Swagnarok

One problem is that with technology nukes are getting faster and faster. One day we might have near-luminal speed weapons capable of nuclear-level destruction. The only way to counter this would be computer systems fast enough to launch a second hand strike before the super-fast weapons could destroy these (the speed required of this system would make it totally independent of human commanders during actual nuclear contingencies).That means they'd have to have to reach the point where one microsecond on its sensors of something resembling a nuclear attack would be enough to set off all of its weapons, deployed at the speed of light, in all likelihood unable to be recalled before reaching their targets. A tiny little glitch could set off an apocalypse. One moment we'd all be minding our own business and then like twenty minutes later there'd be no mammalian life left on the planet.

Scary crap. Fortunately something of the severity that I just described shouldn't be the case for another half century at least, hopefully.

I might want to debate you one day on Catholicism vs. Protestantism (not now, and not soon, since I'm scheduled for a debate with Virtuoso). Would you be up for that?

Panama and Kuwait (to oust the Iraqi army).

Maybe not tonight, as I'm kind of busy with finals (and I will be until Thursday), but sometime soon you ought to PM me and tell me exactly what's been going on between you and the mods (and especially bsh). I'm curious as to what happened.

it's enough to hate a man on the basis of what he actually did. There's no need to add to the hate by throwing in things he didn't do. You can say that Bush Sr. was a warmonger, because he invaded two countries (though Iraq was limited in scope and clearly justified by any stretch of the imagination). But what evidence is there that he was in any way, shape, or form a pedophile?

I think you completely missed the point here.

Funny scrolling through the comments on a BBC video on YouTube commemorating his life. Most of the people there seemed to be happy that he was dead, and are convinced that he was some kind of illuminati pedophile.

George Herbert Walker Bush, former President of the United States (1989-1993), has died at the age of 94. Jimmy Carter is now the oldest surviving former President, both men having been born in the same year (1924). A distinguished WWII veteran and the President who led America during the Gulf War and the dramatic fall of the Eastern Bloc, Bush will be missed.

What a milestone, truly.

Consumerism is:

-Owning a washing machine, instead of washing everything by hand in a tub with a crude homemade soap and then hanging it out to dry

-Having a house that is centrally heated, or cooled, instead of simply opening a window in the summer and having a fireplace in the winter (both of which are wholly inadequate to regulate the temperature of a large house)

-Taking a car from point A to point B, instead of walking (roughly 3 mph), taking a bike (10 mph), or taking a horse (15 mph)

-Owning a kitchen stove instead of gathering wood to make a fire, lit manually instead of with a match

-Being able to throw lukewarm food into a microwave to make it more palatable, and to reduce the risk of bacterial infection

-Being able to take a hot bath/shower every or almost every day

-Having indoor plumbing, and running water, enjoying the luxury of brushing your teeth twice a day with brand toothpaste and an industrial-grade toothbrush

-Having reliable metal tools (even if just pots, pans, and metal utensils), which probably could not be produced at home

-Buying your clothes at a store from a name brand instead of making it by hand or with a loom

-Owning ceramic plates and cups, washing these in a dishwasher instead of by hand with a homemade soap

-Wearing deodorant or antiperspirant

-Taking medicine when your stomach's upset

-Having a refrigerator/freezer so that you can wait several days/weeks/months to eat certain perishable foods, such as eggs, milk, or meat

-Being able to regularly apply a razor to your body, with shaving cream, and being able to apply a band-aid/antibiotics if you get a cut anywhere

Let's not kid ourselves: by world and historical standards we are obscenely wealthy, and the average guy here who talks crap about consumerism would not be willing to give half of these things up (and I didn't even mention entertainment like television, radio, internet, movies, or books). You might self-righteously believe that cutting back just a little bit will somehow make you not a rabid consumer, but in fact you still are, because that's just the nature of the society into which you were brought up and which you have always been a part of.

Sorry to break it to you.

At least make it just temporary. Debateart can't afford to permanently lose people like him.

Echo Chambers are no fun.

So today I got some very good news: it was never actually a 7-point trading scale. It was always a 10-point one. So I actually have a low B, perhaps about to slip to a C. So as long as I turn in something I'm pretty much guaranteed to pass this course, one way or another.

What on?

Define "new series". As in, the latest season? Or the broader contemporary series, which first aired in 2005, that is in contrast with the original Doctor Who (1960s-1989)?

Sierra Mist. I used to get that every time I ate at Subway. That was years ago, but I recall it tasting so good.

For example, somebody with the Orthodox church devised this technique long ago:

1. Shut yourself in a dark closet, alone with God.

2. Clear your thoughts. Have as empty a mind as possible.

3. Keep repeating the following prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Either mentally, in whispers, or out loud.

I actually kind of want to do this, though I know that with the way I'm living my life right now it would be inappropriate.

I don't really know, so all I can give here is my opinion:

1. Hitler saw the Jews as an impediment to Germany's greatness, and as a 2,000 year old cancer on the white race. He sought to remove them from Europe, and especially from Germany (defined as the large area in central and eastern Europe which Nazi Germany claimed as its territory). As for how he originally planned to go about this is up for debate. It's possible that he regularly engaged in an (to use so crude a term) exercise in mental masturbation, priding himself in his leniency in his plans to relocate those cursed Jews rather than just killing them all. Alternately, he may have prided himself in the perceived sincerity and purity of his desire to fight for Germany, which meant killing all its enemies for their slights against his Fatherland. And he might've done both, as I'm sure his views fluctuated wildly over the years, since ideological formation was a fun way to occupy his time.

Either way, it soon became apparent that even if Hitler wanted to peacefully remove the Jews from Europe there wasn't really anywhere to put them. And wherever they went they would've eventually ended up manipulating the white race once more via their saavy banker skills (these are not my views on Jewish people, mind you).

2. Hitler was the driving force behind everything big. He came up with the state ideology; at most he received extra input in certain areas (though let's be honest: this was probably the case in a lot of areas, as Hitler was a hedonist who didn't like heavy workloads) where he was too intellectually lazy to come up with a comprehensive and unique direction. That is, Hitler was a macro-thinker, but there may've been room for other people to fill in the micro-details. It just depended on who had his ear.

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions have developed certain, er, *techniques* for reaching a deeper spiritual state and getting closer to God. I think Evangelical Protestants could stand to benefit from studying these and trying them out. Rejecting Catholic and Orthodox headship need not mean rejecting the accumulated wisdom of 2,000 years of Catholic and Orthodox asceticism, nor the rich intellectual traditions that have stemmed from both.

Explain.

1. Because the central claim of Roman Catholicism, that it is the "one true church", makes no sense.

A. There is little to no evidence in scripture to suggest that Jesus wanted a centralized ecclesiastical hierarchy over the global church. Two key early church leaders, Paul and Barnabus, parted ways after a dispute and never saw each other again as far as the Bible records, suggesting that the early church fathers (that is, those close enough to the life of Jesus that they were recorded in the NT) saw little need to coordinate their efforts aside from:

B. The Church Council in Jerusalem. The only time in the NT that a church council was mentioned. Jerusalem has a greater claim to being the seat of Christendom than anywhere else. The Bible does not mention Peter being Bishop of Rome, and in any case he was not the only one of the twelve apostles (nor necessarily the most important to the early church). Why Rome should get that illustrious position instead of Jerusalem just seems illogical.

C. With this in mind, the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to have an equally valid claim to headship over the global church as the Roman Catholics do. Their churches are directly descended from the ministry of the 12 apostles just as those in Rome are (if anything, the Eastern Orthodox churches are older, being geographically closer to Iudaea). And yet Eastern Orthodoxy decries the Pope as a heretic.

D. On a practical level, a Christendom wholly united under any unquestioned earthly leader just seems incredibly dangerous. At any given time Pope Francis seems to be just one step away from saying "There's nothing wrong with homosexuality", and in the distant past there were Popes who engaged in homosexual pederastic relationships. One man would have the power to introduce heretical teachings, and Christians everywhere would accept it as true just because the Pope said it. Even if you had 10,000 years of good and decent Popes who would never do that and who are wise enough to avoid any kind of heresy, all it takes is one guy. Literally. Just one guy. And then the Church that Christ founded would be lost.

I don't believe that typing something up magically makes it true, no, save the statement "I typed that up." And of course I could be wrong about anything. But I'm highly confident that I'm not wrong on the issues that I fret about near-constantly.

I think we can also attribute to Luther some of the messed up views Baptists have about grace. My dad, easily one of the most Godly and admirable people I know, believes that he was saved during his wild teenage years on the grounds that he prayed a prayer of salvation as a kid.

I mean, I guess that's where Sola Gratia leads when taken to an extreme, which is what Martin Luther pretty much encouraged Protestants to do.

It'd certainly be nice if he was right. But I just don't think so.

That's strange, because the way I see it I've been way too transparent about my views. Like I just repeat the same mantras over and over again. Ask me some specifics and I'll be glad to tell you whatever I think about that thing.

He caused over 100 years of religious civil war in Europe and inadvertently gave birth to the English Puritan movement, which would settle New England and branch off into the Baptist denominations. Without these, America would be a very different place, in ways probably unimaginable. He also caused the Counter-Reformation, which led to the Catholic Church being significantly less corrupt, while conversely more anti-science, up until the 20th century, which I'm sure harmed the scientific and economic advancement of Europe somewhat.

Perhaps most of all, however, the religious wrangling between Catholics and Protestants led to the Dutch convincing the Shogunate to/assisting them in the wholesale slaughter of the Catholic Kirishitans, leading to the virtual extinction of Christianity in Japan. If not for that then the country might be Christian today, or even never have engaged in any lasting strict isolationist policies, which might mean no Meiji Restoration, no ultranationalism, and/or no (or at least a very different) Pacific War.

Martin Luther was definitely a historical giant. There's no question about it.

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."