Log In
Name:
Pass:
Online Members (0)
No members are currently online.
Current Interguild Time:
Thu Mar 28 2024 10:31 am
Member Chat Box  [click here to enlarge]
Recent Posts and Comments
« Forum Index < Random Chat Forum
«Previous | 1, 2, 3, . . . 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 | Next»

jellsprout
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Friday, January 11 2013, 3:00 pm EST
Lord of Sprout Tower

Karma: -2147482799
Posts: 6445
Gender: Male
pm | email
As long as there are only two major parties, there will always be chaos. Neither party will dare agree with the other party for fear of losing voters. They will keep trying to demonize each other. Sabotage the other party's plans and then try to pin the blame on that other party for not keeping their promises. This debt crisis is the perfect example. The Democrats want to raise the taxes, the Republicans want to cut the spending. Instead of one side giving in or both sides coming to a compromise that includes both tax raises and heavy cuts, they stay stubborn and push their country even deeper in crisis.


Spoiler:
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Thursday, January 17 2013, 1:35 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
Darvince
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, January 23 2013, 1:38 am EST
sea level change

Age: 24
Karma: 107
Posts: 2043
Gender: Female
Location: The Nuclear Era
pm | email
I don't even know what to say.

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-koreas-and-marijuana-2013-1

Just, what the hell?


"Time is a circuit, not a line; cybernetics instantiates templexity."

FlashMarsh
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, January 26 2013, 11:35 am EST

Age: 25
Karma: 99
Posts: 2727
Gender: Male
Location: UK
pm | email
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, January 26 2013, 1:13 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
My initial though: Nobody calls the Sweden Democrats neo-fascist in Sweden, but IDK, it might be accurate. More comments later.
Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, January 26 2013, 1:25 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
Quote:
The Social Democrats’ ideological vision of folkhemmet (the people’s home)—an exclusively Swedish community that spanned all social classes—involved eugenics programs and oppression of the Romani and Sámi people; however, the bulwark of Swedish socialism largely kept the nationalists at bay until recent times.

This is an incredibly unfair description of "Folkhemmet". It makes it sound like those points were the main feature of folkhemmet, which it is not. The key concept is what they almost wrote - a community that contains all social classes.

The insults aren't the right ones either, but they work. Other than that, the article is decent and describes history mostly correctly.

  
Jorster
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, March 2 2013, 1:08 pm EST
mfw

Karma: 168
Posts: 2549
Gender: Male
Location: The Straight Guy's Garage
pm | email
Is this a valid case for same-sex marriage in the US?

1) If marriage is a religious institution defined by biblical principles then the government has no authority to establish marriage as the only legally recognized civil union. (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (1st Amendment)).

2) If the government is going to define marriage and thus the benefits thereof, such as tax rates, healthcare, survivor benefits, etc… then it cannot restrict those privileges to certain citizens (No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (14th Amendment)).

So, the government is bound by the constitution to either:

1) Butt out marriage entirely. Legally recognize the civil union of any two consenting adults and relegate marriage to a religious institution that individuals can enter into if they so choose. And religious groups, as is their freedom, can define marriage and restrict it to whomever they choose.

2) Lift the restrictions on marriage.


Isa
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, March 2 2013, 2:25 pm EST
No. I'm an octopus.

Age: 31
Karma: 686
Posts: 7833
Gender: Male
Location: Uppsala, Sweden - GMT +1
pm | email
I don't think it's a bad case for the US, given the existence of said amendments. Could you make a general case out of it that's not specific for the American constitution though?
snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Friday, May 31 2013, 11:09 pm EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
'Jorster' said:
Is this a valid case for same-sex marriage in the US?

1) If marriage is a religious institution defined by biblical principles then the government has no authority to establish marriage as the only legally recognized civil union. (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (1st Amendment)).

2) If the government is going to define marriage and thus the benefits thereof, such as tax rates, healthcare, survivor benefits, etc… then it cannot restrict those privileges to certain citizens (No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (14th Amendment)).

So, the government is bound by the constitution to either:

1) Butt out marriage entirely. Legally recognize the civil union of any two consenting adults and relegate marriage to a religious institution that individuals can enter into if they so choose. And religious groups, as is their freedom, can define marriage and restrict it to whomever they choose.

2) Lift the restrictions on marriage.

Sadly, no this isn't a good case. The 14th amendment prohibits states from taking away rights that are granted to citizens of the United States, i.e. rights that federal government grants. The federal government does not grant the right to marriage; states do. It's just a coincidence that every state does. For your argument to work, Congress would need to pass a law defining marriage, which is why it is fairly dumb for those who oppose gay marriage to attempt to pass laws defining marriage in Congress.

This is the same reason why it is legal for states to prohibit persons younger than 21 from buying or drinking alcohol. The federal government does not grant citizens the right to buy or consume things: states do. It's just a "coincidence" that every state does.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, September 4 2013, 6:41 pm EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
'Quirvy' said:
'yimmy7' said:
homeschooled people are smarter.
Let's get this out of the way right now: being homeschooled won't automatically make you smarter than someone who isn't. Just because you're homeschooled doesn't mean that you're will end up being any smarter than those of us who weren't. This is like saying "asian people are smarter than people of other races". I think it's funny that Sniper called flashmarsh out for making an over-generalization, but didn't acknowledge this one.

Technically, this isn't an over-generalization, but you're right that there's something fishy to it. In this case, it's an over-simplification. The statement "homeschooled people are smarter" is statistically correct (depending on what "smarter" means), but for the reasons jell points out, that is a misleading truth. Like so many other misleading truths, this one falls victim to the fact that correlation does not imply causation.
More to the point, I simply didn't read that, probably because I was skimming and missed it. Flash's was kinda out there in the open and easy to identify at a glance.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
shos
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, September 4 2013, 8:10 pm EST
~Jack of all trades~

Age: 31
Karma: 389
Posts: 8273
Gender: Male
Location: Israel
pm | email
...so...syria, anyone?


snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, September 4 2013, 8:23 pm EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
From a US perspective:
No one involved there is my friend, so I see no reason to help either side. If our enemies want to kill each other, why would we stop them?
Interfering with civil wars has not gone well in the past (Vietnam, Korea).
More problematic is that China and Russia are supporting Assad. If the US gets involved on the other side... WW3 may not be far behind. Combine that with the fact that we all have nuclear weapons, it looks to me that joining the war is a super bad idea.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
jellsprout
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Thursday, September 5 2013, 5:55 am EST
Lord of Sprout Tower

Karma: -2147482799
Posts: 6445
Gender: Male
pm | email
I am just confused what is so different about Syria from Libya. With Libya the US, England and France rushed over to dispose of the government with far less reason to, yet in Syria nobody wants to anymore. What's so different now?

And I laugh at everybody who thinks involvement in Syria is going to lead to WW III. Russia and China really don't care that much about it. Their only concern is that they are afraid international involvement in internal matters becomes standard, meaning the US and England will rush over as soon as civil war breaks out in their countries. So right now they are pushing as hard as they can to convince everyone not to get involved in another country's political problems. They have no reason to get involved in a war with the US at this point.


Spoiler:
shos
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Thursday, September 5 2013, 8:07 am EST
~Jack of all trades~

Age: 31
Karma: 389
Posts: 8273
Gender: Male
Location: Israel
pm | email
'snipereborn' said:
From a US perspective:
No one involved there is my friend, so I see no reason to help either side. If our enemies want to kill each other, why would we stop them?
+1
Quote:

Interfering with civil wars has not gone well in the past (Vietnam, Korea).
More problematic is that China and Russia are supporting Assad. If the US gets involved on the other side... WW3 may not be far behind. Combine that with the fact that we all have nuclear weapons, it looks to me that joining the war is a super bad idea.
I don't think it's going to this big of a war. I mean what, anyone would attack the US? not going to happen~

the reason they're going in is only because of the use of chemical weapons, which is against international law, so the rules they agreed on kinda force them to attack if there's proof :/

'jellsprout' said:
I am just confused what is so different about Syria from Libya. With Libya the US, England and France rushed over to dispose of the government with far less reason to, yet in Syria nobody wants to anymore. What's so different now?
it's closer to us!
Quote:

And I laugh at everybody who thinks involvement in Syria is going to lead to WW III. Russia and China really don't care that much about it. Their only concern is that they are afraid international involvement in internal matters becomes standard, meaning the US and England will rush over as soon as civil war breaks out in their countries. So right now they are pushing as hard as they can to convince everyone not to get involved in another country's political problems. They have no reason to get involved in a war with the US at this point.
+1


snipereborn
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Thursday, September 5 2013, 11:08 am EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
'jellsprout' said:
I am just confused what is so different about Syria from Libya. With Libya the US, England and France rushed over to dispose of the government with far less reason to, yet in Syria nobody wants to anymore. What's so different now?

For the record, I didn't like going into Libya, either.

Quote:
And I laugh at everybody who thinks involvement in Syria is going to lead to WW III. Russia and China really don't care that much about it. Their only concern is that they are afraid international involvement in internal matters becomes standard, meaning the US and England will rush over as soon as civil war breaks out in their countries. So right now they are pushing as hard as they can to convince everyone not to get involved in another country's political problems. They have no reason to get involved in a war with the US at this point.

Maybe. Then again, China has a pretty tight information block on its country, and the Russians are no strangers to secrecy, either. I'd worry less if it was just one or the other; Russia's been down that path before, and China would be committing economic suicide. But there's still that chance. Humanity narrowly avoided destroying itself once already, and I'm not one for tempting fate. All it takes is one charismatic, slightly insane leader and reason becomes irrelevant.

'shos' said:
I mean what, anyone would attack the US? not going to happen~

Attacking Israel is almost as stupid, but people do that all the time.

Quote:
the reason they're going in is only because of the use of chemical weapons, which is against international law, so the rules they agreed on kinda force them to attack if there's proof :/\

Speaking of reasons for doing things, this one makes no sense to me. Why would Assad sign his own death warrant on a few hundred civilians? Sure, I get the whole "Tyrants want to scare their people" bit, but it seems like a few bombers full of napalm would have been just as effective. Instead, he does the one thing he knows will invoke international wrath? What?!?!?!


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
jellsprout
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Thursday, September 5 2013, 11:14 am EST
Lord of Sprout Tower

Karma: -2147482799
Posts: 6445
Gender: Male
pm | email
'snipereborn' said:
Quote:
the reason they're going in is only because of the use of chemical weapons, which is against international law, so the rules they agreed on kinda force them to attack if there's proof :/\

Speaking of reasons for doing things, this one makes no sense to me. Why would Assad sign his own death warrant on a few hundred civilians? Sure, I get the whole "Tyrants want to scare their people" bit, but it seems like a few bombers full of napalm would have been just as effective. Instead, he does the one thing he knows will invoke international wrath? What?!?!?!


I have also been sceptical about this from the beginning. I don't understand why Assad would suddenly decide to break international treaties. He hasn't been worse off than before and he knows that many countries are just waiting for an excuse to invade. It won't surprise me if the attack has actually been from the rebels who want to get the attention of the international community.


Spoiler:
shos
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Friday, September 6 2013, 11:13 am EST
~Jack of all trades~

Age: 31
Karma: 389
Posts: 8273
Gender: Male
Location: Israel
pm | email
'jellsprout' said:
'snipereborn' said:
Quote:
the reason they're going in is only because of the use of chemical weapons, which is against international law, so the rules they agreed on kinda force them to attack if there's proof :/\

Speaking of reasons for doing things, this one makes no sense to me. Why would Assad sign his own death warrant on a few hundred civilians? Sure, I get the whole "Tyrants want to scare their people" bit, but it seems like a few bombers full of napalm would have been just as effective. Instead, he does the one thing he knows will invoke international wrath? What?!?!?!


I have also been sceptical about this from the beginning. I don't understand why Assad would suddenly decide to break international treaties. He hasn't been worse off than before and he knows that many countries are just waiting for an excuse to invade. It won't surprise me if the attack has actually been from the rebels who want to get the attention of the international community.
Putin himself said that too. Assad's stupidest move was probably what he did, it seems. we'll find out when they release the report to the media, if they do.

'snipereborn' said:

'shos' said:
I mean what, anyone would attack the US? not going to happen~

Attacking Israel is almost as stupid, but people do that all the time.
not quite; Israel is the enemy of half the world for some reason, and its army is moral so they hit back proportionally, which is stupid as well, so why not? the US, on the other hand, can practically do whatever they wish; a small task force of yours is like our entire army, so there's a tiny difference

anyway, Russia has sent some navy to pick up their people from the area of interest, so I'm guessing that they'll stay out once they do.


jellsprout
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Friday, September 6 2013, 1:02 pm EST
Lord of Sprout Tower

Karma: -2147482799
Posts: 6445
Gender: Male
pm | email
Shos, Israel is enemy only of Palestina and its allies in the Middle East. Most of North America and Europe are allies with Israel and everybody else is neutral. The Western countries are critical of Israel, not antagonistic.


Spoiler:
FlashMarsh
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Friday, September 6 2013, 1:13 pm EST

Age: 25
Karma: 99
Posts: 2727
Gender: Male
Location: UK
pm | email
Israel in general has a massive siege mentality and to be honest, I don't really blame them.
shos
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Saturday, September 7 2013, 3:04 pm EST
~Jack of all trades~

Age: 31
Karma: 389
Posts: 8273
Gender: Male
Location: Israel
pm | email
officially of course you are correct, but practically, the world deals with (and talks against, mostly) israel in a completely unproportional way, and that really doesn't make them allies. while you can say that states like the UK, netherlands, etc are ok, when you look practically, everyone hates us. take a look at surveys everywhere, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Israel#List_of_disinvestment_campaigns_and_product_boycotts

also, an interesting read. opening the survey itself is recommended btw.


Jorster
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, September 18 2013, 11:57 am EST
mfw

Karma: 168
Posts: 2549
Gender: Male
Location: The Straight Guy's Garage
pm | email
Anyone who is against stem cell research:
Why are you?


snipereborn
[?] Karma: +1 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, September 18 2013, 3:29 pm EST
Fact Squisher

Age: 31
Karma: 136
Posts: 1307
Gender: Male
Location: Arizona, United States
pm | email
'Jorster' said:
Anyone who is against stem cell research:
Why are you?

I oppose fetal stem cell research, but not stem cell research in general. Fortunately, there have been done very promising breakthroughs in adult stems cell research recently, so it has become pretty much a non-issue.


Everyone runs faster with a knife.
shos
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, July 9 2014, 6:01 pm EST
~Jack of all trades~

Age: 31
Karma: 389
Posts: 8273
Gender: Male
Location: Israel
pm | email
So guys!~
as usual, I'm interested in how we're being seen by the worldwide media. so how does your media treat our current war? as if we weren't stressed enough, lol.


Yaya
[?] Karma: 0 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, July 9 2014, 6:15 pm EST

Age: 28
Karma: 747
Posts: 5367
Location: Ohio (US)
pm | email
I don't watch news on the TV. On the sites I go to for news online, there haven't been any articles today, but there's been 2-3 in the past few days. Most mention rocket strikes and escalation. They try to remain objective, but it's pretty obvious most if not all are on Israel's side, or at least depict things from their point of view. That's probably not very specific, but it's online news, what do you expect?

Hope you and your family/friends are okay



COMING SOON: A giant meteor. Please.
Give me +karma. Give me +karma.
shos
[?] Karma: +1 | Quote - Link
Wednesday, July 9 2014, 7:22 pm EST
~Jack of all trades~

Age: 31
Karma: 389
Posts: 8273
Gender: Male
Location: Israel
pm | email
hah, good to hear.
The situation here is pretty much ok. falling missiles is daily routine here so this miniwar is just an increase of the frequency. from the news I search for, it seems the IDF manages to hit very, very accurately, with very few civilian casualties(~15 dead I think after 600 airstrikes), so we should be fine >__>' the rockets are annoying though, running to shelter becomes annoying when you have to do it many times. Iron Dome intercepts most missiles that are going to actually hit and not just miss, but the residue of the missiles still falls, so we've had at least three falls in my tiny town only(main street is only 2 km long lol). We hear MANY booms though, and we see them in the sky very often.

My boss lives in a more-often-hit town than me, so he doesn't come to work for a while now, and that sucks because working ithout your boss means less help in case of need, and I need, lol.

Today I was walking in my street back home from work, and there were two HUGE booms very nearby, we saw the intercepts in the sky very close to us. so I was gonna take a picture and my aunt started pulling me to the shelter yelling at me for being crazy lol
I'll try to take a pic and upload it here tomorrow



« Forum Index < Random Chat Forum
«Previous | 1, 2, 3, . . . 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 | Next»

In order to post in the forums, you must be logged into your account.
Click here to login.

© 2024 The Interguild | About & Links | Contact: [email protected]
All games copyrighted to their respective owners.