Show Posts

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


Messages - toothyp1cks

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE

You don't have to have debt.


According to the British Government:
Yes you do.

And so now people are angry.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Democracy 2.0
« on: December 10, 2010, 10:45:56 PM »
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This wouldn't supress people's opinions because the test questions wouldn't be

And who decides what the questions should be? In other words, who gets to decide which people shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Obviously not the government. An independent commission made up of the "most qualified" people from every relevant field to that one specific election. And not just one "most qualified" person - there would be multiple people from every field to ensure a balanced view.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Democracy 2.0
« on: December 10, 2010, 10:29:07 PM »
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).

Yes, they do have a right to vote. However, its pretty obvious that somebody who knows nothing about the policies of the parties is not able to make an informed decision (the kind required for democracy to actually work).

No, a decision being "informed" is not a necessary component of democracy.

But it is a necessary component of a sustainable, functioning democracy. The main problem with democracy is that idiots elect idiots. Take away the idiocy and democracy is a very good system.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Democracy 2.0
« on: December 10, 2010, 07:43:19 PM »
People that have radical veiwpoints have a right to vote, also uneducated people have the right to vote as well, because the elected representatives speak for everybody (educated, uneducated, etc.).

Yes, they do have a right to vote. However, its pretty obvious that somebody who knows nothing about the policies of the parties is not able to make an informed decision (the kind required for democracy to actually work). So this methodcould be used to encourage (force) people to go out and educate themselves.

People with radical viewpoints also have a right to vote. However, often these viewpoints are silly. Hopefully, the research would change their views.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Democracy 2.0
« on: December 10, 2010, 07:38:41 PM »
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This wouldn't supress people's opinions because the test questions wouldn't be (as I think some of you think)

DO YOU SUPPORT GLORIOUS LEADER?
YES/NO

They would be more along the lines of:

List 3 changes is the Random Party Of Madeupness proposing in the education sector.
or:
Compare and contrast the economic policies of Party A and Party B.
or:
If Party C is elected what changes will they implement regarding drug laws?


The questions would be politically neutral and their only purpose is to ensure that people know a bit about the other parties as well. People can still vote for whoever they like and, if after thay have reasearched Party B's policies and still feel Party A is the better choice then they can go ahead and vote Party A. As long as they know what the alternatives are.

EDIT: Spelling mistakes

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Democracy 2.0
« on: December 10, 2010, 08:23:04 AM »
Also, "weeding out the retards" as you put it, seems to me like you're eliminating the ordinary man's right to vote. That goes against the very core of democracy.
Nope. Right is still there. He can vote, as long as he passes the test that ensures he has a fairly balanced view of things.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Democracy 2.0
« on: December 10, 2010, 07:30:40 AM »
Democracy 2.0

As we all know by now Democracy is only an effective form of Government when you weed out the retards. Otherwise you end up with America.
Trolling aside, I think that Democracy could be improved in several ways but foremost among these is the voting process. Voting Ė for those of us who live under a rock Ė is when a society gets together and puts its opinion in a box. These opinions are counted and the one that turns up the most wins. In a True Democracy you get to vote for your leader and he then makes decisions. There are multiple parties and etc. Etc.

The problem is that you get people who are idiots. Thatís not YOU of course, god forbid, but its everyone else who doesnít agree with you. Regardless, they shouldnít be in charge of the country because they can barely keep charge of their car/marriage/children/whatever. Democracy makes these idiots equal to non-idiots.

BUT THERE IS GOOD NEWS. We can fix them. All we need to do is educate them. But how do you encourage Billy Bob Smith to read up on politics instead of watching Faux News (see what I did there). Itís simple really: he takes a test before he votes on the policies of the major parties. He passes and his vote counts, he fails and his vote does not. Simple. The test would be anywhere between 1 Ė 2 hours long and while not being EXHAUSTIVE it would cover the important bits on political policies about current affairs, stances on defence etc.

How would the test be decided upon?
The same way they decide on University tests etc. The goal of the test is to ensure the subjects have a comprehensive knowledge on the policies of the major parties. Questions to be chosen accordingly.

But EVIL KOMMUNISTS USE SECRET TEST TO TAKE OVER.
After the election the test and its answers would be made freely available, along with you being able to access AT LEAST your own test paper (online, probably). If the test is ruled TOO KOMMUNIST by a specially appointed court then the process is redone.

Political bias by the test markers?
Crosscheck the tests. A lot.

Itís too much effort to study for a test!
Nothing in this world worth having comes easy. If you want competent leaders picked by a qualified voting base then you had better be prepared to accept that PERHAPS it might take some god damn work on your behalf. Stop being a lazy faggot and get interested in your countryís politics. You should ALREADY be studying the pros and cons of each major party. The government shouldnít HAVE to force you to with threats.

Itíd cost too much!
RAISE TAXES. FUCK THE POOR.
But seriously, it might cost a pretty penny (I donít actually know but letís assume it does for safetyís sake) but itíd be worth it. Spend less on whatever useless black hole DARPA (moar liek DERPA amirite?) is sinking funds into.

Nobody would bother voting because itís too much effort.
Make it mandatory. If itís still just too much effort then hand in a blank sheet of paper. Easy.

In conclusion:
Everybody can vote. They just have to actually know a ratís ass about current politics for their vote to count. Thereís no bullshit IQ testing or anything, if you pass the test your vote counts. If you donít, better luck next time.


Now then, whereís the glaring flaw Iím missing.

8
The majority of criminals are going to find it very hard to get a gun.
Um, no. Criminals will pretty much always have easy access to guns, thanks to gun-runners and smugglers
[/quote]

Protip: Look at Japan.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Israel vs. Turkish Sea vessel
« on: June 02, 2010, 01:10:01 AM »
Protip: The ships were probably carrying rockets to Israel's enemies.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How To Fix Dole/Doll Bludgers
« on: June 02, 2010, 01:04:56 AM »
The problem with this scheme is that there's a massive loophole in it. Say I'm unemployed and on benefits. It's time to join the army. Wait! I'm starting my own business washing cars. You can't put me in the army now, because I'm working. Never mind my business will fail three weeks later and I'll be back on benefits, technically it's a job.

To solve people waiting 6 months, conscription, get job, leave job a day later, repeat indefinately etc. you have 3 chances. After that you are immediately re-conscripted.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How To Fix Dole/Doll Bludgers
« on: June 01, 2010, 07:19:47 AM »
Alright then. Maybe the army was a bad idea. What about assigning them to building roads or something? They don't get payed but they do get food and a barracks to live in if they don't have a house.

What good does that do? Now you've created a slave underclass who can't get ahead any more because they're unpaid and fully dependant on the state and their 'job'

True. Alright then. Pay them an amount they can live on, but only barely.


And are these barely paid workers going to work on government projects, which would otherwise be contracted to construction companies who have to pay proper wages? I think you just undercut the sector and put a lot of people out of work.

I doubt the supply of government workers is going to meet the demand for projects. And if it does then make them pick up rubbish or something menial but hard.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How To Fix Dole/Doll Bludgers
« on: May 31, 2010, 06:14:20 AM »
Alright then. Maybe the army was a bad idea. What about assigning them to building roads or something? They don't get payed but they do get food and a barracks to live in if they don't have a house.

What good does that do? Now you've created a slave underclass who can't get ahead any more because they're unpaid and fully dependant on the state and their 'job'

True. Alright then. Pay them an amount they can live on, but only barely.

Why not create something like a mandatory education course which could be vocational for all people who want to claim their dole money. The course would only be 2 or 3 days a week but it could give them the training and skills necessary to put themselves back into work and out of the welfare system, after all most people on the dole do want to work.

Good idea. For the first 6 months you attend these courses with no work. After those 6 months you work for your dole money in the government and attend these courses on the weekend (probably not both days).

The problem is: we need a system that you can't escape from if you don't want to work but also doesn't punish those who are unlucky.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How To Fix Dole/Doll Bludgers
« on: May 31, 2010, 12:04:58 AM »
Alright then. Maybe the army was a bad idea. What about assigning them to building roads or something? They don't get payed but they do get food and a barracks to live in if they don't have a house.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / How To Fix Dole/Doll Bludgers
« on: May 29, 2010, 01:14:59 AM »
Here in Australia we have handouts to the unemployed like most countries. And like most countries there are people who just live on these handouts.
I can fix that.

Unless you are properly disabled and can't work because of it this happens.
1. You become unemployed.
2. Handouts for 6 months.
3. Congratulations, welcome to the army.

It's simple really. You get 6 months to find a job and then you get conscripted. You can leave at any time IF you have a job lined up. To solve people waiting 6 months, conscription, get job, leave job a day later, repeat indefinately etc. you have 3 chances. After that you are immediately re-conscripted. It would be the real army. The conscripted would enter as normal soldiers.
For those who usually couldn't enter because of criminal records etc. they are put in the penal battalions.
For those too fat/weak etc. they get put into a special fitness program until they are ready for entry.
For those who have conditions preventing them from combat roles they are given paper-pushing jobs.
You would be paid an average wage for your rank.
There would be no limitations on ranks achievable etc.
In effect: work or fight. No middle-ground (except old people).

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Compulsory Organ Donation
« on: May 14, 2010, 06:31:22 AM »
All my organs will be donated.
The rest of my body will then be given to SCIENCE! for research/whatever.
If I don't help in this life, I'll sure as hell help afterwards.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligence Standards
« on: May 14, 2010, 06:26:55 AM »
Mayor McCheese was surprisingly pro-abortion.

I doubt that, mccdonalds has an economic model based on forcing impoverished mothers to buy unhealthy food simply because they can afford nothing else. Every abortion is a loss in chicken nugget sales.
READ THE BOLD
Ah, I think he was more into it for racial cleansing purposes. (shudders)

We can't let those fucking angus quarter pounders multiply, they will rape our crops and burn our daughters.
Australia here.
Enjoy my angus.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Are Kids Ever Right?
« on: May 13, 2010, 04:57:04 AM »
Found this on the series of tubes:

Chernov: lol
Chernov: i remeber one time
Chernov: talking in the car
Chernov: i told my mum that mr. stuetzel told alex to stop chewing gum
Chernov: and that alex told him he wasn't
Chernov: and mr stuetzl didn't believe him
Chernov: and got all pissed
Chernov: and told him to move into the corner
Chernov: and then it turned out alex wasn't chewing gum
Chernov: and mr stuetzl was like
Sexy skipper 69: lol
Chernov: MOVE ANYWAY
Chernov: and alex said but i haven't done anything wrong
Chernov: and mr stuetzl said
Chernov: I DON'T CARE THIS IS MY CLASSROOM AND YOU WILL DO AS I SAY
Chernov: and my mum was like
Sexy skipper 69: LOL
Chernov: mr stuetzl is right alex should have done as he was told
Chernov: and i was like hmmmmm....
Sexy skipper 69: LOL
Chernov: weren't people forced to do what HITLER told them?
Chernov: and my mum was like: this is differenyt
Chernov: and i said: how?
Chernov: and she said: its in a classroom
Sexy skipper 69: lol
Chernov: and i said: oh, so because we're kids we have no rights and you can walk all over us no matter who is actually in the right?
Chernov: and she realised i was right BUT instead of saying so she yelled at me for something retarded like playing with my seatbelt (even though i was holding a box of shitty plants she bought)
Chernov: *with both hands
Chernov: and i said
Sexy skipper 69: LOL
Chernov: you're just pissed cus you know im right but don't want to back down cus you think i'll lose respect for you
Chernov: protip...
Chernov: i don't have any respect for you to lose
Sexy skipper 69: holy moly
Chernov: and she was like
Sexy skipper 69: lol
Chernov: 0.o
Chernov: and i said
Chernov: and guess what...
Chernov: its stupid thingslike not backing down because you're too proud that are the reason
Chernov: and she was like: you're wrong...
Chernov: and i said: am i really?
Chernov: and then she was silent
Chernov: and there was VICTORY
Sexy skipper 69: TOLD
Chernov: JUICY, JUICY VICTORY
Sexy skipper 69: ll
Sexy skipper 69: man that was indded was a great victory
Chernov: STATUS
[  ] NOT TOLD
[X] TOLD

So......
Who was actually in the right here?
Is it the kid or the parent?
And is it the teacher or the student?

18
Its almost always their fault for giving into their kids whining or just letting them eat all they want.

Fixed. People don't seem to realise these days that kids can't force you to buy them shitty food. When you buy them shitty food, it's your fault for being a shitty parent (yeah, I went there). Harden the fuck up and tell the little shits to shut up or they can go hungry for the night (because contrary to common belief, people won't starve to death in a night. It's okay, precious Timmy isn't going to die on you).

Even better, don't be a faggot of a parent in the first place and you won't have to deal with this kind of faggotry.

/RAGE

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Time travel
« on: April 29, 2010, 05:49:56 AM »
Time treacle isn't possible. Time goes in direction and no other. It's like trying to mix chocolate fudge cake, once the beater starts you can't swap gears to reverse. You have to stop the whole thing and reset it.

20
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: April 29, 2010, 05:47:15 AM »
Tell me, how much could you contribute if you were poor, starving and lived in the middle of a desert in a virtually ungoverned badland without acess to clean water, food, health, police or anything.

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Can we make a conscious machine?
« on: April 29, 2010, 02:57:08 AM »
How to not fuck over the world with your first SI:
Put it in a physical body that it CAN NOT GET OUT OF EVER.
Do not give it wireless internet access. It MUST use a SEPARATE COMPUTER to access the internet.
Do not give it any ability to "plug in" to anything.
In other words: human made of mechanical parts.

END DRAMA
How would you isolate a human that had the potential to enslave the world?
See: World War 2 for further reading.

22
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: April 28, 2010, 01:11:57 AM »
Well then we are in agreement.

(Except I see this as a scenario to help cure overpopulation that should be taken full advantage of. Dropping a few off on continents other than our own might not be a bad idea either)
Can we pick australia, if it existed?

I was going to pick perhaps the continent that contributes the most to Malaira deaths, AIDS deaths, genocides, and all around crapping up of the world.

Genocide is fun!

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« on: April 27, 2010, 05:23:21 AM »
I should be President.
Every man and woman over 18 must carry a federally issued ID card. Police are allowed to spot check you. If you do not have your card you will be given a convienient date (for both) where you turn up at the police station. Your details will be taken (off other forms of ID). If you do not show up/do not have your card...
*BLAM*

24
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Can we make a conscious machine?
« on: April 27, 2010, 05:09:56 AM »
How to not fuck over the world with your first SI:
Put it in a physical body that it CAN NOT GET OUT OF EVER.
Do not give it wireless internet access. It MUST use a SEPERATE COMPUTER to access the internet.
Do not give it any ability to "plug in" to anything.
In other words: human made of mechanical parts.

END DRAMA


25
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: April 27, 2010, 05:03:40 AM »
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.

No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.

What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.

Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.

They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.

If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.

Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
But how do we know? That's my whole point. We don't, and until we do we have no reason to exterminate something that isn't actually a threat and could become human again. It's the same reason they keep terminally ill patients who have a chance of getting better on life support. Sure, they might not get better, but a human life is worth the effort and the money. In this case it could be hundreds or even thousands of human lives. And if it turns out they can't become human again then we haven't exactly lost everything have we?

But we are talking hypothetical zombie attack here and it has been clarified in this thread that zombification works, in at least part, by brain death of non zombie parts of the brain.

Your idea is equivalent to keeping corpses unembalmed because they "might not be completely dead/might get better" Sure statistically that is true, but it is not worth the risk of spreading disease.
WAIT: Are these the living dead or are they infected people?
Living dead: Kill them.

Infected: does it destroy the brain (i.e. physically stop it from functioning in an unrepairable manner)
If yes: Kill them.
If no: How does it make them zombie-like and can we cure it now or soon (next year)?
If we can: Do it/study how to do it until time runs out and then re-evaluate.
If we can't: Kill them.

It is that simple. Keep them confined in compounds and minimize risk of a spread. A concrete wall should do it (they are only zombies) and chuck in meat a few times a day.

26
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: April 25, 2010, 07:36:12 AM »
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.

No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.

What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.

Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.

They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.

If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.

Higher reasoning, while great for solving problems, is not necessary for a zombie to function. They are brain dead only in the non zombie regions of the brain.
But how do we know? That's my whole point. We don't, and until we do we have no reason to exterminate something that isn't actually a threat and could become human again. It's the same reason they keep terminally ill patients who have a chance of getting better on life support. Sure, they might not get better, but a human life is worth the effort and the money. In this case it could be hundreds or even thousands of human lives. And if it turns out they can't become human again then we haven't exactly lost everything have we?

27
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: April 23, 2010, 10:04:02 PM »
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.

No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.

What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.

Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.

They may attack humans but except in rare cases they do not hunt humans. That is a very large difference. As for the chance of returning a brain dead person to normal after having over half their brain shut down, The odds of it are 0, at least the elephants lions and such are actual animals and living things.

If zombies are truly brain-dead (as you say) then they wouldn't hunt humans either.
Also: are we talking living dead or infected people? Because if they are living dead I am wholeheartedly in favour of re-killing the fuck out of them.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: First they came for the Internet
« on: April 23, 2010, 10:00:40 PM »
Obviously the demoliton companies and so would still have access to the information. What I meant was that if there is a site that says:

Here is how to make a turpentine bomb and put it in a subway!
1. Get stuff
2. etc. etc.

Then it should be pulled down.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Can we make a conscious machine?
« on: April 23, 2010, 06:40:14 AM »
My checklist would include-
-limited information access - Too much information at once without the necessary cognitive filters could wildly distort the SI's perception of the world.
-An 'abort' option should be available until the SI reaches maturity, after which point this must be removed if SI-human relations are to be anything more than master and slave.
-Create more than one. - If an SI is to understand itself it will need other members of its 'species' to interact with. Without them it will always see itself as an outsider which is a serious risk.
-Don't give it access to the nuclear trigger - You wouldn't trust your five-year-old son with the big red button so why trust your new SI with it?.

 

-Don't give it access to the nuclear trigger - You wouldn't trust your five-year-old son with the big red button so why trust your new SI with it?.

THIS!

Also, don't give it internet unti somebody has sat down and had a long discussion with it about 4chan and what it is and what it isn't.

30
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: April 23, 2010, 04:20:16 AM »
So once they are infesting the woods we should let them stay there maintaining their threat to our existence? Humans have never left a threat at our door when we had the power to force it into extinction.

No. When there are few left we should go out with intent to capture, not exterminate. Obviously, people in "zombie zones" should get government aid to ensure their safety. And if it turns out we can't help them then we go out with intent o extermnate.

What right do they have to live? If they are going to attack humans, it is our duty to kill them.

Should we also exterminate lions? Tigers? Elephants? They all attack humans. In fact they have even less of a right to life because there is no chance of even turning them human.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4