I like trains.
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
... Are you trolling, Justinian? X(
Not to mention... what conspiracy laden group would take the time to ensure so many similarities existed... before committing the assassination? Remember, the group has absolutely no knowledge of Kennedy's existence at the time Lincoln was assassinated, so they would have had to kill Lincoln, and wait for a President to show up with perfectly analogous similarities to kill later...
Unless...
Time traveling assassins from the future!
Closed-Trolling
... Is that seriously an argument? I'll respond if it is, but if you're just trolling, cut it the hell out... because it definitely sounds like trolling.
The Great Eye wrote:Altruist wrote:One argument that usually is always mentioned hasn't been posted so far: not guns kill, people do. Which leads to the question: Why do they kill?
So what do gun supporters think why Canada and Switzerland haven't got the same gun related problems like the US?
Actually, Switzerland brings a very interesting question. Yes, Switzerland has gun rights to pretty much all citizens. Additionally, Switzerland has near-mandatory military service... so although these people all have guns... they're also trained and disciplined in a way that the average gun owner would not be.
Are you actually empowering the "americans are dumb" argument?
"Not given military training with a firearm" doesn't equate to "dumb." Reading way too much into someone's argument to justify a generalized personal attack against a group of people, though? That equates! ![]()
That guy needs so many estorms that the estorm insurance industry pretty much collapses overnight.
One argument that usually is always mentioned hasn't been posted so far: not guns kill, people do. Which leads to the question: Why do they kill?
So what do gun supporters think why Canada and Switzerland haven't got the same gun related problems like the US?
Actually, Switzerland brings a very interesting question. Yes, Switzerland has gun rights to pretty much all citizens. Additionally, Switzerland has near-mandatory military service... so although these people all have guns... they're also trained and disciplined in a way that the average gun owner would not be.
I'm just going to summarize everything and say "Come up with a better rule."
When you post a blanket statement, then every response is "Well, I don't want to exclude X, but I want to exclude Y," and given the wording if your statement, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to understand your statement as including X, the problem is with the way you're phrasing your rule. Hell, everyone in this thread may be 100% on the same page in terms of what they believe, but are being screwed up by bad definitions of advocacy. ![]()
The Great Eye wrote:So... you are no longer advocating the prohibition of people from using religious arguments in a political context? Cause that was very clearly a statement you advocated in your 2nd post (the one where you clarified your opinion).
I guess that's fine, provided it's not hate speech. However, no legislation would be passed unless:
1. The law served a public interest and did not violate anyone's civil rights.
2. The arguments for (1) were supported by scientific evidence.
You do realize that is a WAY higher standard than any current legal requirement for legislation, secular or otherwise? Hell... what piece of legislation DOESN'T interfere with civil rights, considering that the US recognizes such rights as the right to property?
So... you are no longer advocating the prohibition of people from using religious arguments in a political context? Cause that was very clearly a statement you advocated in your 2nd post (the one where you clarified your opinion).
wiwi: 7: (Nolio, Oxygen, Humidity, Arby3, Killas, TBO, Ramza)
Arby3: 4: (Valcona, Skyroshroud, wiwi, EvilRunt)
Nolio: 2: (Melvin, Torqez)
Killas: 1: (Rchie)
EvilRunt: 1: (Hc4E)
Still to vote: Zarf_BeebleBrix
All was looking bleak in Kokiri. It had only been 2 days, and now not only was their hero Link gone, but now the beloved princess Zelda had also been killed. The only one that seemed to be enjoying himself was Zarf_Beeblebrix. He had amassed quite the collection of goodies from all the victims. Shaking the water off, he walked over to his heavy bag of masks and odd potions and added the heavy boots he had just fished off Link. He shouldered his pack and climbed up to the roof overlooking the scene in town.
All trust in the town had been lost. People were staying in their homes with the doors locked and windows shuttered, doing their best to keep an eye on all the Cuccos. Everyone was locked away, except for dpenguins, who was still laying in the middle of down covered in his own piss. No one was quite sure if he was still alive or not, and nobody was willing to walk out and check.
Finally, EvilRunt walked out of his house and started yelling that somebody had to die. He went from door to door collecting opinions, and as he went a mob began to form. They came to wiwi's door, and knew that they were the one that had to die today. Dragging them screaming and clawing to the middle of town, they strapped as many bombs as they could do him/her, and ran for cover. Zarf giggled from his roof, as wiwi was blown to smithereens.
wiwi the Townie is now dead
*******************************************************************************************
It is now Night Phase, you have until 14:00 GMT to send in night activities.
Count so far:
wiwi: 7: (Nolio, Oxygen, Humidity, Arby3, Killas, TBO, EvilRunt)
Arby3: 5 (Valcona, Skyroshroud, HC4E, wiwi, Ramza)
Nolio: 2 (Melvin, Torqez)
Killas: 1: (Rchie)
Please google "Kessler Syndrome" before ever proposing that again.
Korea: China walked in first. No need to step in and defend your friend when your southern neighbor can be your meat shield.
Egypt in Yom Kippur war: Small shit, relatively speaking.
Serbia: Yeltsin Administration. Yeltsin was a much closer ally of the West than Putin.
Libya: Now this one's interesting. See, one of Russia's major interests in Syria is the fact that Russia can have access to a Mediterranean Sea port. In the case of Libya, Russia could have easily said "ah, screw it. We still have Syria." Well... now Syria's up for grabs, and this time, there's not as simple an "eh, it's alright, we still have ______" as there was during Libya.
"Um... George... why does your presidential library have a pornography section?!?"
Three words:
Mutually
Assured
Destruction.
Okay, let me explain that:
Russia can't exactly ditch an ally and let them die. Russia is trying to amass allies for its own protection, similar to how the US has aligned itself with Europe as a mutual defense cooperative. In the case of states like Syria, they provide small satellites to expand Russian influence, particularly in naval force projection. Syria is kind of important to the Russians, then.
More importantly, the domino theory in diplomatic relations still applies. If Russia were to sit back and let the rebels overtake Syria, existing Russian allies would lose confidence in the fact that Russia would assist them if needed. So Russia would look like a pretty bad ally in their eyes, and they'd be more inclined to seek alternative alliances (i.e., US/Europe, or anyone but Russia). Russia can't have that.
Yes, we would probably curbstomp Russia if they thought to militarily intervene. The Russians know that. The US knows that. However, if Russia did decide to intervene and defend its ally, the country has one, and only one, choice which would allow them to even the battlefield: tactical nuclear weapons targeted at forces in Syria. That is a level of military escalation nobody wants to go into, but in the case of Russia, they may perceive that they have as much to lose by losing their credibility as an ally as they do from looking batshit crazy for using a tactical nuclear weapon.
Back on topic, I don't think the US would go so far as to send ground troops into Syria. Rather, the same tactics used in Libya could easily be applied here (the establishment of a no-fly zone, and perhaps some bombings against military targets and installations). I'd also assume any operation would include an increase in military assistance to Syrian rebels.
That being said... there's still one unaddressed issue here: Russia. When the reports of chemical weapons use started spreading, Russia was one of the first to accuse the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons. They've been a strong supporter of Syria during the whole conflict. It's very possible that even if Obama drew the red line in the sand and Syria crossed that line, Russia will say no. And Russia's not exactly a nation which will sit back idly and watch a member of its sphere of influence fall due to US intervention without pushing back.
The UN didn't confirm crap. It was a US report. ![]()
The Great Eye wrote:Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way... noting there is no unique distinction between religious-based bullshit arguments and non-religious bullshit arguments... what's to prevent anyone legislating to prohibit religious-based bullshit from extending to non-religious bullshit when the exact same justification for prohibiting one can be used to prohibit the other?
Your connection between freedom from religion and freedom from non-religious bull shit isn't going to work. If it were, the freedom to exercise one's own religion would apply to freedom to exercise one's non-religious bull shit. Is society obligated to accommodate some nut who wants to exercise their bullshit justification for why they ought to disrupt a company's production so they can have sex at 1:30pm? No. We privilege a Muslim's untestable reason to pray 5 times a day with accommodation at work, but we don't for the 1:30 ers.
Okay... wait... what's with the strawman argument? Your OP was clearly about prohibiting the religious expression entirely. In particular, my discussion was directed at your second post, which directly attacked religious argumentation in a political context. I thought that was pretty damn obvious. Stopping work to pray 5 times a day is completely unrelated to the political context argument, which my line of argumentation was clearly based upon.
The Great Eye wrote:Again... how does that distinguish that from other dumb arguments with no root in religion? The fact that someone can look directly at evidence and deny it? Yeah, that's nothing special.
In the way you want, there isn't one.
Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way... noting there is no unique distinction between religious-based bullshit arguments and non-religious bullshit arguments... what's to prevent anyone legislating to prohibit religious-based bullshit from extending to non-religious bullshit when the exact same justification for prohibiting one can be used to prohibit the other?
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.