|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3714 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5756 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
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.
Absolutely devastating! Humans will be forever a danger to themselves as long as religious fundamentalism (bicamerality) rules over their minds.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1600 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
religious fundamentalism (bicamerality) okay, those two are just not the same thing. and bicamerality is still bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4372 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5756 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
religious fundamentalism (bicamerality)
okay, those two are just not the same thing. and bicamerality is still bullshit. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1600 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4372 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Come again? You cited your article as proof that pre-delegation does not exist You stated this:
quote: Nothing at all in your article even discussed pre-delegation. Seriously. Did you not expect me to read that?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Prove it. Furthermore, that's the fallacy of the ancients. Good job using creationist tactics.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2898 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
obviouschild, to Molbiogirl writes: 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. You are arguing for the sake of arguing! 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? )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4372 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 3141 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
obvious child writes: OK. 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. Molbio, I officially ask you and Obvious both to drop the nukes topic.obvious writes: 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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18651 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
Mespo writes: That was my thought as well! Perhaps the property a couple hundred miles back from the coast is a good investment right about now!
Coastal populations will relocate by walking. What mankind has done for eons. The question remains as to whose property they'll relocate to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4372 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024