11221
The Flood / Re: All right, faggots, I want a new nameplate
« on: November 07, 2014, 01:14:45 PM »I'll use it. . .
If you don't like it you can suck my dick.
For now. . .
>.>
<.<
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. 11221
The Flood / Re: All right, faggots, I want a new nameplate« on: November 07, 2014, 01:14:45 PM »I'll use it. . . For now. . . >.> <.< 11222
Serious / Re: Is War Over?« on: November 07, 2014, 12:49:31 PM »But there's still the idea the demand exceeds the supply as the supply is still crude. under development, and expensiveWhich leads to the refinement of supply. If the demand didn't exceed supply, then there'd be no substantial development; there'd be no raison d'etre for improvement. 11223
Serious / Re: Is War Over?« on: November 07, 2014, 12:41:00 PM »The video points out rising population and globalization, both of which I see as the catalysts for war. When population reaches a point where providing enough materials isn't feasible through trade (high prices) then the easiest way would be to invade, kill off, and take resourcesYou aren't accounting for the innovative capacity of scientists and the market to find solutions to the problem. Increased quality of infrastructure and education leads to longer lifespans and fewer children, while the production of low-cost energy, desalination technology and agricultural game-changers all allow us to facilitate an increased population. That's exactly what the market does: finds demand, and supplies. 11224
Serious / Re: Denying a problem exists« on: November 07, 2014, 12:38:18 PM »
I feel I should point out liberals can be just as bad as conservatives when it comes to going against the push of science.
Namely when it comes to agriculture and energy. 11225
The Flood / All right, faggots, I want a new nameplate« on: November 07, 2014, 12:34:52 PM »
I'm studying U.S. politics at the moment in my G&P class and I'd like it to go with my avatar, too. Preferably blue, with some sort of allusion to the Democrats, the New Deal, the war with Japan or something like that. Just make it relevant.
Winner will get a congratulatory thread. 11226
The Flood / Re: Do you like my new avatar?« on: November 07, 2014, 12:31:55 PM »noNew deal with it. 11228
Serious / Re: Why are liberals so easy to offend?« on: November 07, 2014, 12:05:08 PM »Why don't rename this forum to The Coliseum?This is the smartest thing you've ever said. 11229
Serious / Re: Trojan Horse in U.S. computers set to cause economic catastrophe« on: November 07, 2014, 11:53:17 AM »Yes, so easily fixed. And fairies are real.The only considerable problem with FRB is inflationary pressure during boom-time and instability. Both could be fixed with the proper monetary policy, but political incentives don't really allow for that.So, so troublesome and yet so easily fixed. The problem is political, not economical. 11230
Serious / Re: Trojan Horse in U.S. computers set to cause economic catastrophe« on: November 07, 2014, 11:47:02 AM »Say a person has a $100, and that was printed from the Reserve. The person deposits that in the bank and the bank only has to keep up to 10% of that (so 10$) in case the person wants to withdraw. Another person comes in for a $90 and the bank takes $90 of the person's $100 and loans that. So the bank created $90 out of thin air, making the total money $190. That process keeps going on and onAhh, fractional reserve banking. So, so troublesome and yet so easily fixed. 11231
Serious / Trojan Horse in U.S. computers set to cause economic catastrophe« on: November 07, 2014, 10:51:51 AM »
Fucking Ruskis.
Quote A destructive “Trojan Horse” malware program has penetrated the software that runs much of the nation’s critical infrastructure and is poised to cause an economic catastrophe, according to the Department of Homeland Security. I don't know why the DHS is telling the public before the issue's solved, however. I'm calling government-sanctioned bullshit. 11232
Serious / Living with someone who is mentally ill« on: November 07, 2014, 10:17:46 AM »
While I'm not sure he has received a diagnosis from a clinician, my mother has always told me my uncle is bipolar. And from personal experience, I can confirm that there is definitely something wrong with him and it probably is bipolar disorder - as opposed to something similar, like BPD.
He is in his mid-to-late 40s and still lives with my grandparents. He does a lot for them, such as helping my disabled grandfather in and out of bed, and helping him out of his chair to go on walks around the house. He doesn't do this, however, out of choice. He doesn't still live with his parents out of a desire to help them; he doesn't have a job (and hasn't for a long, long time) and doesn't have any friends. He goes up and down a lot, as you'd expect from somebody who's bipolar. I remember, a few months ago, that he was actually the happiest I've ever known him. He was smiling, friendly and slapping me on the shoulder while making jokes. I've always known him as aloof, and had learned to be wary of him even before I grasped that he is mentally ill. Nowadays, he barely says hello when I walk in after college. Months ago (before his aforementioned "good" cycle) he snapped and shouted at my grandfather while helping him out of bed, throwing clothes and punching the light. A few weeks ago, he walked down into the kitchen and shoved my grandma out of the way of the sink, in order to fill his glass of water. And just now, as I sit in my grandmother's bedroom, I can here him in the adjacent room punching the walls and occasionally shouting. I don't know whether it's just my family which has a somewhat considerable history of mental illness (depression, bipolar, personality disorders) or whether this is endemic in most families. Regardless, it's definitely a big enough issue to warrant significantly more attention than it gets. I don't know whether my family is an anomaly, and that it's unusual to live in such an environment that can be quite tense. Does anyone else have experience of living with somebody who's mentally ill? What's it like? 11233
The Flood / Re: >tfw steady heroic« on: November 07, 2014, 09:23:13 AM »
>tfw im better than you
11234
Serious / Re: Why are liberals so easy to offend?« on: November 07, 2014, 09:13:32 AM »
I agree to a point. I think it's how either side gets butthurt in comparison to when they do.
11235
Serious / Americans, which do you think is more important?« on: November 07, 2014, 08:17:52 AM »
The House of Representatives or the Senate.
We're currently learning about Congress in my politics class, and being a top-notch Englishman my initial reaction is to think of the House as more important (as our Commons is), but from reading about it it seems as if there's somewhat more emphasis placed on the Senate. Now, this is either because the Senate is genuinely more important/relevant in American politics, because it's elected (whereas our Lords isn't) or because the Senate has more power to check the executive than the House does. 11236
Serious / Re: The highs and lows of different presidents« on: November 07, 2014, 01:51:50 AM »Democrat circle jerk! "Hurr Reagan Bad"I actually quite like Reagan. He was more of a moderate than anything else. The Democrats who circlejerk around him and lambast him as an ultra-conservative are just as wrong as the Republicans who try and praise him for the same reason. 11237
Serious / Re: Climate change denier may lead the Senate on science« on: November 06, 2014, 05:21:31 PM »This has absolutely nothing to do with party affiliation. I'd be just as pissed if it were a Democrat. 11238
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 05:02:23 PM »enshrines moral contentFinally. Therefore a constitution is respectable a result of its content, not by virtue of being a constitution. I'm glad we have an answer. 11239
Serious / Climate change denier may lead the Senate on science« on: November 06, 2014, 05:01:16 PM »
New Republic
Quote The GOP's Senate takeover means the chamber's leadership positions will be filled with Republicans next year. That's bad news for the environment: The Senate’s worst climate change denier, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, will likely chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. But it's also bad news for science: Texas Senator Ted Cruz, another climate denier, may be next-in-line to become chair of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, which oversees agencies like the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.Sigh 11240
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:58:54 PM »You don't seem to be understanding what "by virtue" means. It doesn't mean that the constitution in question is of moral composure, it simply assumes that the constitution is morally correct in itself.Nah, you're being denser than a black holeBut the U.S Constitution is of high moral standards because of it's contents. Again, the Constitution is right by virtue and contentAre you purposely being denser than a neutron star at the moment, or do you really not realise the blatant stupidity of what you're saying? So, let me phrase it a different way. Is a constitution respectable precisely because it is a constitution, or because this constitution enshrines moral content? 11241
Serious / Re: Why do we measure "full-time" employment by hours worked per week?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:53:26 PM »I would think that would keep salaries/wages down. "Oh I can pay you $20,000 and you'll be "full time"? Let's do that instead of $30,000!"To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why we need the distinction between full-time and part-time workers. Could you enlighten me? 11242
Serious / Why do we measure "full-time" employment by hours worked per week?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:50:37 PM »
Wouldn't a measure of income be better?
11243
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:35:10 PM »But the U.S Constitution is of high moral standards because of it's contents. Again, the Constitution is right by virtue and contentAre you purposely being denser than a neutron star at the moment, or do you really not realise the blatant stupidity of what you're saying? 11244
Serious / Re: What the fuck, California?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:34:13 PM »
I'm glad they passed this.
11245
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:27:30 PM »Meta used the term virtueI didn't call the U.S. Constitution virtuous by any measure of language, though. "By virtue of being" assumes the thing in itself has virtue, not that the contents of the thing has virtue. Saying torture is moral by virtue of being torture isn't a comment on its effectiveness; it's saying torture is moral simply because it is. 11246
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:25:59 PM »So a constitution can only be correct by content, not by virtue of being the constitution. I'm glad we finally got that very simple question sorted.Except the U.S Constitution doesn't endow those thingsBecause both are correct. It's correct by virtue and contentThe two can't both be correct. It's either by virtue or by content. 11247
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:12:57 PM »Because both are correct. It's correct by virtue and contentThe two can't both be correct. It's either by virtue or by content. A constitution which endows government oppression, racism and whatever else cannot be right by virtue but not content. 11248
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:05:13 PM »How on earth was it a loaded question? It was really quite simple. A constitution can only be valid in one of two ways. The first being by its own virtue; it being axiomatic. The second is that is codifies the correct content.Well when you give a loaded question, I can only pick one of two I believevirtue of being the constitutionWhich the amendment process shows to be self-evidently false. The fact that you'd place such stock in a document, regardless of what it says, says a lot about you. I wouldn't want you to be a citizen of an Orwellian State. 11249
Serious / Re: The highs and lows of different presidents« on: November 06, 2014, 04:03:39 PM »*sips sweet tea*It's on the same level as saying the arming of Slobodan Milosevic would be worse than arming Hitler. 11250
Serious / Re: Do you care about beliefs of actors/musicians/etc that you like?« on: November 06, 2014, 04:02:24 PM »virtue of being the constitutionWhich the amendment process shows to be self-evidently false. The fact that you'd place such stock in a document, regardless of what it says, says a lot about you. I wouldn't want you to be a citizen of an Orwellian State. |