posted on April 1, 2003 08:05:25 PM new
I’d firstly like to thank Ebayauctionguy for placing this hypothesis before us in another topic.
I think it is a great means to attempt to discover the ‘truth’ through ‘empirical’ means.
But I think the formula is flawed.
Please consider the hypothesis that e.a.g. put before us.
ebayauctionguy "Rogue states + WOMD's + terrorists = hell"
Assuming ‘Hell’ is synonymous with ‘destruction and or suffering’
WE SHOULD assume that ‘hell’ is ‘dishonourable’ state of affairs.
I believe this formula to be flawed because it says that ‘hell’ can be high, even in the complete absence of W and/or terrorists.
We need to firstly define ‘rogue states’
Rogue.states = self.righteous.sates / validity
Meaning that a state is higher in the ‘rogue’ measure as the validity of it’s cause diminishes
Power = W(OMD)
Meaning that any ‘W’ can be considered to be ‘OMD’
that power increases as the possession of any ‘W’ increases as a function of it’s ability ‘OMD’ even if by numbers alone (eg 50Trillion rolling pins could clearly produce a high mass of destruction).
Hell = Power (Rogue states + terrorists)
Meaning that ‘Hell’ can be higher even in the absence of terrorists, as a function of power multiplied with the number of ‘rogue staes’
So we can have high ‘Hell’ with only ONE ‘rogue state (or part thereof)’ as long as power is sufficiently high.
For example, it would “”””””””necessarily””””” be the case IF we could define USA as a ‘rogue state’.
I think it is safe to state that USA(or part thereof) is acting in a self righteous manner (which in it’self does not make it a rogue state), BUT the question remains; is the reason for ‘it’s’ actions ‘valid’????
[ edited by austbounty on Apr 1, 2003 08:07 PM ]
[ edited by austbounty on Apr 1, 2003 08:16 PM ]
posted on April 1, 2003 08:26:02 PM new
a rogue state is a nation whose leadership intentionally refuses to adhere to the conventions of international law, does not honor established treaties, and may engage in terrorism . Of course one can choose to redefine any word they choose to fit their own agenda.
posted on April 1, 2003 08:38:17 PM new
"a rogue state is a nation whose leadership intentionally refuses to adhere to the conventions of international law, does not honor established treaties, and may engage in terrorism ."
I don't know whos deffinition that is but it seem a bit harsh on USA because it fits.
Nuclear non proliferation treaty?? and has engaged in terrorism.
posted on April 1, 2003 09:00:40 PM new
Like I said anyone can twist anything to fit their agenda so there really isn't any reason debate anything with you. I just wanted to post the proper definition of rogue state. Everyone knows your agenda so your choice of view on the term really doesn't surprise or bother.
posted on April 1, 2003 09:13:42 PM new
Why did you come back? If this is the inane BS posting you intend to start again... damn maybe the mossad or cia should come for a visit...
posted on April 1, 2003 09:20:41 PM new
"Like I said anyone can twist anything"
Yes but only a lesser mind or a poor or ill-informed mind (depending upon the strength of the argument) is unable to see the truth though it.
OR
One who lies ‘about the issue at hand’ may also refuse to acknowledge or choose to dismiss the truth.
Will you admit to that as a TRUTH.
My formulae may be incorrect, why can't we modify them in an attempt to realise the truth.
Surely you'd agree to save dogma for religion and not for logic.
posted on April 1, 2003 09:32:07 PM new
Just to cool you down 12.
We’ll change the eg but USA is a better choice because the ‘Power’ factor is clearly very high.
I never said they were a ‘rogue state’.
(It will introduce another frustrating variable, we will introduce some 'diplomacy' into a 'logic' debate at the possible expence of truth, but here we go. If we remain objective enough, it shouldn't make any dif')
So we can have high ‘Hell’ with only ONE ‘rogue state (or part thereof)’ as long as power is sufficiently high.
I think it is safe to state that AUSTRALIA (or part thereof) is acting in a self righteous manner (which in it’self does not make it a rogue state), BUT the question remains; is the reason for ‘it’s’ actions ‘valid’????
posted on April 2, 2003 06:52:16 AM new
colin, pink is beautiful too.
I love you man.
Say something nice to me please.
I thought I would check the web for the location of the Weapons of Mass destruction (they must be somewhere) and this is what I found.
http://coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
posted on April 2, 2003 07:28:37 AM new
Austy,
You must have spelled something wrong in your search. This is what I came up with.
http://www.reverendcolin.com/Page3.html
posted on April 2, 2003 07:39:45 AM new
"So the next time you hear that someone is facing a problem and think that it does not concern you, remember that when there is a rat trap in the house, the whole farmyard is at risk."
You should take your own advice colin!!
http://www.reverendcolin.com/Page.html
[ edited by austbounty on Apr 2, 2003 07:44 AM ]
posted on April 2, 2003 08:28:44 AM new
Austbounty, here is some advice... grab both your ears and pull real hard... the resounding 'pop' you hear will be your head coming out of your a$$
posted on April 2, 2003 09:06:49 AM new
austbounty,Maybe you would like to quote
J. Ruskin,He was once a socialist and considered very mad by his friends and colleagues.
Ruskin became a wealthy man after the death of his father in 1864. Ruskin believed it was wrong to be a socialist and rich and he donated a great deal of his money to causes such as the St George's Guild in Paddington, the Whitelands College in Chelsea and the John Ruskin School in Camberwell. In 1884 Ruskin retired to Coniston in the Lake District. After 1889 he stopped writing and rarely spoke. John Ruskin died in 1900.
Borrowers are nearly always ill-spenders, and it is with lent money that all evil is mainly done and all unjust war protracted
posted on April 2, 2003 11:08:36 AM new
Besides the pure entertainment value that troll threads have, the best part of austbounty threads are the little gems like this:
"Austbounty, here is some advice... grab both your ears and pull real hard... the resounding 'pop' you hear will be your head coming out of your a$$"
posted on April 2, 2003 03:40:17 PM newJohn Ruskin was a socialist all of his life.
In the 1850s Ruskin became interested in politics and became a supporter of socialism. Between 1854 and 1858 he taught at the Working Men's College that had been founded by Frederick Denison Maurice, Charles Kingsley and Thomas Hughes in London. In his lectures Ruskin denounced greed as the main principle guiding English life. In books such as Unto the Last (1862) Essays on Political Economy (1862) and Time and Tide (1867), Ruskin argued against competition and self-interest and advocated a form of Christian Socialism.
In 1871 Ruskin began publication of Fors Clavigera: Letters to the Workmen and Labourers of Great Britain. Between 1871 and 1878 it was issued in monthly parts and until 1884 at irregular intervals. Ruskin intended the work to be a "continual challenger to the supporters of and apologists for a capitalist economy". It was Ruskin's socialist writing that influenced trade unionists and political activists such as Tom Mann and Ben Tillett.
Ruskin became a wealthy man after the death of his father in 1864.[b] Ruskin believed it was wrong to be a socialist and rich and he donated a great deal of his money to causes such as the St George's Guild in Paddington, the Whitelands College in Chelsea and the John Ruskin School in Camberwell. In 1884 Ruskin retired to Coniston in the Lake District. After 1889 he stopped writing and rarely spoke. John Ruskin died in 1900.
posted on April 2, 2003 03:47:14 PM new
Thank you very much, Helen, for the information you've shared. I have a long list of inspirational quotes I love, want to look up the bios on all the authors of them for me?
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 2, 2003 03:55:24 PM new
Actually, I was correcting the information that John Ruskin was not a socialist. The truth is that he was a socialist all his life but because of a poorly written sentence in his biography ebayauctionguy and another poster were misinformed.
I learned about Ruskin in art school and I admired him for his social interest and work in that field. You see, being a socialist is not bad, Linda. I really like your quote!
posted on April 2, 2003 04:03:40 PM new
That's nice, as I like it too. Finally something we agree on.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 2, 2003 10:32:25 PM new
LOL twelvepole - Get up off the floor. Helen said she liked my quote. I wouldn't be using it if I didn't like it.
When reading from a very old book of inspirational quotes, I'm not so anal that I feel a need to look up the political leanings of each of the hundred or more authors.
I any against socialism in any form....and I very much support Captialism. CHOOSE AMERICA!!!
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 3, 2003 03:46:22 AM new
I think that the beauty of capitalism is that it gives rewards to those acting out of self interest and if the greed or rewards are high enough, they are capable of high achievements.
Only problem is, some big fat greedy pigs will keep reaching for more, far beyond that which they could possibly need or use, at the expense of their ‘competitors’.
Knowing too well that there are such big fat greedy pigs which do exist, unbridled capitalism results in the appearance of evil dictators, Just like Sadam.
The difference is that those ‘under’ the capitalist big fat greedy pig (unlike those under BFGP.Saddam), will often be more motivated to higher productivity through the prospect (although misguided) of reaching BFGP status themselves.
Communism, which supposedly strives for even distribution, has BFGPs too, but those under the BFGPs are not as likely to suffer from the dellusion that they too can become BFGPs.
That unbridled capitalism results in a more ‘even distribution’ of BFGPs is evidenced in the fact that we, in capitalist mode have more Big Fat Greedy Pigs.
You see, In th BFGP-wheel of life, radical/extreme Communism & Cappitalism can both result in overly Big Fat Greedy Pigs.
What we need is a middle ground in our struggle to attain Nirvana…?
Who left their former land to build your nation, in their struggle for reasonable standard of life, for nirvana.
Who also showed a selfless concern for their brothers and sisters when they were down, knowing what it means to be there.
And when things are down, who is still at the bottom??
Who fought and offered their life to defend Nirvana.
CETRTAINLY NOT DUMYA!
Only the under-classes understand the pain of the trickle down effect, as they stand there being trickled down upon.
I may be introducing a little humour but the logic still rings true.
There will be rejoicing on the day that the last BFGP is hanging by their entrails from the highest tree.
Power to the Proletariat.
As foretold, the day of reckoning shall come.
Can You Here.
Can You Hear the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse, Can You Hear Them Riding Our Way.
All who are true, know this.
Know that the BFGPs will have less chance of entering Nirvana, than they have to pass a camel through the eye of the needle.
Hell=Power X (Rogue states + terrorists)
Absolute Power corrupts, and Power corrupts Absolutely.
See 12 & Bear; Logic, dogma, and humour, and insult no one, but BFGPs. (win/win).
Not; Liar Liar, Pants on Fire.
Helen said she liked my quote. I wouldn't be using it if I didn't like it.