You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
TZX's Flamebate Posts
View TZX's Profile
| Search Results | ||
|---|---|---|
|
The Patriot ActSneaky27 Posted:
No, I haven’t changed my opinion, just been making sure that you don’t try to use the “confession” for any nefarious purpose. People on the internet tend to do that surprisingly often. (view post) |
06/09/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActSneaky27 Posted:
And do you mean to use that understanding for some purpose? You know that you’ll only make a fool of yourself if you try to spin it to something. Also, that “yes” can be considered a quote mine. It could be interpreted in a way that’s the same as quoting “I think Evil Trout is sexy” as “I’m gay” (view post) |
06/08/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActSneaky27 Posted:
Ahem, are you sure you understood what I said? I said that saving a human life justifies X amount of expenses. The distinction is a bit subtle but important since technically a life being worth X amount would justify murder if it gained more money while the option I’ve been showing here would only justify inaction when saving one life is more expensive.
It may seem a bit harsh when applied ideologically but in real life we’d not see any problems related to that in a very long time because even saving all lives costing less than X will take an awfully long time. In case anyone wants to apply some kind of logical fallacies to my “confession”, just remember that saving every possible life would result in quite extreme and ridiculous measures. The term “acceptable risk” exists for a reason.
And to avoid derailing this thread any further, when it comes to anti-terrorism the price paid for the comparatively (see the calculations) few saved lives has a steep immaterial price as well, unlike many other, better, methods. (view post) |
06/08/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActCould you explain why what I did was so bad? I bumume that you don’t mean to simply quote mine but AFAIK I demonstrated how more lives could be saved by using the money differently. If anything, people who refuse to use the most efficient methods of saving lives are acting in a bizarre way by setting the monetary value of a saved life lower when talking about some methods but higher when talking about others, especially when the methods they choose to use also violate human rights and civil liberties. (view post) |
06/07/2010 |
|
Do you believe in Evolution?I’m just posting in this thread to wave my superiority in your face by saying that I don’t care about this debate anymore since neither side has any reason to really listen to the other and how my side is right after all and the other side is totally misguided and irrational.
Creationists believe in creationism because their authorities (god, Bible, church) say so. They think others believe in evolution because Satan has deceived them.
Others believe in evolution because it fits reality and has been demonstrated to be the most likely hypothesis to be correct by the scientific method and supported, not disproven, by further evidence. They believe creationists believe in creation because they are dogmatic and unwilling to give up their beliefs even when presented with evidence.
From everyone’s point of view their side is correct and the other side wrong and since there is no established uniform framework in which the correct model could be debated but rather the framework itself is being debated there is very little chance of swaying either side.
Now I have demonstrated how I am superior and how everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. If some god-obeying citizen criticizes me for fleeing from the debate and takes that as a victory, I only have to say that the Chewbacca defense is not correct. Even if you make the other side silent you haven’t won. For those who say I violate the fifth virtue of rationality I only refer to my earlier points how this argument is not constructive as neither side has a reason to believe the other. And to everyone, screw you guys, I’m going home to eat aborted fetuses for breakfast, on top of toast with marmite. (view post) |
06/06/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActSneaky27 Posted:
Partially yes, to demonstrate that more lives could be saved with less money. Ultimately you have to place some kind of limit or we would all be paying 80% taxes so that as many deaths could be prevented as possible. The question is prioritizing and except for nuclear terrorism the current resource use is wasteful compared to the alternatives.
I’m giving some numbers here, pulled out of
IAO: $1 750 000 000
The Information Awareness Office is relevant to the Patriot Act since it was established to develop surveillance. By using a figure of $20 000 for 1 life-year (medical treatments) the IAO would need to have prevented 1750 deaths from terrorism to be cost-effective. By a figure of $5000 (fire detection and similar measures) the number is 7000. In developing countries this could have saved at least 50 000 – 200 000 lives with a conservative estimate.*
Iraq War: $1 900 000 000 000
That money could have saved 1 900 000 lives with medical treatments but if we are reasonable and bumume that adopting the successful late-war strategies early on could have saved one quarter of the money the number of saved lives drops to 475 000: about the same as died in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and London bombings in WW2 and approximately the number of deaths one could expect from one to a few improvised nuclear attacks. This money could also have saved at least 50 000 000 lives in developing countries even bumuming extremely diminishing returns; likely way, way more.
Every time you allocate money to something you are making a choice and even if we bumume that the US government has only a responsibility to protect the lives of its own citizens it did a pretty bad job prioritizing. No offense, but if people stopped throwing a hissy fit at terrorist attacks and looked at the numbers objectively government policy would be pretty different.
Also, civil rights.
* The cost of saving lives in developing countries is estimated as much higher than aid agencies report since the calculations bumume that lives must also be significantly improved; saving a child from diarrhea to suffer near starvation is not considered saving a life here, instead one has to gain real opportunity and a moderately good standard of living. (view post) |
06/06/2010 |
|
The Banning GameSneaky27 Posted:
Banned for discriminating against slow writers. (view post) |
06/05/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActSkyman747 Posted: |
06/05/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActAIDS woman's genitals Posted:
wat.
Exactly are you trying to say? (view post) |
06/05/2010 |
|
|
The Banning GameBanned for being anti-anti-st (view post) |
06/04/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActAIDS woman's genitals Posted:
Because you claimed that 9/11 was high treason which it would be it could were a conspiracy or you considered stupidity and honest mistakes acts of treason. I used a well-known law to demonstrate why one has little reason to suspect a conspiracy. If you want I can also provide the long chain of reasoning and the evidence and lack of it which support this simpler observation. In addition, I used 9/11 as a measurement of terrorist acts which failed to materialize according to dobnits because of civil liberties violations, in comparison to other causes of death which would yield way more significant results with less expense and infringement. (view post) |
06/04/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot ActAIDS woman's genitals Posted:
Fail.
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Grey’s Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Perfect example. (view post) |
05/30/2010 |
|
|
The Patriot Actdobnits Posted:
How many 9/11s would that number be? ‘cos compared to other ways of saving PATRIOTIC AMERICAN LIVEZ! the number needs to be really high to justify the violations. If people compared terrorism to other sources of RL b& instead of throwing a hysteric fit they would see how small the problem really is and rethink throwing away their liberties and foreigners’ rights to not be tortured. (view post) |
05/30/2010 |
|
Politics, religion and sexApplying the scientific method gives some results on why exactly discussions tend to stall; This book deals with a certain thought patterns in authoritarian thinking. Log in to see images! (view post) |
05/30/2010 |
|
TROLLS IN SPACEiseePirate Posted:
If that is correct, please explain the energy emission signature, or more accurately, the lack of it (view post) |
05/26/2010 |
|
MY CUSTOM TITLE AND AVATAR ****ING SUCKquangntenemy Posted:
I am most tempted to deconstruct this atrocious non sequitur and show how unreasonable your post was but instead I shall be a good person and resist the temptation to bully the lesser ones. (view post) |
05/25/2010 |
|
Time TravelYour post sucked
I will have been most offended by your statement. (view post) |
05/11/2010 |
|
|
Holy **** this is the best shovel in the worldConsidering the possibilities granted by this magnificent tool I have devised the following operating procedure:
1. Get a swiss army knife and a chinese army shovel. 2. ???? 2. PROFIT! (view post) |
05/11/2010 |
|
|
TROLLS IN SPACECatt although Posted:
“Planet” is a definition which by definition is what it is defined to be, or otherwise it will not define anything and by definition be useless as a definition. Arguing about definitions will not change the facts, only the way the facts are presented. So get back to arguing about whether colonizing ur bum, amirite? is funny. (view post) |
05/11/2010 |
|
KNOW WUT I DONT GETShinmen Musashi no Kami Fujiwara no Genshin Posted:
Nonsense. The true void is the final virtue of rationality and you are currently breaking it. Neither ask nor tell what the Way is for by stating it you lose it. Only ask whether something is true or not. (view post) |
05/11/2010 |