I had a nice lunch, so it was pretty super!

Oooh!  If your team is a 4-man team, be the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse! 

Critics of the new technology warned "Such a device should raise serious concerns abouuuuuu... uh... eh..."

For this thread, it seems like we should just make it a general rule that every statement of fact from anyone saying anything more than their forum name should have a specific source cited with the statement... this thread is starting to get delayed by the monotony of requesting sources.

You're all debating a question of science, and a very thoroughly debated one at that.  So... yes, citing specific sources should probably be the norm in this particular thread.

Oops. 

People in the Drafting forum have terrible memories.

However, the people in Community...

Translation: Moved!

Wait... did he just give legitimacy to the age-old mother's "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it" threat? 

The change was not by choice.  The original forums that allowed vice leaders to edit fam forums was susceptible to hacking, which eventually resulted in the old forum system being replaced entirely.  So it's not like the mods actively chose to eliminate that feature.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> Please show me where I claimed globalization has caused the unwillingness of people to kill for their country.

Okay.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "If I lived in US, I wouldn't enlist under the current gov. I'd probably lead the rebellion if things got worse."

I have noticed sentiment to be quite pervasive in many countries, in particular in those countries (like Belgium) where you would not expect to find much of it.  What is it about the system (a system which is becoming more or less the same from one country to another with the spread of globalization) that has resulted in the pervasive sentiment that the system is not a system worth killing to protect?

You very clearly state that opposition to defense of the current system is growing.  "I have noticed sentiment to be quite pervasive in many countries, in particular in those countries (like Belgium) where you would not expect to find much of it."

You also very clearly state that the cause of that increasing opposition is the current government systems in power.  Furthermore, you claim that these systems have been homogenized as a result of globalization.  "What is it about the system (a system which is becoming more or less the same from one country to another with the spread of globalization) that has resulted in the pervasive sentiment that the system is not a system worth killing to protect?"

If you weren't attempting to blame globalization for an increasing lack of support for established governments, then fine... we don't have much to argue about, then, and this simply served as an effort to clarify your stance.  Either way, whether or not it was your intent, the above statement could very clearly be interpreted to be an indictment of globalization as the cause of decreasing pro-government sentiment.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Are you suggesting that there being a cause for the prevalence of 'unwillingness to kill for one's country' is some sort of fallacy, Zarf?  Or simply that any analysis of any correlative evidence of a cause for the unwillingness-to-kill-for-one's-country sentiment is a futile endeavor?

I am saying, very simply, that just because two events correlate to one another (in this case, what you describe as individuals being increasingly unwilling to support their government and the expansion of globalization), it doesn't mean one of the events caused the other.  The two could be completely coincidental.  Causation could run the other way around (in that the increase in people desiring to avoid war has led to an increase in preference for international trade and globalization by reducing the political power behind the realist economic system).  Alternatively, a third variable could be the result of both factors.  Either way, this little observation is in no way a justification for any type of change in personal stance.

Plus, your whole stance is based on a flawed interpretation of the past (you are attempting to generalize 50+ years of individual's opinions across the world, yet only have a relatively small sample population from a small portion of time).  So yes... this would be impossible to actually test.

Yeah, there were 3 counting errors there... sooooooo... that means a little under 10% of the people supporting ending MW early can't count.