy way and the only thing simple prohibition is likely to achieve is black market and the best prevention
Oh please (Score:5, Informative)
The country that has bought Sukhois, tanks and 100,000 AK-103's, is planning to build a manufacturing plant of Russian rifles, and oppresses peaceful marches
Venezuela's defense spending is just over $2B/year. Their oft-foe, Colombia, spends about $6B/year. And the US spends over $400B/year.
And, FYI, your "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Just today the AFP released a report showing Caracas as the second most violent city on the planet -- even more violent than Baghdad.
Didn't bother to mention that New Orleans came in right after Caracas, with only one less murder per 100,000 people, did you? Or that Caracas's murder rate fell dramatically since their last survey. Skew much?
Parent is one of Slashdot's most biased posts (Score:4, Informative)
Venezuela's defense spending is just over $2B/year. Their oft-foe, Colombia, spends about $6B/year.
Except that Colombia faces a bitter civil war. What next, will you compare with Israel?
And the US spends over $400B/year.
No, you will settle for the US, which has 43 times the GDP.
And, FYI, your "peaceful marches" involved a freaking coup.
Huh? Care to elaborate?
Didn't bother to mention that New Orleans came in right after Caracas, with only one less murder per 100,000 people, did you?
Maybe because such a comparison would be a textbook example of bias - comparing the "murder capital" of country A with the capital and largest city of country B? If you wanted a faint hope of impartiality, you would have compared Caracas with Washington, DC, or with a large and important US city such as New York.
Or that Caracas's murder rate fell dramatically since their last survey.
Sources? Comparison to previous years? (A comparison of two years is a really, really lousy way to establish a trend)
So... (Score:2)
... how's life in beautiful war-torn Venezuela?
Silly Venezuela (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brazil the country, or Brazil the movie? [wikipedia.org]
Please get Jack Thomson to back this in public! (Score:3)
That way Fox News will be forced to calling him a socialist supporter of Hugo Chavez and close one of the last places that man can get any airtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously it would be like adding anti-matter to a big steaming pile of matter.
Yo-Yos can be dangerous... (Score:2)
That said I miss mine. Can anyone recommend a good brand? yotech, bumblebee, other?
Who tagged this "Fascism"? (Score:3, Funny)
He is also the democratically elected leader of his country.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you live in a world in which Venn diagrams never overlap? Do your sets lack the difference operation, because it always returns the empty set? I would like to hear more about your insights into mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
I would just like to add that I live in a world where the definitions of "difference" and "intersection" are swapped.
D'oh.
Re:Who tagged this "Fascism"? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he is a champion of himself and gives a damn about anyone else.
Re:Who tagged this "Fascism"? (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to assume that the left-wing dictators pretended to be left-wing merely as a tool of control, allowing them to be as selfish as they wanted, filling the Swiss bank account while pretending to have the people's interests at heart.
But having read a rather long (and definitely unsympathetic) biography of Stalin [amazon.com], I'm no longer so sure. I think many of them really believe in what they are doing, and are genuinely convinced that it is for the best.
For example, in the early years of WW2, Hitler broke his non-aggression pact and invaded Russia. Initially, this invasion was going very well for the Germans, and Stalin became convinced that the war was lost. He went to his dacha outside the city, and for a few days, none of his henchmen dared to give any orders because they couldn't run them past the big man. Eventually, the henchmen decided to go to Stalin's house.
I think this moment of vulnerability, in front of the men who could destroy him and had reason to do so, gives a lot of insight into the mind of Stalin. History remembers a monster, and of course this is correct, but nevertheless he was a rational man who believed he was doing the right thing for the USSR. When things went badly, he felt guilty for failing the people. He almost destroyed himself because of it.
Is this the action of a selfish man, considering only himself? I think not. Stalin's actions are entirely explained by the Marxist religion. In his mind, he did act for the people. He did help them! He freed them from the capitalists, the bourgeois and the imperialists. The mass executions, the war and the starvation were all necessary to achieve that end. Stalin was exactly what he claimed to be: a truly left-wing dictator.
Somebody who knows the score tagged it "fascism" (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler was also a champion of workers' and farmers' rights and was democratically elected, undeniably influenced (negatively) by Marx, and a socialist to the core. The "S" in NSDAP stood for socialist, you know. Here's a pop quiz. Can you briefly state the difference between fascist and socialist (minus any hyperbolae)? Hint: it's a trick question.
As for "bane to American-style capitalist corporations", I simply think that Chavez simply favors his own corporations, state run or in cahoots with the state, as is the case with both socialism and fascism.
The yo-yo is a weapon (Score:4, Interesting)
Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo
But the yo-yo is a weapon: Inventors of the yo-yo [about.com]
In the Philippines, the yo-yo was a weapon for over 400 hundred years. Their version was large with sharp edges and studs and attached to thick twenty-foot ropes for flinging at enemies or prey.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but it's not a virtual violence; which is the worse kind of violence~
Instead of a "guns for toys" exchange . . . (Score:2)
100,000 AK-103's
. . . they're planning a "violent video games for guns" exchange.
Hell, an AK-103? Where do I trade my games in?
An age-old argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Do violent video games make kids more violent? Well, I never used to think so until my 6 year old started playing them. Almost immediately we noticed a change in his behavior and an increase in his aggressiveness. I fought it for a long time because I have been playing violent games since Doom and Quake and I totally didn't want to believe it...plus, I had always wanted my son to be able to play those games with me. So, after many arguments with my wife, and after strict guidance from his pediatrician, I caved and we put up the games. he HATED it but, I must admit, the temper tantrums ceased and he became a much more calm and respectful kid.
I know what you are thinking: "He stopped because he was playing too many games in general". No, actually we only cut out the violent games. He still plays the games that, whoever that legal group is that decides what is ok for kids to play, say it's ok for him to play. It sucks because I never wanted to be that guy, but here I am. I guess I need to hang up my Logitech Mouseman and get a trackball because I'm certainly only months away from carpal tunnel.
FML
Re: (Score:2)
Even "Red Alert III?" (Score:2)
What even "Red Alert III?" Say it ain't so Hugo, say it ain't so.
On the plus side, these kinds of Social Controls never work, and will ultimately lead to the collapse of the Venezualan state. It's akin to the Soviet Union outlawing "decadent Western culture," and shows Hugo Chavez to be the petty tin-plated tyrant his critics had always painted him as.
The trompo (Score:2)
A Trompo is a toy popular in Latin America much like a top. Its name can vary between countries. In Spain it is known as "Peonza". Trompos have a pear-shaped body and are usually made of wood, although new resins and strong plastic materials have also been used.
The trompo seen in this picture is exactly like a top which has been made in Sasebo, Japan for hundreds of years. It is believed that the tops used in Mexico were brought over from Japan. In Japan the name for a top is called a Koma. Most cities in Japan have a particular design for their koma.
A trompo has a button-shaped tip on top, usually bigger than the tip on which trompo spins, and generally made of the same material as the rest of the body. This tip exists so that the trompo can spin on the metal-made tip when thrown.
from you know where [wikipedia.org]
Hmm, you learn something new every day. I've been playing with tops (not the kinds you spin with your thumb and finger, but wrap a string around and chuck) for a long time and always thought that they were "tops", not trompo or koma.
The more you know! {insert rainbow graphic and chimes}
P.S. I played with tops (trompo), yo-yo's, and 'the nintendo' and I only turned out semi-egotistical, semi-individualistic, and semi-violent. Maybe there is something to this 'the nintendo' that turns
Re: (Score:2)
even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3srQltV9x4&feature=related [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUGlo83l8MM [youtube.com]
excellent opportunity (Score:2)
let's see if violent crime drops.
Yes, it would only be corrollary, but interesting to note.
Are Americans being ethnocentric? (Score:4, Funny)
In America," Obama says, "we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations."
- Barack Obama,
Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States should take the side of the oppressed there, not shake hands with CastroLite.
Because the United States has such a great track record of installing democracy and non-oppressive leaders in foreign nations....
Why can't we leave others alone and worry about problems in our own country?
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the United States has such a great track record of installing democracy and non-oppressive leaders in foreign nations....
Ever heard of Germany or Japan?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually pretty funny. Iraq is rapidly becoming a third example, I think, but it doesn't change your point much. We suck at supporting the "good guys" as a nation. Even if Iraq turns out to be glorious, it's merely the first of many attempts just in Iraq that worked out well. Our primary failing seems to be that we support dictators who claim to support America and democracy over actual democracy, which is pretty epic fail.
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:4, Funny)
You forgot Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of other examples. Some of them have even managed to
rack up very high body counts (even by Nazi or Stalinist standards).
They're less exciting because they represent much more regional problems
and offer little if any threat to the US of A.
That said: A nutbag like Chavez is a little more interesting because you
can flee his little dictatorship on foot and end up in Arizona or Texas.
Wackos in the same neighborhood are more meaningful than ones on the other side of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela is not Mexico. You have to cross the Panama canal, and few other countries to get to the US from Venezuela. One even goes from South America to North America.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they were two nations whom we actually declared war against because one of them attacked us.
Have you ever heard of Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Argentina, Guatemala, Paraguay, etc....?
Re:Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a thug (Score:5, Insightful)
The people of Germany and Japan did this and succeeded DESPITE US interference, not because of it.
They wanted it to begin with and we opened the door for them. This is very different than the too many to mention examples of where the US meddled and it was not wanted and nothing changed, and in a few cases got worse.
Remember... Sadam was installed by the US as well :)
Re: (Score:2)
Isolationism DOES NOT WORK.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think installing brutal dictators like the Shah in Iran is a good idea? Please explain why.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I saw that in Costa Rica, which is by all standards one of the safer, more stable Central American nations. You see some nice mall that by all standards could equally well blend in in Iowa, except for the guy out front with the military-style assault rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And this is the most scary part
, Chavez promoted the use of traditional toys like the Yo-Yo and Trompo, and suggested that electronic toys like 'the Nintendo' be put aside because they promote 'egoism, individualism and violence.'
Because we all know how -terrible- individualism is. But really when you look at oppressive regimes you see the death of individualism as a key characteristic. This just proved what most people knew: Chavez is a power-hungry dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, because taking away their video games and weapons would JUST be to move to a civil society. Those actions would NEVER be used to oppress people's freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly normal and reasonable for a government to use violence for its own
Re:Gotta love the straight-faced hypocrite (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess I live outside of "civilization." Don't worry, I'm just as happy having a right to self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a weird statement for the GP to make, and I'm a Canadian. The government doesn't hold a monopoly on violence or means of violence, and nor should it, in a civilized society.
If the state has no fear of its populace then you end up with tyranny -- even if that government is democratically elected.
The US does a lot of weird things, but the 2nd amendment -- taken as a whole, not as the snippets bandied around -- is not one of them. (All of those amendments are excellent, by the way, and many govern
Re: (Score:2)
So if a citizen uses violence in commission of a crime, a victim shouldn't respond with violence to protect him or herself, and should just allow the violent citizen to do whatever he wants?
Re: (Score:2)
Religion and xenophobia, often combined.