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 - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 497498499 500501502
14941
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:11:01 PM »
So are you for renewing our nuclear weapons program?
Yes. Fuck that.
I don't want to live in a country without nukes.
Pffft hahahaha. It's like you want us to be broke. Also muh mutually assured destruction. Why aren't you for global nuclear disarmament?
What difference would it make?
14942
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:10:17 PM »
Why are you even here? I am now starting to agree with the people who said we should ban you if you joined.
Do you self-harm your penis?
14943
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:02:07 PM »
Yes, I love anarchy.
14944
« on: August 04, 2014, 05:01:15 PM »
So are you for renewing our nuclear weapons program?
Yes. Fuck that. I don't want to live in a country without nukes.
14945
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:20:20 PM »
I'm going to make two lists. One will be a set of propositions which you will (most likely) support and believe in. The second list will be a set of beliefs. If you accept an initial proposition, and then go on to simultaneously hold one of the corresponding beliefs - you're a hypocrite.
Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.
2 - You think "dirty" forms of energy generation should be replaced.
3 - You think it's a problem that billions of people go hungry throughout the world.
4 - You think the West should make an effort to help the Rest get out of poverty.
5 - You think greenhouses gases are heating up the Earth, and we need to try and slow or stop global warming.
6 - You think wages should be higher.
7 - You think we should have the most efficient healthcare system possible .
Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.
2 - You oppose fracking.
3 - You oppose genetically modified crops.
4 - You support buying food locally; you oppose sweatshops.
5 - You oppose efforts to dump iron sulphate in the ocean.
6 - You think corporations should be taxed.
7 - You oppose the use of private services.
Propositions:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
5- no, because its mother nature, plus we get global warming all the time.
6- yes
7- yes
Contradictory beliefs:
1- No, we need that energy to survive
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes and no, no part about the sweetshops.
5- yes
6- yes
7- no, why should i want to know what there doing, although i do get curious of what there talking about, but i intend to go about my business
Whats my grade?
F, because you don't believe in Global Warming.
14946
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:14:18 PM »
Piquerism.
Mmm...
Also what Meta said minus the fat chicks.
My fucking nigger.
14947
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:58:59 PM »
UK sucks.
I want my Glock.
14948
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:55:46 PM »
WHO IS YOUR GOD NOW
I answer to the Catalyst
the catalyst isnt canon everyone knows that
wait what
14949
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:51:06 PM »
Do I become the word or the concept it represents?
14950
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:50:01 PM »
I'm with Assad on this one.
Yeah, this is starting to become a bit boring with literally everyone supporting Assad. We need a pro-Rebel guy here to gang-rape *coughs* I mean debate with.
You should start a debate about something that really riles people up. Like welfare, immigration, economic regulation, gun control or climate change.
14951
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:44:20 PM »
The problem, in your first point, is not so much the technology itself but the application of it. I haven't read too much into the subject, but HurtfulTurkey would've been the guy to ask about this stuff (too bad he isn't here) and I remember him getting into a massive debate on the environmental impacts of nuclear energy and waste. What it comes down to is the fact that the management of waste is sub-par, not the process of generating energy itself.
And there's the problem. The same reason we have fears of current dirty energy supplies is because of our sub-par management of the waste. It can't be ignored again with newer supplies, certainly considering it'll have worse short and long term effects for us.
As for GM crops? You certainly have a valid point. However, it would absolutely not turn into a monopoly. GM crops don't benefit us 1st worlders nearly as much as they could because they are regulated to the extreme, and the sheer quantity of them should they be used to their full potential wouldn't allow price gouging to exploit poorer nations. Regardless of that, the solution is to oppose the potential for companies to patent the seeds more than anything else. Just because there are a few (solvable) problems with a model, it doesn't justify rejecting it.
While you are right about GM not helping us as much as it should, I fear a growth in it with current procedures (as it's already too late to oppose patents for most of these GM crops) is going to be another fuck-up later on. Companies will lobby for increased GM use, leading to increased cost for farmers, leading to increased lobbying for farming subsidies. We'll end up footing the bill twice, as the food may be more abundant in the future but I doubt it'll be cheaper as a result.
...Wow-oh-wow. That coffee I had earlier is seriously kicking ass at the thought department today.
I don't disagree. Although by the 2030s we will have developed commercially-viable form of incredibly safe nuclear energy production (known as either 3rd or 4th generation). The point is that if there is a problem, the market will find a solution provided one is demanded. Also, note that supporting nuclear energy doesn't entail opposing other sources; I, personally, think genetically modified algae is the way to go. And again, with GM crops, I'm not following your line of though. Why is lobbying involved? Why would a company need to lobby for increased GM use, which would incur higher costs for farmers? (I should point out, I'm talking from a position where I think GM use should be deregulated and subsidies ended). Regulation is a huge issue for the price of crops, and simple supply and demand shows the higher the supply the lower the price. I see no reason for food to remain costly when it can be sold in a much higher abundance.
14952
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:35:31 PM »
There's no point without Sgt. Mag
I got all of my foreign policy opinions from him. I miss him. Him and HurtfulTurkey.
14953
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:33:52 PM »
I'm pro-Government.
Me too! XDDDD
I really have no idea why any country gives any amount of credibility to any opposition group. Most of our beloved Free "Syrian" Army aren't even for Western-style Democracy.
I just hate Islamists with a burning fucking passion.
14954
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:31:49 PM »
I'm pro-Government.
14955
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:25:34 PM »
I like Chomsky. Quite a darn lot.
uw0t fgt, rekkun ur ard m80
I don't think idiot is quite the right term for someone you simply disagree with.
Idiot might not be the right word. He's certainly intelligent, I just think the way in which he applies it is wildly retarded (when it comes to society and economics; although I agree with quite a lot of his societal views). The best term I can think of is "intellectual moron". I'm actually a fan of Chomsky, and used to be a great supporter. I can't really explain it, but now. . . Part of me just feels he's a bit intellectually juvenile.
14956
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:22:00 PM »
Comms
Challenger
Dustin
Mr Psych
Mordo
Soporific
I have a mixed relationship with Crouton.
14957
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:21:00 PM »
I don't see a reason to give a single fuck.
14958
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:20:12 PM »
Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.
Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.
I don't see how agreeing to both those statements would be hypocritical. There are other forms of reliable clean energy than just Nuclear (and I wouldn't really count Nuclear as clean, considering what it gains in no CO2 emissions it makes up in radioactive waste that we have to dump somewhere for millenia, and has created arguably the most inhospitable places on Earth).
There's plenty of others like Wind, Solar, Hydro-electric and Tidal energy, and the more abundant, efficient and less wasteful Thorium reactors (which can't be used to enrich uranium, which would help out Iran who need power but are strictly sanctioned by the US because they suspect bomb making by enriching Uranium in their nuclear plants).This kinda covers point 2, as most of these could easily replace dirty forms of energy over time.
Also, you could agree with points 3 of both tables. I do think it is a problem that 900 million suffer from undernourishment globally, yet I could still oppose GM crops because only large corporations can create them, turning the agricultural market into a monopoly, bleeding 3rd world countries dry of their annual GDP's to buy GM seeds (as GM plants are sterile), which could be used for infrastructural and industrial development instead. Also, GM atm only benefits us 1st worlders as we are technologically developed enough to use it, leading to over consumption and has caused 1.8 billion people to be overweight. The problem is distribution.
I should probably point out that I'm not opposed to GM myself, but your 'hypocriticality test' looks rather biased towards what I assume are your own beliefs on these matters.
Spoiler Have I thought too much in to this? If so, I put it down to my Geography lessons. My bad.
The problem, in your first point, is not so much the technology itself but the application of it. I haven't read too much into the subject, but HurtfulTurkey would've been the guy to ask about this stuff (too bad he isn't here) and I remember him getting into a massive debate on the environmental impacts of nuclear energy and waste. What it comes down to is the fact that the management of waste is sub-par, not the process of generating energy itself, and that's where your focus should be. You don't shoot a guy in the head because he needs a leg amputated. As for GM crops? You certainly have a valid point. However, it would absolutely not turn into a monopoly. GM crops don't benefit us 1st worlders nearly as much as they could because they are regulated to the extreme, and the sheer quantity of them should they be used to their full potential wouldn't allow price gouging to exploit poorer nations. Regardless of that, the solution is to oppose the potential for companies to patent the seeds more than anything else. Just because there are a few (solvable) problems with a model, it doesn't justify rejecting it. Both nuclear energy and GM crops are vast in potential, and the problems aren't solved by opposing either of them.
14959
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:12:39 PM »
I like Chomsky. Quite a darn lot.
uw0t fgt, rekkun ur ard m80
14960
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:03:22 PM »
College student. Studying politics, philosophy and history.
Going to University in late 2015, and then hoping to get a job in politics.
14961
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:02:17 PM »
14962
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:00:12 PM »
lol at the biased and opinionated OP
Not really. All it is is a list of problems and potential solutions.
14963
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:47:03 PM »
but some of my linguistically-interested friends say he set the field back by decades.
Explain this to me.
I can't. I don't really care about linguistics. All I know is some of my friends don't like him.
His research on language and its relation to babies is really interesting tbh
http://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/chomsky/
Not sure how this sets back the field however, unless those people don't agree with the theory.
I've read some of his stuff when it came to apes, and the idea that humans are born with an innate sense of understanding for aspects of language like grammar and syntax. It seems well-thought out to me, but like I say, I can't comment with any authority.
14964
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:43:29 PM »
but some of my linguistically-interested friends say he set the field back by decades.
Explain this to me.
I can't. I don't really care about linguistics. All I know is some of my friends don't like him.
14965
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:38:32 PM »
He's a really smart dude, well researched, highly learned. His opinions reflect a great intellect, whether or not anyone agrees with them.
I do genuinely think he's one of those "intellectual moron" types. I remember reading something not so long ago which states people with above-average intelligence are more likely to be invested in conspiracy theories - even seriously wacky ones. It's sort of the same situation. A lot of what he says is down merely to semantics, and he's the sort of person who has been allowed to stray from his area of expertise and spread his opinion. His views on society are spot-on for the most part, I just radically disagree with his views on economics. And, I wouldn't know, but some of my linguistically-interested friends say he set the field back by decades.
14966
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:34:09 PM »
I'm going to make two lists. One will be a set of propositions which you will (most likely) support and believe in. The second list will be a set of beliefs. If you accept an initial proposition, and then go on to simultaneously hold one of the corresponding beliefs - you're a hypocrite.
Propositions:
1 - You support reliable sources of clean energy.
2 - You think "dirty" forms of energy generation should be replaced.
3 - You think it's a problem that billions of people go hungry throughout the world.
4 - You think the West should make an effort to help the Rest get out of poverty.
5 - You think greenhouses gases are heating up the Earth, and we need to try and slow or stop global warming.
6 - You think wages should be higher.
7 - You think we should have the most efficient healthcare system possible .
Contradictory beliefs:
1 - You oppose nuclear energy.
2 - You oppose fracking.
3 - You oppose genetically modified crops.
4 - You support buying food locally; you oppose sweatshops.
5 - You oppose efforts to dump iron sulphate in the ocean.
6 - You think corporations should be taxed.
7 - You oppose the use of private services.
14967
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:21:44 PM »
Who do you think is an idiot.
I don't love Chomsky, but it's pretty shallow to be like "I don't agree with what he says, so he's an idiot"
I agree. I don't think he's an idiot just because I disagree with him (although that is usually a solid basis for thinking somebody's an idiot). I do genuinely think he's one of those "intellectual moron" types. I remember reading something not so long ago which states people with above-average intelligence are more likely to be invested in conspiracy theories - even seriously wacky ones. It's sort of the same situation. A lot of what he says is down merely to semantics, and he's the sort of person who has been allowed to stray from his area of expertise and spread his opinion. His views on society are spot-on for the most part, I just radically disagree with his views on economics. And, I wouldn't know, but some of my linguistically-interested friends say he set the field back by decades.
14968
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:12:16 PM »
Mindless Russia-Iran-Syria-China-Serbia-Donbass worshippers along with mindless USA-Israel worshippers.
Pretty much any mindless worshipper of any particular axis.
Does that include religions?
14969
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:05:31 PM »
Who do you think is an idiot.
14970
« on: August 04, 2014, 01:18:22 PM »
Gun control won't matter to me cause I'm gonna be living in Germany in 2 years. One thing that really sucks about Germany is that they have extremely restrictive gun laws. But that's a price I'm willing to pay.
>germany
>not pro-fun Switzerland
What's bringing you to krautland?
Sauerkraut. Gotta love sauerkraut.
Pages: 1 ... 497498499 500501502
|
Show Posts