Show Posts

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 ... 373374375 376377 ... 502
11221
The Flood / Re: All right, faggots, I want a new nameplate
« on: November 07, 2014, 01:14:45 PM »

If you don't like it you can suck my dick.
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 expensive
Which 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 resources
You 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 »

11227
The Flood / Do you like my new avatar?
« on: November 07, 2014, 12:30:17 PM »
I like 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?

It would make since because many threads just turn into brawls
This is the smartest thing you've ever said.

11229
Yes, so easily fixed. And fairies are real.

So, so troublesome and yet so easily fixed.
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.

The problem is political, not economical.

11230
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 on
Ahh, 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.

National Security sources told ABC News there is evidence that the malware was inserted by hackers believed to be sponsored by the Russian government, and is a very serious threat.

The hacked software is used to control complex industrial operations like oil and gas pipelines, power transmission grids, water distribution and filtration systems, wind turbines and even some nuclear plants. Shutting down or damaging any of these vital public utilities could severely impact hundreds of thousands of Americans.

DHS said in a bulletin that the hacking campaign has been ongoing since 2011, but no attempt has been made to activate the malware to “damage, modify, or otherwise disrupt” the industrial control process. So while U.S. officials recently became aware the penetration, they don’t know where or when it may be unleashed.

DHS sources told ABC News they think this is no random attack and they fear that the Russians have torn a page from the old, Cold War playbook, and have placed the malware in key U.S. systems as a threat, and/or as a deterrent to a U.S. cyber-attack on Russian systems – mutually assured destruction.

The hack became known to insiders last week when a DHS alert bulletin was issued by the agency’s Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team to its industry members. The bulletin said the “BlackEnergy” penetration recently had been detected by several companies.

DHS said “BlackEnergy” is the same malware that was used by a Russian cyber-espionage group dubbed “Sandworm” to target NATO and some energy and telecommunications companies in Europe earlier this year. “Analysis of the technical findings in the two reports shows linkages in the shared command and control infrastructure between the campaigns, suggesting both are part of a broader campaign by the same threat actor,” the DHS bulletin said.

The hacked software is very advanced. It allows designated workers to control various industrial processes through the computer, an iPad or a smart phone, sources said. The software allows information sharing and collaborative control.

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"

Y'all are just jealous you've never had a democrat president as great as Ronald.
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
enshrines moral content
Finally.

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.

In a February interview with CNN, Cruz said he doesn’t think the Earth is warming.

“You know, you always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called scientific theory that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory.”

He then parroted a myth beloved by deniers.

“The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened,” said Cruz. “You know, back in the ’70s—I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded.”

Cruz does believe in aliens, though.

"I am perfectly happy to compromise and work with anybody," he once said. "Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians. I’ll work with Martians. If—and the if is critical—they're willing to cut spending and reduce the debt."
Sigh

11240
But the U.S Constitution is of high moral standards because of it's contents. Again, the Constitution is right by virtue and content
Are 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?
Nah, you're being denser than a black hole
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.

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
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
Wouldn't a measure of income be better?

11243
But the U.S Constitution is of high moral standards because of it's contents. Again, the Constitution is right by virtue and content
Are 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
Meta used the term virtue

vir·tue
ˈvərCHo͞o/Submit
noun
1.
behavior showing high moral standards.
"paragons of virtue"
synonyms:   goodness, virtuousness, righteousness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, nobility, worthiness, purity; More
I 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
Because both are correct. It's correct by virtue and content
The 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.
Except the U.S Constitution doesn't endow those things
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.

11247
Because both are correct. It's correct by virtue and content
The 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
virtue of being the constitution
Which 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.
Well when you give a loaded question, I can only pick one of two I believe
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.

11249
Serious / Re: The highs and lows of different presidents
« on: November 06, 2014, 04:03:39 PM »
*sips sweet tea*

Nice opinion
It's on the same level as saying the arming of Slobodan Milosevic would be worse than arming Hitler.

11250
virtue of being the constitution
Which 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.

Pages: 1 ... 373374375 376377 ... 502