The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Holder of the Heel]

False. A tribe trying to subjugate another tribe with **** and/or death is trying to involuntarily inflict harm upon a tribe. Therefore, said tribe will fight against the other tribe. Yeah you can try to have your way with others against their will, but they are going to fight back, which is going to provide trouble for you. Much the same way that treating others nicely is an obvious step in living an enjoyable life so as to not grate along others. Even if the immediate success of such exploits is guaranteed with no repercussions, the reputation and/or potential for vengeance and/or distrust is there, and therefore also not objectively optimal in that sense as well. In addition, the benefits of not murdering and instead having an alliance with the other tribe provides much more profit than killing or ****** would provide. You don't need selfless empathy to justify benefiting others, that is utter nonsense. We are adaptable and intelligent, and thus we are social creatures.

In addition, I'm not refuting this empathy that you are again trying to invoke. You're clearly misunderstanding my reiterated point all along in this, I've never had an issue with us extending empathy. Even if the above reasoning couldn't be provided, it still misses the point. Me saying that you are bringing a sense of right or wrong, and you responding by trying to justify it, simply shows that that is what you are doing for you wouldn't be defending the existence of something that isn't there. Whether I personally agree with you doing so or not is completely irrelevant, for as I just said, that isn't my intention to debate (also it's really not a debate, as I have also already mentioned).

 

[Sucumbio]

Sucumbio- How am I projecting human values onto animals? We know plants don't feel pain, just like a robot which is programmed to have aversive reactions to certain stimuli doesn't actually experience any the sensation of pain.

If a system is interrupted it degrades for a time and in some instances permanently. When we decide that some systems are either "less important" or "irrelevant" we assume an authority that we may or may not deserve. You and I have both demonstrated the same authority, yours simply starts higher up than mine - ergo I include Meat on the menu of acceptable human dietary choices, you do not.

What I'm trying to argue is that to not just be blowing out your *** you pretty much have to not interrupt any systems. To do otherwise is to assume a wisdom that no Human should claim to posses.

Other animals don't feel emotions?

Like us. The depths of what we cannot even properly put into words such as "love" "hate" "loneliness" yes it is true that animals can sense emotions similar to these concepts, but it is disingenuous to refer to the emotion as all encompassing when you're framing an argument that is meant to be all encompassing. You could choose "the need to feed" for instance, that at least serves as a true link between all living things. But emotions should be referred to as Human Emotions by default and then for the sake of ease of discussion we truncate the expression to simply

emotions.

Also, the fact you think we're instinctively turned off cannibalism shows a complete ignorance of human history and how much your society has affected your thinking. Cannibalism has been practiced in several cultures, and is still practiced today. It's simply our culture that developed a dislike for it. Don't confuse instinct with cultural taboo.

Backwards logic is backwards. Such tribes do so for ritual purposes, not for daily sustenance. Also if you actually look you'll find that the only reported cases of real human flesh being consumed is in war-torn Africa where once again it is a ritualistic observance inherent to the war culture (though I've never quite understood why one would eat their deceased enemy, but it's a common and historic occurrence).

 

[Dre89]

Holder- Saying the other tribe can retaliate is pointless because I can say the same thing about animals too. Basically, if there is a scenario where one tribe can easily enslave another tribe and farm them for meat, according to your logic you must find that an acceptable practice.

I'm also not saying anything is 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm making an appeal more than anything. However, if you justify such practices, but still consider yourself moral/civilised then I think that is a false statement.

If society is happy being barbaric and causing unnecessary suffering for their own gain, then I have no grounds to persuade them on. It's the illusion that it's somehow morally justified or that they're still civilised and not barbaric that is wrong.

Sucumbio- Now you're just projecting your own thinking onto me. I don't assume some arbitrary level of authority like you do and the mere difference is that I also value animals, that's exactly the type of archaic thinking that disgusts me. The reason why I 'value' animals is because they have the capacity to suffer and as an altruistic creature who isn't blinded by his society's practices I want to minimise the amount of suffering.

I'm not like you, I don't set some arbitrary line of difference, and say that every sentient creature that I set below that line can be given as much suffering as we want.

It doesn't matter if animals experience lower emotions than we do, they still experience them. This idea of 'well their emotions are not on our level, so it's ok to cause unnecessary suffering on them' is still just 'well they fall below my arbitrary line of difference, so it's ok'.

Cannibalism has been done in places such as Korea in times of desperation as well. I don't see how you can prove that it's inherently wrong. It's just that it's taboo in our society. It's hilarious that someone who justifies slaughter of millions of sentient creatures for meat consumption is against consuming the meat of an already dead human.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Holder- Saying the other tribe can retaliate is pointless because I can say the same thing about animals too. Basically, if there is a scenario where one tribe can easily enslave another tribe and farm them for meat, according to your logic you must find that an acceptable practice.

That last clause doesn't follow. My point is that the issue of **** and with dealings of tribes to other tribes can have logical reasons as to why you'd want none of the former and positive interactions from the latter irrespective of empathy. I've already repeated that I have a desire for the happiness and general well-being of animals, and indeed, that is what would change the circumstances of a scenario that has little to no chance of retaliation of some quantity or quality and little to no loss of beneficial interaction with the other unit. That is what follows from what I stated.

I'm also not saying anything is 'right' or 'wrong'.

It is interesting that you say this, given the very next few statements that you make directly contradict that claim, which is convenient since I won't need to go back and quote previous posts.

I'm making an appeal more than anything. However, if you justify such practices, but still consider yourself moral/civilised then I think that is a false statement.

An appeal to what? To being moral and civilized? Don't you mean... an appeal to being right? Let's keep reading.

If society is happy being barbaric and causing unnecessary suffering for their own gain, then I have no grounds to persuade them on (very interesting and suggestive hint!!!). It's the illusion that it's somehow morally justified or that they're still civilised and not barbaric that is wrong.

Supporters are wrong in a moral, and a civilized, and a sophisticated sense. In other words, an appeal to being morally or socially right. That is why you cannot provide anything to persuade them, for you'd be arguing over what is MORAL or PROPER.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't assume some arbitrary level of authority like you do...

I don't set some arbitrary line of difference, and say that every sentient creature that I set below that line can be given as much suffering as we want.

You don't? That was what my argument was, that you DO. You do, Dre. just saying you don't doesn't make it so. You brush your teeth, no? You bathe?

You see, you HAVE drawn a line. At meat. Why? Because you assume only Animals and Humans can feel pain, you aren't one hundred percent sure plants don't suffer because no one is one hundred percent certain, they're only certain plants don't suffer like Humans suffer. It's still a potential for suffering. So if you following that logic to its natural conclusion, no living thing has a right to eat another living thing because it causes suffering.

Right? Well that's just stupid! No living thing can LIVE without eating -another living thing.-

Not even humans. Seriously, try. Try to live a healthy diet on nothing but synthetic food. You'll spend a fortune and feel horrible. It'd be like hooking a "banana bag" I.V. to your arm. Eventually your body will wither, because all those organs you have that are meant for DIGESTION will go defunct.

It doesn't matter if plants experience lower emotions than we do, they still experience them.

See what I did there? How are you going to chastise me for drawing arbitrary lines in the sand when you yourself have done so.

Cannibalism has been done in places such as Korea in times of desperation as well. I don't see how you can prove that it's inherently wrong. It's just that it's taboo in our society. It's hilarious that someone who justifies slaughter of millions of sentient creatures for meat consumption is against consuming the meat of an already dead human.

I wasn't trying to prove it was inherently wrong to eat your own kind. I was demonstrating that there is a difference between eating the flesh of another species, and eating the flesh of your own species. One is normal, the other is not. It isn't social taboo. We are born knowing it's not good to cook your mommy. The same as we are born knowing we should not eat our own feces, drink our own urine, or any other number of things that fall under the category of instinct (such as trying to mate with an animal instead of a human). That's not to say you won't eat a human in a bad situation. There's also survival instinct, and it'll definitely counteract the lesser instinct to not eat human flesh. DUH. Seriously, watch Alive. The whole movie is about the de-evolution of human instincts, it's fascinating. It really does show just what humans are capable of, and it also shows just where the intellectual part of our brains comes into conflict with the instinctual side.

edit: oh yeah, and the fact that babies and children experiment with their own droppings is yet another instinctual clash. The need to discover and explore vs the need to avoid dangerous things. In our younger years we tend to favor exploration over safety.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Holy moly, this place is dead. I can't help but feel partially responsible.

Edit: to get some kind of ball rolling, what does everyone think of bitcoin, is it a viable currency?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Yes, I think so! Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yes, I think so! Why wouldn't it be?

A currency has value because people can exchange it for other things. Bitcoin cannot be exchange for many things as few companies accept it and governments don't collect taxes using it. At best it's a method of payment. The typical exchange is as follows: Fiat money -> BTC -> Fiat money. Bitcoin only being a method of payment, like electronic funds transfer.

Another issue is that it seems to be viewed as some kind of investment at the moment, so people tend to hold on to it for capital gains. Now since the currency is supposed to be similar to gold in that there is a finite amount of it, it's deflationary in nature, it's value goes up. So why would anyone want to spend their bitcoins if their bitcoins are going to be more valuable in future? Now money is meant to be spent, that's kind of how the economy grows and why money has value.

Furthermore, it's way, way too volatile for people to actually use. Think of a brick and mortar shop, it chooses its prices maybe once per day or less. Now since bitcoin's value changes very rapidly, the shop is going to have wildly varying prices by the hour. Which probably isn't good for business.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

A currency has value because people can exchange it for other things. Bitcoin cannot be exchange for many things as few companies accept it and governments don't collect taxes using it.

That doesn't mean that the bitcoin is an unviable currency "by nature". It just means that it's not universally accepted as such. If all of a sudden the EU, the gulf states and China, as well as a handful of leading corporations, stopped accepting dollars you could also argue it to no longer be a viable currency in the world market. Ultimately, whether a currency is viable or not is really just a conventional question of whether people are willing to accept it or not. In the end, our money is nothing but printed paper but we still use and accept it because we've learned to pretend that it has some sort of value by which we can exchange it. Just because no country has accepted the bitcoin as legitimate currency doesn't mean that this "rule" doesn't apply to the bitcoin as well - and that's all it comes down to.

At best it's a method of payment. The typical exchange is as follows: Fiat money -> BTC -> Fiat money. Bitcoin only being a method of payment, like electronic funds transfer.

It doesn't need to be more than a method of payment. Because that's what any currency - including fiat money - essentially is.

Another issue is that it seems to be viewed as some kind of investment at the moment, so people tend to hold on to it for capital gains. Now since the currency is supposed to be similar to gold in that there is a finite amount of it, it's deflationary in nature, it's value goes up. So why would anyone want to spend their bitcoins if their bitcoins are going to be more valuable in future? Now money is meant to be spent, that's kind of how the economy grows and why money has value.

Furthermore, it's way, way too volatile for people to actually use. Think of a brick and mortar shop, it chooses its prices maybe once per day or less. Now since bitcoin's value changes very rapidly, the shop is going to have wildly varying prices by the hour. Which probably isn't good for business.

These are practical vexations that don't necessarily deem the whole currency unviable. Both, its use an object of speculation as well as its fluctuations in value are rooted in the fact that there's not a large enough quantity of bitcoins [and bitcoin users] yet. This may or may not change in the future and the currency may or may not stabilize accordingly. But regardless, I'd say that the bitcoin is already a viable currency - because it's to all intents and purposes hardly any different to any other currency, except for the tax thing [which is up to the government].


In general terms, I think parallel currencies are an interesting, and surely viable option in the future. It's funny how everybody keeps talking about the free market how it needs tobe regulated more or less etcetera. The truth is that there is no such thing as a free market because the emergence of the market's key tool - money - is being managed by a centralized authority. It's nothing else than a greatly enhanced and blurred command economy. The emergence of parallel currencies that are not managed by such a centralized authority would completely change the way economy works - a fine example of how it works out right is the Sardex, a parallel currency used in Sardinia and tolerated by the local government. It's used in lieu of the euro in Sardinia [with 1 Sdx being 1 Euro] and has had a positive effect on the economy of the island. The Sardex is not payed interest on and since there's no central organization that manages the currency it's used freely and has given Sardinia a new economic backbone.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That doesn't mean that the bitcoin is an unviable currency "by nature". It just means that it's not universally accepted as such. If all of a sudden the EU, the gulf states and China, as well as a handful of leading corporations, stopped accepting dollars you could also argue it to no longer be a viable currency in the world market. Ultimately, whether a currency is viable or not is really just a conventional question of whether people are willing to accept it or not. In the end, our money is nothing but printed paper but we still use and accept it because we've learned to pretend that it has some sort of value by which we can exchange it. Just because no country has accepted the bitcoin as legitimate currency doesn't mean that this "rule" doesn't apply to the bitcoin as well - and that's all it comes down to.

Okay. I initially meant that it was not a viable currency at the moment, but we can continue the discussion on your terms, because it will be more interesting that way.

It doesn't need to be more than a method of payment. Because that's what any currency - including fiat money - essentially is.

So electronic funds transfer is a currency? I'm saying that it is not used as currency. People don't buy things in bitcoins, they use bitcoins like they would EFT. Which is fundamentally different, as everything is valued in $US as opposed to BTC.

These are practical vexations that don't necessarily deem the whole currency unviable. Both, its use an object of speculation as well as its fluctuations in value are rooted in the fact that there's not a large enough quantity of bitcoins [and bitcoin users] yet. This may or may not change in the future and the currency may or may not stabilize accordingly. But regardless, I'd say that the bitcoin is already a viable currency - because it's to all intents and purposes hardly any different to any other currency, except for the tax thing [which is up to the government].

I don't believe you addressed the point about currecny being inherently deflationary. If it's deflationary like gold, this will encourage speculation which makes the market more volatile, especially as the market cap at the moment is quite small, and will stay small for some time.

Another problem with bitcoin is that transactions are not reversible and this means that one is more prone to being scammed using it than other methods of electronic funds transfers, unless we're talking Western Union or something.

Also, there have been reported cases of hacking stealing huge sums of money, so I think security is also a concern with bitcoins. This typically does not occur with filthy fiat money.

In general terms, I think parallel currencies are an interesting, and surely viable option in the future. It's funny how everybody keeps talking about the free market how it needs tobe regulated more or less etcetera. The truth is that there is no such thing as a free market because the emergence of the market's key tool - money - is being managed by a centralized authority. It's nothing else than a greatly enhanced and blurred command economy. The emergence of parallel currencies that are not managed by such a centralized authority would completely change the way economy works - a fine example of how it works out right is the Sardex, a parallel currency used in Sardinia and tolerated by the local government. It's used in lieu of the euro in Sardinia [with 1 Sdx being 1 Euro] and has had a positive effect on the economy of the island. The Sardex is not payed interest on and since there's no central organization that manages the currency it's used freely and has given Sardinia a new economic backbone.

Yes, but Sardex is fixed to the Euro. So presumably the european central bank does all the managing of Sardex by managing the Euro.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

So electronic funds transfer is a currency? I'm saying that it is not used as currency. People don't buy things in bitcoins, they use bitcoins like they would EFT. Which is fundamentally different, as everything is valued in $US as opposed to BTC.

I don't think the comparison to EFT is valid. With EFT payment you simply skip the act of actually using physical money. But unlike BTC it's not a currency of its own as it is always linked to the value of another currency.

It's definitely possible to buy things in BTC btw. Some pizza delivery services offer their products to be payed in BTC for example.

If it's deflationary like gold, this will encourage speculation which makes the market more volatile, especially as the market cap at the moment is quite small, and will stay small for some time.

But why is gold deflationary in the first place? Because its quantity and availability is limited to a much higher degree than the production of fiat money. The "deflationary nature" of gold is actually nothing but the reverse case of the inflationary nature of fiat money. That's the key difference between the daflation of gold and the deflation of the BTC: the deflation of gold is the result of its naturally limited occurence, the deflation of BTC is the result of its conventionally limited occurence. The former cannot be changed, the latter can.

Whether it will actually happen remains to be seen but if it fails to happen I wouldn't say that a general lack of viability is the reason for its failure.

Another problem with bitcoin is that transactions are not reversible and this means that one is more prone to being scammed using it than other methods of electronic funds transfers, unless we're talking Western Union or something.

Also, there have been reported cases of hacking stealing huge sums of money, so I think security is also a concern with bitcoins. This typically does not occur with filthy fiat money.

These are definitely downsides that undermine the viability of the BTC status quo.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I don't think the comparison to EFT is valid. With EFT payment you simply skip the act of actually using physical money. But unlike BTC it's not a currency of its own as it is always linked to the value of another currency.

It's definitely possible to buy things in BTC btw. Some pizza delivery services offer their products to be payed in BTC for example.

But are the things measured in BTC or in $US worth of BTC? That's the key thing here, if people measure the value of these things in BTC as opposed to $US and then trade using BTC, then it is being used as a currency, ie. people are tying the value of things to BTC. But if they're tying the value of these things to $US, and just trading in BTC, it's essentially a method of transferring $US and nothing more.

But why is gold deflationary in the first place? Because its quantity and availability is limited to a much higher degree than the production of fiat money. The "deflationary nature" of gold is actually nothing but the reverse case of the inflationary nature of fiat money. That's the key difference between the daflation of gold and the deflation of the BTC: the deflation of gold is the result of its naturally limited occurence, the deflation of BTC is the result of its conventionally limited occurence. The former cannot be changed, the latter can.

Whether it will actually happen remains to be seen but if it fails to happen I wouldn't say that a general lack of viability is the reason for its failure.

So they are both deflationary, or not? It surely doesn't matter how the currencies are limited, merely that they are limited. And this would encourage hoarding, wouldn't it?

These are definitely downsides that undermine the viability of the BTC status quo.

Also, mining for BTC, which is what produces more BTC and I believe is important to BTC transactions requires large amounts of power, and people do it 24/7, to try to make money. This is not very good for the environment.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Something just came to mind, and this is just me thinking to myself manifesting into what I'm typing, so bear with me.

I've noticed how some debaters (myself included) would more often than anything write "bible"-long posts about a topic, and sometimes said post can go on and on, creating what some might see as a "tl;dr moment". Lets not kid ourselves, it's not like we write articles or anything for a living (as far as I know), and so sometimes I find myself as well as others typing way too much to get to a simple conclusion; a point, if you will, and it's not like we're making money debating with really long posts to prove either a point, or to express educated opinions among one another. With that said, do long novel-like posts have more validity than, say, a more compact and concise post? I mean, if someone's argument is no more than a paragraph or two long, both containing solid points and/or a source(s) to back it up, would that not suffice as well as say a post that would put most online news articles to shame (in length anyway)?

This is pretty much why I'm sticking to more compact, simple posts. Simple, yet with a valid point. Any thoughts?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The longest post I've made here is probably only 2 or 3 paragraphs long. I don't require any more to express and support my opinions and I usually find them much easier to read than a massive wall.

Novel-lengths post can result in the reader tuning out, which is not something good for a subforum built on two sides paying attention to one another.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Novel-lengths post can result in the reader tuning out, which is not something good for a subforum built on two sides paying attention to one another.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. I recently found myself sort of going into a trance-like state where even though I'm reading, my mind is on auto-pilot, so I pretty much lose the main point of the poster's argument, hence my recent post habits of being a straight-to-the-point kind of girl than anything else.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Incidentally, I just posted something just under 4500 words in this place.

On the one hand, there is value in being concise. But on the other, I have the inclination for thoroughness, to cover all the requisite bases.

In principle, the length of a post doesn't matter so long as the points therein are well-argued and supported. I suppose it's all up to what you're trying to accomplish, or get across. The goal of your given post, as it were.

Long posts can risk having their readability and focus becoming muddled as you progress. Which is why organization and clarity of writing is useful. There is also the matter of whether the length is justified -- if you really must write a few thousand words in which every word is necessary, or if you can whittle it down to fewer paragraphs while communicating the same message.

Though audience acknowledgement can only go so far; there is a balance to strike between making your posts as intelligible and concise as you can, and illustrating your points to the best of your ability with compromising them. It's not the easiest balance to accomplish, but as in all writing, these are skills that can be improved with patience and perseverance.

 

[Sucumbio]

I like pie.

 

[Octillus]

I'm very impressed with the discourse in this section - even if I don't agree with everything said, and I'm generally on Smashboards for a laugh (non-troll variety) it's nice to know I'm not the only adult around.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'm very impressed with the discourse in this section - even if I don't agree with everything said, and I'm generally on Smashboards for a laugh (non-troll variety) it's nice to know I'm not the only adult around.

Yeah, if you see a Smashboards member with the scales postbit under their name (indicating a Debater), there's a pretty good chance they're of a mature mentality. That's not to say, of course, that those without said postbit aren't mature.

 

[Sehnsucht]

That's not to say, of course, that those without said postbit aren't mature.

I was about to launch into an outraged tirade, but then I read this, and all was good again.

 

[Sucumbio]

You're my new favorite poster B-)

 

[adumbrodeus]

Either a mature mentality or bat**** crazy, obsessed with proving their superiority, but also a decently talented rhetorician.

Spoiler

Second option is of course speaking of myself

 

[Claire Diviner]

obsessed with proving their superiority

And here I thought this only applied to Smash Brackroomers.

 

[Sucumbio]

@ adumbrodeus Good to know you're still around!

 

[Claire Diviner]

Since the Current Events section appears to be gone (or I haven't figured out where it is), I figured I'd share this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/anonymous-ferguson-protests_n_5675696.html

As the article says, Anonymous plans on targeting the police force in Ferguson. Personally, I've always had a fear, yet a respect for Anonymous, regardless of their actions and/or intentions, and personally, I think it's about time someone really fought back against what I believe are power tips with badges. I mean for Christ's sake, the police were in military-grade gear and had them aimed at protesters!

http://www.businessinsider.com/police-militarization-ferguson-2014-8

Now, either I'm just dumb or maybe I missed something, but when did protests become a threat that warranted militarized officers. They're public servicemen, not leaders or even military branches; they're cops. Yes, there were rioting in the streets, but those were in retaliation to what happened to the poor boy gunned down, in a manner not too different from the Rodney King incident. The fact that these officers even attack reporters for wanting answers is atrocious.

So what do you think? Are the actions of Anonymous justified? Do you believe two wrongs don't make a right? My girlfriend and I were talking about this, and she says she believes Anonymous is in the wrong, as not all officers are bad; that only the bad few give the many a bad name (akin to stereotypes). I believe otherwise. While she does bring a valid point, the fact that these officers are killing people (more than 600 people were killed by police last year alone), and the higher ups are doing little to nothing about it - even putting these murderers on paid leave, is more than the public can bear. Though this is an extreme case, at the rate it's going, who could say the country will never be put in a perpetual state of martial law?

EDIT: At times, the media doesn't do a damn thing to help matters either:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html

 

[Sucumbio]

The CE thread is stickied two threads below this one... unless you meant the CE section in the other board, which I never really posted in... but it's cool you can still introduce topics of discussion here, generally we'd make a thread based on the necessity to discuss things in detail.

As for the whole incident, yeah it's kinda nuts. Though you've kinda answered your own question... riots. Riots themselves are one reason for tactical squads, national guard involvement and other "military" solutions. Quelling civil unrest in a swift and thorough manner is indeed one of the foremost duties of any government body or its representatives, in this case public police officials. And technically the reason for the riot is in itself a separate issue, it's the rioting itself that would warrant a police action. Ironically you named King and the LA riots back in the 90's were ferocious and dangerous times, and so involved tactical units and national guard. That's not to say the riots aren't unwarranted, it just demonstrates how one thing leads to another.

As for anonymous, I'm not sure... we'll see. The whole thing stinks.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The CE thread is stickied two threads below this one... unless you meant the CE section in the other board, which I never really posted in...

Huh. Why have I never noticed that thread? But yeah, I meant the separate section that was once in the Pool Room.

 

[adumbrodeus]

@ adumbrodeus Good to know you're still around!

Thanks!



Will probably comment on it later because while I understand the police reasoning (looting, neo black panthers and other groups threatening violence) but the police are treating it as effectively under martial law which is a big problem.

 

[Hzashimi]

on the subject of spending money:

Some really sad numbers in here.

Without the Iraq War, we could have shifted the entire world to green energy, feed all kids for 5 years, or, the entire cost of Bush-Obama stimulus.

Some commentary to add:

Sending soldiers to Iraq was the US' plan to control the global market on oil. Iraq's domestic market of oil was fully nationalized and just getting big enough before the 2003 invasion to compete with Western oil companies. Naturally, the US saw this as a problem since major companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron were looking to looking to set up shop in Iraq. To ensure that it would still have control over the oil market, the US planned to seize control of the market in Iraq. However, two things stood in the way: Saddam Hussein and the country's legal system. Of course you had all of Bush's propaganda that "Hussein was the perpetrator of 9/11" to rally others to his cause, but you know the rest...

 

[Claire Diviner]

Some commentary to add:

Sending soldiers to Iraq was the US' plan to control the global market on oil. Iraq's domestic market of oil was fully nationalized and just getting big enough before the 2003 invasion to compete with Western oil companies. Naturally, the US saw this as a problem since major companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron were looking to looking to set up shop in Iraq. To ensure that it would still have control over the oil market, the US planned to seize control of the market in Iraq. However, two things stood in the way: Saddam Hussein and the country's legal system. Of course you had all of Bush's propaganda that "Hussein was the perpetrator of 9/11" to rally others to his cause, but you know the rest...

All of that goes without saying. Honestly, the only ones who wouldn't know (or at least refuse to acknowledge) are the super conservatives (especially many in the Republican party) who did nothing but kissed Bush's a** and believed in his brainwashing. Sadly, we can't go back in a time machine to prevent it, and trying to undo the damage already done is a task of vastly lofty proportions that will most likely require more than two presidencies to try and accomplish.

 

[tm730]

this sub-forum needs more life

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

this sub-forum needs more life

Why force it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

cause this is a cool forum?

 

[Sterling Ford]

Is there a possible competitive scene for Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS? There has been many debates about it or it's not competitive. I personally think that the games are competitive in a way. It's not like in the same way as Melee/ Project M, but does it have to be? This post purpose is to find way to make Wii U/3DS (maybe there's millions upon millions posts about this "issue," is relevant).

 

[Claire Diviner]

Is there a possible competitive scene for Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS? There has been many debates about it or it's not competitive. I personally think that the games are competitive in a way. It's not like in the same way as Melee/ Project M, but does it have to be? This post purpose is to find way to make Wii U/3DS (maybe there's millions upon millions posts about this "issue," is relevant).

The games are still young, so it will take time before it really takes off (assuming it ultimately will). Brawl has a pretty big competitive scene despite some questioning its competitive viability.

 

[Sucumbio]

SO which DH thread here lately deserves special recognition for its savory appetite of intellectual soup? (hopefully not the one I just locked )

 

[Claire Diviner]

America supposedly losing a generation and whether or not living has a reason seem to be interesting topics, the latter being one I enjoyed debating, if for a bit.

 

[LightlyToasted]

The same as we are born knowing we should not eat our own feces, drink our own urine, or any other number of things that fall under the category of instinct (such as trying to mate with an animal instead of a human). That's not to say you won't eat a human in a bad situation. There's also survival instinct, and it'll definitely counteract the lesser instinct to not eat human flesh. DUH.

I know thats an older post, but could this correlate as to why basement dwellers and those without good social skills are more likely to attempt to mate with a pillow or fake anthropomorphic animal? Are you saying that furries=canibals?

Also hello Social debaters, figured I'd finally post here.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I know thats an older post, but could this correlate as to why basement dwellers and those without good social skills are more likely to attempt to mate with a pillow or fake anthropomorphic animal? Are you saying that furries=canibals?

It seems like an interesting theory, to be quite honest, but only if their poor social skills and basement dwelling habits are really severe to the point of rarely getting any human contact. I mean, I'm an introvert and a near recluse myself, but I'm not exactly the abnormal type in terms of character given that I do have normal in-person contact with friends, family, etc, so I really do stress when I say that it has to be really severe... That, or they must have some pillow and/or furry fetish. Also, I'm going to assume your "furries=canibals" (spelled "cannibals") bit was a joke, so I'll just ignore that.

Also hello Social debaters, figured I'd finally post here.

Heyllo.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Man, I miss the old debate hall. Not for the exclusivity so much as for the "if you don't know how to hold a debate you aren't welcome".