825 Forum Posts by "Draconias"
At 9/19/06 09:33 PM, Grammer wrote: But it depends on what you meant by "a certain point".
I was speaking in terms of severity. In general, for me, that must mean at least two people murdered at seperate times, and the situation must be extreme.
For example, if a serial killer systematically tortured and murdered 15 people, and gunned down 3 police officers before being caught, that would be a case for Capital Punishment.
Murdering a single person because he was sleeping with your Wife is not a case for Capital Punishment.
At 9/20/06 08:07 AM, rockizzy wrote: you forgot to mention all the other things that make a prison, especially the most obvious one: no freedom. youre locked in all the time, either in your cell, or in the greater compound of the prison facility.
I've actually known kids who have gone to Juvenile Hall once, and then intentionally got sent back again after they got out. Why? They have friends there, they've become acclimated to the restrictions, they have a worse life waiting for them, and they prefer the security over half-starvation and humiliation.
America is not an empire.
The intent simply does not exist. If the US wanted to be an empire, it would control almost all of Europe (WWII), half of Asia (WWII, Korea, Vietnam), a good chunk of Russia and Cuba (Cold War), and Canada (duh!) by now.
In fact, the American desire to avoid imperialism has made many of their wars tougher, prolonged the fighting, and increased the damage (Iraq, Vietnam, etc). If the US truly wanted to be an empire, they wouldn't care about stepping on other's toes, and they wouldn't give back land they once owned.
At 9/19/06 07:33 PM, AshfordPride wrote: When you punish someone, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? In most cases, the answer is reforment. You punish people in oreder to show them that what they did was wrong, and when you do this act, bad things will happen.
Death is no punishment.
Death is vengeance. While the Justice system does attempt to Rehabilitate, at a certain point that becomes impossible. That's when vengeance takes over.
The Death Penalty is justified in rare murder cases. No other crime except treason will be punished with the Death Penalty. The only justifications for removing it are ethical, but they aren't that strong. All of the other problems with the Death Penalty are only reasons to use it sparingly, not eliminate it. There are rare cases that are so heinous that Death is the only option or the only effective punishment.
Yes, the Death Penalty should be used less, but it shouldn't be removed.
At 9/19/06 05:07 PM, Flash007 wrote:Yay, some common ground.In addition, CO2 is a gas, which means it will go just about everywhere. Like, the upper atmosphere, where it causes problems. Are there many plants in the upper atmosphere?I concede this, good point :)
Actually, Flash, you are both completely wrong on that point.
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air. It will not rise significantly, and will eventually fall back to the Earth. The chances of significant amounts of CO2 reaching the upper atmosphere are essentially zero.
Details:
CO2 = 12 + 16*2 = 44 AMU
Average Mass of Dry Air = ~29 AMU
At 9/19/06 06:34 PM, Hyper-Hippy wrote: you can't judge a person off of one action
Hitler ordered the genocide of 11 million people.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I can judge someone off of a single action.
At 9/18/06 09:33 PM, BanditByte wrote: I don't know. If I believed God didn't exist I would be a pretty immoral person. Not because I do good works because I'm afraid of hell fire, but without a god there would be no such thing as absolute morality; therefore there would be no point being good at all.
Wrong. Many people seem to believe that Religion is the root of Morality. It isn't.
If you are a "good boy" only because you think Santa Claus / Omnipotent God is watching you all the time and will punish you, then you're actually crude and crime-prone at heart. People with true morals don't need the threat of punishment to keep them from committing immoral acts. Also, ask any Athiest: you can have Absolute Morality without Religion.
At 9/17/06 06:27 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Kindness is rooted in greed. Love is grown from the seeds of lust and lonliness.
Name me a pure act. Name me a kindness not derived from guilt.
You are wrong. Your cynicism taints your views because you don't seem to understand that doing things because you want to is perfectly fine.
Kindness is rooted in concern for others (Compassion). Excessive desire for material goods or power (Greed) has nothing to do with it.
If you believe Love comes from lust and loneliness, you know nothing of Love.
Pure Act: You hug a friend to help brighten up his day.
No guilt is involved. You didn't do anything to ruin his day, so how can you be guilty of anything? Only concern for your friend and a desire to see him happy is involved. It is pure.
At 9/17/06 09:28 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: I dunno what a tonne is,
By the way, "tonnnes" is the word for 1000 kilograms. It is approximately equal to 1 ton (2000 pounds). It is fairly easy to find definitions on the internet.
At 9/16/06 05:54 PM, 200monkeys wrote: Let's just agree that there is no right answer and that each of us should live our lives the way we think is best fit, Deeming this thread pointless.
No, because you're wrong. Stop trying to cop out with your same conclusive statement. I say there is a right answer, and there are absolute rules in ethics just as there are absolute laws in physics. Don't try to skip out like that because you can't defend your own position.
At 9/16/06 05:09 PM, 200monkeys wrote: . Will saving a man from death outweight the stealing? If so, who decides? Is there a grand scale in the universe measuring deeds done? You cannot create that scale except for yourself.
Sorry, bud, but that has nothing to do with the actual nature of "good" and "evil." It is always a matter for each individual to decide on a course of action when a mixture of good and evil is considered. The issue at hand is whether stealing the food is always an "evil" and giving the food to the starving old man is always a "good." I say yes, they are, and my earlier definitions say why.
How you balance the "good" and "evil" is an entirely seperate matter.
At 9/16/06 07:21 AM, 200monkeys wrote: You as a single person cannot define Good and Evil for everyone. You can only define it for yourself. For every person good and evil mean different, sometimes even opposite things.
I strongly disagree. I believe in absolute ethics, not that subjective ethics BS. I may be wrong, but there is an eventual right on the matter of ethics. Murdering someone else for sadistic satisfaction is "evil," regardless of what the murderer believes. Ethics isn't just a matter of opinion.
If you steal food, society thinks your evil, regardless of reason. You could have stolen it to save a man from death, but to them you are a criminal.
But wait, haven't you just cornered yourself right into my definition of good and evil? If you stole from another, no concern for the well-being of others is "evil." However, you yourself stated that if it was for another-- thus displaying compassion, etc. --it isn't actually an evil act. The "good" aspect changes the nature of the deed.
Good, neutral, and evil are based on concern for yourself and others. You haven't disproved anything, just showed that you believe in the same definition.
While "good" and "evil" are in fact empty, vague terms, your claim is no better.
You can not classify the actions of people along the lines of selfish or self-less because that inherently implies that "selfish" is somehow bad. However, "selfish" is actually the base state of humanity, and never one we should villify. Concern for yourself is a long way from actively hurting another. Also, concern solely for others is potentially one of the greatest acs of foolishness because a person is useless to others if they don't survive.
Instead, "good" and "evil" should be reclassified into:
"Good" = Compassion and concern for the well being of others
"Neutral" = Concern for your own well-being
"Evil" = Active disregard for the safety or well-being of others or yourself
It is always good to consider others, but you must care for yourself first, by default. Killing yourself is just as "evil" as robbing another person.
Ignoring your own well-being so you can be concerned for others is an "evil" as well-- its does no good to reach for a person who has fallen through the ice on a frozen lake, only to fall in yourself. Always consider your own safety and well-being first because you are useless or a hindrance if you act foolishly self-less.
At 9/15/06 06:26 AM, Alexi101 wrote: Since the mid 19th century, the world has gradually began to raise in average temperature, while before that, the world was gradually cooling ( While During it, NY harbor froze over, Grape vines died, birds died in the sky, Napoleon did terrible in Russia becuase of the massive winter)
What you failed to mention is that the abnormally cold period from circa 1000 AD to circa 1800 AD has been titled the "Little Ice Age." (You can search with that keyword) It is an aberration of temperature. The peak temperatures around 1000 AD (just before it began) were only about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celcius cooler than the modern average global temperature. At around 1550 AD, the average global temperature was 1.3 to 1.4 degrees Celcius cooler than modern times.
If the Earth can change that much in temperature naturally, it's easily possible that this warming is natural as well. Pollution is always a concern, but it isn't worth destroying all of the First World nations because some dumbasses thought they were polluting too much (while the other 5 billion people in the world keep polluting unchecked).
If you haven't realized it yet, the stuff proposed by Loose Change and similar has been utterly disproven repeatedly. It has been beat to death so thoroughly that no one seems to have the desire left to harass you for gullibility,
Loose Change is a lie.
I'd like to point out that in the first link Flash007 provided, the Vostok temperature data on the "400K" scale shows a very distinct natural series of large temperature peaks followed by deep temperature dips (Ice Ages). We just happen to be on one of those temperature spikes.
The problem with Global Warming isn't so much proving that some warming is occurring, it's proving that this warming is a threat and caused solely by humans. Neither of those two things has been conclusively proven, and hence the major doubt about Global Warming.
At 9/13/06 08:24 PM, Shihuangdi wrote: c) sometimes information is left out, false information is received
The ignorance is on the part of the individual.
e) sometimes the conspiracy is correct
Like when?
At 9/13/06 09:02 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: Life has been disrupted,
Not as much as you believe.
freedoms after freedoms are being taken away in the name of security,
I haven't lost any. None of the snooping things will stick once this is over, and not much of that is happening anyways.
people word-wide are fearful of an attack on any place at any time,
Not true. Actually, no one outside of the FBI/CIA is really concerned at all in an immediate-threat sense. They don't expect another, so they don't fear it.
:America is looking worse and worse on the global stage....
How? We aleady hit the bottom of our prestige, and we're only improving as we rebuild Iraq. Once that's over, we won't look quite as bad. But really, who cares? It's none of anyone else's business how Americans act if we follow legal and ethical rules most of the time.
Is it possible to get on an airplane anymore if you have shoes or a bottle of water?
Two weeks ago I flew to Canada. I walked through the Customs metal detector with my steel watch still on and my shoes untouched... and nothing happened. I grabbed my bag off the X-ray, grabbed an extra item my buddy sent through, and sat down to wait for him.
Incidentally, because he accidentally had a small pair of scissors, the security people went through all his stuff... except the item which I conveniently had taken off the conveyor (and which happened to be fragile).
Only some people have a tough time. Water is served on the plane, anyways, so deal with it and get free water.
Can governments (particularly America) really keep saying they don't have secret prisons?
Bush admitted to the existance of the prisons already.
At this rate, it won't be long before America and it's allies are completly expelled from the Middle East,
How so? We have a stronger foothold there now than ever before, and if we really wanted to take on the region, we'd strike at the heart of the problem: Iran and Syria. If we were serious about war, we could completely destroy those two nations in under three months. It's this peace and politics crap which doesn't work well.
:And America will be only a shadow of it's former self by 2100
The Terrorist threat won't last until 2100. You can't possibly predict what will happen by then when you consider how many events have happened in the past 100 years. World War I and II, major technological revolutions, computers, etc. have completely altered the world in 100 years. No one can predict what another 100 will bring.
At 9/12/06 09:03 PM, Imperator wrote:Not in the least bit. If you can't differewntiate between a representative democracy, and a monarchy, then you should take a High School US gov't class.The Roman Republic was not a monarchy. It was even MORE democratic than our Republic is, it had better separations of power. And yet it became an Empire anyways....
<interjection>
Actually, the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire shortly after Caesar overthrew the Republic and became Dictator. His heir, Augustus, was the first Emperor.
Prior to Augustus or Caesar, the Romans technically ruled a Republic, not an Empire. Traditionally, Empires have a single authoritative leader and little to no democracy.
</interjection>
Pox, you sound like you might come from an upper middle class background. You sound like one of the kids indoctrinated with the "Must go to College. Must become richer. Must be awesome, or else!" mentality. Well guess what: not everyone is filled with those same messages. In fact, a majority of the population isn't, so your message will not connect well with many people.
I don't buy it.
The government does not give us rights, the ability to own property, etc. Those are things the government protects, but they are still birth-rights, not privileges. The only thing we owe the government is money in the form of taxes (for services rendered) and a justified respect for the law.
When any individual disagrees heavily enough with a democratic government, it is his obligation to protest or resist coercion, damn the consequences. If a true pacifist is drafted, he is obligated to refuse-- otherwise he is violating some of his deepest-held beliefs.
Laws should only be followed insofar as they are righteous or justified. The Draft should never be used in any war which does not threaten the very existence of the United States (like WWII or an at-home invasion).
At 9/9/06 07:35 PM, Begoner wrote: To whom are you referring as "we"?
American citizens. I haven't actually checked this, but I'd be willing to bet that we've burned more oil for tanks and vehicles in Iraq than we've been buying from Iraqis.
At 9/9/06 08:14 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: The only problem is [nuclear] waste, but we could get rid of that throw space.
Space is a bad choice because it is ultra-expensive and would pose a jet-stream contamination risk on launches. However, we could just put the radioactive waste back into abandoned uranium mines. Why is it that no one ever considers throwing the stuff back where we got it from when we're done using it?
Stop wasting your time. America is not an Empire. We do not have imperial asperations, and do not intend to become an empire, so regardless of your vague, "anyone fits" definition for "empire," America is not an Empire.
At 9/9/06 08:10 AM, Flashthinker wrote: America has THE WORST presidents of every country except African nations and Arab.
China is going to totally PWN America in a few years.
So says you. But you're wrong.
A) China can't do jack because it's bloated
B) Kimmy of South Korea is a worse leader than Bush
Qbaki, you're one for one simple reason: we're not getting any of the damn oil!
No matter how much you scream about Bush, it won't make your claims true. If we went in for oil, don't you think we'd be getting the oil, or at least pursuing it? We're not. In fact, our oil supply from Iraq is worse now than it was before, and the Iraqis are considering a plan to split oil revenues between every citizen.
If the US wanted Oil from Iraq, we would be the ones pulling it all out and making a profit now, we wouldn't still be buying it from Iraqi companies.
At 9/8/06 06:14 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: Face it, Jesus had long hair, talked about love and peace, and was a pacifist. If he was alive today he’s be smoking pot and living in a commune…
Jesus did not have long hair; that's a false image crafted by the Western interpreters of Christianity. Especially during the time of Christ's life, long hair was considered shameful for men and anyone with long hair would easily stand out in a crowd. If Jesus had long hair, Judas wouldn't have had to point him out to the Romans.
Also, if you didn't know, Jesus wasn't white.
Also, although he talks about love and peace, he also has violent/angry tendencies he fights with. Blasphemy angers him enough to assault others.
To put it bluntly, Christ wasn't a hippy. He wasn't a drug addict, he wasn't a delusional "utopian", and he would never become that weak.
The US is a world superpower. We get to choose whatever name we want, and we're going to give common names to everyone else, too.
People aren't stupid. Common names have already been worked out for every single country. This isn't a politics issue, this isn't even an issue.
At 9/5/06 10:19 PM, GrammerClock wrote:At 9/5/06 10:12 PM, Draconias wrote: Religion is unnecessary and expensiveSince when does faith in God cost a single penny?
Also, a clarification: when I say "Religion" I am referring to the institutions connected to faith and critical for the transferral and continuation of faith.
I believe in God-- just not how Christians and whatnots do. Personal faith can be free, but shared faith costs money and effort.
At 9/5/06 10:19 PM, GrammerClock wrote:At 9/5/06 10:12 PM, Draconias wrote: Religion is unnecessary and expensiveSince when does faith in God cost a single penny?
Since Gas is no longer free. Also, time is money.
Remember when the Catholics implemented Tithes, "Get Out of Sin Free" cards, giant gothic cathedrals, and the position of Pope back in the middle ages?
Every religion has some sort of cost to followers, from construction and expansion to "donations" that they try to guilt you into giving.
At 9/5/06 05:07 PM, Danofcanada wrote: This simple Canuck wants to know even if it is alittle early to ask.
Hey, don't give the rest of a us a bad name.
Even a hermit would know that American's get all restless about leaders overstaying their welcome. Bush wouldn't win if he ran again because of how many Americans would freak out at the thought of a third term. No one wants to consider 3+ terms of Hilary Clinton ever happening.
I see two sides:
A) God exists. An entire invisible system of justice and power exists.
B) God does not exist. Humans invented the concept to answer things they did not understand and fulfill many other internal functions.
I'm a logical kind of guy. There is no proof for God, and it's pointless to try to disprove the undefined. However, the trusty old Occam's Razor tells me that B) is probably the correct answer. Religion is unnecessary and expensive, so it's the secular life for me.
