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 - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 174175176 177178 ... 352
5251
« on: January 25, 2016, 09:48:41 PM »
I'd say while it was strict on B.Old. There was always things happening on the forums. I never made an account on Bungie till desticle days but I saw the forums. You all were always doing something. It was limited though correct.
But on here, it's much more tight. We all attack eachother regulary, mostly for fun and not honestly hating eachother. People joining the site will right away see this. Unlike on Bungie where they were more strict on it. More new users could get accustomed.
But hey, I never truly participated in b.old. What right do I have in this?
You missed Private Groups man. Mods couldn't touch us there.
Damn, then I wouldn't have to worry about fuckboy DeeJ crashing into the cabin.
You'd have to worry about Achronos however. His NSA bullshit status allowed him to go into Private Groups without joining and he can post an terminate groups if he wanted to. He was the main admin.
Bungie can't touch us here because its not their site, so in a bizarre way Sep7agon is like Noah's Ark, and Cheat is Noah.
Isn't Cheat Jewish?
Baby, I'm whatever you want me to be.
Cheat is a spooky skeleton.
Petition for Cheat to change her name to Matilda.
5252
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:12:37 PM »
Do you still chat with Terry Pratchett now and again?
I've been away...dun even know who that is. ;I
reported
5253
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:12:10 PM »
Pretty please?
What do you have to offer
Sincerity and a pleasant friendship on a journey through the stars.
Perfect you can be the trashman
Doesn't matter space adventure
5254
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:11:42 PM »
Been there, done that.
Wanna do it again?
Then I'd become double gay, Ross.
5255
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:10:43 PM »
Pretty please?
What do you have to offer
Sincerity and a pleasant friendship on a journey through the stars.
5256
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:09:53 PM »
Been there, done that.
5257
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:05:48 PM »
Pretty please?
5258
« on: January 25, 2016, 06:22:45 PM »
If we all came from Queen, why are there still Peasants?
5259
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:58:44 PM »
Horse shit > St. Anger
Can you elaborate a bit more?
shitty drums, no time-keeping
Guitars constantly fighting
Gets boring fast
Passionate doesn't mean good.
Oh. I'll agree their songs are way too long, but aside from that, I can't say I hate them. Is that the main reason why for the Metallica hate?
Overhype = backlash. They aren't shit, but they aren't even close to the best metal has to offer.
Ummmm. I don't think Metallica is metal at all, despite the name. They're more rock if anything.
What? Most of their music is thrash metal, the rest is good ol' heavy metal.
5260
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:54:38 PM »
Horse shit > St. Anger
Can you elaborate a bit more?
shitty drums, no time-keeping
Guitars constantly fighting
Gets boring fast
Passionate doesn't mean good.
Oh. I'll agree their songs are way too long, but aside from that, I can't say I hate them. Is that the main reason why for the Metallica hate?
Overhype = backlash. They aren't shit, but they aren't even close to the best metal has to offer.
5261
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:51:35 PM »
Horse shit > St. Anger
Can you elaborate a bit more?
shitty drums, no time-keeping Guitars constantly fighting Gets boring fast Passionate doesn't mean good.
5262
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:48:49 PM »
Horse shit > St. Anger
5263
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:44:24 PM »
PKD is overrated, and he recycles the same setting over and over until it's a dead horse.
Shit taste fag posting
Suck my Philip K Dick fag
Weab shit get out now
What a schmuck you are Literary suicide Go back to music
5264
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:34:28 PM »
PKD is overrated, and he recycles the same setting over and over until it's a dead horse.
5265
« on: January 25, 2016, 05:31:09 PM »
Never.
5266
« on: January 25, 2016, 02:48:00 PM »
Do you still chat with Terry Pratchett now and again?
5267
« on: January 25, 2016, 09:49:36 AM »
hoi
5268
« on: January 24, 2016, 09:06:53 PM »
I'd be a hedonistic meat-eating capitalist heroin junkie who hates women and plans to have twenty illegitimate children.
Worst of all, I'd listen to Europe.
ftfy
5269
« on: January 24, 2016, 06:55:25 PM »
It already is a hugbox ffs. It's like a fucking playground every little group of concentric circles jack each other off and if you don't know them well enough you'll be ostracised.
It's a damn miracle that I only get flak on my threads around 20% of the time considering I'm pretty much an independant.
oh
5270
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:50:23 PM »
Dragon Age II was the worst. Literally two caves in the entire game, over and over and over. Very annoying.
5271
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:44:06 PM »
 A slight bit more left than it was last time, but basically the same as always.
5272
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:36:17 PM »
Spoiler in case you couldn't tell Psy is taking the piss
I never take the piss.
That's a quick way to lead to a bladder infection.
Take the piss
Take a piss
one of these involves banter
the other does not
how2bonglish
Speak American, as you should for us kicking your ass in 1776+5
1812
One whitehouse was apparently not enough.
Yet the army that defeated Napoleon couldn't even hold New Orleans. Weak.
who would want to though
Anyone who realizes that it was a major economic center of North America. The White House was merely symbolic, not worthy of killing you self over; but when push came to shove, mighty Britannia fell like a limp fish in the city of New Orleans. Failures.
5273
« on: January 24, 2016, 05:00:15 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.
That's been my point since the beginning. A mistake in word choice.
5274
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:58:55 PM »
Spoiler in case you couldn't tell Psy is taking the piss
I never take the piss.
That's a quick way to lead to a bladder infection.
Take the piss
Take a piss
one of these involves banter
the other does not
how2bonglish
Speak American, as you should for us kicking your ass in 1776+5
1812
One whitehouse was apparently not enough.
Yet the army that defeated Napoleon couldn't even hold New Orleans. Weak.
5275
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:52:36 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. In the case of fascist Spain they believed in a hierarchy, and so they founded their government on that principle. To that end, I'll concede that the principles on which a society is formed do lend a good deal of information to how long it will last, or whether it's a "good" government.
5276
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:41:27 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.
5277
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:37:05 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.
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.
5278
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:31:36 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.
5279
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:30:15 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.
5280
« on: January 24, 2016, 04:25:22 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. Unrest led to assassination, assassination led to involving contracted allies, which led to war, which led to certain countries taking advantage of the situation. Even in that case, you could say that the German Empire didn't necessarily govern by the word of it's people; it was dissolved in 1918 with the German Revolution, a result of dissatisfaction of the people.
Pages: 1 ... 174175176 177178 ... 352
|
Show Posts