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 - Desty
Pages: 1 ... 237238239 240241 ... 353
7141
« on: January 25, 2016, 04:04:47 PM »
Hahaha, we both thought the same thing
7142
« on: January 25, 2016, 04:04:14 PM »
 yr and fw
7143
« on: January 25, 2016, 04:03:12 PM »
OMG victory is 100% mine
7144
« on: January 25, 2016, 04:02:36 PM »
ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED!?
7145
« on: January 25, 2016, 04:02:08 PM »
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
7146
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:58:29 PM »
Desty I can play you at midnight
I have to wake up at 6 am tomorrow
What about tomorrow night?
Sure
7147
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:58:07 PM »
fUCK I'm retarded
I thought that so many times The first on must've been when I gave you my queen thinking I had won
7148
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:41:53 PM »
Desty I can play you at midnight
I have to wake up at 6 am tomorrow
7149
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:19:56 PM »
old link
7150
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:17:55 PM »
Oh, I see. Look at the image, the reason for why there are two tabs of the same game open is because the game sometimes lags and says it's your opponent's turn while the game moves on. You solve this by duplicating the tab, and so you're in a refreshed game. I'm guessing you lagged at the end. It's why at 8 min I was inactive for two minutes. Still, I'd have won on time by the looks of it. I don't consider that a satisfying win tho, let's play again? 
7151
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:13:39 PM »
Wanna play a new game but without any time limitation?
7152
« on: January 25, 2016, 03:13:15 PM »
you ran out of time, and I messed up a lot of times. At the start I could've taken your queen.
7153
« on: January 25, 2016, 02:50:49 PM »
Chess.
Let's dance.
You're on
7154
« on: January 25, 2016, 02:28:16 PM »
I'm ready for you, Challenger. Once I'm done with Challenger I'll be up for other challenges.  I'm posting this here because this is about the community and its chance to get rid of me for a week. http://sep7agon.net/gaming/desty's-weekly-gaming-challenge/
7155
« on: January 25, 2016, 02:22:11 PM »
7156
« on: January 25, 2016, 12:56:10 PM »
Is he actually 12?
I think he said that he was 16, but mentally he's 12/13
7157
« on: January 25, 2016, 02:10:21 AM »
Let's play chess.
I might have time tomorrow in about 20 hours.
Tomorrow I might not be able to. Maybe after midnight.
But are we playing for fun or will you actually leave the site if I beat you?
Both.
7158
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:59:26 PM »
Let's play chess.
I might have time tomorrow in about 20 hours.
7159
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:57:29 PM »
Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.
I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.
For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.
Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?
For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.
Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit
Yeah, I know.
but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.
Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.
The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.
It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.
I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.
Government is formed to protect the interests of the people. It may deviate from the course and begin serving it's own interests; that is when it dissolves, and the law of nature returns before another society forms.
I accept both possibilities, why can't you?
The government is formed to serve its own interests, but then it may deviate to supporting people. That is kind of what happened to Spain during the facistic era. The new government wanted the strong to rule over the weak, but then some generations down the guy brought in democracy out of the blue.
I also believe it's the other way around. You are right, but you are wrong in limiting it to only one way.
Government is formed to protect the interests of its people.
That's all you had to say. Yes I agree with that. Governments are formed, as in chosen to be made by a large amount of people, in the interest of the people, 'cause that makes sense. Governments are however not always made that way.
7160
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:54:08 PM »
aren't you that kinda-fat-but-not-really-fat handsome devil that looks like his life is in the gutter?
You look like a meme
Pardon?
I'm not fat
oh my god
7161
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:52:17 PM »
aren't you that kinda-fat-but-not-really-fat handsome devil that looks like his life is in the gutter?
You look like a meme
7162
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:50:14 PM »
Kill yourself
Not today 
Keep telling me to do it though, and I'm sure that one day I might take what you say to heart.
Do take it under consideration
Not today
7163
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:49:33 PM »
I'm not sure if you guys are meming or seriously confused. Like, what's there to be confused about?
7164
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:49:02 PM »
Kill yourself
Not today Keep telling me to do it though, and I'm sure that one day I might take what you say to heart.
7165
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:46:32 PM »
Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.
I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.
For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.
Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?
For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.
Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit
Yeah, I know.
but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.
Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.
The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.
It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.
I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.
Government is formed to protect the interests of the people. It may deviate from the course and begin serving it's own interests; that is when it dissolves, and the law of nature returns before another society forms.
I accept both possibilities, why can't you? The government is formed to serve its own interests, but then it may deviate to supporting people. That is kind of what happened to Spain during the facistic era. The new government wanted the strong to rule over the weak, but then some generations down the guy brought in democracy out of the blue. I also believe it's the other way around. You are right, but you are wrong in limiting it to only one way.
7166
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:42:00 PM »
What?
Oops, I fixed it now tho
7167
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:39:57 PM »
Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.
I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.
For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.
Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?
For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.
Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit
Yeah, I know.
but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.
Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.
The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.
It is not better to be feared than to be loved; a content population is a motivated population. I dare say it's one of the reasons that North Korea remains a third-world country. It's not strong, from within or externally; like you said, it'd just be an inconvenience to other powers to dissolve it at this point in time.
I fail to see how what you wrote is relevant to the initial claim that the government is there for helping/supporting the people.
7168
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:38:10 PM »
>Tackel's fault for the thread getting locked split >everyone hates Tackel >see thread Deci made about depression/suicide >"Last reply by Tackel" >he tells someone to kill himself mfw 
7169
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:33:41 PM »
The reason why I'm not so eloquent is because this really isn't my area. I've very little experience discussing these kinds of things.
I don't mind, I just feel like there's some miscommunication here.
The feeling's mutual, and a bit awkward truth be told.
7170
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:33:05 PM »
Also, no. It's easy to think that we're in the safe 'cause the government is doing stuff for us, but they're essentially protecting their cattle.
I haven't stated that government is infallible, at all. Actually, that's entirely wrong. The point is that certain natural rights are given in exchange for the security of society, to protect their other rights and assets. This is the social contract. Government governs solely by the power invested in it by the people.
For a people to thrive, a government must be in place to support that growth, and give it direction. Supporting government isn't blindly accepting everything that's given: it's making sure that it continues to support the needs of the people.
Yeah, that sounds like what you'd read from a philosophy book. Do you think that is the case in real life?
For people to thrive? That's useful if the government doesn't have any goals except to improve the country, but a government may have other plans. Let's take World War One for example. The war essentially happened because nations wanted to see who were the superior kind. They chose to invest in a pretty much pointless war instead of focusing on improving the well being of the people.
Eh, you're kind of oversimplifying WWI a bit
Yeah, I know.
but a foolproof example of how governments might not want the best for their people is North Korea.
Again, breaking the contract. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but dissolution is an inevitability whether it be from within or by another nation-state.
The only way dissolution from within or by other states is possible is if the government is weak. If the government were to be strong, their reign of terror could go on forever. Also, North Korea is most likely gonna be left alone for quite a while since it'd inconvenience the big countries (Russia and China) to have to take care of the north korians.
Pages: 1 ... 237238239 240241 ... 353
|
Show Posts