New Mars Forums

Considering the geopolitical juggling prevalent on this board, exemplified for instance by the debate about Patton's proposition, I'd like to know why people here think the war against Germany was neccesary. On another level, the war against the European phenomeon of Fascism as such (two different questions, actually).

I'm sure there would be several answers to these questions, but I'd like to know what you guys think and the way you reason.

Yes, this "equality" you are referring to has without a doubt shattered thousands of lives apart from practically prohibiting free choice in the area alluded to. I believe in equal rights for all citizens, any 'affirmative action' in excess of that or whatever you call it in America (or England) is bound to create more problems than it solves.

As for the rest of your ramblings, you're free to announce whenever you feel like getting out of the strawman mode.

Literature this and literature, that. Truth is I don't have any hard numbers or facts to go on (unlike in certain other areas). Nevertheless, I thought this possible phenomenon might be worth mentioning.

Yeah, it was something like this I was referring to. Must say it would probably be better for those kids to become segregated, yet it also raises the issue of who's to pay for this sort of thing when gay adoption becomes a public right.
What's the problem of solving the issue by simply not letting it to occur from the outset?

I'm after some sort of 'popular' representation of possible rocky planets that might circle other stars, a sort of listing of types of planets that might be out there. It should answer questions like "is a swamp planet like Degobah possible?", "would a rocky planet significantly larger than earth have to be an ocean world (of considerable depth)?", "what about an ultra-tropical world with lots of water and cloud formation to reach equilibrium for a kin to Venus. Would the temperatures be agreeable with human colonization?", "what about planets with methane atmospheres, ammonia, desert planets" etc?

I've read a book called "World Building" by Stephen L. Gillett, which approximately fits the category, but trouble is it was rather cursory, dealing mostly with Earth, badly dispositioned and somewhat confused.

Web sites that cater to the subject of world building scenarios seem to centre entirely on the Earth.
Anyone got a suggestion? Are there any books about possible aliens that throughly brings up the planetary basis of their existence as well?

Anyone around here who enjoyed playing a PC-game called "Master of Orion II" or similar? If so, then think about it like this: if done in a scientifically valid way, what planets would be likely to encounter in the game?

Shaun Barrett wrote:

It does. If the Iranian nuclear power plant program is aimed at getting nuclear weapons, they need them to counter the nuclear threat from Israel, making sure the Likudniks won't unleash their capability in some weak moment or use it for blackmail. It's only natural if you place yourself in Iran's shoes.
Then there are of course other nuclear powers in the area, like India, Pakistan and China.

However, it could be the neocons are only back to banging the war drums. If the US is used another time to attack a peaceful country, rest assured America will eventually find itself very isolated. Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow and Brussels are most likely well aware what's going on here by now and patience is running out...

The North Korean question is best solved with reunification of the country, in my opinion. America should work together with South Korea on this one, not go in on their own with some lunatic military campaign. It will be solved in time, provided a backdoor is provided for the North Korean leadership. They can't go on forever and in their hearts they surely know this.

It's a great idea but in my experience Nation States loses its flavour terribly fast. The population just grows and grows and only because you build a few nuclear power plants your country suddenly turns into a desert.
???

And then there's no warfare, real diplomacy or anything. After two weeks I simply grew tired of the irritating PC-ness of the game and left.

Nevertheless, a boatload of potential there...

In principle, I couldn't care less if homos got married. The actual problem is that it's only a stepping stone to the next objective, which is child adoption, and that should never be tolerated.

So, consequently, since there is nothing gained with accepting same-sex marriages, I see no reason for it.

Every idea has its place in the sun. However, it doesn't serve us very well anylonger. And personally, I prefer truth rather than a noble lie.

Darwin wasn't around in that day.

And in what sense does this observe the rights of the prey?

The point is not what I happen to believe. The point is there is no proof of his existence or this entity's particular intentions. No connect between what some may have dreamed upon about him (like the ten commandments, or that Hebrews are some chosen people, for example) and what we can observe around us. So every time someone comes along waving a piece of paper saying you can't do this because it's against the "rights of man" (meaning, because my imagined god says so) it's fraud by definition.

In other words, you agree that rights, even the concept of construing justice in the form of rights, are only a man-made agreement.

By the way Morris, I won't try to rob you off your belief in western man's God. You just continue believing in whatever you like.
I believe in what I observe and on that basis I would define everything that civilization creates, justice, the social contract, laws, self-constraint - civilization itself - as a departure from what is typically nature, wherein everything only thinks about itself. Civilization is all artificial, but therein lies its very greatness. It's more than nature.
In that sense every cultural creation is also a unique construct, seperated from each other by the amoral wilderness which is nature (not "immoral", amoral in the sense of ethical neutrality).
To believe that there is some objectively true civilization in other words, having the "right" to override the others, is a fallacy.
(Of course, civilizations and political entities invade, conquer and suppress each other all the time, it's the excuses I resent.)

It's correct the Enlightenment is a complex, evolving phenomenon and does not entail just one opinion or attitude.
If I recall, Candide itself signifies a radical shift in Voltaire's thinking with relevance to this discussion.

Every person has a sort of genealogy or etymology to his or her thinking and I should come clear about mine. It goes something like this:

Plato
Scholastic realism
Phenomenology
Existentialism

Likewise, the idea of "natural right" genealogically relies on the metaphysical assumption of an intention within creation itself. It's called teleology. But in truth there is obviously no intention, only product, or if there is, it's not a particularly nice one.

I should also admit that I prefer Hobbes to Locke. Not because he's a nicer guy, but because he is honest.

Provided I understand this correctly, I don't think it would be that hard to make it work. When it comes to rights, for instance, the supreme court would only consider what is actually stated in the constitution, since my state does not recognize the universality of human rights as such. After all, there is no such thing.
What it does consider are citizen's rights (right to a fair and equal trial, free speech etc). There cannot, by the very definition of rights, be any right outside or above the state, since there are no rights in nature.

LOL! Cobra, if you consider the impact of full disclosure might be too tough on the auditorium, you're of course not obliged to reveal what you exactly know if you don't care to.
:;):

One of the worst problem with democracy is the professionalization of the political role. This is fundamentally a facet of the ever continuing specialization of production, which means democracy isn't really suitable for any sort of advanced society. Look at how democratic politicians are created!
They join a party at an early age and are not required to be wise or know about anything. Those who survive the long march through the corridors are those who have learnt to scratch the right backs at the right time in order to further their personal career advancement. Never mind the country, catering to short-sighted opinions, staying in favour with interest groups or the media (which contrary to what you might think is not currently free but concentrated on a few hands with a corresponding agenda) is what matters.

Politics is too important to be left to democratic career politicians (sophists). I suggest members of the legislative body should be appointed among the foremost of the country's institutions (military staff, universities, science institutions), whereby individuals of outstanding merit should be asked to do their duty and serve the community for a set period. This would do away with all the personal career and vested interest nonsense. It would also forestall the risk of the system deteriorating into an oligarchy of the rich.
In order to let the people have some influence you could institute two chambers sharing an equal amount of the mandates and relegate the democratic circus to that level.

In turn, the upper house could elect department heads to renew the government, the head of which would hold executive power.

Democratic society rests on the principle that every citizen (ideally) should have equal power to influence politics; I say the affairs of state should be decided by the most capable.
What they require is information about society's needs so freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the system as is public accountabilty of the decisions made.
Thirdly, there would have to exist a supreme court with the sole purpose of safeguarding the constitution.

And if all else fails, start a revolution!

I don't get this. I didn't say nice guys were better providers and keepers of families in comparison to women but to other males.
As for rearing children there's no competition, women are biologically and for millions of years geared to the task.
In other words, if not PC-conditioned what to think - like feminism's constant denigration of feminimity - most families would have women become prime executive of home operations simply by free choice. I could add that free choice certainly must exist for the contrary.
Economically speaking, it's nothing but a clean cut case of pure specialization.

Problem with feminism is that it enters a scene where nice men are bred to accomodate women in every single way in the hope of getting laid and if they hear women tell them men are inherently bad and evil creatures those guys will sacrifice their masculinity as well.
At the same time women haven't changed their ideas of attraction which can be summed up in the three words of money, status and confidence. This means they'll end up with males who are not good providers but simply couldn't give a sh*t or with whimps they emotionally can't tolerate with break-ups and divorces ensuing.
In the end everyone loses (with the possible exception of a handful of silverbacked harem keepers).
In fact, what women actually want probably run contrary to the set goals of total equalization of resources, income and status since this will rob men of the very confidence women seek.

Rxke has got good musical taste. Funny thing is that The Sonics were a totally unknown band up to the late 80's, like it had neither entertained any popularity during the 60's.
I remember some friends of mine feeling mighty special for having dug them out around 1989 and immediately began imitating them in their garage band.

The world sometimes takes a long time to appreciate quality.