TheGreatEmperor TheGreatEmperor

The Topic Thread

▼

The Topic Thread

a place of discussion

from Sins Forums
K, now I dont know how big of crowd this will bring in, maybe in the end it will be just me and Schem argueing.

B
u
t

I have decided that in the recent lack of random discussion threads(that dont concern Sins) it became my responsibility as a member of the Sentient Objects Committee for the Spreading of Intelligence Thoughts and Other Random Mental Occurances to start one(yes I know it is a run-on sentance).

So heres the basic outline. Someone picks a topic to discuss(anything as long as it has some semblacne of intelligent output). Topic is discussed, then someone picks another topic, topic is discussed. The cycle continues and if no one decides to be a chauvanist, troll, imbecile, or just plain annoying then everyone is happy and hopefully more intelligent.

So may we begin with the topic of...
off-topic
165,351 views 89 replies
Reply #51 from Sins Forums Top

people wouldnt object in times of crisis.


Wanna bet? Sure, it'd probably end up passing, but plenty of people would end up objecting.
Reply #52 from Sins Forums Top

Wanna bet? Sure, it'd probably end up passing, but plenty of people would end up objecting.

I doubt it, thats why you dont see people in desperate countries crying out for civil rights, all they want is protection and food. I've got mounds of historical evidence to back up my claim, wheres yours?
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #53 from Sins Forums Top
I've got mounds of historical evidence to back up my claim, wheres yours?


The fact that someone, somewhere, will complain about anything, even if its giving him a free lunch. My evidence: human nature

I'm not saying a significant number of people would object, but I betcha at least a few nut jobs will be around to make sure everyone knows someone who's objecting.

Besides, the freeze on the stock market would have to go into effect before our economy got shattered, so you won't have very many people starving in the streets (or otherwise desperate) when the freeze goes in.
Reply #54 from Sins Forums Top


Wanna bet? Sure, it'd probably end up passing, but plenty of people would end up objecting.

I doubt it, thats why you dont see people in desperate countries crying out for civil rights, all they want is protection and food. I've got mounds of historical evidence to back up my claim, wheres yours?


People will rise up. Warsaw Getto uprising, 1933 bonuus march, Atlanta bus boycott, NYC draft riot, Pennsylvainia whisky rebellion and many more.

people will compalain and will rise up. It might take a little time but they will!
Reply #55 from Sins Forums Top
although in the end your point is invalid as action would be taken to counteract such a collapse. such as, persay, freezing the stockmarket.


The government would never be allowed to do this. Only Congress has such commercial power and seeing as it is made up of the wealthy who have a lot riding on such a stock crash and gain would be caught at a stand still of arguements.


umm, sorry but there is already a law that shuts down the stock market if it plunges more than 500 points.. and I remember it being used in the 80's... more than once!
Reply #56 from Sins Forums Top
[quote]
ICBM missile at 16,000 m.p.h
who knows why they did it, but also who knows what the IBMS missile where intended to do..

you shame yourself multianna, thats talking about theoretical anti-nukes. theoretical being one of the key words, anti- being the other.
god, 1956, thats before sputnik!... ICBMs were not that powerful back then.

eerr guys... the first icbm was the atlas and was deployed in 1962, it had problems and was replaced in short order by the Minuteman in very short order.
Reply #57 from Sins Forums Top
The fact that someone, somewhere, will complain about anything, even if its giving him a free lunch. My evidence: human nature

well DUH, but thats not "plenty" of people.
I'm not saying a significant number of people would object

yes you did.
Besides, the freeze on the stock market would have to go into effect before our economy got shattered, so you won't have very many people starving in the streets (or otherwise desperate) when the freeze goes in

if bush was psychic... but somehow I doubt...

anyway when these things become apparent (this catastrophic crashes) people ARE in the street, and other people are on the way.
People will rise up. Warsaw Getto uprising, 1933 bonuus march, Atlanta bus boycott, NYC draft riot, Pennsylvainia whisky rebellion and many more.

again, dont use America as a comparison, the reason being that even our worse are better off than everyone else.
thats not a law, but a general rule.
umm, sorry but there is already a law that shuts down the stock market if it plunges more than 500 points.. and I remember it being used in the 80's... more than once!

well... that simplifies things a bit, doesnt it?
eerr guys... the first icbm was the atlas and was deployed in 1962, it had problems and was replaced in short order by the Minuteman in very short order

that doesnt prove very much. whats the point?
all it does is add to the evidence I've mounted that they're talking theoretically (like people saying "we'll have mars in 50 years")

also: you're not counting the R-7 of the U.S.S.R. it launched sputnik, remember?

and besides "not so powerful" still counts for failed flying candlesticks.
Reply #58 from Sins Forums Top

well DUH, but thats not "plenty" of people.


Depends on how you define "plenty", I suppose.


yes you did.


Read above and replace with "significant"...
Reply #59 from Sins Forums Top
Plenty
Significant

none of any of these definitions fits with "few" "sparing ammounts" "the vastly minute number of" etc.
Reply #60 from Sins Forums Top
Abundant (as in plenty) -- for our purposes -- is merely enough to make the news. Which does not have to be a significant number of people, compared to the total US population
Reply #61 from Sins Forums Top
ok, no. you're twisting the words.

not to mention you absolutely contradict yourself.
Reply #62 from Sins Forums Top
ok, no. you're twisting the words.


Well duh, I have to make them fit my meaning


not to mention you absolutely contradict yourself.


How so?
Reply #63 from Sins Forums Top
people wouldnt object in times of crisis.


That would be a preversion of Democracy, who is to say all rights would be returned afterwords. Whos to say thats where it will end, the president has enough power to be the most influencial figure in the world, and I for one dont want to give him/her the power to control economies directly.

I repeat: the companies would be dead because the customers would be gone. nobody benefits from such a crash, even when the money is concentrated.


Not necessarily, if its a company that provides necessities then it would be brought back as fast as it went down, the thing is it would be under complete new control.

umm, sorry but there is already a law that shuts down the stock market if it plunges more than 500 points.. and I remember it being used in the 80's... more than once!


Yes, but laws have been aproved by Congress and therefore are completely in bounds of the consititution. I was speaking of Presidential actions.

Well duh, I have to make them fit my meaning


See Schem, that supports my earlier arguement about hierarchies and the ablity to bend words to your meaning. I win

Reply #64 from Sins Forums Top
what earlier arguement?
Yes, but laws have been aproved by Congress and therefore are completely in bounds of the consititution. I was speaking of Presidential actions.

wait, you're the one who said nobody could sieze up the crash legally, you turncoat.
Not necessarily, if its a company that provides necessities then it would be brought back as fast as it went down, the thing is it would be under complete new control.
what necessities do you gain from being POOR?
either way it doesnt matter because inflation would still ruin profits.
That would be a preversion of Democracy, who is to say all rights would be returned afterwords

I didnt say it wasnt, look at the New Deal, before that people would never have consented to the outrageous taxes we have to pay and the corrupt unwieldy monstrosity of a government it supports, but thats what happens...
How so?

abundant would implies a significant amount of people
Reply #65 from Sins Forums Top
abundant would implies a significant amount of people


Not to me it doesn't! Abundant would mean a personally significant amount of people (e. g. my high school's worth) but not a nationally significant amount. I don't know about you, but there is a huge gap between those two concepts for me -- I recognize it on an emotional as well as emotional level.
Reply #66 from Sins Forums Top
now your schisming your own arguement because you're using the word twice over in two different contexts.
Reply #67 from Sins Forums Top

now your schisming your own arguement because you're using the word twice over in two different contexts.


Which goes to show you don't understand what I'm saying, at all.

I recognize it on an emotional as well as emotional level.



O.o interesting typo -- meant emotional as well as intellectual.
Reply #68 from Sins Forums Top
Which goes to show you don't understand what I'm saying, at all.

obviously YOU dont understand how you're using the word!

your using it as "abundant" in respect to media, which is fine.
but then you're defining it as "not abundant" with respect to teh country.



DUH



but the thing is it causes the breakdown in your arguement as you cannot connect the two with any agreed upon form of logic. a =/= c.
Reply #69 from Sins Forums Top
your using it as "abundant" in respect to media, which is fine.
but then you're defining it as "not abundant" with respect to the country.


Which are two totally different concepts, with two totally different scales. Equally "duh" worthy.
Reply #70 from Sins Forums Top
but by defining them seperately you are not referencing the same context, and therefore your statment fails.
Reply #71 from Sins Forums Top
Do you believe in UFO's/Alien visiting Earth?

Depends on your definition. We might be aliens of a sort. Do I believe in alien space craft landing in the 1950s? No that strike me as pure fantasy.

Do you think there was a UFO crash in Roswell (area 51)?

I find it very unlikely that an alien space craft would just "happen" to crash land right next to a top secret US weapons test site. The planet is a big place... and there are only a few tiny areas of that kind of significance.


So while possible, it's like expecting me to believe that not only did aliens land but the US government won an improbably vast lottery at the same time. Just take the odds of an alien landing at that specific time and then multiply it by the odds that an alien would land right there. That gives you a rough idea at how improbable the whole thing is... I think I'm probably more likely to turn into raccoon and eat your socks... just spontaneously...
If so, why do you think the government is hiding it?

There are more reasons to reveal it then not... and our government is HORRIBLE at keeping secrets. But if they did decide to keep a secret like that, the only plausable reason I can think of is that they wanted to horde the technology to use against the Russians. This was the cold war after all.
Reply #72 from Sins Forums Top

but by defining them seperately you are not referencing the same context, and therefore your statment fails.


The words are defined the same, its just that their meaning is inevitably context related.
Reply #73 from Sins Forums Top
and hence your statement


FAILS!






Karmashock

like, oh my god! are you who I think you are?
Reply #74 from Sins Forums Top
You two lovebirds make me need a nap.
Reply #75 from Sins Forums Top
You two lovebirds make me need a nap.


excuse me, what are you talking about? I seem to have dozed off while reading.