KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
+24
BBJynne
Chuckles
Tylertlat
Vigil
RX
TNine
tiny tim
Ziggy
JB
Zaki90
Angatar
Ringleader
Death no More
CivBase
Toaster
Kasrkin Seath
Ukurse
Rasq'uire'laskar
Rotaretilbo
Dud Doodoo
Ascendant Justice
Gold Spartan
PiEdude
KristallNacht
28 posters
Page 6 of 7
Page 6 of 7 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
good?
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Protip: summarise all your points into one big post each. That way we can stop the bickering and the claims of "But I rebutted that three pages ago!"
Ziggy- Minion
- Number of posts : 366
Age : 30
Location : Melbourne
Registration date : 2009-08-08
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
you two aren't even talking about the subject anymore. you're just hatin' on each other's comprehension skills
BBJynne- The Lord's Blood Knight
- Number of posts : 5059
Age : 31
Registration date : 2008-03-24
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
I read the first 5 pages then got bored. It's basically one of NT's standard arguments. "Here is my idea, if you don't like it your wrong and whatever you bring into the mix I will push away as not been proven."
In the case of this argument no counter response can be given because nothing like this has ever been done and where it has been done NT wont accept that evidence because it's a different country.
Honestly, NT had an idea and he posted it. He just wanted everyone to say "OMG that's a great plan. LETS SEND IT AND TRY TO MAKE IT A BILL". He just wants an ego stroking, not a debate. I suggest stop fighting over it as it really doesn't matter that much.
PS: Yes supply and demand is a key factor but I have doubts that modifying the minimum wage would do anything. And even if it did it the relation between income and expenses will be the same. No matter how you work it, if you work only at McDonalds you will not be able to afford to live on your own.
Clarifying:
If an employees wage is $8 an hour and a Big Mac is $4. He would work half an hour to buy a Big Mac.
If we do what you say and lower minimum wage and everything else lowers as well, that same employee would now make $4 an hour, but the cost of a Big Mac was reduced to $2 an hour. The employee still has to work half an hour to buy a Big Mac. Changing minimum wage would only make the numbers smaller. It would offer no difference what-so-ever.
In the case of this argument no counter response can be given because nothing like this has ever been done and where it has been done NT wont accept that evidence because it's a different country.
Honestly, NT had an idea and he posted it. He just wanted everyone to say "OMG that's a great plan. LETS SEND IT AND TRY TO MAKE IT A BILL". He just wants an ego stroking, not a debate. I suggest stop fighting over it as it really doesn't matter that much.
PS: Yes supply and demand is a key factor but I have doubts that modifying the minimum wage would do anything. And even if it did it the relation between income and expenses will be the same. No matter how you work it, if you work only at McDonalds you will not be able to afford to live on your own.
Clarifying:
If an employees wage is $8 an hour and a Big Mac is $4. He would work half an hour to buy a Big Mac.
If we do what you say and lower minimum wage and everything else lowers as well, that same employee would now make $4 an hour, but the cost of a Big Mac was reduced to $2 an hour. The employee still has to work half an hour to buy a Big Mac. Changing minimum wage would only make the numbers smaller. It would offer no difference what-so-ever.
Last edited by LeafyOwNu2 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Wanted to add a point about minimum wage.)
LeafyOwNu2- Crimson Epidemic
- Number of posts : 280
Age : 32
Location : Tennessee
Registration date : 2008-09-21
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Not to mention the fact that he steamrollers over any facts that are offered in opposition.
It's pure blackwhite, like how he said that only radiation causes cancer. Admittedly, I DID drop out when I shouldn't have.
It's pure blackwhite, like how he said that only radiation causes cancer. Admittedly, I DID drop out when I shouldn't have.
Rasq'uire'laskar- Crimson Scribe
- Number of posts : 2929
Age : 33
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
From what I've read he said cancer is caused by radiation. Which is true.
But when you mentioned other compounds that can cause radiation he comes out with a "when has silicon ever caused cancer".
When it comes down to one fact, there is no way for sure to know what compound caused a specific cancer. Just the fact that you have cancer. So many people could have cancer from what I believe to be some silicon based compound.
But when you mentioned other compounds that can cause radiation he comes out with a "when has silicon ever caused cancer".
When it comes down to one fact, there is no way for sure to know what compound caused a specific cancer. Just the fact that you have cancer. So many people could have cancer from what I believe to be some silicon based compound.
LeafyOwNu2- Crimson Epidemic
- Number of posts : 280
Age : 32
Location : Tennessee
Registration date : 2008-09-21
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
radiation isn't the only thing that causes cancer
all that cancer is, is a rapid growth and splitting of a cell... its mitosis cells split fast too... ext ext ext
this can be caused from chemicals, genetics, mutation (which unlike marvel seems to think... happens without radiation), or radiation.
radiation however does not usually cause cancer... as radiation kills cells... and the only way for cancer to occour is if a cell survives and multiplys... if you SURVIVE your encounter with a large radioactive field... then you are more likely to have a cancer form
all that cancer is, is a rapid growth and splitting of a cell... its mitosis cells split fast too... ext ext ext
this can be caused from chemicals, genetics, mutation (which unlike marvel seems to think... happens without radiation), or radiation.
radiation however does not usually cause cancer... as radiation kills cells... and the only way for cancer to occour is if a cell survives and multiplys... if you SURVIVE your encounter with a large radioactive field... then you are more likely to have a cancer form
KrAzY- Painter of the Flames
- Number of posts : 3965
Age : 34
Registration date : 2008-06-29
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
If we legalize weed, the originality of weed will be shoved into corporate hands. Patents and chemical engineering will turn weed into another aspect of life for capitalism to ruin.
Zaki90- Minion
- Number of posts : 764
Age : 30
Registration date : 2009-02-09
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Ringleader wrote:you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.
I swear I am talking to a brick wall here, dude, seriously, have you even read any of my posts in this thread?
Obviously not.
Nocbl2- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 4814
Age : 25
Location : California
Registration date : 2009-03-18
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Legalizing weed wont save the economy any more than happy meals at McDonalds. It's just another for people to waste money on, but with more negative side effects.
You may not be able to become physically addicted to weed, but you can become psychologically addicted. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much of a difference.
Let me put it this way: NT, along with many other users, would probably be broke if marijuana was legalized. How does that help?
You may not be able to become physically addicted to weed, but you can become psychologically addicted. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much of a difference.
Let me put it this way: NT, along with many other users, would probably be broke if marijuana was legalized. How does that help?
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
What about the hemp paper bro?
WHOOO!!!
WHOOO!!!
Ringleader- Crimson Muse
- Number of posts : 1993
Age : 32
Registration date : 2009-06-12
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
You guys do know that NT isn't here right? So he can't really defend himself in his own unfair ways.
LeafyOwNu2- Crimson Epidemic
- Number of posts : 280
Age : 32
Location : Tennessee
Registration date : 2008-09-21
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
As has been previously stated not even a half a page up, he has responded to all of NT's points and has received nothing in turn but comments like the one you just made. I would suggest doing exactly what RL has said, go back and find a point that NT has made that was not responded to.Angatar wrote:How about instead of wasting your time trying to tell me I'm wrong, which I'm not, you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.
Normally he reads them and ignores them. This comes from my experience in arguing with him.Ringleader wrote:you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.
I swear I am talking to a brick wall here, dude, seriously, have you even read any of my posts in this thread?
Obviously not.
A lazy fuck? You're the one ignoring his arguments.Angatar wrote:I have read yours, but listen to my idea. Instead of being a lazy fuck, go back and figure out why it will help.Ringleader wrote:you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.
I swear I am talking to a brick wall here, dude, seriously, have you even read any of my posts in this thread?
Obviously not.
Protip: If you want to see it done please do it yourself instead of telling others to do it.Ziggy wrote:Protip: summarise all your points into one big post each. That way we can stop the bickering and the claims of "But I rebutted that three pages ago!"
Most arguments with NT or Angatar end up like that, I cannot imagine why.BBJynne wrote:you two aren't even talking about the subject anymore. you're just hatin' on each other's comprehension skills
This sounds about right after recollecting my past arguments with him.LeafyOwNu2 wrote:I read the first 5 pages then got bored. It's basically one of NT's standard arguments. "Here is my idea, if you don't like it your wrong and whatever you bring into the mix I will push away as not been proven."
In the case of this argument no counter response can be given because nothing like this has ever been done and where it has been done NT wont accept that evidence because it's a different country.
Honestly, NT had an idea and he posted it. He just wanted everyone to say "OMG that's a great plan. LETS SEND IT AND TRY TO MAKE IT A BILL". He just wants an ego stroking, not a debate. I suggest stop fighting over it as it really doesn't matter that much.
PS: Yes supply and demand is a key factor but I have doubts that modifying the minimum wage would do anything. And even if it did it the relation between income and expenses will be the same. No matter how you work it, if you work only at McDonalds you will not be able to afford to live on your own.
Clarifying:
If an employees wage is $8 an hour and a Big Mac is $4. He would work half an hour to buy a Big Mac.
If we do what you say and lower minimum wage and everything else lowers as well, that same employee would now make $4 an hour, but the cost of a Big Mac was reduced to $2 an hour. The employee still has to work half an hour to buy a Big Mac. Changing minimum wage would only make the numbers smaller. It would offer no difference what-so-ever.
As someone who hangs out with far too many stoners and smokers, it has been made clear to me that when someone tries to quit weed they have absolutely no urge to smoke it, in contrast to say, a smoker. A smoker feels like he absolutely NEEDS a cigerette and in most of the cases he will go out and get one. A smoker will go into withdraw, start shaking, get ill tempered, ect, whereas a stoner experiences none of these. Nicotine is an example of a physical addiction, while weed is an example of a psychological addiction. There is the difference.CivBase wrote:Legalizing weed wont save the economy any more than happy meals at McDonalds. It's just another for people to waste money on, but with more negative side effects.
You may not be able to become physically addicted to weed, but you can become psychologically addicted. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much of a difference.
Let me put it this way: NT, along with many other users, would probably be broke if marijuana was legalized. How does that help?
On top of this, weed is already readily available to anyone who wants it. If it was legalized, the price would drop as many of the expenses involved between producing it and getting it to the consumer disappear. With this in mind, stoners would possibly have even more money than they do now.
The correct argument would be that there would be more stoners as a result of the industrialization of weed, and the absolute last thing we need right now is to expand the population of worthless stoners that are essentially a dead weight to society. Smoking only mildly effects the users abilities aside from highly demanding cardiovascular activities. In contrast to this, a stoner can only sit on his ass while high. Weed also has a longer lasting effect on a persons mental capabilities, as I have witnessed from my friends. Widespread, this would greatly decrease the average intelligence of an American, something which certainly needs no further decreasing, I am sure you agree.
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
I support the above post.
I take my family as an example. Half smoked weed, the other half didn't. Half are doctors, the other half work landscape. Can you guess which matches with which?
I take my family as an example. Half smoked weed, the other half didn't. Half are doctors, the other half work landscape. Can you guess which matches with which?
LeafyOwNu2- Crimson Epidemic
- Number of posts : 280
Age : 32
Location : Tennessee
Registration date : 2008-09-21
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Dud Doodoo wrote:As has been previously stated not even a half a page up, he has responded to all of NT's points and has received nothing in turn but comments like the one you just made. I would suggest doing exactly what RL has said, go back and find a point that NT has made that was not responded to.Angatar wrote:How about instead of wasting your time trying to tell me I'm wrong, which I'm not, you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.Normally he reads them and ignores them. This comes from my experience in arguing with him.Ringleader wrote:you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.
I swear I am talking to a brick wall here, dude, seriously, have you even read any of my posts in this thread?
Obviously not.A lazy fuck? You're the one ignoring his arguments.Angatar wrote:I have read yours, but listen to my idea. Instead of being a lazy fuck, go back and figure out why it will help.Ringleader wrote:you go and look for yourself and prove NT wrong.
I swear I am talking to a brick wall here, dude, seriously, have you even read any of my posts in this thread?
Obviously not.Protip: If you want to see it done please do it yourself instead of telling others to do it.Ziggy wrote:Protip: summarise all your points into one big post each. That way we can stop the bickering and the claims of "But I rebutted that three pages ago!"Most arguments with NT or Angatar end up like that, I cannot imagine why.BBJynne wrote:you two aren't even talking about the subject anymore. you're just hatin' on each other's comprehension skillsThis sounds about right after recollecting my past arguments with him.LeafyOwNu2 wrote:I read the first 5 pages then got bored. It's basically one of NT's standard arguments. "Here is my idea, if you don't like it your wrong and whatever you bring into the mix I will push away as not been proven."
In the case of this argument no counter response can be given because nothing like this has ever been done and where it has been done NT wont accept that evidence because it's a different country.
Honestly, NT had an idea and he posted it. He just wanted everyone to say "OMG that's a great plan. LETS SEND IT AND TRY TO MAKE IT A BILL". He just wants an ego stroking, not a debate. I suggest stop fighting over it as it really doesn't matter that much.
PS: Yes supply and demand is a key factor but I have doubts that modifying the minimum wage would do anything. And even if it did it the relation between income and expenses will be the same. No matter how you work it, if you work only at McDonalds you will not be able to afford to live on your own.
Clarifying:
If an employees wage is $8 an hour and a Big Mac is $4. He would work half an hour to buy a Big Mac.
If we do what you say and lower minimum wage and everything else lowers as well, that same employee would now make $4 an hour, but the cost of a Big Mac was reduced to $2 an hour. The employee still has to work half an hour to buy a Big Mac. Changing minimum wage would only make the numbers smaller. It would offer no difference what-so-ever.As someone who hangs out with far too many stoners and smokers, it has been made clear to me that when someone tries to quit weed they have absolutely no urge to smoke it, in contrast to say, a smoker. A smoker feels like he absolutely NEEDS a cigerette and in most of the cases he will go out and get one. A smoker will go into withdraw, start shaking, get ill tempered, ect, whereas a stoner experiences none of these. Nicotine is an example of a physical addiction, while weed is an example of a psychological addiction. There is the difference.CivBase wrote:Legalizing weed wont save the economy any more than happy meals at McDonalds. It's just another for people to waste money on, but with more negative side effects.
You may not be able to become physically addicted to weed, but you can become psychologically addicted. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much of a difference.
Let me put it this way: NT, along with many other users, would probably be broke if marijuana was legalized. How does that help?
On top of this, weed is already readily available to anyone who wants it. If it was legalized, the price would drop as many of the expenses involved between producing it and getting it to the consumer disappear. With this in mind, stoners would possibly have even more money than they do now.
The correct argument would be that there would be more stoners as a result of the industrialization of weed, and the absolute last thing we need right now is to expand the population of worthless stoners that are essentially a dead weight to society. Smoking only mildly effects the users abilities aside from highly demanding cardiovascular activities. In contrast to this, a stoner can only sit on his ass while high. Weed also has a longer lasting effect on a persons mental capabilities, as I have witnessed from my friends. Widespread, this would greatly decrease the average intelligence of an American, something which certainly needs no further decreasing, I am sure you agree.
Agreed, but I think Ziggy shouldn't have to do that, he was making a suggestion with the impression Angatar can be reasoned with.
Poor poor Ziggy...
Ringleader- Crimson Muse
- Number of posts : 1993
Age : 32
Registration date : 2009-06-12
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Here is the one reason why I believe in legalizing Marijuana.
Right now, production and distribution lies in the hands of Mexican cartels who establish and maintain their dominance with AK-47s and bombs.
Legalizing it will push it into the domain of corporations, who will maintain their dominance with cash and lawyers.
And then we can tax it out of existence, like we're doing with tobacco!
Plus, we get hemp paper (50% more efficient than wood pulp paper, in production and recycling) linseed oil, and a lot of other stuff.
Right now, production and distribution lies in the hands of Mexican cartels who establish and maintain their dominance with AK-47s and bombs.
Legalizing it will push it into the domain of corporations, who will maintain their dominance with cash and lawyers.
And then we can tax it out of existence, like we're doing with tobacco!
Plus, we get hemp paper (50% more efficient than wood pulp paper, in production and recycling) linseed oil, and a lot of other stuff.
Rasq'uire'laskar- Crimson Scribe
- Number of posts : 2929
Age : 33
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Ironically, NT's main argument for why weed doesn't cause cancer goes out the window when it is legalized. He argues that because tobacco is grown by corporations who use seedy (no pun intended) fertilizer, tobacco becomes ever to slightly irradiated. When weed is legalized, those same corporations are going to take over its production, and weed will be made with that same fertilizer. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the big corporations found a way to incorporate Nicotine or some other addictive chemical into commercial weed.
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Ringleader wrote:
Agreed, but I think Ziggy shouldn't have to do that, he was making a suggestion with the impression Angatar can be reasoned with.
Poor poor Ziggy...
Oh no, it just makes me laugh. People like Dud Doodoo, and a lot of others on this forum, are either incredibly over-sensitive, or they just spend most of their time trying to make an argument out of every post, purely to fuel their ego or assert testosterone-fueled dominance. It's so unbelievably childish and pathetic, but it still makes me laugh. I have not seen a thread where somebody has not jumped on a post and made an argument out of it, or has been hostile for the sake of causing conflict.
Ziggy- Minion
- Number of posts : 366
Age : 30
Location : Melbourne
Registration date : 2009-08-08
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Putting aside the fact that this thread resides in the debate forum, I find it funny that I am the one out of everyone referenced in a comment about being overly aggressive.Ziggy wrote:Ringleader wrote:
Agreed, but I think Ziggy shouldn't have to do that, he was making a suggestion with the impression Angatar can be reasoned with.
Poor poor Ziggy...
Oh no, it just makes me laugh. People like Dud Doodoo, and a lot of others on this forum, are either incredibly over-sensitive, or they just spend most of their time trying to make an argument out of every post, purely to fuel their ego or assert testosterone-fueled dominance. It's so unbelievably childish and pathetic, but it still makes me laugh. I have not seen a thread where somebody has not jumped on a post and made an argument out of it, or has been hostile for the sake of causing conflict.
"It just makes me laugh"
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Debate =/= Ragekill fest
Gauz- Crimson Medic
- Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Putting aside the fact that this thread resides in the debate forum, I find it funny that I am the one out of everyone referenced in a comment about being overly aggressive.
"It just makes me laugh"
So, you're trying to justify your jumping onto my fairly passive comment with "this thread resides in the debate forum"? Cool. Refer back to my comment about insensitivity and not reacting or arguing against posts when it is clearly not necessary or rational. And really, you're sort of confirming my comment by trying to rebut it. It's a pretty firm observation, and I don't think I'm the only person who feels that people need to just chill the fuck out around here.
Also, it's not really aggression in your case, more in people like AJ and Angatar. But still, I see a lot of people on this forum who feel that it's their duty to rebut nearly every post made here, regardless of how contentious, passive, or neutral it may be. It causes a whole lot of unnecessary conflict, and it's just pathetic.
And @Angatar, you mind explaining how this is ironic? I don't find it ironic at all.
Ziggy- Minion
- Number of posts : 366
Age : 30
Location : Melbourne
Registration date : 2009-08-08
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
...Debate section...Ziggy wrote:
Oh no, it just makes me laugh. People like Dud Doodoo, and a lot of others on this forum, are either incredibly over-sensitive, or they just spend most of their time trying to make an argument out of every post,
Like you're doing now?Ziggy wrote:purely to fuel their ego or assert testosterone-fueled dominance.
And you call us immature...Ziggy wrote:It's so unbelievably childish and pathetic, but it still makes me laugh.
Hooray for being in the Debate Section!Ziggy wrote:I have not seen a thread where somebody has not jumped on a post and made an argument out of it, or has been hostile for the sake of causing conflict.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
Again, you seem to be missing the point of that post. It wasn't me saying "I'm much better than you", or me "fueling my ego", because I would have worded it much differently. I'm actually saying that you all need to just shut the fuck up and not argue in every single thread over the most minute and insignificant things. Everybody knows that it occurs to much, and when I raise a point about how people argue too much, people try and rebut that! It's just stupid, and it makes this forum pretty unappealing at times.
Your social skills are pretty fucked if you think that you should always be right, and that you should always assert your opinion, aggressively or not, regardless of the consequences of doing so.
Also, if you try and refute this comment, you're only validating and reinforcing my argument.
Your social skills are pretty fucked if you think that you should always be right, and that you should always assert your opinion, aggressively or not, regardless of the consequences of doing so.
Also, if you try and refute this comment, you're only validating and reinforcing my argument.
Ziggy- Minion
- Number of posts : 366
Age : 30
Location : Melbourne
Registration date : 2009-08-08
Re: KN's Guide to Fixing the Country
We should stop arguing in the Debate Section? That makes perfect sense!Ziggy wrote:Again, you seem to be missing the point of that post. It wasn't me saying "I'm much better than you", or me "fueling my ego", because I would have worded it much differently. I'm actually saying that you all need to just shut the fuck up and not argue in every single thread over the most minute and insignificant things. Everybody knows that it occurs to much, and when I raise a point about how people argue too much, people try and rebut that! It's just stupid, and it makes this forum pretty unappealing at times.
Your social skills are pretty fucked if you think that you should always be right, and that you should always assert your opinion, aggressively or not, regardless of the consequences of doing so.
Also, if you try and refute this comment, you're only validating and reinforcing my argument.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Page 6 of 7 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 6 of 7
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|