Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 226 of 241 (449035)
01-16-2008 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by obvious Child
01-15-2008 4:10 AM


Quicksand
As I said earlier, quicksand.
Since you have made your position clear, it would be wise to disengage your discussion with MBG.
It'll just be countermeasures from here on out.
I did find your comments fascinating and an enjoyable read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by obvious Child, posted 01-15-2008 4:10 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by obvious Child, posted 01-16-2008 3:52 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 227 of 241 (449073)
01-16-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-26-2007 12:08 AM


Global Futurism
Phat, in your OP you invited discussion and opinions, I assume, on four questions. So I'll respond to each.
Our discussion can be quite broad.
  • what is the impact of religious fundamentalism on human awareness of the future on earth?
  • Absolutely devastating! Humans will be forever a danger to themselves as long as religious fundamentalism (bicamerality) rules over their minds.
  • Is Global warming preventable? How will the relocation of coastal populations be able to be accomplished given the diminishing resources globally? Will humans be able to put aside our selfish and survivalist nature and cooperate, or will there be wars as a result of these massive changes?
  • I seriously doubt that humans can do anything now to avoid a train wreck.
  • Can humanity maintain the standards of living that we in the United States now take for granted?
  • Of course not. Capitalism will see to that.
  • What IF? What if there are other natural disasters...such as Yellowstone or a Pacific Coast Tsunami and/or Earthquake? Could we survive? If so, would it be worth it?
  • America's infrastructure would be a soda cracker up against any of these disasters.
    I have an additional question: Why can't we blame "The Protestant Ethic," as defined by Max Weber, for inflicting Globalization on the world in "the Spirit of Capitalism"?
    ”HM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-26-2007 12:08 AM Phat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 228 by jar, posted 01-16-2008 2:48 PM Fosdick has not replied
     Message 229 by arachnophilia, posted 01-16-2008 3:03 PM Fosdick has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 228 of 241 (449077)
    01-16-2008 2:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 227 by Fosdick
    01-16-2008 1:09 PM


    The Blame Game
    I have an additional question: Why can't we blame "The Protestant Ethic," as defined by Max Weber, for inflicting Globalization on the world in "the Spirit of Capitalism"?
    For the same reason we do not blame a disease on the doctor who diagnoses it.

    Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 227 by Fosdick, posted 01-16-2008 1:09 PM Fosdick has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1344 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 229 of 241 (449080)
    01-16-2008 3:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 227 by Fosdick
    01-16-2008 1:09 PM


    Re: Global Futurism
    religious fundamentalism (bicamerality)
    okay, those two are just not the same thing. and bicamerality is still bullshit.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 227 by Fosdick, posted 01-16-2008 1:09 PM Fosdick has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 231 by Fosdick, posted 01-16-2008 3:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

      
    obvious Child
    Member (Idle past 4116 days)
    Posts: 661
    Joined: 08-17-2006


    Message 230 of 241 (449090)
    01-16-2008 3:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 226 by purpledawn
    01-16-2008 7:17 AM


    Re: Quicksand
    You'd think. I think MBG just likes to argue for the sake of arguing, regardless of anything of value comes of it. Reminds me of people in high school and college that would argue about anything and reject everything the other person said no matter how valid or how feeble they were at attacking it. Usually those people are type A and have serious hypertension problems.
    I do however find it amusing to post what she deliberately ignored. When it's over 60% of my posts, it's hilarious, especially given her cocky nature.
    Thanks though, I'm glad someone got something useful out of this debacle.
    Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 226 by purpledawn, posted 01-16-2008 7:17 AM purpledawn has not replied

      
    Fosdick 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
    Posts: 1793
    From: Upper Slobovia
    Joined: 12-11-2006


    Message 231 of 241 (449091)
    01-16-2008 3:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 229 by arachnophilia
    01-16-2008 3:03 PM


    Re: Global Futurism
    religious fundamentalism (bicamerality)
    okay, those two are just not the same thing. and bicamerality is still bullshit.
    Well, then, can you explain how to a person yields his/her consciousness to hallucinated voices that claim to be God and command its bicameral victims to do all sorts of unconscionable things like terrorize little children with crucified icons and threaten them with eternal hell? Ya gotta pray your ass off to avoid it, and you gotta be bicameral to do that. You can't be truly conscious if you believe a dead person arose to save your sole from the flames of eternity, and then go out and bomb abortion clinic.
    ”HM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 229 by arachnophilia, posted 01-16-2008 3:03 PM arachnophilia has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 232 by arachnophilia, posted 01-16-2008 4:13 PM Fosdick has not replied

      
    arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 1344 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 232 of 241 (449093)
    01-16-2008 4:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 231 by Fosdick
    01-16-2008 3:55 PM


    bicamerality is still bullshit.
    Well, then, can you explain how to a person yields his/her consciousness to hallucinated voices that claim to be God and command its bicameral victims to do all sorts of unconscionable things like terrorize little children with crucified icons and threaten them with eternal hell?
    even supposing these people are hallucinating, problems with the corpus callosum DO NOT cause audible or visible hallucinations. we've been over this. if you'd like, go post some actual responses in the thread you started about it.
    speaking as a former fundamentalist, you will find more explanation in phenomena like group-think and social programming and classical conditioning.
    Ya gotta pray your ass off to avoid it, and you gotta be bicameral to do that.
    seriously, is your bullshit detector broken? you're using this term about as well as ray uses "darwinism."
    Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 231 by Fosdick, posted 01-16-2008 3:55 PM Fosdick has not replied

      
    obvious Child
    Member (Idle past 4116 days)
    Posts: 661
    Joined: 08-17-2006


    Message 233 of 241 (449095)
    01-16-2008 4:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 225 by molbiogirl
    01-15-2008 4:22 PM


    Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
    quote:
    Here is the definition of defensive again:
    Intended or appropriate for defending against or deterring aggression or attack; "defensive weapons"; "a defensive stance".
    A missile shield is defensive, not offensive
    Repeating the same thing over and over again does not make your argument valid. As you are a detractor of creationists who use this tactic, you should frankly know better.
    Explain to me the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Then perhaps we'll get somewhere.
    quote:
    You didn't answer the question.
    You have a penchant for going off on tangents, did you know that?
    How is that off tangent? The concept of MAD is the key reason that nuclear weapons are unusable. The Missile Shield turns them into usable weapons by disrupting if not entirely destroying MAD.
    Thanks again for showing you just don't get it.
    And I'll get highlighting everything you choose to ignore like I did last them and from now on.
    quote:
    As a realist, I know you were hesitant to "judge the intentions" of China and Russia (aka If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off...); however, since you did judge their intentions (wants/fears/etc.), I responded:
    Not at all. A realist works entirely off capabilities and the Missile shield, abet with a few upgrades and increases could easily shut down China, and Russia depending if they actually agree to the reduction plans as they have in the past. Intentions are irrelevant here. The capability of the shield to work against them is obvious to those with the knowledge. Thanks again for showing you just don't get it
    quote:
    Two things:
    The missile shield is defensive.
    Because it is defensive (offers protection against attack), Russia and China got PO'ed.
    THERE YOU GO. The missile shield offers protection from an attack on Russia and China, therefore allowing the US to launch an attack that previously would have been deterred under MAD. Let's do this even dumber.
    I would punch you except you would punch me back. Now I have a personal shield that protects me from being punched leaving me now to attack you without fear of retaliation. How is this shield not an offensive weapon when it clearly allows me to attack where I previously, without it would not have attacked? Oh wait, you don't address things that require a understanding of the subject.
    quote:
    Again. You didn't answer the question.
    Here is your original quote:
    Come again?
    You cited your article as proof that pre-delegation does not exist
    You stated this:
    quote:
    Page not found – Brookings
    Thus, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute arguing that pre-delegation DOES NOT exist is more credible, not less.
    Nothing at all in your article even discussed pre-delegation. Seriously. Did you not expect me to read that?
    quote:
    You need to address how "the liberal Brooking Institute" somehow is anti-nuke and therefore anti-pre-delegation, as that was your original contention.
    I never said it wasn't anti-nuke and your own link proves it anyways. And I never said it was anti-pre-delegation, merely that its arguments, notice the word: arguments, do not make sense.
    I realize you're purely looking for a citation fight, that's pointless and you once again fail to provide any reasoned arguments why you are right and I'm wrong. I give reasoned arguments why your statements, not arguments are false and why mine are correct. Why are you incapable, or unwilling to do the same? You have no problem giving reasoned arguments in other subjects, why here? Or is that you don't understand you know it?
    quote:
    You get to make a bare assertions. Yet I must provide support for my positions? Oh, I don't think so!
    Your support is laughable, either completely missing the subject or posting irrelevant subjects. If I was wrong, you would have been able to prove it instead of just calling me names. You say this or that but by the next post you completely drop your points against me. That shows to me that you HAVE looked it up and figured out I'm right but you won't admit it.
    quote:
    As I stated previously, our satellite system is global. A local outage will not interfere with the missile shield's radar. The radar used to track incoming missiles is a series of low-earth orbit and high earth orbit STSS (space tracking and surveillance satellites) for the detection and tracking of ballistic missiles.
    Where local means several million square miles of space and a significant portion of the sky and every satellite in it. I realize you have no understanding of this subject at all. Your own link stated that satellites will be blinded by such an action in line of sight. Radar doesn't work out of line of sight. Explain to me how a satellite who's position is one of the other side of the planet is going to be of any use. Oh wait, you don't have arguments, just insults and irrelevant statements.
    quote:
    They are knocked out (blinded) LOCALLY.
    Where locally means everything for millions of miles in line of sight. Let me try to explain this to you in very simple terms so you can get it. Imagine a huge pool with thousands of cameras in it. Someone releases a huge amount of stuff into a section of it, reducing visibility to zero in it. Does it matter that we have cameras far away from that section? Can we see and tell what's in it with those cameras? It doesn't matter if we have one camera or a million that are outside of the blinded zone. We can't see anything IN the zone due to the visibility reducers. The satellites aren't blinded themselves internally, but they are blinded in detecting whatever is in the blast zone.
    That is exactly what happens with a space based explosion precisely why we stopped using nuclear interceptors as they blind us to subsequent salvos.
    quote:
    ICBMs are:
    1. Slow moving, fragile targets.
    2. Easy to spot (bright exhaust plumes).
    3. A unitary target.
    The ABL can be deployed against ICBMs for boost phase intercept.
    Come again? A missile moving 18,000 mph is SLOW?
    You are arguing for the sake of arguing!
    The speed of sound is 770 mph. The Patriot missile goes three times that. Nowhere ever CLOSE to an ICBM. Easy to spot yes, but so are alot of other things. That doesn't mean they are equal targets. I already dictated why ABLs don't work against ICMBs. And they were NEVER designed to target them.
    Explain to me how we're suppose to get an ABL close to the target during boost phase and NOT get shot down?
    You're arguing because you like arguing. Not because you think I'm wrong.
    quote:
    Your opinion is worthless. You have no credibility whatsoever. That's a fact, not a "name".
    Based on your beliefs. Too bad you are incapable of addressing any arguments I've given, have completely failed to provide a single reasoned argument why I'm wrong and resorted to name calling in place of a reasoned argument. If I was what you said you'd be able to refute something I've said. Instead you ignore large parts of my post, call me names, refuse to give a reasoned argument and pretend you're right despite utterly failing to prove anything.
    quote:
    You are 25. That's a fact.
    Prove it. Furthermore, that's the fallacy of the ancients.
    Good job using creationist tactics.
    quote:
    I compared your methods to those of creos. I did not say: "You creo you!".
    Just like Bush never said there was an imminent threat? And since you ignored the other things you did to me, I'm going to take that you admit you did them, including calling my opinion worthless, me being delusional and living in fantasy land.
    Would you like to be reported to the Mods?
    quote:
    And yet you steadfastly refuse to provide evidence. You are a hypocrite. And, yes, that's me calling you a name.
    Hey, you're free to look up anything I've said, and I'm pretty sure you already did. If I was wrong, why can't you prove it?
    And here's what you deliberately ignored.
    Now that is comedy. A missile shield prevents an secondary strike. Therefore eliminate MAD and allowing an first strike which is clearly offensive. A missile shield makes formerly unusable nuclear weapons usable. Tell me how that is not offensive instead of just pretending that I never made the comment. Your argument doesn't even make any sense. Here's the point about my comment on your analysis (it doesn't exist). If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US. Purely defensive weapons don't bring up huge outrage. Without the threat of nuclear retaliation on the homeland, the US is largely free to fire weapons as it pleases. Shields are offensive weapons as they shield the attack from attacks that normally would have deterred them. It's actually good thing that the shield is an fraud. The last time we tried to do this it put us several hundred billion in the hole and we got virtually nothing out of it.
    Like yourself. At least I understand this concept. You can't address my points.
    Before you lie and distort what I've said, this isn't about deliberate use, it's about accidental use. In some degree, the US and Russia already acknowledge this will a retargeting of weapons into empty space. However, the threat is still there as all one has to do is retarget with the last known coordinates.
    Could you define "completely disarm?"
    Because under the shape charged argument, the only piece missing is the charge itself. The weapon is still in reality.
    And no one ever considered the Nunn-Lugar CTR even a remote possibility in the past. Furthermore, everything in history was not even considered an remote possibility at some time. I'll repeat my last comment to you in a prior post as you seem to be unable to get out of it.
    I'm asking you to argue why it is a bad idea. What you seem intent on doing it just arguing if someone else had thought of it before. That's worthless. Completely worthless.
    And if you thought that was really true, you'd be able to disprove me. I'm still waiting.
    I should report you for that. Why would it be true? All you can do is insult me. Not present any reason why that is wrong.
    I'm asking you to present an reasoned argument why my idea is bad. You apparently are unwilling to do this. Why?
    The US is fully capable of making new weapons quickly. Why wouldn't MAD still exist? If you nuke us, expect to get nuked back. How is that not MAD?
    Yet you can't even refute anything. I have worthless opinions, but all you can do is throw ad homenins at me. I see how it is. Interceptors work to attack the missile in flight. ICBMs are actually in space. Those weapons you talked about, are not capable of space flight. By the time the weapon is leaving space, it is virtually too late to shoot it down. I already mentioned how the tracking speeds are incapable of hitting that as many of them have problems with much slower targets. Ignoring this does not make it go away, even though you'd love that to be true.
    So you want to test the weapon when an nuclear tipped enemy missile is coming? Kind of cocky isn't that? Mind if the target is your city? Not a single test has even resembled what an enemy will do. What kind of test measures the viability of a system when everyone knows when the missile is coming, where it will be and everything about it?
    You don't understand this subject!
    This is funny seeing just how many points you pretend do not exist.
    It's a common fact that ICBMs typically have around 6~12 MRVs. Go look it up. If I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it instead of just calling me names. Furthermore, Russia's weapons were at time after the SALT treaties around 10,000 weapons. 1/10 of that isn't far from what I gave.
    Your complete and absolute failure to address an single point I have made is far more telling then you relying on childish comments. Say all the immature things you want, it doesn't change the fact that you can't refute anything I've said and that you are exponentially ignoring points. I clearly have the high ground here.
    Against an entirely different target. You would not use a .223 round against an Hind, likewise you wouldn't use a METHEL against an ICBM. Different weapons call for different defenses. What we do not have is an defense against the countermeasures in an ICBM.
    Not really. EMP isn't that important as you have stated military equipment is shielded from direct exposure. What we do not have an solution to is the radiation and static from an space based explosion, your own source even states that. Blinded radar = blinded interceptors. That was my entire point which you seemed to have either pretend not to exist or did not understand.
    You've called my opinion worthless many times, called me a creationist and attacked me on my age. Not to mention stated I spend time in fantasy lands and are delusional. I should report you for all of those as they are clearly breaking the rules, but I don't run to mommy to solve my problems like you did.
    if you bothered to read my posts on that, you'd notice that when I ask for evidence, it's in a reasoned argument. It's not that there is no evidence for different era organisms in the same layer, it's why there is no evidence for it.
    I have yet to see you make a SINGLE REASONED ARGUMENT IN THE PAST FOUR POSTS
    I'm still waiting for you to argue how Hair Trigger is safer then Not Hair trigger.
    You seem perfectly content to pretend NO one ever made that point.
    Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 225 by molbiogirl, posted 01-15-2008 4:22 PM molbiogirl has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 235 by Phat, posted 01-17-2008 6:26 PM obvious Child has replied

      
    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 2642 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 234 of 241 (449320)
    01-17-2008 5:27 PM


    God damn Mediacom.
    Despite the tech visit last Friday, my service is really slow (up to a minute to load a page) and is regularly interrupted.
    They're coming out Saturday to run new cable.
    Until then.

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 235 of 241 (449340)
    01-17-2008 6:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 233 by obvious Child
    01-16-2008 4:19 PM


    Back to the Topic
    obviouschild, to Molbiogirl writes:
    You are arguing for the sake of arguing!
    And what are you doing? Do me a favor and quit making these long posts simply to prove a point. I want this topic to be about a progressive discussion of ideas rather than long posts that simply win a debate or argument.
    Since this is my thread, It would be a conflict of interest for me to suspend you...but I want you to get back on topic. Explain to me your views and opinions briefly....the objective here is to stimulate a conversation in a roundtable fashion with other EvC'ers rather than to lock horns with Molbio simply to prove some point regarding Foreign Policy and Nuclear Weapons.
    **********************************
    My Original Post, Again:
    I was watching a show on CNN called Planet In Peril ... They traveled to 13 countries ...Global Warming was the topic.
    I want to examine this and other aspects of dealing with the future on Earth for humanity. (But not limited to talking about Nuclear Weapons and Defense Systems...ok? )
  • what is the impact of religious fundamentalism on human awareness of the future on earth? (Both Christian and Islamic)
  • Is Global warming preventable? How will the relocation of coastal populations be able to be accomplished given the diminishing resources globally? Will humans be able to put aside our selfish and survivalist nature and cooperate, or will there be wars as a result of these massive changes? (Rodney King said it best: Can't we all just get along? ---Or not.
  • Can humanity maintain the standards of living that we in the United States now take for granted? If not, will those of us used to such comforts seek wars as a way out? What does it take to go to war?
  • What IF? What if there are other natural disasters...such as Yellowstone or a Pacific Coast Tsunami and/or Earthquake? Would we survive? If so, would it be worth it? Survival without comfort is no life.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 233 by obvious Child, posted 01-16-2008 4:19 PM obvious Child has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 236 by obvious Child, posted 01-18-2008 2:57 PM Phat has replied
     Message 237 by Mespo, posted 01-18-2008 3:12 PM Phat has replied

      
    obvious Child
    Member (Idle past 4116 days)
    Posts: 661
    Joined: 08-17-2006


    Message 236 of 241 (449633)
    01-18-2008 2:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 235 by Phat
    01-17-2008 6:26 PM


    Re: Back to the Topic
    quote:
    Do me a favor and quit making these long posts simply to prove a point. I want this topic to be about a progressive discussion of ideas rather than long posts that simply win a debate or argument.
    I made my initial points and reiterated them several times already. Molbio apparently just loves to argue without actually presenting an argument other the one based on name calling.
    quote:
    Explain to me your views and opinions briefly....the objective here is to stimulate a conversation in a roundtable fashion with other EvC'ers rather than to lock horns with Molbio simply to prove some point regarding Foreign Policy and Nuclear Weapons.
    No problem.
    The future of humanity can be at least partially ensured if we do the following:
    1) Get off hair trigger nuclear alert as it has almost wiped out mankind 20+ times.
    2) Go to virtual nuclear arsenals as they eliminate or reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism.
    3) Stop wasting billions on missile defense that won't work (how about education, or green technology, or carbon sequestering?!)
    And I have had a good conversation with purpledawn. Purple even thanked me for my posts.
    Jar made the point that keeping religious whackjobs who believe in the end times out of positions of power will ensure the future of humanity on Earth. The problem I have with that is figuring out who is, who isn't and who's hiding it. Emperor Palpatine from the Star War series comes to mind. By the time the good guys figured it out, they were boned. Thus, IMO, we should remove the tools for the end times believers need to end the world rather then focus on stopping crazies who we may not from getting into office. Plus American voters are idiots. There is no realistic way to ensure through democracy that Jar's idea is made reality.
    For global warming, IMO, it's too late to stop it. What we should be doing it preventing more acceleration of it and gear up for what it will bring.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 235 by Phat, posted 01-17-2008 6:26 PM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 238 by Phat, posted 01-20-2008 4:22 PM obvious Child has replied

      
    Mespo
    Member (Idle past 2885 days)
    Posts: 158
    From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
    Joined: 09-19-2002


    Message 237 of 241 (449639)
    01-18-2008 3:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 235 by Phat
    01-17-2008 6:26 PM


    Re: Back to the Topic
    Not too many posting slots left, so here goes.
    This will be from the gut, as I don't have any supporting links and references at this time...
    Global warming preventable? NO. The horse is out of the barn. In case you haven't noticed, the Indians (India) and Chinese want what the Americans and Europeans want. And we're going to tell them NO? Hardly!
    Coastal populations will relocate by walking. What mankind has done for eons. The question remains as to whose property they'll relocate to.
    Wars? There will always be wars. Period. Over available water, arable land, nukes, oil...you name it. War is good for the military-industrial complex, don't 'cha know. The Americans didn't learn squat from the Vietnam debacle, now did they?
    Can humanity maintain the U.S. standrad of living? Nope. The haves will continue to have, and the have nots will go hungry. But wars will not be used as a way out. The haves will gladly give to the have nots if they can be seen as "do-gooders" to build their self-esteem and global social standing. Good will is a tradable commodity, also.
    Who knows, the "Great Unwashed" may become trading partners. They can assemble beads and trinkets for $1 a day.
    I firmly believe that the whole "climate change" schtick will be a generational thing. In other words, no one human generation is going to get hit with the whole good and bad. You will hold your grand children on your knee and tell them about the time there were actual glaciers in Alaska and pine forests in the American Southwest that hadn't burned to the ground. And they will tell you about their reality of Carnaval Cruise ships in the Artic, apple orchards in Siberia, and the Great Florida Reef that used to be a state in the U.S.
    (:raig

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 235 by Phat, posted 01-17-2008 6:26 PM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 239 by Phat, posted 01-20-2008 4:24 PM Mespo has replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 238 of 241 (450114)
    01-20-2008 4:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 236 by obvious Child
    01-18-2008 2:57 PM


    Lets discuss Futurism
    obvious child writes:
    I made my initial points and reiterated them several times already. Molbio apparently just loves to argue without actually presenting an argument other the one based on name calling.
    OK.
    Molbio, I officially ask you and Obvious both to drop the nukes topic.
    obvious writes:
    Thus, IMO, we should remove the tools for the end times believers need to end the world rather then focus on stopping crazies who we may not from getting into office.
    Yes. Jar has a point. No crazies in office. But that is left up to the voters. And the idea of a nuke free world is not realistic. Once the genie is out of the box, it stays out.
    OK OK
    My opinion on the nukes topic (before we end it) is that there is no way to guarantee a nuke free world.
    If we ban guns, only outlaws will have guns.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 236 by obvious Child, posted 01-18-2008 2:57 PM obvious Child has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 240 by obvious Child, posted 01-21-2008 5:15 PM Phat has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 239 of 241 (450115)
    01-20-2008 4:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 237 by Mespo
    01-18-2008 3:12 PM


    Re: Back to the Topic
    Mespo writes:
    Coastal populations will relocate by walking. What mankind has done for eons. The question remains as to whose property they'll relocate to.
    That was my thought as well! Perhaps the property a couple hundred miles back from the coast is a good investment right about now!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 237 by Mespo, posted 01-18-2008 3:12 PM Mespo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 241 by Mespo, posted 01-24-2008 12:30 PM Phat has not replied

      
    obvious Child
    Member (Idle past 4116 days)
    Posts: 661
    Joined: 08-17-2006


    Message 240 of 241 (450357)
    01-21-2008 5:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 238 by Phat
    01-20-2008 4:22 PM


    Re: Lets discuss Futurism
    Perhaps not, but we can reduce the number of weapons and accessibility of them. You don't make a problem bigger, you try to eliminate or mitigate. If we strengthen the NPT to the point where getting weapons illegal is economic suicide, well that more or less defeats your problem of only outlaws having weapons.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 238 by Phat, posted 01-20-2008 4:22 PM Phat has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024