It's adorable that you think life is that simple, AyeYo. Some day you'll learn that things aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are. No man is an island, we have to live and function in a society because we are inherently social beings. When someone points out immoral stances in society you simply tell them to leave. Where to? The moon? An island?
He does not think that. FirstAscent/AyeYo is just a troll. Do you have evidence indicating that they are the same person? |
|
|
|
|
This sounds really sketchy. Can you link it from the original news source?
|
|
|
|
|
It's adorable that you think life is that simple, AyeYo. Some day you'll learn that things aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are. No man is an island, we have to live and function in a society because we are inherently social beings. When someone points out immoral stances in society you simply tell them to leave. Where to? The moon? An island?
|
|
|
|
The level of skillful debate in this forum is embarrassing.
I am about to have a weekly debate show and just bring along anyone from the forum and destroy them.
This could be fun and interesting, actually. There are online sites where you can host debates. I'm not very good at live debates but it would be a good way to get better provided the context was correct. Yes it would be fun to do this. People have challenged me to debates, but they always want written debates (much easier) and never full video ones. I will only debate via live stream and live stream only I suppose it ruins some of the anonymity that people like about the internet forums. But that's what Guy Fawkes masks are for, yes?  |
|
|
|
The level of skillful debate in this forum is embarrassing.
I am about to have a weekly debate show and just bring along anyone from the forum and destroy them.
This could be fun and interesting, actually. There are online sites where you can host debates. I'm not very good at live debates but it would be a good way to get better provided the context was correct. |
|
|
|
A powerful nation can come in and conquer these tiny island nations because they could never pack enough military to fight off a much larger nation like China or even North Korea.
rofl NK is going to stage an attack off the US coast? you must be up out your mind. Oh yes, you'd better believe it. They will paddle their bathtubs over to the US coast and then throw rocks at the coast guard. Actually, they probably can't afford bathtubs. |
|
|
|
You make a lot of great posts in this forum, but I'm not going discard all your valid points simply because you are wrong about one of them. My default position is that I tend to think that evolution isn't as clear-cut as most people make it out to be, but I'm not going to try to defend this position as I have spent very little time researching it. The main point is that I believe Ron Paul to be correct about the Wars, the economy, the Federal reserve, taxes, the Constitution, States' rights, abortion, the war on drugs, US foreign policy, the history of Iran, etc. This single point where he is stuck on his religious ideology in regards to evolution is a very minor point and will have negligible effect on his policies and actions as president. It amazes me that people would be willing to disregard all his other positions because of a personal belief on a fairly inconsequential issue.
Thanks. I'm not trying to make great posts, I'm trying to break up a bit of the circlejerk going on in these forums. It annoys me.  I agree that evolution isn't clear cut in all areas and that there are errors or omissions in the theory, however when it comes to Evolution vs "God did it" then it's very clear cut. What if God did it.....through evolution?  Ron Paul seems to have similar views to me when it comes to certain things, wars and balanced budget seems to be two issues where we agree, but to be fair I haven't studied his policies to any greater extent. Withdrawing from NAFTA and WTO seems to be something to be expected with someone with political asbergers, and not something I agree with at all. Same for the minimal state, however less regulation in certain areas doesn't sound like a bad thing.
As a non American I really hope he's not elected since his policies seems to revolve around the "Me me me" ideology. And with the status that the US still has in the world, that wouldn't be good.
Because you're not American I don't expect you to research his positions, but I do expect you to not to bash his policies when you don't know what they are. His policies would be good for America and good for the rest of the world. To be honest I just think he's trying to make himself electable by appealing to the god-crowd, and that's not what I call honest. I hope that's the case, because if not then he's not connected to reality and having people with life and death decisions in their hands listening to their imaginary friend is just scary.
No he is actually a sincere, faithful Christian. If this is a big issue you might want to examine your prejudices. |
|
|
|
Is this for real? I mean I can't believe he'd make a video which is of kinda lower quality than I'd expect but at the end he does say he endorsed this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HBo7q8VWvQSo anyone gonna be voting for him in 2012? So....are you just trolling? If you want to seriously discuss Ron Paul I'd be happy too.. If you are just here for the lulz then good luck and have fun. |
|
|
|
I got a good laugh out of reading this thread.
I've come to the conclusion that no one is from Kenya. Aren't we all from Kenya in the metaphysical sense? |
|
|
|
I'm just going to second clicking on the link jgraham provided. It's good for some definite lulz as moron2cash's (oops, there I go again) hypocricy is exposed.
No offense, but I'm starting to get the feeling you are desperate for attention. |
|
|
|
So by this I assume you support terrorism, tyranny and dictatorships?
No, he did not. An opinion was never made. It's called an "assumption". Gaddafi Vowed to continue a Guerilla war after he was deposed (which in this day and age essentially amounts to domestic terrorism) and he himself funded a cruel and tyrannical regime. If you believe he is entitled to his wealth after vowing to use it for such disgusting tactics I could only assume you must agree with what he has done. And the Libyan rebels have links to Al Qaeda, a known terrorist organization. So by using your own logic: by not supporting Gaddafi you support a known terrorist organization taking control of Libya. You're a dirty terrorist-lover. See how that works? |
|
|
|
By the way, where would you rather meet me after dark openly holding a hundred dollar bill, in Disney World or Times Square?
Neither. Way to avoid the question. Disney World, definitely. A better comparison would be Disney World or Central Park, though. Both are "parks" or "amusement centers", one private and one public. I would still choose Disney World. |
|
|
|
So by this I assume you support terrorism, tyranny and dictatorships?
So by this I assume you support Al Qaeda, terrorists, violence and religious wars? |
|
|
|
With government I have signed no contract and so am not legitimately bound to any set of rules. I submit because of fear of reprisal. This is a big difference.
By opting to not leave the nation upon, say reaching the age of 18, are you not agreeing to an implicit contract by virtue of your residence and use of its services? It would depend on what defines a contract. I don't consider vague, implicit contracts that are never explicitly stated or signed to be valid. Do you? Here's an example for you: let's say you were born in my household. Even better, let's say you are my child and were born in my household, and I demand payment from you to continue to live there. You counter by stating that you own your own bedroom because you bought it from me. That's fine, I say - you own the space inside the walls, but that doesn't really mean you can act with impunity and not pay me a fee to continue to live there.
You are free to leave.
Basically, you're over interpreting the concept of land ownership to mean that you can operate your own sovereign domain within another sovereign domain. Life does not really work like that - unless you're the Catholic Church and your host is Italy.
The question is, does the government own all the land in it's geographic "domain"? |
|
|
|
|
This should be in Bitcoin Discussion or Off Topic, but not economics.
|
|
|
|
An organization requires you You voluntarily agree to pay a fee on a regular basis based on your footprint within the boundaries of a geographical region in which you live and which provides services to you and your fellow residents within that geographical region. You may or may not agree in totality with the efficiency or results of all those services. You can try and change things through meetings, votes, etc. In the end, if you are dissatisfied and don't care to pay those fees anymore, you will have to move.
Still talking about government? No. My interpretation is more accurate. Your payment of the fee to the homeowner's association is not voluntary, unless you opt to not reside within the geographical boundaries of their domain. For me the legitimacy would depend on the terms of the contract I signed when I bought the property. If I voluntarily buy property within a homeowners association and sign a contract saying I will abide by the decisions of the council, senate, leadership, whatever, then it is legitimate and I cannot complain. Only leave. If I already own the property and my neighbors form a homeowners association and THEN try to force me to abide by their decisions, it is illegitimate. With government I have signed no contract and so am not legitimately bound to any set of rules. I submit because of fear of reprisal. This is a big difference. |
|
|
|
|
Where did this declaration originate from? The UN?
|
|
|
|
Focus on the message. Which was...? Ron Paul something something t-shirt something something. Hmm, maybe I need to watch it again....  |
|
|
|
Wow, settle down my lads. She's very cute and I'm as much of a sucker for the brains + beauty combination as the next man, but...she wasn't even showing that much. Focus on the message. |
|
|
|
Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.
As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.
I hope you're trolling me because this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. But I'll bite anyway. Oil spill hurts the ecosystem, there's no doubt about that. NONE. Some species might temporarily benefit from the contamination, but the net effect is ALWAYS negative for the environment. All scientists not on oil-money agrees with this. And while I agree that oil is to be considered natural, but so is arsenic, yet both are bad in too high concentrations. To me the idea that oil spills are good for the economy feels like the Broken Window fallacy in a new form. Net loss, for sure. No, we are not special nor omnipotent, but to say that we affect the environment just as much as any other species is just plain dumb. We have a huge impact on our surroundings which we manipulate like no other species.
Agree. Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.
The market has absolutely no idea which species are valuable. It only know which ones are profitable.
The market isn't an entity that thinks and feels. It is not an acting individual. The market is a process of trades and interactions between acting individuals. To say that the market spares species may be technically correct but I feel that it leads to this idea that the market is a wise entity that somehow knows best. Yes it's true that privately owning species often leads to increases in their populations, especially if they have food value (chickens, cows), but through the market process individuals can also (and have) eradicated numerous species. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
