Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Lord Dave

Pages: < Back  1 ... 289 290 [291] 292 293 ... 354  Next >
5801
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Aliens
« on: October 31, 2015, 08:37:14 AM »
Because humanity can't handle itself.  Imagine trying to accept an entirely new, sentient species.

This is a sci-fi axiom that I've never accepted. The stock market would crash because people would stop trading and all be glued to TVs, but then, a few days later, everyone would go back to work because they need to make money to survive.

I've never understood the logical leap from "Intelligent aliens exist," to "It's time to loot everything and murder everyone!"


No, more like "What are they?  Are they already here?  My neighbor Bob is weird, he could be an alien!"
Paranoia and protests would dominate and society would try to calm fears by various methods (depending on region).  In the end, I think we'd end up going to war with each other out of fear for our own dominance.

5802
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: LGBTQIAA
« on: October 30, 2015, 11:14:40 AM »
Buggery was also illegal. Now its fine. The laws seem to be at the mercy of the weirdos in charge of deciding what is and isn't ok.

Why on earth should anal intercourse be illegal?  If it isn't your thing, don't do it. Simple as that. 
Buggery laws were introduced in the 1533 in order to curb the syphilis problem spreading throughout Europe. It was a disease brought back from the new world native Americans and it was rampant. Even back then, most people knew anal 'sex' spreads disease must easier than proper sex. So it was outlawed as a public health measure. I have posted stats on this before. Stats from the ONS that show you are 10 times more likely to get HIV from buggery with a condom than you are from regular sex without as a woman. The arse is a giant sponge to recycle nutrients and is particularly prone to disease. It also rips and tears in a way a vagina won't. So whilst you 'fail to see' because you live in la la dream world where any kind of sexual deviance should be praised so you can indulge in it happily, the fact is, it is and always has been a public health menace.

This is the reason African countries are so reluctant to legalise homosexuality. They are worried about a new resurgence in the AIDS epidemic. And then you have an idiot like Obama who doesn't give two craps about the lives of African people saying those countries are violating human rights just so he can bully them into anti-competitive trade deals and one-sided sanctions.
I thought you were anti-homo?
Why wouldn't you want all gays to get sick and die?

5803
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Aliens
« on: October 29, 2015, 11:46:03 PM »
So you don't think life exists outside this planet?

Planet? Certainly you mean the great disc?

Also, no, I don't.
I hope you're wrong.  But if you aren't, the good news is I'll never know for sure.

5804
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Aliens
« on: October 29, 2015, 08:43:12 PM »
Probably not, but one day someone will say that and be wrong.

No, they won't.
So you don't think life exists outside this planet?




It's not aliens.


Probably not, but one day someone will say that and be wrong.


And that will be a very crappy day for humanity.

Why would it be a crappy day? I think finding evidence of aliens for the first time would be a really good day.
Because humanity can't handle itself.  Imagine trying to accept an entirely new, sentient species.

5805
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Aliens
« on: October 29, 2015, 06:59:05 AM »
It's not aliens.


Probably not, but one day someone will say that and be wrong.


And that will be a very crappy day for humanity.

5806
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Aliens
« on: October 28, 2015, 12:55:54 PM »
If it really is an alien megastructure, then that would raise two possibilities:

1) The aliens are so advanced that building something like this isn't a huge task on their resources - in which case - what would it possibly be for?

2) The aliens are less advanced and this was a colossal engineering endeavour which must have used much of the resources in their solar system. This raises the question of what could it give the society which couldn't be gathered through less extravagant means?
The article says if it's a Dyson sphere (solar panels encircling the star) it would most likely be to harvest the energy.

So the better question would be, why do they need that much energy?
Same reason we need more energy now than in 1915.  And if electric cars take off, we'll need more still.

5807
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Aliens
« on: October 28, 2015, 09:53:11 AM »
If it really is an alien megastructure, then that would raise two possibilities:

1) The aliens are so advanced that building something like this isn't a huge task on their resources - in which case - what would it possibly be for?

2) The aliens are less advanced and this was a colossal engineering endeavour which must have used much of the resources in their solar system. This raises the question of what could it give the society which couldn't be gathered through less extravagant means?
Humans do weird shit too.  Might be a "Because we can" moment.

5808
Arts & Entertainment / Re: First Look at Ben Affleck's Batman
« on: October 28, 2015, 09:16:14 AM »
Saddam is confused by punk/gang/goth culture.


And yes, sucky. It's like they decided "Evil is tattoos, pimps, and goth strippers.

5809
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Benghazi and You
« on: October 28, 2015, 06:27:02 AM »
But why do you think the decision was faulty?  Because the embassy was attacked by an overwhelming force?

An Embassy doesn't request additional security because the wind blew the wrong direction and the Ambassador got a chill.
And you know this, how?


While I agree that it is unlikely about the wind, I suspect that the people running said embassy are not security experts.  Administrators and diplomats, but not security.


And it's reasonable to think that they could get scared.  Maybe for a good reason, maybe not.  Maybe they just cried wolf too much?  Whatever their reason, it wasn't credible enough to get an increase in security.

5810
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Benghazi and You
« on: October 27, 2015, 07:39:51 PM »
I am.
To me, passing judgement means that you can say if a decision was good/correct/the best that could be given with the information provided.

I don't pass judgement on people. Which is why I specifically mentioned "anyone" in my original statement. The decision was faulty, the person making it might not necessarily have been likewise.
But why do you think the decision was faulty?  Because the embassy was attacked by an overwhelming force?

5811
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Benghazi and You
« on: October 27, 2015, 06:37:14 PM »
Says the person who doesn't have the information to pass judgement on anyone in a government position.

Do you not know what it means to pass judgement? I have a strong feeling you're not actually interested in a discussion.
I am.
To me, passing judgement means that you can say if a decision was good/correct/the best that could be given with the information provided.


If you'd like to put forth your definition, then we can end this debate.

5812
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Benghazi and You
« on: October 27, 2015, 03:29:34 PM »
And hasn't the investigations shown no wrong doing?

The investigation has shown someone was denying security to an area known to be on the verge of violence. The embassy should have been evacuated if security wasn't available.
Says the person who doesn't have the information to pass judgement on anyone in a government position.



Quote
So then, if neither of us has the info to pass judgement and the people who do have said nothing wrong occurred, then why do you care about denied them?  They must have had a valid reason if no wrong doings were discovered.

They thought they had a valid reason, yes. However, 'budget concerns' is not a valid reason leading to death.

It's enough of a reason to go to war.  And since money is finite, it can be a valid reason if it would otherwise compromise other, higher value assets and more lives.

5813
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Benghazi and You
« on: October 27, 2015, 02:57:45 PM »
So tell me, in your opinion and with hindsight, how much security would have been required for this to have been non-political?  For you to not question the judgement of whoever is in charge of security?

That's for the investigators to decide, not me. Neither of us actually have access to the information required to pass judgement on anyone in any government position.
And hasn't the investigations shown no wrong doing?
So then, if neither of us has the info to pass judgement and the people who do have said nothing wrong occurred, then why do you care about denied them?  They must have had a valid reason if no wrong doings were discovered.

5814
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Benghazi and You
« on: October 27, 2015, 07:59:00 AM »
4 American diplomats in a dangerous country are killed and everyone goes ape shit about security.
X non-diplolat Americans die and no one gives a fuck. (Where x is a number from 1 to 100,000)


Seriously, what is the big deal?  Yes they died but this is no different than any other dangerous assignment where people die due to lack of something.




"Cop died due to lack of backup"
"Soldier died because airstrikes weren't authorized"
"Gang members gunned down from rival gang because they didn't have their guns with them."
"Teens die because they were drinking."


Sucks for their families but oh well.  If you can't accept the threat of death, don't go to a war zone full of people who hate you.

That's a pretty nice strawman you've built. The classic "lol people die every day, why care about these four people?" These people were in an embassy that was repeatedly requesting more security. It disturbs me that you don't care to ask why they were denied. I don't know if Clinton had a strict hand in it, but I do care to know who did.

As you said, they repeatedly asked for more security.  The US army is both finite and has a lot of mercenaries.  At what point does someone say "Ok, that's enough."?


Was it enough?  Depends on your point of view.  How credible was the threat?  How large was the threat?  Was there a specific threat or just a general " People hate us" feeling?  If you look at every time a stronghold or fortified location is attacked with casualties or damage, security wasn't enough.  Or do we say "acceptable losses"?  To me, 4 people dying from an attack of over 100 coordinated and armed attackers is pretty damn good.  And if it was a high value target, I'd say otherwise, but it was an embassy.  Even if everyone inside died, military operations would not be significantly compromised.


So tell me, in your opinion and with hindsight, how much security would have been required for this to have been non-political?  For you to not question the judgement of whoever is in charge of security?

5815
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Benghazi and You
« on: October 24, 2015, 05:34:21 PM »
4 American diplomats in a dangerous country are killed and everyone goes ape shit about security.
X non-diplolat Americans die and no one gives a fuck. (Where x is a number from 1 to 100,000)


Seriously, what is the big deal?  Yes they died but this is no different than any other dangerous assignment where people die due to lack of something.




"Cop died due to lack of backup"
"Soldier died because airstrikes weren't authorized"
"Gang members gunned down from rival gang because they didn't have their guns with them."
"Teens die because they were drinking."


Sucks for their families but oh well.  If you can't accept the threat of death, don't go to a war zone full of people who hate you.

5816
As SexWarrior has mentioned, the ignore function would solve all the problems instantly.


If you don't want to scroll, put him in ignore.


Done.

5817
A warning first was the thing to do, in my opinion.  While I agree that stopping the posts immediately was a concern, there are other methods.  Not sure how much power mods have, but can they set group permissions?  Like, make pergatoy non-posting anywhere, just for an hour?  Or lock posting in CN?  Just enough to stop the behavior until the warning is visible?

5818
[...]nothing he posts is informative, worthy of debate or the slightest bit amusing[...]

So his posts are like everything else in CN. w0w better ban everyone who posts there then

No, nobody else deliberately made posts so enormous that they crashed people's browsers.
But did he do it to crash browsers?  Or was that just an unintentional side effect?

5819
There wasn't one single other person that engaged and enjoyed seeing those posts in CN. It was just one individual using the forum in an anti-social way. The purpose of the rules is to provide protection to the enjoyment of all, from those who abuse the forum. Doesn't really matter if it is in CN. That is just exploiting the relaxed nature of that particular section.

We have a 'don't be a dick' rule ... persistent spamming of a popular part of it is being a dick.
Yes but you had to click the thread to see the posts.


While it may have been excessive, I think a warning of "Ok, enough for now" would suffice.


Maybe a limit of 5 CN topics per user per day?

5820
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: TFES.org is dying
« on: October 21, 2015, 09:42:26 AM »
I don't know what the solution is, I'm just pointing out a potentially fatal problem. Perhaps there are people who've dealt with this kind of issue before who can solve it.
I've dealt with this issue before. 


The solution is quite simple:


There is none. 




Let the site die.  All things die, web forums are no exception.  I've mostly moved on to my rp group's site. 

Pages: < Back  1 ... 289 290 [291] 292 293 ... 354  Next >