Doom Shepherd

If belief in God is the only thing that stops you from being a murderer or a thief or a rapist then you're scum anyway. ^This. The "we would all rampage and kill without God threatening us with Hell" crap argument is an indictment of believers, not the other way around. YOU may be a savage without your God. It doesn't mean anybody ELSE is. Savage. Not to mention how much of the rest of that original statement is not only factually wrong but massively ignorant. There's less (apparent) crime in the middle east because THEY KILL YOU FOR EVERYTHING, AND OPPRESS THE FVCK OUT OF YOU FOR EVERYTHING ELSE. (And they legalize, or don't particularly care to punish, a lot of stuff that we consider crimes. You know, like BEATING WOMEN for driving.) (Or beheading you for practicing a different religion: http://io9.com/5868253/saudi-religious-police-behead-woman-for-witchcraft) Also, the phrases "stable religious countries" and "Middle East" are NEVER to be used in the same sentence by anyone with even a pretense of sanity. In conclusion: BrutalOrange, good job being an excellent example of the very point you're arguing against.

Tl;dr translation of op's post follows: "BAWWWWW!" /translation

Also uranium's been found, along with silver. Gold has not yet, but it's probable. Although realitically, if you want to mine precious metals that aren't fissile, your best bet is asteroids. Lot less of a gravity well to haul materials up out of. Step 1 locate all nearby asteroids (Ross being for this) Step 2 Missions to asteroids with the least Delta-V. Step 3 Mine those suckers out. Step 4 Establish colonies in the hollowed-out asteroids. Think "New York" but with buildings in 3 dimensions allowing for a much more sizeable population.

Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?

Thank you. I was just thinking about how I don't murder nearly enough people with fire. It's good to have volunteers. And I'm a diabetic, so the cookies mean nothing to me.

Depends on how you define "murdering" and "children," doesn't it?

Incidentally, the late Eugene Shoemaker estimated that we get with with about three meteors big enough to cause a Hiroshima-sized explosion every year. Fortunately, they usually explode over water. But imagine one of those exploding close, over land. Or impacting. Over a nuclear-powered nation. One with enemies, or slightly nutty leaders, or both. What do you think the instictive response would be? Wouldn't you expect something like "OMGWTF Someone set us up the bomb! Fire everything!" I would, because people are jerks. Also... an impact in the sea would "only" cause a Tsunami??? Have you been ALIVE at any point since 2004?? (Or read "Footfall?")

Solar system trade would totally revamp our economic system. Water on Earth? Cheap as hell. Can't get rid of the stuff, sometimes. Water on the Moon? Worth more than its weight in gold.

But usually isn't. Very often, it's punished instead.

University: "Your center isn't making as much money as it did 10 years ago. You need to bring in more money or we'll take your classes away." Us: "That's because 10 years ago, we had 45 classes a semester, now we have 15. Classes are our primary source of revenue. If you want to make more money, you need to give us classes." University: "We won't give you more classes unless you make more money...." Us: "We won't make more money unless you give us more classes!" University: "Do more job training." Us: "In THIS economy? With classes that bring in maybe 5 students if we're lucky, who pay maybe $150 apiece, once, for a 1-day class, versus students who are enrolled for a whole semester at many times that much, and will keep coming back to earn their degree?" University: "Yes." Us: "WTF??"

And now comes the involuntary dirty thoughts. Damn my teenage brain. I am 40 and i get the same thoughts. Except i am old, so it's also creepy.

Thanks to the fact that my old man was a Psych teacher, I've known about the Milgram Experiment for years. I'd skew the test results, though I suppose in the interest of science I'd have to tell them that. I zap people on a case-by-case basis. Besides, it's not the voltage, it's the amps.

XuIQxKTEu8o Yeah, boyyyyyy!

While not bad, I think it's overrated, most especially by its misaimed fandom. You've got Brad Pitt at his hunkiest and Edward Norton at his all-Americanest, two white guys looking ripped and tough and macho, doing macho things and bringin' down "the man, dude!" With big explosions! Theaters full of young white guys looked at that movie and identified with the young white guys they've been trained to identify with, and missed the point train entirely. Why is a certain type of person (the same type that uses the term "sheeple" without irony) drawn to it? Because it's part action movie, so Dudebros can watch it without their friends thinking they're... you know... that way. And it has TEH TWIST ENDING!!1one1!! I totally didn't see that coming, dude!! OMGWTFBBQ!! Nobody 3vah did that be4! Whodaphuk is O. Henry?

A little hypocritical, is it not? Not in the slightest. Stealing a physical object removes it from the possession of the original owner, whereas digital stealing simply makes a copy without removing anything from the original owner's possession. It removes from their possession the money they were entitled to collect for having created it in the first place. It's not exactly theft, but at it's root it is a fundamental denial of human rights - the right to collect wages for work done. Which is still considered a crime by most civilized societies.

s6B4hVLBm1g

Fight club has SO MUCH misaimed fandom... The whole point of Fight Club was that Durden is an asshole, and his 'cure' is worse than the disease. I think you'd have to be spectacularly stupid to embrace that which is mocked so obviously by the film.

Actually, I've heard all this crap before, from someone equally in touch with reality: http://www.timecube.com/ A sample, to illustrate my point: Uncanny resemblance - and the Time Cube Guy is clearly bugfvck insane.

That's your personal definition. Another would be "deliberate wrongdoing with any goal in mind." If I shoot you because I want your money so I can buy food, I'm not necessarily deriving pleasure from the act of shooting you, or of eating the food, but I'm still doing evil. Or conversely, if I shoot you, despite you being unarmed, because you tried to steal my favorite toy, according to societal norms I am committing an evil act, even though I derive no pleasure from shooting you. The ends don't justify the means, or so they tell me. It's the fact that I value my stomach and my toys more than your life that makes me "evil." Not any pleasure or lack thereof involved.

Q:How many deconstructionists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A:Even the framing of this question makes a grid of patriarchal assumptions that reveals a slavish devotion to phallocentric ideas - such as, technical accomplishment has inherent value, knowledge can be attained and quantities of labor can be determined empirically, all of which makes a discourse which further marginalizes the already disenfranchised. Q: How many U. N. weapons inspectors does it take to change a lightbulb? A: What lightbulb? Q: How many Bill Clintons does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: That depends on your definition of the word 'screw'. Q: How many armies does it take to change a lightbulb? A: At least five. The Germans to start it, the French to give up really easily after only trying for a little while, the Italians to make a start, get nowhere, and then try again from the other side, the Americans to turn up late and finish it off and take all the credit, and the Swiss to pretend nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Q: How many bureaucrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: Five. One to change the lightbulb and the other four to fill out the Environmental Impact Statement. Q: How many OWS protesters does it take to change a lightbulb? A: The lightbulb only lights 1% of the room! End the War on Darkness! Free Mumia! Light is oppressive anyway! Communism makes better lightbulbs! The Light-bulb-breaking is an inside job! I'm just here to get chicks! Everybody has to switch to florurescents, now! I thought this was the anti-Light demonstration! I want a high-wattage lightbulb in my preferred color, or free electricity! The Lightbulb manufacturers have too much power! Trololololol!

There will be no peace, as long as Fred Phelps lives.

Well, I only got 5 minutes in before I fond what I believe to be, if not a factual error, then at least misleading rhetoric: "The production from ANWR would last 17 months." I wondered how they arrived that number. I conclude that they're assuming that if the US makes use of ANWR and ONLY ANWR, then ANWR's supply will last 17 months. That's kinda accurate, given the average of the amount of oil believed to be in ANWR (Or more accurately, in Area 1002 of ANWR), and the current and projected rate of US fossil fuel use. Around 10.9 billion barrels, and currently around 20.8 million barrels per day, respectively. Of course, that's not really how oil production and use works - we drill in a number of places, and ANWR would only produce around(assuming the average projection is correct) 780,000 bpd during it's half-decade production peak, while the US is expected to be producing around 5.6 million bpd around the same time frame, so I would still file that under "not exectly honest." http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html I also note that articles are now saying that allowing for more recent discoveries, North American production of oil will peak ini 2016, higher than they did in the 70's. http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/N-American-oil-output-could-top-40-year-old-peak-2193837.php 12:37 Fast Breeder Reactors, failures? No, not really. See what I wrote in the Nuclear Power thread. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor for a more detailed look (and the countries they avoided mentioning.) More later when I finish.

I don't know about that. I figure I could do some pretty "evil" things without deriving pleasure from them at all... assuming I judged it was necessary. Evil can also be a variable dependent upon perspective, as well as a universal constant.