885 Forum Posts by "TheloniousMONK"
At 4/19/05 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote: Again, more proof that the Japanese just want to get into a fight.
There is alot of pent up rage in Japan.
That is an excellent point. I had not really thought about that. I am sure Japan would love for us to take care of their new economic rivals.
I hope she runs... she is guarenteed to lose and that means another four years without some pinko idiot in the office.
At 4/17/05 10:22 PM, Empanado wrote: I doubt that. Languages mutate, change, tweak, regardless of world situations. Maybe not in a hundred years, but in, I don't know, five hundred, most current languages will have probably changed into something completely different.
That is where you are most likely wrong. "Original" English has been traced back to as early as 449 AD. It has gone through clearly defined "trasitional periods" (original to old to middle to modern). But the reason it has still been called English all this time is for a number of reasons that I am not qualified to state adequately enough to make sense, but the fact remains that it is not completely different and they are very obviously derivatives of each other. So, if English has survived over one and a half thousand years already, I imagine it will be next to impossible to kill a language as prevalent as it is.
At 4/18/05 02:00 AM, Cahenn wrote: "Analogical arguments are tricky because there are almost always significant differences between the two things being compared. If the two things differ greatly, the analogy can mislead rather than clarify."
I will just take that as a no.
Ever heard of the term "false analogy?"
At 4/18/05 01:13 AM, Jimsween wrote: Oddly enough, China's best bet would probably be to invade the USSR (promisiong the chechnians and other ethnic groups thier own country) and steal any of thier weapons Cache's, and maybe even head into Europe from there, but an attack against the US will fail almost no matter what.
It would be really neat to see another Stalingrad, except with both sides sending in millions.
MAYBE a Japanese invasion (although something tells me the Japanese are just itching for someone to invade them).
Maybe if that whole apology thing does not pan out...
At 4/17/05 03:59 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: If the US went to China to fight they would lose. I mean technology can only do so much. When you are out numbered 10 to 1 and are on their turf your fucked. This isnt Iraq you would be fighting. Iraqs military equipment is +10 years old. Chinese military is constantly upgraded.
Yeah, but the Chinese military is still outmoded as far as the US is concerned.
They have new planes, they could give the US AF and US Navy a run for their money in the skies, especially if you added in SAM (surface to air missles).
Not even close. F-22's and even their older Naval counterparts F-18's are still lightyears ahead of the J-11 (Su-27) used by the PLAAF and are able to fire a missile at them before being detected.
They have subs, and diesel subs can run quiter than a nuke sub.
We have already taken that into consideration.
Plus the Chinese know the land and are already set up. They would see the US coming a mile away (its a very long trip across the Pacific Ocean and a movement of troops and equipment large enough to invade China, whether by air or sea would be seen long before it got there. The Chinese arent stupid, they wont buy an excuse that its just a training exercise when you are sending over 100 000 troops plus entire armour divisions. It would be as uicide mission, especially without much international support.
No one in their right mind would advocate a land invasion of China. No one wanted a land invasion of Japan back during WWII, and that is a much smaller land mass and way fewer people. Just think of how bloody and bitter the fighting during the island wars. However, US forces would send ground troops to Taiwan if it were necessary and wanted, and I do not believe they would have a hard time getting them there.
At 4/17/05 03:09 PM, thomasca wrote: Eventually, another super power will stand in our place, and have another language.
English is the second on the list of greatest number of native speakers in the world. There are a LOT of English speaking nations, UK, US, Australia, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, just to name a few. English is definitely here to stay.
At 4/16/05 03:56 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I'm not talking about spreading into new niches with new technology here. Even pre-humans such as Neanderthals were capable of that. I'm talking about some tribes speaking one language, and another tribe in the same area speaking a different one. Why is this so? Why do humans differentiate solely for the sake of "culture"? Why are women property in one society, equal in another, and dominant in yet another? Why do humans change infrastructures that work for an abstract concept like social justice? Why would an animal have a concept with no survival attachments like that?
You want to attribute these things to hallucinogen use? Take a look at the "revolutions" dreamed up by some of today's users. They get about as far as mass suicides.
And socrates was executed for fucking little boys. What's your point? My point is that hallucinogens can increase the flexibility of the mind.
My point in this case study is that if it did not work for Hitler, and it caused him to be neurotic and made his psychosis a hundred times worse, why do we want to encourage its use?
I'm talking about understanding and exploiting a potential here. What if, for example, intensive study of hallucinogens led to the development of a drug that increased fact retention and simulated "photographic memory"?
Leave the what-if's out; they are not valid. You have to PROVE there is any merit to drug use other than seeing pretty colors and getting confused.
Why do you allow an anti-drug propaganda machine to cause you to blanketly reject this concept?
I have no doubt that you are a wonderful person, but think of the person who got you to first use. Why did you allow him/her to cause you to use? Which do you think is a better influence, that person or millions of people, including doctors, scientists, and people who genuinely care about my future?
More importantly, is your rejection proof that you subconciously see how you've been mentally repressed, and fear a new awakening? That you are in fact stuck in the allegory of the cave?
You sound just like the strung-out guys that flake out of classes and spend their time hanging out under the bridge. Personally, I would rather fill my mind with philosophy and knowledge than an erroneus perception of reality.
At 4/16/05 12:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: For instance, different packs of wolves don't use radically different hunting styles. A wolf is a wolf is a wolf.
Wolves are not as versatile as humans are. You do not see wolves all over the world because, obviously, they lack the skills and biological adaptions necessary to support in those regions. Wolves bodies only allow them to successfully hunt one way, stalk and pounce. Humans, on the other hand, have the biological and, starting with the Tool Age, technological means necessary to exist all over the world. But, for example, region-specific tribes of humans hunted/hunt the same way. Any number of reasons could explain tribes branching away from each other and occupying new regions, and I think hallucinogens are probably one of the less likely ones.
Eitherway, it is an irrelevant argument in drug-use today, and I think you would be hard-pressed to present medical data supporting your second constructive, the only relevant argument in your post. Until you do, all I see is subjective experience found while under the influence of mind-altering toxins that interfere with your reason and judgment processes. By the way, Hitler was habitually prescribed hallucinogenic drugs and many historians link it as a contributing factor to his downfall.
Considering my friend and I created Vengeance, I feel it would be prudent to lend my opinion.
There is a very obvious tension growing between Taiwan and China. Just recently, China approved legislation to use force against Taiwan should they attempt to secede. Unfortunately, you cannot see the rest of this article, but it clearly outlines China's massive military modernization efforts, and, more specifically, how it is directly aimed at countering the United States' possible means of defending Taiwan. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has expressed concern over the military build-up, and it is no secret that US-Chinese relations, which are only held together by a symbiotic economic relationship, are deteriorating, especially after confrontations about supply Iran. Furthermore, you can forget having Russian allies, as China has struck up a military partnership with their ex-Soviet allies and plan to evenrehearse invading Taiwan together. Oh, did I mention China has over 700 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwanese targets?
But, suppose the situation does decline into war, who will achieve their military objectives? The answer is probably both. China will most likely reach Taiwan and the tyrants will crush whatever seedlings of Democracy lie there. However, as depicted in my movie, if the US does choose to get involved will, after the initial defeat or delaying, quite easily crush the Chinese threat. Despite the modernization effort, China does not have the air superiority necessary to win a modern war. After that, would China use nuclear weapons? Probably not, but it makes for a great story.
At 4/16/05 04:35 AM, nXXt wrote: Also, they often tend to resist quite heavily against changes they don't like.
Everyone resists change they do not like.
Liberals strive for more freedom and less influence by the government on matters like the economy.
On the contrary, the Libs strive for more SOCIAL liberties, which can be interpreted as a good or bad thing, and they want more influence in the economy.
At 4/14/05 08:51 PM, Z17 wrote: This was after he had won the election, so he really had no one to appeal to like he did in the Lincoln - Douglas debates.
A most excellent point.
At 4/6/05 06:10 PM, Elfer wrote: Again, I have to ask you if you've ever been to a school before, because you seem completely unaware of how blind school officials are to this sort of thing.
I have been to several schools, including a large one and root of the problems are not religions. The root of the problem are assholes. France just must have more assholes. They need to preach more tolerance and respect in schools or deal with it some other way. I am not just talking about school officials scratching the superficial surface of the problem by disciplining offenders.
At 4/5/05 11:25 PM, Thelonius wrote: And how exactly have we managed to accomplish this feat for the past two hundred years?
I mean in many countries, and more specifically the United States.
At 4/5/05 10:44 PM, Elfer wrote: It would be nearly impossible to prevent this sort of thing in a way that allows them to show their religion at school, while still preventing violence, and at the same time not brutalizing all the other rights of the students.
And how exactly have we managed to accomplish this feat for the past two hundred years?
At 4/5/05 10:06 PM, CrispiNuggets wrote: In the US religious symbols aren't accepted in Public Schools basicly because of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment.
A student is allowed to tote his or her own religious symbol, no matter what it is, as long as it does not violate dress code, etc, and that is the issue here. not governmental displays.
At 4/5/05 10:07 PM, Elfer wrote: One was that there was a lot of hate speech and violent behaviour resulting from students being identified as followers of a certain religion.
I fault French schools and authorities for letting these become problems in the first place.
Another, more minor reason was that certain religions required things that were against school policies (ex: Sihk males being required to carry a knife at all times)
I have never heard of a Sikh having to carry a knife, but, if that is true, there is a big difference between a cross and a knife. I mean, I am sure there is at least one Sikh in US schools, and I bet he is not allowed to carry a knife.
People understand not allowing someone to arm themselves, but they do not understand restricting religious expression.
At 4/4/05 09:35 AM, SpamWarrior wrote: How can it logically be said, that the best way to control the worlds finite resources, is to put them onto a market, based on individual ownership? This means that the rich have yet more ways of seizing control, and turning half-there money into solid assets. Therefore we'll have to metaphorically lick rich when the oil runs out, whilst the poor, who are poor through no fault of their own will be crying in disbelief.
You are missing the point. Human ambition and greed for power is what makes this system work, and the system allows any disadvantaged person from any background to rise to the top. Don't you get it? Our nation is only powerful because people came here to be more than what they are. Free land, business opportunities and the escape of bloodlines brought those with an entrepreneurial spirit here, and it is their greed and ambition that built this nation and created the framework for what is now the greatest and most powerful nation ever in existance. That said, the competitive system we currently have in place is the best system because it encourages growth and improvement.
At 4/4/05 02:09 AM, MadKid wrote: so i'm the only god damn person in newgrounds that belives this, fine whatever be a socity run by your lust for money, i hope that these words from a minor, who has no need for money yet, has opened some eyes, and hopefully some important people that go on this site
The lure of wealth is what this entire country is founded upon. Ever heard of the land of opportunity?
At 4/3/05 08:38 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Dieppe was primarily Canadian troops, but there were other nationalities involved as well. There were 6,100 troops involved, 5,000 of which were Canadians, 50 American Commandos and the remainder British troops.
The original plan, from which Operation Jubilee was scaled down to was called Operation Rutter.
Canada still sucks.
I have been watching this technology mature for about the past five years and in that short amount of time they have gone a long way. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next five years.
At 4/3/05 07:25 PM, Nayest wrote: Take that you fucking fundamentalist christian conservatives. Die die die in the face of science and reason!
Please direct all future comments here.
Different strokes for different folks.
At 3/29/05 11:02 PM, darknezz1 wrote: Sure, be my guest bible freak. Prove me wrong, though it does say in that simple sentence you shouldn't kill. So now this means shut the hell up.
If you want people to take you seriously you should try using a little more tact. You were using a very liberal translation that does not accurately reflect the intention of the authors.
At 3/29/05 09:49 AM, darknezz1 wrote: Also, gods law states "Though shall not kill"...So this means shut the hell up you hypocritical bastard.
Just to be critical, that is a rather literal translation of the V/VI commandment. The more exact translation is "thou shalt not murder." There is a clear distinction between murder and killing in that murder is unjust and unlawful. The Hebrew Bible carefully drives this point home.
At 3/27/05 04:34 PM, Skizor wrote: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Those are the grounds for the concept of the seperation of church and state. Before Thomas Jefferson, the cited text was read as is, or, in other words, people had the right to pursue any religion free from governmental restriction. Now we consider them the establishment clause and free exercise clause; parts of the wall that seperate church and state. The XIV amedment and many common laws are also a part of this wall.
Seperation of church and state is not a part of the constitution.
At 3/26/05 12:51 PM, Kaabi wrote: 4. Stem cell research will open up more jobs, thus benefiting the economy.
No?
