Swagnarok

I mean, I guess the "Ugh" part was uncalled for. But other than that I don't think I was too rude (and in any event my gripe was not with his question but with my own inability to answer). Got any questions for me?

Historically great=/=Morally good or beneficial to humanity

Modern populism is making the left-right paradigm obsolete because it tends to be rather syncretic, as I suspect a number of people here (myself included) can attest to.

Some pastor. I don't know. Warren something.

"Truth without love is brutality. Love without truth is hypocrisy."

Ugh. I'm not sure if I'd be able to answer that. For sure there are "great men" (re: Jesus, Alexander of Macedon, Theodosius, Muhammad, Charles Martel, Genghis Khan, Gutenberg, Columbus, Martin Luther, Napoleon, Gavrilo Princip, Lenin, Hitler, Gorbachev, Tim Berners-Lee, etc) who shaped the course of history, but for the most part history is the story of trends. Europe was made great by stuff like the mercantile revolution and geographical/cultural factors (which divided the continent into a number of densely populated kingdoms which had to compete with each other militarily and economically, but which at the same time were part of a common ecumene united by the use of Latin, which allowed for discoveries to easily diffuse from one kingdom to the other). These kinds of things, as mundane as they are, really don't get enough credit.

Really, it's just whoever I might find interesting at any given time. There's nobody in particular right now.

As a history major who's (hopefully) about to graduate after three years, ask me anything about history. Alternately, ask me questions about myself or about religion/politics.

Who designed that awesome flag?

Eh. Just as a formality, I guess.

While I do believe that you have an extremely inflated opinion of yourself, it's clear that you have some very unorthodox ideas on a lot of subjects. Would you mind if I PM'ed you and, sent you some questions, and just picked your brain for a while?

The concept doesn't really make sense. A person is pulled apart molecule by molecule, and then each molecule is transported to the point of "materialization" and re-assembled. So the energy cost of transportation should be the same as with a live person. I mean, I guess it's more convenient than just shooting a person through a missile from point A to point B at nearly the speed of light, since no mass is being transported save that of the person in question.

However, each molecule traveling at that speed is effectively a projectile; if a number of these were to strike, say, a wall then it should be enough to tear such apart. As with a cannon, you can only send it shooting it in a certain direction, so that for example it simply lands at some point on the surface of a planet, outside of any building or similar structure, though they'd still have to pass through a potentially thick atmosphere. You couldn't make it dodge matter with surgical precision; the best you could do would be to send it on some kind of curved or ballistic trajectory so that it could dodge some immediate obstacle that was accounted for by the computers before transport.

Another glaring problem is that you'd have to make it stop at exactly the right point instead of impacting or bouncing off the floor/ground (in the case of a molecule that would help comprise the absolute bottom of a shoe), or continuing on its path (in the case of any other kind of molecule).

Gene Roddenberry was a madman.

What's your highest career aspiration? What's your highest personal aspiration?

^These are the most important issues to me. On pretty much anything else I'm likely to fluctuate wildly over time.

Not everyone can enjoy a good life, nor a long one. Even for those who do, one day they'll lose everything. It is absolutely vital, therefore, that people be allowed to believe in a God who will give them the option, real or perceived, of eternal existence in paradise.

We must intervene in Africa to stop the demographic "black wave" which will either threaten the starvation of billions in Africa or lead to their conquest of the planet through sheer numbers. Both are unacceptable. Stable economic growth on the continent must be combined with a drastically lower birth rate.

I envision an America whose population will literally double in 50 years because of mass migration from places like Africa. Each and every one of those people will benefit from free healthcare, education, and basic income, and the vast majority will vote for the party that gives them these things.

We must keep foreigners and historically marginalized groups from attaining a majority, because they will not value this country above the well-being of the groups that they identify with, and because, considering themselves outsiders, they generally lack any kind of actual patriotism. They'll vote in politicians who will strip away the hard-earned wealth of the former majority. This generous welfare state will attract more immigrants into the country, putting an even greater strain on said welfare system, requiring an even greater tax rate (and on income brackets further down the chain), until the end result is an America that looks like a subsaharan African country. In the process, we will see a level of democratic backsliding that makes anything Trump's done look like child's play.

The Republican-favoring "gerrymandered" electoral map is literally the only thing at this point keeping us from that fate: if that goes away then the only people who want to solve the problem will find themselves unable to secure the majority needed to take or hold power. We see this already in the fact that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and Trump in 2016. That Bush won the popular vote in 2004 can only be attributed to exceptional historical circumstances (re: 9/11 and the War on Terror). Trump will probably be among the last Republican presidents ever: if he fails to solve illegal immigration then we are irreversibly f*cked as a nation.

The labels "Socialist" and "Fascist" should both carry the same stigma, of equal weight. The fact that they do not is an indicator of widespread historical illiteracy in the US and Europe.

We should not erect symbolism which enforces feelings of inferiority/guilt among the southern populace. They should be able to hang their heads up high like everybody else in this fine country. If the north can honor their war dead with monuments and memorials, so should the south also.

Conversion Therapy has the potential to work. But it would be very difficult, requiring a highly trained and highly competent psychiatrist, and a willing subject, and it would take a long time to see results. You can't make it into some kind of twelve step program for the masses, administered by lay people. That won't accomplish anything.

tl;dr If the US tries that in even one country then all American expatriates and tourists abroad will have one giant target on their backs no matter where on planet earth outside of the US they are.

No. Absolutely not. When countries do as you described, they eliminate the distinction between "minority group" and "foreign agent". It creates a moral dilemma where the receiving country can either commit genocide/ethnic cleansing or cease to exist.

Right now, ethnic Russians are a massive liability in, say, the Baltic states, because of the s**t that Russia pulled in Ukraine and because they could very well do the same ovrr there. Right now, it would probably be in the best interests of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to round up all their ethnic Russians into permanent detention camps, because there isn't any evidence that they can be trusted. It "isn't their country" and I assume they know that, but unfortunately that's not how human nature works. Over many generations foreign peoples will start to feel entitled, not just to equal treatment but to make their host country into a copy of the one their ancestors left, or even to incorporate it into such. Mere gratitude that they were let in will never hold the peace for very long.

I think that the reporting should usually be anonymous, but if the mods think that it looks suspicious in some circumstances then they should be able to check the IP address of the sender(s).

This isn't PM related, but more "Moderation Comment Period" related. Which, if any, of the following statements are accurate?

1. "The Rules and Code of Conduct are the sole law on this Site, though certain individual users might be subject to national laws governing speech on the internet and similar cyberspaces of a hateful, obscene, blasphemous, or politically inexpedient nature, and the Mods may take no action against any user (beyond that which is within the power of any user, not taking into consideration differences in social sway and/or popularity) except where a violation of such has occurred."

2. "The Mods are discretionary officers of enforcement who use their judgment to decide not only under what circumstances the Rules and Code of Conduct are enforced and to what degree, but also how it ought to be interpreted."

3. "The Mods would be open to hearing appeals by a party qualified to represent another against the finding that a ban, of a temporary OR permanent nature, is an appropriate response to an offense, real or perceived, single action or a wider pattern, or against the deletion of a vote on a debate, or against the revocation of voting privileges, or any penalty of a similar or relevant nature."

(Alternative lyrics to Amazing Grace)Come fiery darts my way
The host of Heaven shall prevail
And rescue me that day
Before she left the womb
The sureties of my God shall keep
And raise her from the tomb

There is an increasing number of men who spend their entire adult lives holed up in their rooms. They spend all their time on the internet, sitting constantly, growing fat, never finding a mate (and increasingly unsuited for a mate), never accomplishing a dang thing, living in dark, filthy, cramped conditions. That does not sound like living to me.

Yet it's often too much trouble to climb our way out of the momentarily comfortable pits we've dug for ourselves. So we don't. And nobody's willing to help to the extent that is necessary.

I know it sounds super extreme, but just think about it for a second: What would you rather? Waste 9 months of your life or waste your entire life? I suspect you're older; if so, do you ever wish that things had turned out differently? That you had done certain things differently?

I do not want to waste my life. If there was this person who could ensure that I don't (or at least make that significantly less likely), I think I'd be much obliged to him or her.

It has nothing to do with the political ideology of the person in the camp. Young men on both the left and right, gay straight or whatever, are all perfectly capable of spending their lives as unmotivated slackers.

They often end up that way for lack of a father figure, something which is vital to the psychological development of men, as statistics on crime, high school dropout rates, etc. will tell you. The father figure, among other things, provides discipline. The coaches running the camp are capable of providing discipline.

The Haunting of Hill House is pretty good. I think some people have been overstating how scary it is, because it really isn't at all, save the end of episode five, which was pretty disturbing. Mainly it's just depressing. And none of it really makes sense (six episodes in). They seem like they could be a real family, the way that they interact with each other and the way that they look. My favorite character is probably Luke.

Unmotivated people who're on the path to becoming complete losers should be put into 9-month rehabilitation camps to mold them into responsible citizens. 9 months is to break unhealthy habits and install healthy habits, to give them a "fresh start". It should be an exhaustive curriculum that instills both physical and mental discipline, so that they can make the absolute most of their God-given potential after their release. They have one life to live and it is a tragedy that anybody should waste theirs. Everybody should be able to croak one day having no final regrets.

If the state won't do this, then there ought to be a vigilante organization devoted to this endeavor. It'd be run like half army boot camp and half university. The ultimate charity. Intense daily exercise, little sitting down time (outside of the classrooms and studying), no porn, no jacking off, no video games, no TV, no drugs or alcohol, only nutritious meals, much intellectually stimulating reading material and religious texts made available.

It's probably too early in the life cycle of this site for something like this. Nobody here has yet left the kind of impression on me that I could cast an honest vote one way or another. So I therefore abstain.

Stephen Breyer will likely be the next Supreme Court Justice to go. Trump will likely replace him with Gregory Katsas, who will then be confirmed by the Senate amid great controversy over his history of working for the Trump White House, which would in all likelihood be the reason that Trump chose him in the first place.

What the media likes to dub the "far right" is often better described simply as "right wing". They like to assign the label of "extreme" to groups that are not actually extreme.

The whole point of the prequel trilogy was that, in the aftermath of the smash hit that was the Original (1977-1983), people wanted more. So the Prequel was designed as supplementary material. It does this brilliantly, comparable to what the Mormon Canon was to the Bible. But the Sequel Trilogy is something else: it's a bunch of shameless Hollywood industrialists wanting to make a quick buck off the nostalgia of neckbearded Millennial fanboys and middle aged moms. It adds nothing, since Star Wars was already a complete story: the new storyline had to be dang good to justify it being added to the timeline, and it failed, because it had no substance befitting a living canon. It's the exact same kind of abomination that was Pokemon Go.

Good Gott no, the new Trilogy is so incredibly generic and uncreative that it's almost enough to make my eyes bleed. You can criticize how kiddish the prequels were, but they were neither bland nor unimaginative.

Acosta is a notorious heckler, and Trump should've thrown him out long before he did.

People who are mentally incapacitated to the extent that you describe (discounting higher IQ people who are simply lazy) are not necessarily, or even usually, autistic.

People should be denied the right to have a family on account of something that they had zero choice over and which in many cases does not drastically impair their ability to live a successful, happy life?

While I cannot know everything that transpired under the metaphorical iceberg during the time of the events aforementioned, I suspect that you're definitely overplaying your role in such. If I recall correctly, by the time that I joined DDO you'd already been permabanned. You sporadically created new accounts for various purposes, sometimes to troll and other times to debate. But airmax's policy, as far as I know, was to close any that you made once such came to his attention. I doubt you would've had any sort of clout with him (not to that extent, anyways), seeing as how his objective was to do away with you for good.

Having joined in October 2013, I can attest that I was never banned. Not even once. If I had two accounts open then he'd close one, but that was it.  If you know my history, as you say, then you can attest to how amazing that is, going by how most sites are moderated. He did get irritated with me at times, but I do not recall him ever having said anything to me that, in my opinion, crossed a line. He has always conducted himself professionally to the extent that I have been able to observe. I don't know how he's treated you, but I can attest to my own experiences, of which I am recalling to the best of my ability. I value honesty, be it intellectual or otherwise.

As for Imabench (he's active here so I might not be able to voice everything fully), I can't deny that I did plenty to exacerbate the situation. If I recall, I was sort of the one who started it: first I made a thread putting him "on trial" and then I made an Alt that pretty much parodied him (or his username, at least). Before he did squat to me. Our last flare-up was two and a half years ago, but before that the only person besides airmax who I recall ever helping me deal with him was ESocialBookworm.

I don't know to what extent you are socially "awkward", but it's painfully obvious to everyone here that you have a difficult time getting along with people in general, so I would say that you and I are not far removed.

No. That's where you're wrong. Laissez-Faire helps super awkward users who need time to adjust. Under a more strict framework, they might quickly end up doing something that the mods find disagreeable and then vamoosh they're banned. I would not still be on DDO if not for the tremendous amount of patience (or apathy) that airmax showed me, and by extension I would not be here today.

There are others like me. With enough time 95℅ of bad nuts will turn straight.

And let me just add this: sites like this require a core of long-term dedicated users. Since nobody stays active on a website forever, you must be adding to this core with a regular infusion of fresh blood, and that'll be much harder to accomplish if you're not willing to give people a chance.

Yeah, don't get me wrong I'm definitely for a more relaxed moderation style but so far as this was a referendum on Bsh there was no way I was gonna vote the other way around.

It's probably due to some kind of glitch. While that's happening, I might as well go check and see if my previous accounts there are now open.

So it would follow that sin, rather than merely an act or way of living that incurs the wrath of an angry God, does itself destroy man and keep him from God. Sin would be something that we needed to be rescued from, rather than forgiven of.

The issue I'd have with this is the fact that Christ did not immediately liberate all humans from sin, but only those who turned to Him, which would seem more consistent with forgiveness, the policy being that He would only forgive those who acknowledged their wrongdoing and petitioned before a Holy God for mercy.

I would say that it's both: we needed to be both forgiven and rescued, because things that we choose also have the consequence of ensnaring us. Because we are ensnared, it's not enough that we seek forgiveness, because by nature we'll just go back to whatever we were like before. We need to be rescued from sin so that we're able to act in a manner that makes it possible to receive forgiveness.

(Note: I posted this before seeing your response to my first post.)

Love conquers death? What does that even mean? Is death (the breakdown of order and expenditure of finite energy stores in the Universe, on the microcosmic level of the breakdown of the human body to the point of total non-operability) a cosmic force that was introduced as a result of man's fall? Is that the big problem? And not the sinful nature of man (which in my opinion was simply exemplified by, rather than caused by, the Fall)? But if sin was the cause of death, then wouldn't the continued existence of sin mean a continuation of death as a natural consequence of such?

A better way of putting it would be "love conquered sin" imo.

Yes.

Let off of Bsh, how about. He's made a good faith effort to satisfy the needs of this Site.

During President Obama's first term the CIA, the latest in a very long series of failures by an organization that is often lionized in pop culture, it has been revealed that the agency had scores of its agents compromised in places like Iran, China (where thirty agents were subsequently murdered by the regime), and North Korea. The breach started in Iran, which used fricking Google to track down covert CIA websites used for communications, and then they helped China do the same, and then began aggressively exposing agents in other countries as well.

You can read about it here:

That would be nice, but I definitely don't want to get my hopes up. Most likely the Dems will take the House and the GOP will retain control of the Senate, while maybe picking up a seat or two in the process. A fairly mundane affair, which would still serve as a rebuke of the Left's apocalyptic narrative about Trump.

I think you fail to give humans enough credit: we're usually complex enough that there is no one source for *all* of our problems. It could be said that all your major problems could be solved by addressing one root cause, but on some level there's still gonna be something, however negligible.