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
61
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Illegal Immigrants
« on: January 11, 2010, 02:08:52 PM »
But aren't the detention cetres ridiculously crowde and expensive? This would be cheap and effective.

Yes from all accounts they are.  The idea is that all boat people get sent to one and than are assessed as either refugee or illegal entrant.  It is a lot of paperwork but the ball isn't really in the government of a country's hands, it is also to do with UN conventions.  You need to remember these are people who have left or been thrown out of a country because of sometimes horrific circumstances.

I suppose I never thought about refugees. Some people do have a valid reason in the end but how do you determine between a lying illegal entrant and a truthful refugee?

62
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Illegal Immigrants
« on: January 11, 2010, 03:06:39 AM »
In Australia we have a big problem with Ďboat peopleí, or illegal immigrants. Currently we lock them up and try to get them in to the country legally or we just let them in to the country. It really annoys me.
Hereís what I think.

Donít let them off the boat. Send a battleship out (or something), resupply them and repair their boat (or give them a new, seaworthy one) and turn them around. If they come back, turn them around with no supplies. If they come back again, sink them.
Very soon, people will realise they have no chance of getting in illegally.

If somebody is already in Australia and is discovered to be illegal and wonít tell us where they come from so we canít deport them back their then we should use them as forced labour/conscripts until they do.

Problem solved.

Thoughts?

You are wong on many accounts and clearly don't understand refugee status vs illegal immigrants. Australia actually does send warships out (of all sizes) to protect borders.  The pacific solution is the solution and covers all of this.  Please don't mislead people about what Australian government may or may not be doing.  

Can you explain to me then. I thought if you tried to get into the country illegaly (just landing a boat on the shore and declaring it your new home) you were an illegal immigrant/

Yes, they would be an illegal immigrant in that case.  However the steps to become a 'functioning citizen' may prove difficult as they wouldn't be recognised by the government bureaucracy, and would end up in their probable extradition.  Most boats are intercepted well before they get near our shores and are tracked until they are intercepted and sent to a pacific solution centre.
But aren't the detention cetres ridiculously crowde and expensive? This would be cheap and effective.

63
Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 11, 2010, 02:02:53 AM »
Here's how I interpret it:
1.Toothyp1cks proposes valid debate over conspiracy
2. Tom puts forth valid evidence.
3.RE'ers generally disprove (or discredit) Tom's evidence and asks for more.
4. Tom sits, crosses his arms, and says "I DON"T WANNA!"

Quoted for truth.

64
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Illegal Immigrants
« on: January 11, 2010, 02:01:43 AM »
Send a battleship out (or something), resupply them and repair their boat (or give them a new, seaworthy one) and turn them around.
I wasn't aware Australia was still in the habit of feeding/outfitting criminals.

Does your country have jails?

And also, wouldn't it be kind of inumane to turn away a sinking boat with no food or water and no chance of getting home containing 30 people?
If the new boats are really that expensive they could always just use decommisoned navy boats (small ones) or second hand boats.

65
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Illegal Immigrants
« on: January 11, 2010, 01:55:04 AM »
In Australia we have a big problem with Ďboat peopleí, or illegal immigrants. Currently we lock them up and try to get them in to the country legally or we just let them in to the country. It really annoys me.
Hereís what I think.

Donít let them off the boat. Send a battleship out (or something), resupply them and repair their boat (or give them a new, seaworthy one) and turn them around. If they come back, turn them around with no supplies. If they come back again, sink them.
Very soon, people will realise they have no chance of getting in illegally.

If somebody is already in Australia and is discovered to be illegal and wonít tell us where they come from so we canít deport them back their then we should use them as forced labour/conscripts until they do.

Problem solved.

Thoughts?

You are wong on many accounts and clearly don't understand refugee status vs illegal immigrants. Australia actually does send warships out (of all sizes) to protect borders.  The pacific solution is the solution and covers all of this.  Please don't mislead people about what Australian government may or may not be doing.  

Can you explain to me then. I thought if you tried to get into the country illegaly (just landing a boat on the shore and declaring it your new home) you were an illegal immigrant/

66
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Illegal Immigrants
« on: January 10, 2010, 11:12:19 PM »
In Australia we have a big problem with Ďboat peopleí, or illegal immigrants. Currently we lock them up and try to get them in to the country legally or we just let them in to the country. It really annoys me.
Hereís what I think.

Donít let them off the boat. Send a battleship out (or something), resupply them and repair their boat (or give them a new, seaworthy one) and turn them around. If they come back, turn them around with no supplies. If they come back again, sink them.
Very soon, people will realise they have no chance of getting in illegally.

If somebody is already in Australia and is discovered to be illegal and wonít tell us where they come from so we canít deport them back their then we should use them as forced labour/conscripts until they do.

Problem solved.

Thoughts?

67
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 10, 2010, 03:01:47 AM »
So you want to herd them into pens, and keep them alive for medical research? How very humane.

Research that leads to a possible cure, and no other. More humane than writing them off.

Also, what if it is found that the only way to sustain their life is through HUMAN flesh>? then what?

Then you kill them.

68
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 10, 2010, 02:59:44 AM »
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.

Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.

So when we are attacked by another country should we figure out what is wrong with them and try to help them get past their stage of wanting to kill us? People that are trying to kill other people lose their rights. When you pull a gun on a cop you officially forfeit your right to live. Same would apply to becoming a zombie.
But its not their fault. Yes, if they are going to kill you and there really isn't a way around it shoot them. Yes, during the inital outbreak of panic blow their brains out. But after that, when stability has more-or-less returned (because a zombie apocalypse would never actually destroy civilization) then we need to start trying to make them better.

I'm not saying don't kill zombies if you have to. I'm saying when you don't, you shouldn't.

If a mentally handicapped person grabs a gun and starts shooting it doesn't matter whether they can help it or not, they are shot.

I don't see this magical point of "after the panic" that you are talking about. Do you mean the zombies will come down and chill? Or we should get used to them and let them eat us? There's no safe way to catch a rabid person with a disease spread through bodily fluids.

Another point, brain dead people don't ever gain their cognitive functions back. Once a zombie permanently a zombie, the non zombie parts of the brain are shut down and killed by the virus while the instructions for being a zombie are left functioning. The person is completely gone and will never return.
If they can never become human again then they should be killed. End of story.
The panic will end once the military kills most of zombies. Think about it, what would a zombie do to harm a tank?

If a mentally handicapped person grabs a gun and starts shooting it doesn't matter whether they can help it or not, they are shot.

Yes. Because they are a threat. When the zombies are no longer a threat (confined to the countryside etc.) is when we should try to help them.

69
Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 09, 2010, 06:26:15 PM »
No one at all?
This thread has been abandoned for a few days now.
Is the FES coming back?

70
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 09, 2010, 06:24:26 PM »
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.

Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.
Or we could preserve our own right to life and let all the Zombie sympathizers ( also known as zombie snacks) go talk to them and try to figure out cures.
You do realize I mean locking them up in pens, not trying to make them human again by sitting down for some one-on-one therapy.
I mean herding them into walled areas (a hunk of meat attached to the back of a car would be sufficent bait I think) and keeping them there, then doing medical research on them. You'd just subdue them every time you needed to get at them.

71
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 09, 2010, 06:19:47 PM »
It's understandable if there are a few hundred of them,
This.
That's what I'm talking about. After the inital outbreak when we're all fine again we should contain the zombies, not kill them.

72
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 09, 2010, 06:18:37 PM »
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.

Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.

So when we are attacked by another country should we figure out what is wrong with them and try to help them get past their stage of wanting to kill us? People that are trying to kill other people lose their rights. When you pull a gun on a cop you officially forfeit your right to live. Same would apply to becoming a zombie.
But its not their fault. Yes, if they are going to kill you and there really isn't a way around it shoot them. Yes, during the inital outbreak of panic blow their brains out. But after that, when stability has more-or-less returned (because a zombie apocalypse would never actually destroy civilization) then we need to start trying to make them better.

I'm not saying don't kill zombies if you have to. I'm saying when you don't, you shouldn't.

73
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Abortion
« on: January 09, 2010, 03:24:48 AM »
In my opinion, I don't care.
It's a choice for the woman and the doctor and the government shouldn't have the power to say that you can't.
If you are against abortions, don't get an abortion.
If you want an abortion, get an abortion.
Ta da, problem solved.
Legalise abortions and let the people actually involved sort it out.

74
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 09, 2010, 03:21:10 AM »
We are talking about a super rabies virus that totally wipes out the "personality" part of the brain, making the person equivalent to them being dead, except that they are bloodthirsty monsters now.
By "dead" we mean all traces of the old person's thoughts, emotions, and memories have been destroyed.

Except they aren't dead. They are alive. If they are alive there is a chance we can cure them. We must find out whether the wipe is impossible to reverse. If it isn't then we'd have to euthanize them, if it is reversible we'd have to reverse it. If we don't know/can't find out we'd just have to contain them.

75
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 08, 2010, 08:22:10 PM »
Zombies are already dead. They are reanimated corpses with limited brain functionality, and a disease that does kill. I also doubt that during a zombie apocalypse we would be debating the legal quandaries of whether they should be killed. That would be on par with in a time of war demanding that troops find a jury of someone's peers before they fire back because he might be innocent.

There is a difference between defense and justice.

Oh. That makes more sense.
I thought we were talking living people with super-rabies or something. And obviously I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't kill them if they try and kill you. I'm just saying that before and after the apocalypse (because obviously the zombies would get owned) they have just as much right to live as any other diseased person.
Unless they actually are reanimated corpses and not infected.

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Airplane Complications
« on: January 07, 2010, 10:03:18 PM »
It doesn't appear to flying by at about 67,000 miles per hour either as round earth theory would have it.

Because you are attached by gravity I think.

77
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 07, 2010, 09:50:19 PM »
I think Zombies should be contained and eliminated.
But im sure some asshole from the ACLU is gonna go ahead and try to have them "protected" because its a "disease" and it isn't their fault.

That would be murder. We don't exterminate people with AIDS or rabies, so why is this any different (unless it becomes a pandemic outbreak OMGWTFBBQ).

How would you kill the infected. Lock them up in camps until you get around to killing them? Maybe with a gas chamber? What would you tell the families? What would you tell the rest of the world?

Unless zombies become a serious threat to global stability they should be treated like sick people, because that is what they are.

If someone with AIDS perpetually tries to spread it we kill them for murder. If someone has rabies we pin them down and give them painkillers til they die. Zombies are technically braindead killing them is Euthenizing murderers.

All true.
But, if someone with AIDS (but a special type of AIDS that wonít kill them, just for this example) perpetually tries to spread it AND is insane, we lock them up and try to make them sane again. If someone has rabies we pin them down and give them painkillers til they die because there is no cure and they will die anyway in a more painful and less dignifying manner. If they werenít going to die but were still bat shit crazy we would lock them up and keep searching for a cure because their life is worth the effort.

See?

78
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Incoherence Theory
« on: January 07, 2010, 09:44:57 PM »
We don't, we just assume that it is so that we can move beyond this problem and actually start learning some stuff.

But if your assumption is wrong you have learned nothing.




True, and if we find out its wrong we will either;
try to find out the truth
or make another, more feasible assumption
and start over again. There's nothing we can do about it.

79
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Abortion
« on: January 07, 2010, 09:41:26 PM »
Foetus = part of woman's body
Parts of woman's body = woman's property
Foetus = property
Property can be destroyed.

Until a child is born (and probably for a while after), I don't think it has developed intelligence. It does not think beyond instincts, and we kill animals who do the same thing every day.

Humans are not animals.

I'll ask you this one more time. Name the requirement for animal that we do not meet. Name a single one.

How about 5, or 6 if you split envy and covetousness, or 5 again if you split that one but dont count the last one.

Only humans kill for pleasure.

Laughter

Humans are filled with wonder at the awe of something.  IE a sunset or pictures of the universe

Envy and covetousness

Altruism  (i will admit this one is debatable)

All of these are caused by a high intelligence, which we have evolved because at some point in time it was necessary (inb4 God), not because we are special. Take away the intelligence and you have your average monkey (kind of).

Only humans kill for pleasure because it is easy to kill things if you are a human, because of rifles. Killing is easy for us, and we have the spare time to do it in. If you were a wild dog you would have to fight the thing you wanted to kill and you would need time not spent maintaining pack relations or hunting.

We laugh because we find things humorous because of our intelligence. No intelligence = no laughter.

Envy and covetousness: animals experience these too, just ask my dog.

Altruism is caused by higher intelligence and the society we live in. If you exchanged any other animal body with our body (that was capable of using tools and such) but not the minds (i.e. we all wake up in monkey bodies but keep the same minds [and donít go bat-shit insane]) and they would be altruistic as well.

Itís not the species that determines the actions, itís the mind. And the mind develops due to circumstance. If monkeys suddenly developed the exact same society and level of intelligence, technology, everything we had, they would be the same.

80
Flat Earth General / Re: So Earth is the only planet that's flat huh?
« on: January 07, 2010, 09:24:23 PM »
The real question is, what formation process did our planet undergo to make it flat, and why aren't all the other planets flat too.
Unless the planets and the FE were formed differently/seperately, and how would this work.

In before God.

81
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Abortion
« on: January 07, 2010, 02:59:01 AM »
Foetus = part of woman's body
Parts of woman's body = woman's property
Foetus = property
Property can be destroyed.

Until a child is born (and probably for a while after), I don't think it has developed intelligence. It does not think beyond instincts, and we kill animals who do the same thing every day.

82
The Lounge / Re: In Case of Zombies
« on: January 07, 2010, 02:52:04 AM »
I think Zombies should be contained and eliminated.
But im sure some asshole from the ACLU is gonna go ahead and try to have them "protected" because its a "disease" and it isn't their fault.

That would be murder. We don't exterminate people with AIDS or rabies, so why is this any different (unless it becomes a pandemic outbreak OMGWTFBBQ).

How would you kill the infected. Lock them up in camps until you get around to killing them? Maybe with a gas chamber? What would you tell the families? What would you tell the rest of the world?

Unless zombies become a serious threat to global stability they should be treated like sick people, because that is what they are.

83
Flat Earth General / Re: Has NASA been worth it?
« on: January 07, 2010, 02:46:36 AM »
Off the top of my head;
Aeronautics technology such as - navigational equipment, safety devices, communications technology, engine design, efficency improvements, mass-transit system upgrades.

The ear thermometer, invisible braces, scratch-resistan lenses, memory foam, shoe insoles, wireless powering (cordless tools and stuff), water purification systems, tire upgrades, long distance telecommunications, smoke detectors, safety grooving (grooves are carved into roads. saves lives somehow), home water filters and more.

In total NASA has issued over 6,300 patents.

Sauce: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions10.htm

84
Flat Earth General / Re: Summary of a Flat Earth.
« on: January 07, 2010, 02:37:51 AM »
"THE EARTH IS FLAT, THERE IS A 50,000 FOOT WALL OF ICE WHERE ANTARCTICA IS, IT IS HOLDING IN OUR ATMOSPHERE SO WE CAN BREATHE, GRAVITY IS ACTUALLY THE FORCES OF THE ANTI-MOON WHICH WE CANNOT SEE, THE SUN IS FLAT, THE MOON IS FLAT, BUT THEY PROVIDE THE DISCREPINCIES OF GRAVITY AND THE FORCES PULLING US TO EARTH, THE EARTH IS CONSTANTLY ACCELERATING UPWARDS AND WE WILL EVENTUALLY HIT THE TOP OF THE UNIVERSE WHERE WE WILL BE SQUASHED, LOL ORBITS DON'T EXIST ALL THE OTHER PLANETS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM ARE EXACTLY THE SAME DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE SUN, MASS CURVES THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM WHICH ALSO IS THE FOURTH DIMENSION, NASA IS A CONSPIRACY, THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE SPOTLIGHTS WHICH EXPLAINS DAY AND NIGHT, MAGELLAN DOESN'T EXIST, EVERYONE ELSE IS STUPID, ROUND-EARTHERS ARE IDIOTS BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND EXPERIMENTS AND EQUIPMENT ALL HAPPEN TO BE FLAWED DUE TO THE DARK ENERGY FIELD WHICH EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION WHICH WE HAVE NO POWER OVER NOR DO WE HAVE ANY WAY OF PROVING ALTHOUGH A ROUND EARTH IS EQUALLY JUST AS STUPID BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF LOL HAVE FUN FALLING OVER THE SIDE OF THE EARTH. OH ALSO GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE US WITH A POSSIBLE DISPROVING WE'LL LAUGH AT YOU FOR BEING STUPID AND IGNORANT, THEN BRING UP NASA CONSPIRACIES, CALL YOU STUPID AGAIN, AND THEN IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN'T EXPLAIN PULL THE ANOMALY CARD AND SAY THAT THERE REALLY ISN'T AN EXPLANATION, IT JUST IS."

Caps lock is cruise control for cool...

/r/ing rule 34 on this post...

85
You may be right.

VICTORY!And here I though youtube pron (shuffle it...) day was the best thing January 6th could ever be.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Horizon - explain.
« on: January 06, 2010, 10:34:36 AM »
So it does! Now you only need to prove it.
HURR DURR conspiracy derp.
Or alternatively - Hurr it has been proved durr

You forgot: Prove that it doesn't, sherpa DERP!

Touche, master.
I have much to learn...

87
Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 06, 2010, 09:53:54 AM »
You have the prosecutor-defendant analogy backwards.

You're the prosecutor. You're the one claiming to the court that man has gone into space. You're the one who needs to provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE that your claim is correct.

The defendant is the skeptic who demands that facts be presented and evidence given. By pretense the judge and jury are on the defendant's side. Any claim given in a court is doubted by pretense. You must provide your own falsifiable evidence for your case.

You're the claimant. You're the one making the fantastic sci-fi claims of manned space travel. If you cannot prove your extraordinary claims, they are false by pretense and the court rules in the skeptic's favor.

Hurr semantics durr. (Sorry, I'm in a 4chan mood tonight...)

See my opening post, in which I clearly state the purpose of this thread.
For the FET proponents to prove the conspiracy exists and for the RET proponents to disprove that. In my understanding, the defendant is the person being accused of something (in this case, NASA; of a conspiracy) and the prosecutor is the accuser (i.e. the FE Society).
YOU are accusing NASA of a conspiracy. Claims have nothing to do with this. You cannot deny it, you are making accusations. Defy me, prove me wrong.

You canít, and thatís an end to it, I hope. If you would like to continue this, tell me and Iíll create another thread for this argument so the derailment can end.

Still need those Chinese motives/NASA conspiracy evidence/stage light stuff/dirt on every other space company. GOGOGOGOGO!

Also, hooray for proxies. YOU CAN'T KEEP ME AWAY WITH YOUR PETTY IP BANS! HURRAH!

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Horizon - explain.
« on: January 06, 2010, 09:44:58 AM »
So it does! Now you only need to prove it.
HURR DURR conspiracy derp.
Or alternatively - Hurr it has been proved durr

89
Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 05, 2010, 03:20:24 AM »
Wait what was the full of it part? US won the cold war, USSR collapsed economically. Don't see whats so hard to understand there.
Dino, please read this.
Warheads weren't launched because of MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) which says if you launch nukes at someone you had better hope to God they don't have any to launch back. The USA knew the USSR did and the USSR knew the USA did. Neither side wanted a nuclear war, so neither launched. Wall Street is a strip of asphalt used by vehicles to accelerate travel.
The thing you are reffering to is doubtlessly some giant complicated economics thing but i THINK it lets people invest in companies. The government pours money in to keep companies afloat and stabilize the economy.

90
Flat Earth General / Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« on: January 05, 2010, 03:13:38 AM »
In the Australian legal system the burden of proof is with the prosecuter. The prosecuter must prove the defendant murdered the victim. It is not the defendant's jobto prove he didn't.
By extension, the flat earth therory supporters are the prosecuters because you are accusing NASA (mainly) of a conspiracy. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the conspiracy is real. If you do not prove it and simply say 'well, it could exist', you have failed the burden of proof, just as saying 'well, he could have stabbed her' is not sufficent to jail a man for life.
TA DA!!!
Dispute settled. You have accepted these terms because you didn't complain in your first post. They aren't going to change, and if you don't like it back out now and tell us. I'm going to copy-and-past this post until you all stop arguing about this because I HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH IT!
Back to the debate please.

I believe we were trying to find Chinese-NASA conspiracy links, the motives behind the faked spacewalk (RE lets just go with it this time and accpet it was faked), whether the stage-light photo was actually a stage light or lens flare (see my summary post in page 3-5).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4