41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: November 06, 2017, 09:47:24 AM »

It was a white atheist ex military nut job.

Who, like so many previous terrorists had a history of domestic abuse...

42

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: November 03, 2017, 09:12:21 AM »

Oh Christ, EJ is back...

43

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen

« on: November 02, 2017, 04:43:13 PM »

Don't get me wrong, it's your money and if you're getting $350+ worth of entertainment from your ship, then all power to you. I just literally cannot fathom spending that amount of money on an in-game asset which you can lose the second that the servers are switched off.

Out of curiosity, how much have you actually spent on this game?

I don't see how something that disappears when the servers shut off is much different from, say, someone spending a lot of money on fancy dinners or drinks. Do you buy everything you have with the intent to have and use it forever?

As far as how much I've spent on the game goes, let's, uhh, not get into that.

No, but if I'm spending $350 on a dinner, it had better be the best damn dinner of my life. Also, with a dinner or drinks, you know in advance how long the benefits of those are and you accept that. If I buy something then I don't expect it to last forever, but I know roughly how long I expect it to work before it either breaks or I replace it. If I bought a new phone and it broke within a month of buying it I'd be banging down the door of the phone shop for either a replacement or a refund.

 Do you have any protection if the servers got switched off tomorrow? (honest question, not trying to point-score)

44

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen

« on: November 02, 2017, 11:57:42 AM »

Today I bought a Carrack, the king of exploration vessels, for the measly sum of 350 USD.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/carrack/Carrack

Wait, 350 real life dollars? For a spaceship in a videogame? Are you mad?

If 350 dollars is the "mad" zone then I must be insane beyond any known measurement.

Here's some videos that everyone should watch:

Don't get me wrong, it's your money and if you're getting $350+ worth of entertainment from your ship, then all power to you. I just literally cannot fathom spending that amount of money on an in-game asset which you can lose the second that the servers are switched off.

Out of curiosity, how much have you actually spent on this game?

45

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 30, 2017, 02:24:07 PM »

The memespiracy is real:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html

Or probably not, but maybe these two have been bad boys?

It does say it has nothing to do with campaign activities but it's certainly ammo for it.

"Trump hired crook and American traitor to help get him elected." is a wonderful headline, don't you think?

Only if you don't believe that the FBI is running a Clinton-led conspiracy against Trump and his team and that the courts aren't in the pockets of the vested dark interests keeping ordinary people like trump out of the Oval Office.

46

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen

« on: October 27, 2017, 12:35:00 PM »

Today I bought a Carrack, the king of exploration vessels, for the measly sum of 350 USD.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ships/carrack/Carrack

Wait, 350 real life dollars? For a spaceship in a videogame? Are you mad?

47

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 26, 2017, 10:16:42 AM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.5cb2c491e3dd

Oops.

Please please please don't run again in 2020, Hillary.  Give your party a chance.

Don't understand what HC has done wrong here? Presumably they got some intel that Trump had been up to shannanigans with the Russians so paid for some Opposition Research into it.

48

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: No Religion= Peace

« on: October 23, 2017, 01:38:20 PM »

, but I don't think there has ever been a time when there was no civil law, only religious laws.

What do you think about those certain middle eastern countries with Sharia law? People being publicly beheaded/thrown off buildings for "crimes" such as homosexuality or blasphemy? I agree that there may not have been a time previously that had only religious law and not civil but I think there is a case to argue that there is now

I refer the right honourable gentleman to my previous comment.

Government laws were often based on religious laws, and vice-versa, but I don't think there has ever been a time when there was no civil law, only religious laws.

In places like Saudi, civil law has largely been based on religious law, but it isn't a system of laws which is exclusively from a religious law, and the civil government, not the clergy (Mostly) enforces it.

49

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: No Religion= Peace

« on: October 23, 2017, 10:22:16 AM »

In my opinion, religion in the first place was to create peace and harmony in the society. Prior to the laws of the government, religious books acted as Codes for the society.  But over time as the world got connected, people started associating themselves with a particular religion and began fighting with people of other religions.
But as humans if we fail to keep peace and harmony then nothing can save us.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. One of the earliest forms of rules for people to follow comes from the Code of Hammurabi (1780 B.C.E) and is a law set by the government. Almost every king, emperor, sultan, and tsar issued decrees and had some form of civil justice.

Even most tribes have written or unwritten codes which list acceptable behaviour, usually set by the chief.

Government laws were often based on religious laws, and vice-versa, but I don't think there has ever been a time when there was no civil law, only religious laws.

50

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 16, 2017, 08:26:57 AM »

Sooo... Got this in my email...

Dave,

YOU have always been the core of this movement, and that’s why the President asked us to invite you to dinner.

One lucky winner will be flown to a terrific dinner with President Trump.
Just contribute at least $3 to be automatically entered to win.

Is this legal?  Like "pay us money and you can(maybe) meet the president"?  Cause that sounds super shady.

Why not? Politicians have been holding fundraising dinners at far more than $3 a table for years.

51

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: October 16, 2017, 08:24:50 AM »

The difference, again, being that "to go where and how he likes" is not a fundamental right.

In the early twentieth century, it was. Apart from military bases and the like, an Englishman would have expected to go wherever they liked however they liked. There are even ancient rights of way which give you the right to walk over another man's land, so long as people have been doing that walk for long enough.

I can agree with that.

Glad we could agree.

52

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: October 13, 2017, 08:18:20 AM »

This debate isn't as simple as adding some traffic tests or other measures. Owning weapons is a fundamental right in the United States, and is specifically stated to be so in a Constitutional amendment, while something like driving, as far as I know, is not considered to be a fundamental right in any nation.

It was when the laws were being debated in the early 20th century. There's a great quote from a Conservative MP who essentially said that any kind of traffic laws were a fundamental attack of an Englishman's right to go where and how he likes.

The key here is that after something like this happens, certain politicians move in to use the emotional capital to pass legislation that limits the rights of people. I see gun control as no different than, say, demanding all of your citizens wear a camera at all times to prevent crime. The price of removing rights is always higher than some little added security.

And I'd agree with you about not making people wear cameras, but if, following some horrific crime, a politician tried to use public anger and fear to push his 'All Cameras All the Time' policy, I would expect that people like you and I would argue the follies of that policy and debate it down. I would have little respect for the argument that even proposing the policy is in some way in poor taste.

As I said, I'm not taking a position on gun control or traffic regulation in this thread, I'm simply making the argument that trying to shut the debate down on etiquette grounds is really disingenuous.

53

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: October 12, 2017, 08:23:52 AM »

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.

Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.

Changes to the fundamental rights of a population based on emotional reactions to tragedies typically aren't the best kind of changes.

It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction. There are plenty of logical arguments based on statistics and probability on both sides of the debate, but they never get much attention beyond people who passionately care one way or the other until something like this happens. I'm not suggesting that we leave legislation to hysterical Helen Lovejoy-types, but when the national media has shone a spotlight on the subject, and there are people who are impassioned enough to lobby their legislators and turn up to protests, then politicians who want to make a positive change (whatever that looks like) should be free to make the most of this situation without being accused of being 'a shitty person'

The Road Traffic Act 1934 was brought into effect in the UK following mass public outcry over a record number of casualties on Britain's roads. It reintroduced a speed limit, made tests compulsory, and included a number of other clauses which still inform British driving legislation today. In fact, reading about the battles underlying the Act, it's easy to see the similarities with America's gun control debate:

On the side of motor car controls, the Pedestrians' Association argued that busy main routes were, roads of ‘blood and tears’ because of the number of accidents.

On the side against controls, a Conservative MP railed against the pleas about 7,000 people a year dying on the roads by saying: "'Why such concern over 7,000 road deaths a year? More than 6,000 people commit suicide every year, and nobody makes a fuss about that."

Change only comes when people have an emotional investment in making it, insisting that we never talk about gun control or changes to legislation following a mass-shooting out of 'decency' or 'taste' is really just an effort to shut down the debate entirely.

54

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another mass shooting...

« on: October 11, 2017, 03:18:15 PM »

The shooter was an old white guy.
I'm relieved.  Now a minority group can't be blamed.

If you do a search for "suicide bomber" you get a new incident almost every week. Also, you're a pretty shitty person for using this as political ammo.

Out of curiosity, why? When someone is hit and killed on a dangerous stretch of road, the family is usually one of the first people using the tragedy to try to improve the safety of that stretch of road. Following the 1968 Ronan Point gas explosion, building regulations were changed so that high-rise residential buildings could not have gas feeds. Following the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London, there has been a push to investigate all similar tower blocks for similar faults.

Why is using this, or any shooting, as an argument for a change in the law considered to be in 'bad taste'? Politicians aren't professional mourners, their job is to review the legislation to make people's lives better, if a mass-shooting gives the topic the attention and political drive to implement a change in the law to prevent future shootings, then they should take advantage of it. What that change looks like, or whether any change is needed is, of course, up for debate, but trying to shut down that debate out of some sort of bizarre fixation with 'taste' seems like a pretty shitty excuse to not do your job.

55

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: October 05, 2017, 08:30:31 AM »

I wa really not expecting to like Discovery, the trailers made it look awful, there has been a tonne of negative press about it, even rumours that it was already 'cancelled' before it was broadcast, but I've enjoyed it so far.

56

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 26, 2017, 09:21:43 AM »

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/25/553475174/declaration-of-war-means-north-korea-can-shoot-down-u-s-bombers-minister-says

So Trump unintentionally declared war on North Korea, according to North Korea, via Twitter.

I want everyone to think about that: A real war started on twitter.  On fucking twitter.

I'm sure people would have thought the same about the first war to be declared by telegram.

Ah, yes, a playground classic. "But Miss, he declared war on me first!"

...

But that is how wars are declared. One party feels adequately wronged and considers a country's actions to be an act of war.

"This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin, Nevile Henderson, handed the German Government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o'clock, that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, that a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany."

57

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched

« on: September 19, 2017, 10:55:15 AM »

IT

I loved the way this film made my feelings change  as I watched it. I've never seen the Tim Curry version, or read the book, so I was going into this fresh. Like the children I found myself more confused and creeped out than actually scared. As the plot built and It started deliberate building menace and fear, I found myself jumping and dreading what was likely to come next, then as It's weaknesses and vulnerabilities started showing through I started getting angry with the games It was playing. I started to see it less like a malevolent supernatural monster, and more of a petty bully, preying on weaker kids for its own amusement.
By the time of the finale, like the kids themselves, there was no longer any residual fear, and just a visceral loathing of Pennywise and all It's tricks.

Thoroughly enjoyed it.

58

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 13, 2017, 08:15:53 AM »

The bad thing to me is that it demonstrates a scary sense of entitlement. The media may lean Left, but its chief interest is money, and it makes money by being sensational and Hildog's email situation was certainly sensational. Her comments suggest that she thinks the media should have been on her side, when obviously the media should be objective and not favor anybody... and let's be honest, it really did favor her anyway. Obviously she feels it should have favored her even more.

I felt like that came out after the election too, when she made a comment that she guesses women can't be president after all (I can't remember the exact quote) as if she thought she was entitled to it because of her gender.

The other thing I get out of it is that at the same time she criticizes the Media for covering Trump too much, she complains about the negativity of the coverage it gave her... as if it was glowingly positive with all of its coverage about Trump.

She's every bit as stuck-up and egotistical as Trump, she refuses to accept that she lost because she ran a shitty, lazy campaign, and I wish she would just shut up.

It's a problem that the Centre-Left (adjusted for what 'left' and 'right' mean in their national contexts) globally. The Labour Party in Britain expects that all left-leaning voters should support them, leaving them free to court centre-right voters, then gets really annoyed that left-leaning voters want their party to lean left so vote instead for parties close to their views. Clinton seems to have that 'third Way' arrogance that everyone who votes to the left of the right-wing opposition belongs to them.

59

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Verses about "sky dome" in quran

« on: September 12, 2017, 03:03:09 PM »

Molten glass isn't impenetrable or solid. That's why it's molten.

60

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Verses about "sky dome" in quran

« on: September 11, 2017, 04:05:44 PM »

A molten looking glass isn't solid...