| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Comments:
<0> not at that level of sincerity anyways
<1> Nemes: I think we're in a unique age where the world is quantified and could potentially be surveilled 24/7 from space
<2> no more fissionable reactors
<2> fission must be outlawed
<3> 99.99% of people would help their neighbour
<3> however, that's their neighbour
<4> Fr33Trade, it's practical concerns. Good health, good education, and functional infrastructure are vital to the economy
<1> aggression from an unknown source is unlikely
<3> to which they have direct contact
<5> Katey its not even the privatization part. Its the idea that people would even argue over her getting help, when it should be done immediately and then who and how its paid for can be dealt with.
<0> not a chance, especially if one antion like say england or france or russia or india decides to not play ball
<3> if someone hears of an african kid starving thousands of miles away, does he help him?
<3> no
<3> in most cases no
<5> Yes it would be ideal if wealthy people voluntarily paid for it, but if they wont, then spreading the cost and the risk out to all citizens of the country seems the most fair.
<3> and that's the problem with the libertarian charity ideal
<4> It's in all of our interests to have a healthy and well educated work force
<2> baaba: we do in America. ;)
<5> Instead of forcing one person or the doctor to pay for all of it.
<4> ditto with infrastructure
<6> http://www.GOP.com/GasCalculator/
<6> thats all i gotta say
<5> Baaba, I share my food for free unless my kids are about to die.
<3> Publius: my point was mainly that pure charity doesn't work because people need direct contact at some level to be emotionally compelled enough to donate
<2> I know, I was being cute
<7> dinner at Freetrades! ;-)
<2> but I agree with you 100%
<2> baaba: which is why we need better journalism
<4> it
<3> yea
<5> If thing get down to Attach Bayonets, Prepare to defend yourself, then its all for one.. But things have never been that bad in my life except perhaps once. but even then I did share with a guy sleeping in his car.
<4> it's my anniversary today. :)
<0> especially so with a country like pakistan, were we cant even control normal floods of terrorism right now, let alone suicides with nuclear bombs isntead of ied with fertilizer lol.
<3> journalism won't make it perfect either though
<3> it'll help but a lot of people need more than that
<3> and also it's a good question what actually is good journalism in that sense
<5> I didnt sleep in his car, I shared my food and we became best friends, we were both climbing out of a hole.
<4> 14 years
<3> is good journalism neutral? does it create emotions? does it create emotional contact?
<0> you try and force a country like pakistan to renoucne war and capitulate to your demands or else, and you watch the nuclear fallout rain down on your cities.
<2> baaba: good journalism shuold be based around informing the public of a situation
<0> not advisable dude
<2> and geting the public to help
<2> otherwise, who the **** cares
<1> Nemes: they don't have the capability to send nukes our way, no?
<3> and is it good journalism when it creates too much emotional contact, effectively desentisizing people
<3> because that most definitely is happening
<5> Good Journalism is of course debatable but in my opinion it should be as unbiased as possible, honest as possible and reflect the big picture.
<2> baaba: yep
<5> becasue people draw huge stereotypes from what the press covers and how they cover it.
<1> That's why this new world order needs to be set up before rogue nuclear states develop the tech to deliver the nukes anywhere on the world
<0> Halcion, man we cant even stop them walking out of pakistan now with improvised ied's what makes you think they woudlnt deploy thousands of suicide nukes if they were forced to?
<6> its all aboot the primary source history
<5> A good journalist would struggle with every article he wrote.. And right several drafts before finishing.
<0> i can think of about 10 ways to get a dirty bomb inside ny city
<0> they can probably think of thousnads
<1> Nemes: I didn't say we need to occupy their country
<1> just "disarm" them
<0> they woudlnt accept it
<0> thats wat im sayin
<5> He would constantly reflect upon if he is expressing his opinion or reality, could I be wrong, Let me think of it from a different angle, etc. etc. and then he would be probably be a good journalist.
<0> no chance
<1> who said they'd have to accept it?
<1> they'd be accepting nukes
<0> they want their independance
<1> or carpet bombing
<2> Halcion: you understand it
<1> until they cannot launch an attack...
<5> An opinion Journalist has the luxury to use all the bias he wants.
<3> Fr33Trade: indee
<3> +d
<0> exactly, they would nuke us and we would nuke them
<0> no winers
<2> who are we speaking off?
<2> Nemes: we know how to stop nukes
<3> anyways, if you look from the viewpoint of charity and people helping eachother, good journalism wouldn't be neutral, it would incite strong emotions
<1> Nemes: the situation will only get worse with time
<2> decently enough
<1> we can't afford to have more nuclear countries
<5> I saw a very good program on Yes.. Fox News on Global warming they spoke to some of the world experts who agree and disagree with it.
<3> but you can also argue that that isn't good journalism because it's biased and doesn't let people think for themselves
<1> Not while people still think in terms of nation-states
<0> which country do you think would first start to hear rumblings from its citizens about loosing 100's of thousnads of people via nuclear weapons?
<3> so what's the right thing to do?
<8> let's just nuke everyone
<0> i put my money on american citizens giving way 1st
<3> i still haven't found an argument that would make either side better than the other
<0> they just woudlnt want to risk the casualties
<5> its not really that people disagree the earth is warming. Though they all speak of the huge flaws in their systems of prediction including the most fabled and spoken about Models. The scientist working on them said he wishes he would be here in 50 years to see if any of its true.
<2> Rebec: bad girl
<8> Publius lol
<5> And one guy who believes in Global warming but when you talk about a lot of people dying in the future from it, he laughs.
<5> and he says its hysterical
<8> Publius that's me the #politics bad girl someone has to play the role
<5> These are all scientists, these are the ones others quote for political and other purpsoes.
<0> Halcion, dont get me wrong im all for less violence in the world trust me, I just dont have enough faith in all those nations throughout the globe agreeing to anything let alone a demand of disarming or else lol.
<3> Fr33Trade: everyone needs to be taught to look at everything critically from the day they speak their first words
<3> imho
<1> More than global warming, i'd say chemical pollution is a bigger problem
<0> heck they cant even agree climate control
<0> lmao
<5> for what we spend in one year on global warming that does little to nothing, we could for hald the price solve all the problems in the world of hunger and disease to the extent they are solveable. We could save 100s of 1000s of lives right now.
<5> baaba absolutuely
<5> Faith has no place in science.
<3> that is hardly happening though
<3> there's so much weight put on "absolute truths" in today's upbringing still
<9> who is Lloyd Benson?
<3> people get comfortable with those "truths"
<5> Skepticism is a tool of science which is what makes us discover more and more truths. It was Hawkings skepticism which changed the prevailing theory on black holes and multiple vs a single big bang.
<3> and are susceptible to accepting anything as truth
<9> but these 'truths' are useful too
<5> People need to be reminded the polar ice caps have been melting since the last ice age, and we will see another ice age in 50k 100k years.
<5> And that the sea level has been rising since the last ice age.
<9> and that we're helping matters considerably
<0> something like that might be possible halcion if one of the western countries currently doing lots of research in nanotechnology fields breaks the holy grale in it and creates molecualr ***semblers. Then I suppose in theory you could just secretly airdrop nano time bomb that would disable every missile in said countries etc...
<0> but were along way off me thinks :)
<10> freetrade are you watching the press conference on fox news now
<5> Well Actually when you get away from the political science people and more to the scientists themselves, they have strong queestions as to whether we are causing it or not. Stil the #1 green house gas is water vapor. Stop taking showers ?
<3> BJ_auteur: perhaps they are useful, however they need to come long after the spirit of scepticism has been instilled in people
<3> someone mentioned a funny thought the other day
<3> age of consent for religion
<3> funny because it's not very realistic in the current world
<3> but an interesting one nevertheless
<1> Nemes: The easier way would probably be to make a coalition of the nuclear countries first. They then give an ultimatum while these countries combine their resources to develop space surveillance/weapons. The technological/military disparity will grow VERY VERY quickly.
<11> i would like to see a study referring to what you are talking about Fr33Trade. if I understand you right, you are saying a mojority of scientists themselves question if we are the cause of global warming?
<5> Its also true we could use technology to counter these alleged problems if they are real, the UK has done excellent research into stoping waste from battery rechargers which whether or not thier is global warming its very good for technology because waste is always bad. Same with research for alternative fuels, which pollute less because even if it has nothing to do with global warming it makes all countries more self reliant
<8> is it true global cooling is also happening?
<5> to produce their own energy and it cleans the environment for breathing.. and other good reasons.
<11> Rebec are you referring to global dimming
<0> well yeah if you could get all the nuclear countries to sign up 1st, then that would be smashing.
<8> no global cooling
<11> no
<0> then you would have some clout
<5> Good environmnental policy is important as long as its weighed against economics and national security
<8> Nemes nukes would smash things!
<1> yup. Big 5 + israel
<5> Us getting off oil is good for economics and national security and the envrionment, a win/win/win
<1> what kind of universal tenets would there be tho, besides the illegalization of war/violence?
<8> illegalization of war already happened
<8> a long time ago
<3> has hardly helped much
<11> Fr33Trade then the neocons are wasting their time in the middle east then
<5> Russia signed onto Kyoto not because they believe in it, they can profit a lot off it by selling pollution credits. thats why they signed on.
<5> Neocons have existed since the 1980s.
<0> as far as climate change goes, imo all those that are STILL saying its not fact are either saying that for political and there-fore business reasons or are basicaly stubern and dont want to have to admit that they were wrong :)
<0> heh
<5> We were the conservatives who were different than Pat Buchanans view of conservatism.
<11> and only since 9/11 have they had a vehicle to exercise their philosphy
<0> I mean I can understand how some government sponsored scientists would hate to have to admit to the worlds media that they were wrong and some "enviro wacko" was right all along lol
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
censornet whitelist
alaz3r
#nhl
error RC2104 : undefined keyword or key name: DS_MODALFRAME
quest 3d bsp
#bsd
#freebsd
#linuxhelp
combo-list cracking
|
|