Also, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5987341.shtml
Let us thank the genius Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve. Thanks guys!
Also, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5987341.shtml
Let us thank the genius Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve. Thanks guys!
Wow, wtf!? 'I don't want to execute innocents but our legal system is imperfect. That's like saying "LETS NOT PUT ANYONE IN PRISON BECAUSE WE MIGHT PUT THE WRONG PERSON IN!!!!"
Thats like, a retardedly bad analogy man (if I understand the context, which I do). Wth?
Because of your incorrect comparisons of war and debate. That pretty much proves my point.
Nah, they're pretty darn similar. All's fair, right? I once won an argument classroom debate because I called my opponant a liar straight to his face and insulted him. He got angry and refused to debate, leading to our team winning becuase he was basically the only smart guy on their team. Did it matter that his team was totally right? Nope.
And I don't see how that proves your point in the slightest.
And I have no problem with The Exile being a pawn. I mean, your pretty much Traya's one throughout the game anyway. I just don't like how some poeple Beefy goes on about how she's a total nubcake loser nobody, when we have quotes and feats that suggest otherwise. I also don't like how the words 'She ain't got nothin' on ol' Revan' keep popping up for possible bias some reason.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Wow, wtf!? 'I don't want to execute innocents but our legal system is imperfect. That's like saying "LETS NOT PUT ANYONE IN PRISON BECAUSE WE MIGHT PUT THE WRONG PERSON IN!!!!"
Thats like, a retardedly bad analogy man (if I understand the context, which I do). Wth?
Nah, they're pretty darn similar. All's fair, right? I once won an argument classroom debate because I called my opponant a liar straight to his face and insulted him. He got angry and refused to debate, leading to our team winning becuase he was basically the only smart guy on their team. Did it matter that his team was totally right? Nope.
And I don't see how that proves your point in the slightest.
Personally I always felt The Exile's strength was in her unique leadership qualities and ability to form bonds. However I would not place her up with the likes of Revan, Bane, Kun, Dooku, Caedus or Vader. Its not that The Exile is weak, its just that those guys all blew the curve for everyone else.
Come on. 😬 If your speaking personality-wise that doesn't make the Exile complete fodder or anything. It has no relevence on combat. If your speaking power-wise the Exile may not be on, say, Bane or Caedus level, but she's pretty much beyond Council-member power-wise. Revan and Dooku level imo. She has the feats for it (no matter how much Beefy bastardises Kriea's entire character concept). Plus its revealled that her leadership and ability to form bonds has given her a very real amount of power
Actually, that IS a valid comparison.
Its not even close. You can be let out of prison. You can have a mis-trial (not a student of law here) or new facts can come to light. You can't sew a dudes head back on or un-lethal inject them.
😬
Is this a "special" class? Unfortunately I'm calling bullshit on that one, because if you really WERE on the debate team, you would have been laughed off. That's not to say that debate teams engage in more useless mental masturbation than philosophers, but there's no way in hell they're going to allow you to make personal attacks instead of an argument. So once again, bullshit.
It was a history class mock debate. I don't see where your getting debate club though. 😬
And most of the debates here are nothing but personal attacks fyi.
If you can't make a correct comparison, and think that the winner of a debate is the one who is still typing at the end, how could you possibly hope to debate with me or anybody else?
With a keyboard. Duh. 🙄
Originally posted by Nephthys
Come on. 😬 If your speaking personality-wise that doesn't make the Exile complete fodder or anything. It has no relevence on combat. If your speaking power-wise the Exile may not be on, say, Bane or Caedus level, but she's pretty much beyond Council-member power-wise. Revan and Dooku level imo. She has the feats for it (no matter how much Beefy bastardises Kriea's entire character concept). Plus its revealled that her leadership and ability to form bonds has given her a very real amount of power
Its not even close. You can be let out of prison. You can have a mis-trial (not a student of law here) or new facts can come to light. You can't sew a dudes head back on or un-lethal inject them.
It was a history class mock debate. I don't see where your getting debate club though. 😬And most of the debates here are nothing [b]but personal attacks fyi.
With a keyboard. Duh. 🙄 [/B]
As small and shriveled as it was (practically nonexistent!). Your case, I mean.
I've made conclusive arguments about the Exile not being on the level you assume she is. Only you and Allankles disagree and you haven't brought in a valid argument. What relevant feats put her on Revan's level? Or Dooku's? Go ahead.
If you want to discuss it, make a thread after chistmas. I plan to relax for a while.
Or you can send someone to jail mistakenly, and that person gets killed in jail. Yes, it's that damn close.
So a possibility of someone dying is the same as actually killing them? Thank god you're not training to be a lawyer or anything! That would really be bad!
edit: And seriously make your name visible for the forum! Its really creepy how I don't know when you're lurking.
If you want to discuss it, make a thread after chistmas. I plan to relax for a while.
So a possibility of someone dying is the same as actually killing them? Thank god you're not training to be a lawyer or anything! That would really be bad!
edit: And seriously make your name visible for the forum! Its really creepy how I don't know when you're lurking. [/B]
I don't lurk. I open up a webbrowser and come to this site. It's not complicated.
Then how come I never see your name?
You've always "relaxed" on this forum.
Witty and cool doesn't mean 'relaxed' so's ya know. Frankly some of your posts make me outright anxious. At some point you may have peoples lives on your hands. Thats some nightmare fuel right there. (not that I in anyway value human life above a grain of sand btw)
But by relaxed I mean no arguments with twats on the internet when its abundently clear neither will change their minds and no real point other than rediculous male power displays.
The chances of an innocent person dying in jail are astronomically higher than an innocent person getting executed. Do you plan on graduating high school with that kind of logic?
And you know this how....? Or did you just pull that out of a hat. Besides, that doesn't actually defeat my point. An innocent will die if you hack their head off. An innocent may possible die if you send him to prison. Thats the deep look at your point. Your shallow one was simply 'innocents get sent to prison. innocents get executed. Thats totally the same thing'. Which is flawed becuase of the deep view.
Not sure if this works but think of it like your sisters cake.You have the cake, just like the justice system has the 'criminal. You want to eat the cake becuase you're hungry and you think she'd be cool with that, so you have two options: the 'execution' option would just be to eat the damn thing and screw it if it turns out shes pissed later. Its not like you can barf the thing up, eh? The 'prison' route is to put it in the fridge and nibble on it constantly, as well as getting your sisters approval etc. This isn't as satisfying though and theres also the fact that someone may steal the cake from the fridge. But you can return the cake at any time to sis and justice is had by all!
Taa daaa! Have I got mad metaphor/analogy/sleep deprivesion
skillz or what?
Besides, you entire premise is self-defeating becuase you're seeking a pragmatic way to uphold an ideal, which is stupid becuase the entire point of an ideal is that its above pragmatism. So there * stcks out tongue*
Nope, an ideal is something your supposed to stick too no matter what. Something that can only be broken, not bent. If I firmly believe murder to always be wrong and then kill a man in self-defence, have I not just compromised my ideals? An Ideal is either an absolute, or nothing. Just a lie you tell so you can sleep at night. I'm pretty sure this is what Jesus said. Smart guy.
I think you and I differ greatly on our concepts of failure.
Not to mention this is an 'Ideal', as in not supposed to be realistic becuase its ideal, get it?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Nope, an ideal is something your supposed to stick too no matter what. Something that can only be broken, not bent. If I firmly believe murder to always be wrong and then kill a man in self-defence, have I not just compromised my ideals? An Ideal is either an absolute, or nothing. Just a lie you tell so you can sleep at night. I'm pretty sure this is what Jesus said. Smart guy.I think you and I differ greatly on our concepts of failure.
Not to mention this is an 'Ideal', as in not supposed to be realistic becuase its ideal, get it?
You have an overblown opinion on the worth of such concepts. You use fine words as if the integrity of an ideal actually matters or has any intrinsic value.
If a man comes to me and claims that he will never kill, for killing is wrong and he dies because he refuses to defend himself, then I would laugh over his corpse.
I would find it even more ironic if said man had a family and they died because of his precious ideals as well.
Absolutist ethics are for fools. There is a difference between adhering to a set of principles to use on a general level, but to uphold the act itself as of greater importance than the consequences is to doom the very reason you uphold an ideal in the first place.
Why for instance do we not commit murder? Simple, because society would collapse of there was no laws against it, this is axiomatic for any society. We do not commit murder because the consequences are destructive.
To not kill a man in self defense violates the spirit of why you do not kill in the first place. To phrase it another way; if you do not kill to satisfy the ideal, then you have forgotten the very reason you have that ideal in the first place.
Originally posted by WeltallI see, good for you lol 3 platforms.
I do play them but I'm not too big a fan of them lol. The truth is I'm not too big a fan of gameplay in general, a game really needs a storyline for me to stay interested, otherwise I get bored pretty quickly. All three by the way lol.
Originally posted by Autokrat
You have an overblown opinion on the worth of such concepts. You use fine words as if the integrity of an ideal actually matters or has any intrinsic value.If a man comes to me and claims that he will never kill, for killing is wrong and he dies because he refuses to defend himself, then I would laugh over his corpse.
I would find it even more ironic if said man had a family and they died because of his precious ideals as well.
Absolutist ethics are for fools. There is a difference between adhering to a set of principles to use on a general level, but to uphold the act itself as of greater importance than the consequences is to doom the very reason you uphold an ideal in the first place.
Why for instance do we not commit murder? Simple, because society would collapse of there was no laws against it, this is axiomatic for any society. We do not commit murder because the consequences are destructive.
To not kill a man in self defense violates the spirit of why you do not kill in the first place. To phrase it another way; if you do not kill to satisfy the ideal, then you have forgotten the very reason you have that ideal in the first place.
Perfectly said.
Originally posted by truejedi
the health care thing is getting better.But 30,000,000 uninsured AFTER the bill? what then, is the point? if you are going to fix it, fix it right. Don't waste our time working on something that will need amended later.
This bill is a joke. We can discuss it once we don't have a record national debt and budget deficit. Until then, they need to stop adding to the deficit. Yesterday they added another trillion dollars to spending, and a few days ago Obama said we're going to "spend our way to recovery". Apparently this brainless buffoon never learned economics. This is a keynesian concept which says enough as it is. Keynesian economics is what's been practiced the past 30 years and is a joke compared to Classical economics. John Keynes had the right idea, but his followers butchered it. Keynesian economics has the ability to work and to work well, but only if you're running some kind of a surplus in the country, not deficit. Obama and Bernanke are devaluing the dollar to the point of no return.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This bill is a joke. We can discuss it once we don't have a record national debt and budget deficit. Until then, they need to stop adding to the deficit. Yesterday they added another trillion dollars to spending, and a few days ago Obama said we're going to "spend our way to recovery". Apparently this brainless buffoon never learned economics. This is a keynesian concept which says enough as it is. Keynesian economics is what's been practiced the past 30 years and is a joke compared to Classical economics. John Keynes had the right idea, but his followers butchered it. Keynesian economics has the ability to work and to work well, but only if you're running some kind of a surplus in the country, not deficit. Obama and Bernanke are devaluing the dollar to the point of no return.
Couldn't one argue that Classical Economics didn't work any better? Everyone was running high on the no intervention slogan until the Great Depression. Personally it seems that Keynesian Economics is more practical of two (especially considering the recent actions of the private sector).
Of course this depends the people in charge of the Fed and government know what they are doing. In that light it almost seems that both suck.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Couldn't one argue that Classical Economics didn't work any better? Everyone was running high on the no intervention slogan until the Great Depression. Personally it seems that Keynesian Economics is more practical of two (especially considering the recent actions of the private sector).Of course this depends the people in charge of the Fed and government know what they are doing. In that light it almost seems that both suck.
Don't think so my friend, because classical economics worked and worked well. In the 1950's, America rejoined a prosperity not matched by any country and history, and not matched since. Keynesian economics slowly took over in the 70s/80s although it was still fought against by Classical economists, and fully manifested itself in the form of the bubbles of the 90's. There has never been a time when Keynesian economics worked as well as Classical economics. A free market economy must focus first on the production side, not the consumption side.
Originally posted by AutokratIt's like you pulled this out of an ancient philosophical text. Very nice.
You have an overblown opinion on the worth of such concepts. You use fine words as if the integrity of an ideal actually matters or has any intrinsic value.If a man comes to me and claims that he will never kill, for killing is wrong and he dies because he refuses to defend himself, then I would laugh over his corpse.
I would find it even more ironic if said man had a family and they died because of his precious ideals as well.
Absolutist ethics are for fools. There is a difference between adhering to a set of principles to use on a general level, but to uphold the act itself as of greater importance than the consequences is to doom the very reason you uphold an ideal in the first place.
Why for instance do we not commit murder? Simple, because society would collapse of there was no laws against it, this is axiomatic for any society. We do not commit murder because the consequences are destructive.
To not kill a man in self defense violates the spirit of why you do not kill in the first place. To phrase it another way; if you do not kill to satisfy the ideal, then you have forgotten the very reason you have that ideal in the first place.