Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Vimana]

Well, they can't agree since they're dead. Use your brain.

 

[Dak]

Well, they can't agree since they're dead. Use your brain.

/facepalm. pleasebesarcasmpleasebesarcasm.

@Vihris:

Global Warming: The Deniers

Read through a few pages, looks like a pretty good overview on why humans are likely not the cause of "climate change".

 

[Vimana]

You really seem to suck at seeing sarcasm.

 

[Liisa]

Thought I'd post this one. People's devotion to Israel is unreasoning.
Israels lack of mercy is VERY apparent.
Israel is giant and powerful compared to little third world Gaza and the little Hamas fireworks.
Israel demonstrates it's power by confiscating donations and blocking supplies other countries attempt to give to Gaza.
This is no secret, but I don't think anything purely factual and unbiased can justify this. Anybody gonna try and justify it? With "ACTUALLY HAMAS IS A RAVING JEW KILLER AND IS A BIG ASS THREAT!". Well, that is not factual and is extremely biased.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...Palestinians_May_Only_Get_Small_Amount_Of_Aid

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@Vihris:

Global Warming: The Deniers

Read through a few pages, looks like a pretty good overview on why humans are likely not the cause of "climate change".

Interesting article. I'll have to do some background checking when I get a chance. Shaviv looks like a reputable scientist though.

Wikipedia mentions one group that disputed his claim about sun activity being related to global warming, but makes it sound like it was an isolated and flawed study. I'll see if I can find some more reactions to Shaviv's work by other scientists.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Thought I'd post this one. People's devotion to Israel is unreasoning.
Israels lack of mercy is VERY apparent.
Israel is giant and powerful compared to little third world Gaza and the little Hamas fireworks.
Israel demonstrates it's power by confiscating donations and blocking supplies other countries attempt to give to Gaza.
This is no secret, but I don't think anything purely factual and unbiased can justify this. Anybody gonna try and justify it? With "ACTUALLY HAMAS IS A RAVING JEW KILLER AND HE IS A BIG ASS THREAT!". Well, that is not factual and is extremely biased.

Look, I feel bad for the people in Palestine during this time who are innocent and should not at all be caught in the crossfire. But I don't see how you can side with the people who have the corrupt evil force running their government basically just through forcible and corrupt means. Hamas isn't even a real fucking government, it's just a bunch of crazy militants who pretend they govern something. I don't get all this Israel hate, and it's not just because the US supports them.

 

[Mort Divine]

Teaching concrete, not relative, values to kids and instilling a respect for human life in general will bring down the murder rate.

I'm not comfortable with the insinuation that there are such things as "concrete" morals, that factually exist. Morals are, by nature, relative.

 

[Dak]

Look, I feel bad for the people in Palestine during this time who are innocent and should not at all be caught in the crossfire. But I don't see how you can side with the people who have the corrupt evil force running their government basically just through forcible and corrupt means. Hamas isn't even a real fucking government, it's just a bunch of crazy militantswho pretend they govern something. I don't get all this Israel hate, and it's not just because the US supports them.

So because Israel is UN/US approved they are not crazy militants?

I'm not comfortable with the insinuation that there are such things as "concrete" morals, that factually exist. Morals are, by nature, relative.

You are confusing morals with popular opinion. Popular opinion can decide all people with the online name Mort Divine need to die. This does not make it moral. Or you can have it your way and popular opinion is justification for anything.

This is exactly why we have the problems we have today.

 

[Omni]

That's nice, but there still aren't concrete morals.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That topic could actually make for an interesting thread.

I'm pretty sure there are some morals which are, for all practical purposes, concrete. For example, no sane person would consider wanton murder and torture morally acceptable. Others, of course, are much more controversial.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I don't think those are "morals" so much as guidelines by which humanity does NOT become horribly fucked up and society collapses, etc.

Dakryn: of course Israel are militant, and I believe they have decently good reasons to BE militant. They aren't, however, run by an evil and fucked up group of crazy corrupt power-hungry bastards who just kind of pretend they govern while instead just focusing on killing those they oppose.

 

[Dak]

That's nice, but there still aren't concrete morals.

Just because they wear suits doesn't mean they aren't corrupt power hungry bastards who pretend to govern while focusing on killing those they oppose. Their reasons for being militant have no real backing because the state of Israel shouldn't exist anyway. The Israeli people are being used to further the aims of people who don't give 2 shits about the lives on either side of the Israeli/Arab borders.

Also:

 

[seedofvengeance]

You posted pictures for dramatic effect!
You must be right!!

 

[skeptik]

Dakryn: explain the concept of "concrete morals."

 

[cookiecutter]

Check the new thread

 

[genocide roach]

No Call of Duty until you read the Geneva Conventions! That's awesome!

Evan Spencer wanted to play “Call of Duty: World at War.” So he asked his dad.

Hugh Spencer wasn’t initially thrilled about the idea of his son playing the World War II-based game. “I’ve never really enjoyed first-person shooter games,” he confesses. “They’re just not my favorite aesthetic.”

But the elder Spencer agreed to his son’s request, on one condition: Evan would have to read all four treaties from the Geneva Conventions first. And then, agree to play by those rules.

MORE

~gR~

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This is so unbelievably terrible it blows my mind.

U.S. senator wants Fed to name loan recipients
Tue Mar 3, 2009 8:29pm GMT

WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. senator berated Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday for refusing to name banks that borrow from the central bank and introduced legislation that would require public disclosure.

In a testy exchange at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said he found it "unacceptable" that the central bank risked taxpayer money without detailing where the funds went.

"My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" Sanders asked, referring to the size of the Fed's balance sheet.

Bernanke responded that the Fed explains the various lending programs on its website, and details the terms and collateral requirements.

When Sanders pressed on whether Bernanke would name the firms that borrowed from the Fed, the central bank chairman replied, "No," and started to say that doing so risked stigmatizing banks and discouraging them from borrowing from the central bank.

"Isn't that too bad," Sanders interrupted, cutting him off. "They took the money but they don't want to be public about the fact that they received it."

According to the text of the proposed legislation, e-mailed by Sanders' staff, he wants the central bank to identify any firm that has received financial assistance since March 24, 2008, including details on the type of borrowing, amount, date, terms and the Fed's rationale for lending.

Sanders wants the Fed to publish those details on its website and update them at least every 30 days.

At the hearing, the senator said businesses in his state were in trouble and needed loans, but were not permitted to borrow from the Fed.

"Do you have to be a large, greedy, reckless financial institution to apply for this money?" he asked.

Bernanke said the Fed's lending programs were not gifts or subsidies but rather over-collateralized loans. He said the law restricted the types of firms to which the central bank can lend.

"We have never lost a penny doing it," he said.

Sanders responded: "Let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. I have a hard time understanding how you have put $2.2 trillion at risk without making those names available, those institutions public."

"It is unacceptable to me that that this goes on," he added.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNes/idUKN0349765020090303

 

[genocide roach]

well, you can look at this one of two ways:

posting such information will scare customers away from certain banks not only killing that bank but also wasting the money that was loaned.

or

alot of companies receiving loans and bailouts are already publically known and there hasnt been a significant ammount of avoidance.

either way, the typically lazy american isnt gonna look for the information and probably wont care as long as they can get their 99 cent jr whopper
~gR~

 

[Dak]

either way, the typically lazy american isnt gonna look for the information and probably wont care as long as they can get their 99 cent jr whopper
~gR~

Example of why things are failing.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I think that is a severe, severe, incredibly stupid generalization, Dakryn. Stop typing.