Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Russia removes two timezones

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 7:36:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"[i]n the winter, darkness will come almost at lunchtime, which isn't convenient
and is psychologically quite hard."

I'd say, couldn't they instead an official time, which would be Moscow time, and also employ a local time.

It may sound odd, I think such a system crops up in science fiction to solve similar problems.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:01:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 1:36:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
In Soviet Russia, forum topic creates you!

indeed, and it's all carefully managed by the state.

much like your idea of an Islamic Utopia.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:04:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 7:00:42 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
http://www.kfc.com...

"In Regular Internet, you use stale memes. In Soviet Internet, you stale use memes!" - Aaron Rotenberg

That's pretty cool.
kfc
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:06:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:01:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/29/2010 1:36:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
In Soviet Russia, forum topic creates you!

indeed, and it's all carefully managed by the state.

much like your idea of an Islamic Utopia.

When did I ever say I supported a theocratic state? Never.
collegekitchen8
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:15:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:06:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
When did I ever say I supported a theocratic state? Never.

I only support inefficient economic policies, not inefficient religious ones.
: At 3/30/2010 12:57:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
: The universe is simple, It all makes sense given laws like gravity and stuff.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:19:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:17:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:15:47 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:

I only come on here to troll.

Trolls are fun
kfc
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:21:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:06:14 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:01:54 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/29/2010 1:36:10 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
In Soviet Russia, forum topic creates you!

indeed, and it's all carefully managed by the state.

much like your idea of an Islamic Utopia.

When did I ever say I supported a theocratic state? Never.

you're islamic. It's pretty much in the text isn't it?

Plus Muhammed the perfect man set one up... I thought it was a pretty straight forward assumption.

How else are the laws of Islam to be enforced?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
collegekitchen8
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:21:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:17:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:15:47 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
I've relentlessly shown you how innefficient socialism is.

I try to ignore basic economic rationale for illogical appeals to emotion and biased sample fallacies. Using logic to explain economics is trolling

I See
: At 3/30/2010 12:57:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
: The universe is simple, It all makes sense given laws like gravity and stuff.
collegekitchen8
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 4:39:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:48:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:21:40 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
You support your socialistic concept with fallacies

Hurr durr you is blabbering about economics which I don't understand thus why I support socialism so instead of coming with valid logical reasoning for my economic ideals, I'll just dismiss you as being a troll.

That works too.
: At 3/30/2010 12:57:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
: The universe is simple, It all makes sense given laws like gravity and stuff.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 4:39:14 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:48:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:21:40 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
You support your socialistic concept with fallacies

Hurr durr you is blabbering about economics which I don't understand thus why I support socialism so instead of coming with valid logical reasoning for my economic ideals, I'll just dismiss you as being a troll.

That works too.

Ok, just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics. I know of plenty of socialists who are well-versed in economics.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 4:57:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:39:14 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:48:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:21:40 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
You support your socialistic concept with fallacies

Hurr durr you is blabbering about economics which I don't understand thus why I support socialism so instead of coming with valid logical reasoning for my economic ideals, I'll just dismiss you as being a troll.

That works too.

Ok, just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics. I know of plenty of socialists who are well-versed in economics.

The Objective Theory of Value is B.S.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:09:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:39:14 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:48:39 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:21:40 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
You support your socialistic concept with fallacies

Hurr durr you is blabbering about economics which I don't understand thus why I support socialism so instead of coming with valid logical reasoning for my economic ideals, I'll just dismiss you as being a troll.

That works too.

Ok, just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics. I know of plenty of socialists who are well-versed in economics.

EPIC WIN!
You totally just made my day XDDDDDDD
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
collegekitchen8
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.
: At 3/30/2010 12:57:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
: The universe is simple, It all makes sense given laws like gravity and stuff.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:14:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.

Nope. Try again. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Going by your dictionary, I guess the definition of libertarianism must be selfishness, not caring about poor people.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:22:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:14:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.

Nope. Try again. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Going by your dictionary, I guess the definition of libertarianism must be selfishness, not caring about poor people.

No, but like socialists and not understanding economics, it's highly correlated.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:24:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:14:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.

Nope. Try again. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Going by your dictionary, I guess the definition of libertarianism must be selfishness, not caring about poor people.

By definition, yes, selfishness. Not caring about poor people would only be in the socialists' dictionary ;) I'm not saying that there are libertarians who don't care about the poor, I'm sure there are, but it's not necessarily part of libertarianism.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:26:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:24:06 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:14:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.

Nope. Try again. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Going by your dictionary, I guess the definition of libertarianism must be selfishness, not caring about poor people.

By definition, yes, selfishness. Not caring about poor people would only be in the socialists' dictionary ;) I'm not saying that there are libertarians who don't care about the poor, I'm sure there are, but it's not necessarily part of libertarianism.

Umm...socialists not caring about the poor? Last time I checked it was socialist policies which created welfare services, old age pensions, etc. I should become a libertarian and leave all the old people to fend for themselves. Oh, and who cares if the poor starve? It's their own fault, right?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:33:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:26:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:24:06 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:14:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.

Nope. Try again. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Going by your dictionary, I guess the definition of libertarianism must be selfishness, not caring about poor people.

By definition, yes, selfishness. Not caring about poor people would only be in the socialists' dictionary ;) I'm not saying that there are libertarians who don't care about the poor, I'm sure there are, but it's not necessarily part of libertarianism.

Umm...socialists not caring about the poor? Last time I checked it was socialist policies which created welfare services, old age pensions, etc. I should become a libertarian and leave all the old people to fend for themselves. Oh, and who cares if the poor starve? It's their own fault, right?

That's not what I said. I said it's not necessarily true, though there might certainly be cases, that libertarians do not care about the poor. What is true is that libertarians are "selfish", though we probably have different definitions on what "selfish is".

Sure is true that it was the socialists that created welfare services and old age pensions, and those are partly the reason for why we're in the economic sh!thole we're in today. It is rather interesting that you say libertarians don't care about old people, as there seems to be more libertarians out there actually doing things themselves raising money and organizing groups to help the old, than there are socialists. Because the socialists care so much, right? And those darn libertarians. They're so selfish, they want to do it all themselves.

Yes, it is their own fault if they don't attempt to get their own living together. And it's your fault if your statist programs leech off the rest of us to help them and end up screwing up the world economy to go with it. Because you "care". You know which people care? The people who care enough to look ahead and actually figure out what their actions would cause and therefore choose which plan to take. Socialists steal from some and throw money at others and think that the world will be dandy. Libertarians stop to think about what they're about to do, and then go and do it themselves.

Because again, they're a selfish lot.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:37:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:33:55 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:26:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:24:06 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:14:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.

Nope. Try again. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Going by your dictionary, I guess the definition of libertarianism must be selfishness, not caring about poor people.

By definition, yes, selfishness. Not caring about poor people would only be in the socialists' dictionary ;) I'm not saying that there are libertarians who don't care about the poor, I'm sure there are, but it's not necessarily part of libertarianism.

Umm...socialists not caring about the poor? Last time I checked it was socialist policies which created welfare services, old age pensions, etc. I should become a libertarian and leave all the old people to fend for themselves. Oh, and who cares if the poor starve? It's their own fault, right?

That's not what I said. I said it's not necessarily true, though there might certainly be cases, that libertarians do not care about the poor. What is true is that libertarians are "selfish", though we probably have different definitions on what "selfish is".

Sure is true that it was the socialists that created welfare services and old age pensions, and those are partly the reason for why we're in the economic sh!thole we're in today. It is rather interesting that you say libertarians don't care about old people, as there seems to be more libertarians out there actually doing things themselves raising money and organizing groups to help the old, than there are socialists. Because the socialists care so much, right? And those darn libertarians. They're so selfish, they want to do it all themselves.

Yes, it is their own fault if they don't attempt to get their own living together. And it's your fault if your statist programs leech off the rest of us to help them and end up screwing up the world economy to go with it. Because you "care". You know which people care? The people who care enough to look ahead and actually figure out what their actions would cause and therefore choose which plan to take. Socialists steal from some and throw money at others and think that the world will be dandy. Libertarians stop to think about what they're about to do, and then go and do it themselves.

Because again, they're a selfish lot.

Oh of course it's my disabled mom's fault that she struggles daily and was homeless twice. Of course it is. :) Of course it's starving kids in Africa's fault too that they can't afford food. Of course. :)
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:40:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:37:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:33:55 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:26:33 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:24:06 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:14:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:10:49 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 4:53:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
just because somebody is socialist it doesn't mean they don't understand economics.

Actually that's the definition

a socialist - someone who doesn't understand economics.

Nope. Try again. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Going by your dictionary, I guess the definition of libertarianism must be selfishness, not caring about poor people.

By definition, yes, selfishness. Not caring about poor people would only be in the socialists' dictionary ;) I'm not saying that there are libertarians who don't care about the poor, I'm sure there are, but it's not necessarily part of libertarianism.

Umm...socialists not caring about the poor? Last time I checked it was socialist policies which created welfare services, old age pensions, etc. I should become a libertarian and leave all the old people to fend for themselves. Oh, and who cares if the poor starve? It's their own fault, right?

That's not what I said. I said it's not necessarily true, though there might certainly be cases, that libertarians do not care about the poor. What is true is that libertarians are "selfish", though we probably have different definitions on what "selfish is".

Sure is true that it was the socialists that created welfare services and old age pensions, and those are partly the reason for why we're in the economic sh!thole we're in today. It is rather interesting that you say libertarians don't care about old people, as there seems to be more libertarians out there actually doing things themselves raising money and organizing groups to help the old, than there are socialists. Because the socialists care so much, right? And those darn libertarians. They're so selfish, they want to do it all themselves.

Yes, it is their own fault if they don't attempt to get their own living together. And it's your fault if your statist programs leech off the rest of us to help them and end up screwing up the world economy to go with it. Because you "care". You know which people care? The people who care enough to look ahead and actually figure out what their actions would cause and therefore choose which plan to take. Socialists steal from some and throw money at others and think that the world will be dandy. Libertarians stop to think about what they're about to do, and then go and do it themselves.

Because again, they're a selfish lot.

Oh of course it's my disabled mom's fault that she struggles daily and was homeless twice. Of course it is. :) Of course it's starving kids in Africa's fault too that they can't afford food. Of course. :)

And it's totally everyone else's fault that your mom and those africans are the way they are. And of course, BECAUSE it's everyone else's fault, everyone MUST have guns pointed at their heads by the state and their bank accounts emptied involuntarily because it's THEIR fault the world isn't utopia. Of course, of course :)
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
collegekitchen8
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:41:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:37:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Oh of course it's my disabled mom's fault that she struggles daily and was homeless twice. Of course it is. :) Of course it's starving kids in Africa's fault too that they can't afford food. Of course. :)

And here again we have: Biased sample, appeal to emotion.

She was homeless twice because she chose to be homeless.
: At 3/30/2010 12:57:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
: The universe is simple, It all makes sense given laws like gravity and stuff.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:43:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:41:03 PM, collegekitchen8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:37:51 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Oh of course it's my disabled mom's fault that she struggles daily and was homeless twice. Of course it is. :) Of course it's starving kids in Africa's fault too that they can't afford food. Of course. :)

And here again we have: Biased sample, appeal to emotion.

She was homeless twice because she chose to be homeless.

F*ck off! She didn't choose to be homeless. She was homeless because she didn't have any money since she was disabled and couldn't work. See, prime example of you being selfish right there.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:49:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:40:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
And it's totally everyone else's fault that your mom and those africans are the way they are. And of course, BECAUSE it's everyone else's fault, everyone MUST have guns pointed at their heads by the state and their bank accounts emptied involuntarily because it's THEIR fault the world isn't utopia. Of course, of course :)

I'll be the first to admit that if in a free market welfare could be provided to people like INH's mom, and if social equality and safety nets could be maintained, then I'd be the first person to protest taxation and wealth redistribution.

But the free market isn't fair. And while the reality of taxes is unfortunate, it must be maintained in order to keep a free, equal, and functioning society.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:51:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:49:21 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:40:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
And it's totally everyone else's fault that your mom and those africans are the way they are. And of course, BECAUSE it's everyone else's fault, everyone MUST have guns pointed at their heads by the state and their bank accounts emptied involuntarily because it's THEIR fault the world isn't utopia. Of course, of course :)

I'll be the first to admit that if in a free market welfare could be provided to people like INH's mom, and if social equality and safety nets could be maintained, then I'd be the first person to protest taxation and wealth redistribution.

But the free market isn't fair. And while the reality of taxes is unfortunate, it must be maintained in order to keep a free, equal, and functioning society.

Exactly, Which is why a completely free market is impossible.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:52:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:43:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
She didn't choose to be homeless. She was homeless because she didn't have any money since she was disabled and couldn't work.

Why did she get disabled?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:53:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:52:47 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 3/29/2010 5:43:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
She didn't choose to be homeless. She was homeless because she didn't have any money since she was disabled and couldn't work.

How did she get disabled?

FTFY.