4,747 Forum Posts by "Slizor"
Now, I'm not going to question whether it's a real holiday or not.
But we can all agree that it's a cultural holiday.
So why the fuck is it included with religious ones.
Christmas is a cultural holiday....at least in Britain.
Since Hezbollah was too cowardly to ACTUALLY FIGHT Israeli forces in the open, Israel had to root them out and attack them were they were in order to defend ISRAELIS. If Hezbollah didn't cowardly use civilians and civilian buildings as cover then none of that would have happened.
Firstly, it is not a matter of cowardice for an out-gunned military force not to engage in direct war - especially when they have no air support. Secondly, it was Israel's squeamishness about losing soldiers that led to their limited ground incursion and extensive use of bombing raids. Please do not think that Israel had to use planes to attack Hezbollah.
But Hezbollah ONLY targeted Israeli civilians and INTENTIONALLY endangered Lebanese civilians by using them as cover.
I highly doubt they only targeted Israeli civilians...considering their past record. http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3101
Hezbollah's missile campaign does make you wonder. It served no military purpose. It may have been an attempt to cause terror and force withdrawal, but the numbers killed were too low. Maybe it was a spectactular.
Therefore Hezbollah committed warcrimes, and Israel did not.
Israel was not forced to bomb Hezbollah, you omit that part.
Yes that is what happens in war. That is why Hezbollah provoked the war in the first place because they knew it would bring damage to Lebanon and create out of context propaganda for them to utilize to brainwash and manipulate stupid people like YOU.
Hezbollah did not provoke the war. Their action provoked the Israelis in to starting the war, but they did not provoke the war. This is because there is only a small chance of the consequence of the kidnapping of two soldiers being war.
But you still completely deny Israels right to defend itself. Its obligation is FIRST AND FOREMOST to protect its OWN FUCKING PEOPLE.
I'm sure there's a good quote somewhere about justifying aggression in the name of defence.
You completely ignore what REALLY happened, and criticize Israel for what any country in the world would do, and has a right to do when attacked by a TERRORIST organization.
What is the difference between a terrorist organisation and state?
then did some fucking RESEARCH you would understand that Hezbollah REPEATEDLY used civilians as human shields, they actually never fought in the open once in the entire conflict.
That's because they are rational actors. It would be just stupid to fight in the open.
Israel may have been responsible for innocent deaths, but that they didn't intentionally target and kill civilians, Hezbollah INTENTIONALLY put Israel in a position where it had to endager innocents in order to protect its own people.
Again, use of air power was not the only option.
I'm interested, can anyone provide any proof of one of these big "political correctness" controversies has actually been passed by central (UK) Government?
If anyone links to The Sun, The Express, etc, you will rightly be ignored.
America isn't a democratic republic it's a constitutional republic. When people say democratic they usually mean free elections and civil liberties etc but a truly democratic system is unlimited majority rule unrestricted by the rule of law.
No, that's a majoritarian system. A democracy is where minority rights are guaranteed.
As for the system idea....it's fairly stupid as you're mixing systems of government (democracy) with economic systems (communism).
What happens is that you've created a anti-gravity cat.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cat-Toast_Device
if each statements, 1.) "Buttered-toast will always land buttered-side down," and 2.) "Cats always lands on their feet" are said that they are true, then they must be true.
Sorry to rain on your parade here but this doesn't logically follow. That they are said to be true does not make them true (unless you're a rationalist.) We can only test, through many buttered toast and cat droppings, if these statements are false.
But with the buttered-cat paradox, one of these statements needs to be proved false.
And if one is false, then there are no truths in this world.
This also doesn't follow. It's similar to saying that if one person lied once, then there are no truths.
Yes,
that's true-- When I was at the Brittania a philsophy dude and a math dude were so heated up that they were about to get in a fist-fight.
I love pissing all over Maths, Science and Engineering arguments and when students of those subjects try to argument theirpolitical viewpoint - it's brilliant. I've got a few favourite arguments for pissing people off -
The "how can you define one?" argument which goes along the lines of them pointing out an example and me separating it into smaller and smaller units and me eventually saying that the definition of "one" is abitrary and thus maths is based on perception.
The "scientific method does not allow for things to be proven true, it only allows for things to be disproven." This one actually works because its true and its so frustrating for people who work with premises that certain rules and laws are true (such as any science, maths, engineering, etc.)
The "disprove the invisible parrot is sitting on my shoulder." A silly argument, but fun because it starts with the assumption that the parrot is sitting on my shoulder and is impossible to disprove.
I'M FREE! Just finished the final essay of three weeks of constant deadlines for Uni. I'm so happy....and so so knackered. I just love the freedom of being a lazy lay-about student again. I have also just (this second) realised that in a year I'll have been coming to this site for a decade.
That really is quite depressing. It's almost as bad as the other day when I realised I was 20.....fucking 20!
I find it funny how no-one has thought to mention that Capitalism is a liberal doctrine. Pretty much everyone in the US is a liberal, yet you all bitch at each other over small areas of policy.For those of you too stupid to figure it out, "liberals" in this thread refers to the American liberal, which is like the laissez faire liberal except 180 degrees in the other direction. Then again, I think everyone figured it out.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about types of liberals. Silly of me to assume that...with the topic name and all.
What I find funny with this post of yours is that you don't seem to actually know anything about liberalism - like how modern liberals are like classical liberals, but don't have crazy notions about the involvement of god in the economy and everything balancing out and so supports steps to mitigate the negative effects of capitalism. It's like 10 degrees away from Classical Liberalism, not 180. Fascism is 180 degrees away from Classical Liberalism.
I think the topic starter is slightly confused with regards to what Brits say. When we say Asian we mean Central Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), not East Asian (who we invariably call "Chinese" or occasionally "Japanese".) And we do say if someone is from the Middle East.
There is an actual issue when talking about African though.
Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:
"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."
And he's now dead, shows you what he knew.
Not that I agree with non-meat eating, but I feel I have to point out two just plain crap arguments that no-one has picked up on.
Nature intended some animals to be hunted, and some to hunt.
Nature did not intend anything. It does not have a will, it is not a force, it is a state of being. Nature makes no arguments, intends nothing and puts forth no points of view, it simply is.
The human, by it's teeth structure can and should eat meat along side vegetables...
That it can is a simple argument, which is obviously proven. Where does should come into it?
Don't some pepole think that illegal immigrants get too many rights?
They don't have any rights. Rights require citizenship.
Also, how do you know the people in your neighbourhood are illegal immigrants?
I find it funny how no-one has thought to mention that Capitalism is a liberal doctrine. Pretty much everyone in the US is a liberal, yet you all bitch at each other over small areas of policy.
At 11/16/06 02:02 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: fli, PMS... woo hoo!
Is there something I'm missing here?
I love misquoting people.
Try Russian Roulette.
Try "fucking off and dying". Sorry to quote Shakespeare at you, but you seem like such an absolute preachy twat that I couldn't resist. Also, because the chances of me responding to your pitiful posts when I'm not being facetious are minimal I thought I'd take the opportunity.
Now, fuck off out of my sight.
It seems that way to you because you're ignorant.
It's true - I don't know much about spread betting. I know about the inherent risks of the stock market, but not spread betting. Meh, I think I'll stick to poker, I'm good at that.
Why not teach spread betting? Seems roughly similar to the stock market.
He can't help it, it happens to all people who pay attention to economists. I don't know why, but economists seem to be able to convince people that what they say is gospel truth and can not be questioned in the least - I think it's all the maths they use. What economists choose to ignore are the normative underpinnings of their argument, which just plain fucks up their vision of the world.
They're also preachy motherfuckers. I hate economists, I really do.
We clear on that point now? Understand?
Yes I see your point. Because you do not wish to recognise how similar they are at the core you have tried to expand your point from what was originally stated in order to muddy the waters. It is a red herring.
"What I love most is the fact that he claims the bombs are for defense against US Imperialism.
A North Korean official, meanwhile, defended last week's nuclear test and said Pyongyang would "crush U.S. imperialists' schemes with its self-defensive power."
Right, so we haven't invaded for 50 years, but they are scared pissless of being invaded......
**coughBULLSHITcough***"
The 50 years would matter if you were trying to prove how silly they are, but not how much bullshit it is.
Capital punishment is for criminals who commit murder, not kurds just for being kurds. You can't compare the two.
You said the US does not gas its own citizens, which it does. I made no moral comment on it, not that I really need to as it too was an irrelavancy. And Iraq gassing the Kurds is not gassing its own citizens, but its own subjects.
Not to validate what you said (because it is a complete red herring) but I think this deserved a response.
The difference is the US doesn't gas it's own citizens.
If we had been bitching about Iraq for the past 50 years (like North Korea has about US Imperialism) then you're point would make sense.Right, so we haven't invaded for 50 years, but they are scared pissless of being invaded......The US justified the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Iraq was a threat.......
**coughBULLSHITcough***
Otherwise, keep the fuckin Iraq war crap OFF the thread.
It does actually still make sense. I'll walk you through it.
You said that NK justifying building a nuke by claiming to be scared of attack by someone who won't attack them is bullshit.
I said that the US justifying attacking Iraq by claiming to be scared of attack by someone who won't attack them is bullshit.
Do you understand the similarity? Can you see it?? I'll highlight it for you - "claiming to be scared of attack by someone who won't attack them is bullshit." We clear on that point now? Understand?
Right, so we haven't invaded for 50 years, but they are scared pissless of being invaded......
**coughBULLSHITcough***
The US justified the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Iraq was a threat.......
So lets hope this is a good thing and that we can dodge the bullet, but nobody better use this opportunity to criticize Bush policy because it seems that the Bush Administration's 'ruthless' sanctions have worked for the moment.
Or the sanctions have done nothing and this is what North Korea was planning all along - to return to 6-party talks possessing a stronger hand. Why else would they want nukes? To use them?
He spends another 1000 dollars on any miscellaneous costs, leaving him with 800 dollars.
Let's assume that Joe is able to save 800 a year
What's the minimum he can save to achieve this pointless feat? It seems a bit random to put 1000 dollars as miscellaneous costs, what if it is was 1200? Could he become a millionaire then?
Right, so I've been studying this for a comparative government project and have run into some problems regarding ALL of the source material.
All sources everywhere are biased.....especially stats. Get used to it.
try imagening how it would be, a world with no disorder, no constant fear of terrorists,
no wars, only a calm, simple, governement, put together from the greatest leaders of the world, all democraticly voted.
it is time, gentlemen, it is time...
You dysutopian motherfucker. What ever happened to the idea of state sovereignty? What happened to respect for democracy? You are proposing a world state run by the US - "fixing" countries that go against the will of the US.
If the US and other countries (like Israel) have Nuclear Weapons (which, according the NPT, they should be getting rid of) why shouldn't North Korea? What qualifies you for nuclear weapons?
Apart from the Colt1911s I don't think much of your taste, especially the AK47 (which is just plain ugly.) Any other Sniper Rifles?
There's a world of difference between being decent and not fighting when someone attacks you. In fact, your example is so ridiculously simple I think I'll stop writing.Even tho his example is right on the money.
No, it's exactly off the money. It is also a false dilemma because he's saying there are only two courses of action "be decent" or be "indecent". There are, in fact, many different ways and many different degrees of ways of dealing with terrorists. As there are with pretty much every situation.
Slizor out.Now if only it were permanent.
You could all sink into your mindless Republican hatred of anything that doesn't agree with your narrow world view.
I'm only here to exercise everyone's brains now and again.
Everyone realises that Global Warming is a complete Red Herring, right? Two simple questions to ask yourself when confronted by laws meant to stop global warming.
Does pollution have a beneficial effect on the environment?
Do finite resources (such as oil) run out?
The answers are quite obvious and justify pretty much every bit of legislation rallied for by people concerned about global warming.
At 9/14/06 10:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 9/14/06 11:49 AM, Slizor wrote:I was planning to do a leading question, but I can't be arsed waiting for a response. No "democratic country" was founded on a principle that the "citizens blah blah blah". Firstly, a large number of "democratic countries" do not have a codified constitution and it would be hard to call them "founded" at any particular point. Secondly, of those with a codified constitution I don't think many give their people the right to have arms. Thirdly, the US, when founded with whatever bloody amendment it is, was not a democratic county. Fourthly, even with the amendment (2?) a principle is subject to interpretation.You're wrong. When the US was founded and the democratic ordinances were established, the 2nd amendment (the right to bare arms) was included due to the concensus of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected representives, the people who were the hivemind of the whole form of Government in the US.
In conclusion, you are talking bollocks. Oh, and the answer to your question is democratic accountability.
"Demos" means people, "cracy" means rule..... http://en.wikipedia...ial_election%2C_1789
Not quite what you were talking about. The US could not really be considered to be a "democracy" until at least the 1960s.
The US was 'founded' before than this, but all the kinks weren't worked out completely and the democratic government wasn't functioning completely yet. There was a provisional government before the bill of rights was put into place.
They weren't democratic after it.
Democratic accountability you say? Thats ridiculous. The perfection of a democratic system doesn't protect the citizens from individuals who decide to risregard their country's policies and take matters into their own hands, exploiting their power. "Democratic accountability" doesn't change the hearts of men.
Sorry, are you talking about tyrants or criminals? Would-be tyrants can only work with the consent of the people. Criminals are stopped by, shockingly, the police. Had you forgot about the police?
No matter how "accountable" a government is, they can always use their positions of power for other than righteous purposes, and through other than righteous means.
That doesn't mean that accountability can not stop moves towards tyranny.
And you're in no place to spout out "Democratic accountability" considering many officials in the UK who tried to block British Military involvement in the Iraq War in '03 were receiving bribes from Saddam Hussein in the Oil for Food scandal (look it up if you don't believe it).
Don't talk bollocks. That was one MP who wasn't a member of the Government and absolutely fucking savaged Congress when they asked him about it. These were claims made against him that weren't proven and, dare I say it, just another fabrication of evidence by those who seeked to discredit anti-war acitivism. Look it up properly if you don't believe me.
Aren't you?No, I'm Steel Reserve. I just started a new account.
On a different note: I do believe I'm sober.
Which gets back to my point of "Aren't you?"
