Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Nin
« on: June 14, 2009, 07:14:08 pm »

The main thing I see wrong with always springing to the rescue is that the naturally forward-thinking don't stay alive when they should be. If people want to be stupid and bellicose, it is their Fate to die alone.

While I agree with your previous statement, this is my absolute biggest concern.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 13, 2009, 07:55:35 pm »

The main thing I see wrong with always springing to the rescue is that the naturally forwardthinking don't get rewarded when they should be. If people want to be stupid and bellicose, it is their Fate to die.
Posted by: Nin
« on: June 06, 2009, 11:44:12 pm »

They wouldn't allow it in this society, but I would make the incentives a test of qualities and pay incentive for the genetically superior to mate and the non to be sterilized. Right now, the "incentive" is just a desperate attempt to keep everyone alive.

Quote
legalized abortion
This will make little difference. We've already seen that people now are getting tons of abortions, it's not enough. I suppose it may help, but drops in the bucket.

Quote
contraception
We have that now, and it puts responsibility on the parents, with a majority not giving a **** about overpopulation, this is, again, a drop in the bucket.

Quote
increased carrying capacity due to infrastructure modernization
It will be an endless struggle, the rate in which overpopulation is going is increasing, meaning, with the methods already mentioned, we would constantly have to upgrade at an increasing rate.

Quote
space colonization
Which, for the reason stated above, would become harder and harder. Eventually more and more money will be put into this and eventually it will become so expensive we wont be able to do it.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 06, 2009, 07:27:11 pm »

I'd prefer a controlled program of economic incentives and birth control to allowing war and death to just happen whenever fate deems it appropriate.
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 06, 2009, 06:21:11 pm »

legalized abortion, contraception, increased carrying capacity due to infrastructure modernization, and space colonization.

Those things won't stop irresponsibles from breeding. Sooner or later nature must take its course.

War and death is that course. It's not our business to stop it.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 06, 2009, 09:38:54 am »

legalized abortion, contraception, increased carrying capacity due to infrastructure modernization, and space colonization.
Posted by: Nin
« on: June 06, 2009, 01:18:25 am »

Gaius, how do you plan to solve overpopulation if you save every person doomed to die?
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: June 05, 2009, 10:17:46 pm »

And my plan which would offer help in exchange for a proportion loss in sovereignty thus being an investment for us rather than a charity, is that not preferable to inaction?
Posted by: Alia
« on: June 05, 2009, 09:03:07 pm »

Because millions of lives lost means nothing to you?

I think you know that by now.

So we should let them die?

Eventually, yes, for their own follies.

That won't have any effect on anti american propeganda, if we allow this to happen to one of our allies, why would any of them trust us?

If they can't accept that they must take care of their own and suffer the consequences of their own actions then we don't need parasites as allies.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 28, 2009, 10:54:45 am »


Quote
Conflict isn't ours to prevent.
Because millions of lives lost means nothing to you?
Quote
We should protect our citizens, not other countries' citizens.
What is so special about our citizens as apposed to that of our allies?
Quote
We will not allow the refugees in.
So we should let the die?
Quote
Public image would only be bad if we let it. If necessary, make laws that bleedinghearts can't speak ill of an America that's only protecting them and theirs. If you still feel bad about it, let people donate charity money to the refugee camps along our borders, individually. Don't force it on the taxpayer.

That won't have any effect on anti american propeganda, if we allow this to happen to one of our allies, why would any of them trust us?
Posted by: Alia
« on: May 27, 2009, 10:22:40 pm »

Conflict isn't ours to prevent.

We should protect our citizens, not other countries' citizens.

We will not allow the refugees in.

Public image would only be bad if we let it. If necessary, make laws that bleedinghearts can't speak ill of an America that's only protecting them and theirs. If you still feel bad about it, let people donate charity money to the refugee camps along our borders, individually. Don't force it on the taxpayer.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 27, 2009, 11:57:56 am »

No you haven't won the argument. You essentially said all my concerns and points were irrelevent.

I asked how do we prevent the conflict, your answer was that we don't have to

I asked how do we prevent the use of nuclear weapons, your answer was we don't have to

I asked what do we do with the millions of refugees, you said nothing

I asked how do we deal with the public image issue, your answer was nothing

So you have essentially dodged every point I have made by flippantly denying they are problems, when they are.
Posted by: Nin
« on: May 25, 2009, 02:26:58 am »

Wanting to keep what you earn? Greed.

Taking what others have earned? Bravery.
Posted by: Alia
« on: May 25, 2009, 01:14:48 am »

I think I just won the argument.

Besides which, "fair" is very selective. Everyone understands that the corporation has to make a buck. If you took all the donuts, muffins, and bagels, day-olds, that are thrown away each day, and gave them away, you could put a serious thorn in the side of hunger.

The only reason this is not done is because when things are given away free they become devalued. The mighty corporation must make a buck, rather than feed the hungry.

Why can't the American taxpayer keep his buck, rather than feed the hungry? See how understanding and rationality applies in some cases over bleedingheartism, and in other cases not? It's a matter of power; the citizens have none. We should act to put our own citizens first. That includes not sending them to die in pointless interventionist wars.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 24, 2009, 08:56:06 am »

First world countries as a rule do not serve the interests of their citizens they leave their borders wide open and impose nothing on those who enter, this is because they hate themselves, and third world countries are like minorities, you dare not question them for fear of being called an imperialist or a bigot

Most of Europe, and America fall into the self hating suicidal nation state category. and since most of the worlds economy and hard and soft power rest in those two groups, we dare not offend them.