|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:00 PM |
|
|
Super soldiers are expensive and are quite dangerous to the researcher himself. Nuclear weapons are much easier and more profitable... Unless you can create soldiers who are immune to radiation, somehow...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:03 PM |
|
|
Nukes only work in total war conditions. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:07 PM |
|
|
Police or US troops work in all other situations
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:11 PM |
|
|
Exactly. Think of the profit of replacing them with super slaves. (apart from initial research).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:35 PM |
|
|
I think it'd be more effective to use some kind of robots than manufactured humans.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it'd be more effective to use some kind of robots than manufactured humans.
The difference is that when robots is more sturdy they are more wound able to the fact they cannot think. If they hit a loophole in their AI, they are more than dead.
Mindless human super soliders on the other hand, can think. Which is a 1 - 0 in about any situation.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it'd be more effective to use some kind of robots than manufactured humans.
That's further in the future mvass (and I don't disagree provided the robots are advanced enough). "Tele-guided" robots are FAIL because the communication protocol (how you command them) can be intercepted and interfered.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
|
Ah, I see the old thread revived.
Anyway, I'll never understand people who are pro-contraception but anti-abortion. It's a paradox. Why is one form of denying new life good, but other bad?
There is also abortive medicine that's somewhere in between those two (i.e. Postinor), also widely accepted by society, even though it is obviously abortion, just fast and without physical intervention...
Feels as if people weren't following any logic, instead just listening to the crowd and making up their minds depending on what they hear.. it's like alcohol & drugs: Alcohol - a drug - is socially accepted, even though it's more destructive & addicting than many "lesser" drugs...
I hate that kind of hypocrisy in people. It's either all of it, or none of it - not the "I pick what suits ME in morals, and discard the rest" type of behavior, which happens to be the credo of majority of people.
Myself, I'd call myself pro-abortion, pro-contraception, even though I shouldn't really talk about the former: as a man, I know **** about pregnancy and all stuff related to it, thus, I don't have the right to speak up.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 06:27 PM |
|
|
@doomforge
Quote:
Anyway, I'll never understand people who are pro-contraception but anti-abortion. It's a paradox. Why is one form of denying new life good, but other bad?
Well, in all fairness, they're two completely different things.
Quote:
as a man, I know **** about pregnancy and all stuff related to it, thus, I don't have the right to speak up.
Well, as a man, you know enough about pregnancy to make it happen, do you not? That's sufficient to have an opinion.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Myself, I'd call myself pro-abortion, pro-contraception, even though I shouldn't really talk about the former: as a man, I know **** about pregnancy and all stuff related to it, thus, I don't have the right to speak up.
I know **** about robbing banks too but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.
I believe in women's rights. But that doesn't mean she can do what she wants when it involves others beside her, WHEN it is her fault (this means not rape, where abortion would place the murder charge on the rapist). So I guess that classifies me as anti-willing-abortion (not innocent again, like in rape).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:29 PM |
|
|
Why are children of rape special? They're just as innocent as other fetuses. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why are children of rape special? They're just as innocent as other fetuses.
True, but why punish the women also?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why are children of rape special? They're just as innocent as other fetuses.
That's not the point. The point is WHO do you charge with the murder.
In this case you charge the rapist.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 09:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, in all fairness, they're two completely different things.
With completely the same outcome.
A life that would be conceived is denied. One or other way..
you will argue about technical details like: here, the child was prevented entirely from forming, and here, it was forcefully removed from uterus... but look at the bigger picture.
The child's life was denied.
But I know this would be too "horrible" truth to change the thinking of people, who, as I said before, pick one thing in morality, discard another, even if they have the same outcome.. So they will deny a couple babies in their lifetimes (at least..), but they will fiercely fight for one, denied, just in a different way.
I think it's severe case of hypocrisy.
Oh, and the fact that I know how the process of pregnancy looks like rather well, I still don't know about what happens in women's mind. It would be arrogant to say I know. I guess we all know how birth looks like, but can you honestly tell that you know what you're talking about when you say "it's painful"? Knowing it is and actually experiencing it... I'd say they are very, VERY different things.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 09:37 PM |
|
|
@doomforge
Quote:
With completely the same outcome.
A life that would be conceived is denied. One or other way..
Ok, let me ask you this. If a man and a woman are dating, is it possible for them to both be pro-life AND be in favor of breaking up with each other if they decide they aren't compatible? After all, by breaking up, they are preventing a future child from forming. The child's life was denied.
Regarding the other thing, well, I think it's a big cop out for a guy to say, "Well I don't know anything about pregnancy; thus abortion is a woman's problem." Even though a man doesn't carry a child, that doesn't mean he doesn't bear responsibility for what happens to it.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok, let me ask you this. If a man and a woman are dating, is it possible for them to both be pro-life AND be in favor of breaking up with each other if they decide they aren't compatible? After all, by breaking up, they are preventing a future child from forming. The child's life was denied.
The problem with most pro-choice people is that they think like above: pro-life just want the baby, rather than punishing the woman for abortion. In that case I am not pro-life but anti-abortion (which doesn't deny the child's life but TERMINATES it as it already began).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:30 PM |
|
|
I find no difference between denying and terminating. The effect is the same. No kid that should be there if no pills/operations were used.
Quote:
Ok, let me ask you this. If a man and a woman are dating, is it possible for them to both be pro-life AND be in favor of breaking up with each other if they decide they aren't compatible? After all, by breaking up, they are preventing a future child from forming. The child's life was denied.
That's really far fetched. We can go to the extreme and say, every second you waste by not having sex, you're denying lives.
But that would be pointless. They can break up and find other partners to have kids with anyway. It's "something yet to happen". Taking a pill, on the other hand, directly interferes with the process that has already been started by sex.
It denies something that would happen for sure. Abortion does the same. The only difference is that it stops something "one step further". but with the same outcome. You deliberately prevent a life from being formed by contraception, and that's nothing to debate about, since it's rather obvious.
Why is it socially accepted then, and abortion is not? Because people want to have lots and lots of sex, and morality suddenly gets unimportant because of the overwhelming pleasure? And one step forward, it suddenly makes a big return.
Pretty hypocritical.
So no, I don't find my logic flawed, unless you really want to go to the extreme with "abstinence kills people", but that would be really pointless.
Quote:
Regarding the other thing, well, I think it's a big cop out for a guy to say, "Well I don't know anything about pregnancy; thus abortion is a woman's problem." Even though a man doesn't carry a child, that doesn't mean he doesn't bear responsibility for what happens to it.
I never said it's a woman's problem: I said that I don't have full rights to mouth about it. It's like women talking about erection. Something they know about, seen, experienced, but well, they don't really know how it feels to be a man.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I find no difference between denying and terminating. The effect is the same. No kid that should be there if no pills/operations were used.
The effect is unimportant. Guilt applies to actions, not to effects. Lack of action, while it may lead to same effect/outcome, can't be guilty.
With that logic, everyone dies. Let's assume that an entire city will get nuked totally, so whatever the people inside do is worthless (they don't export). So if the nuke arrives in 50 years, for you it is the same thing as killing them right now since the "effect" would be the same in 50 years?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I find no difference between denying and terminating. The effect is the same. No kid that should be there if no pills/operations were used.
The effect is unimportant. Guilt applies to actions, not to effects. Lack of action, while it may lead to same effect/outcome, can't be guilty.
With that logic, everyone dies. Let's assume that an entire city will get nuked totally, so whatever the people inside do is worthless (they don't export). So if the nuke arrives in 50 years, for you it is the same thing as killing them right now since the "effect" would be the same in 50 years?
Failed example. People will live 50 years and do many things in their lives. A kid won't live at all. He will be denied at virtually the same moment of "non-existence". Why does it matter whether you do it before sex or a week after sex?
And if the effect doesn't mean **** to you, only the ways used to obtain it, we have nothing else to talk about mate.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Failed example. People will live 50 years and do many things in their lives.
After the nuke, everything they've done would be obliterated. So the "effect" would be the same. That was the whole point.
Quote:
And if the effect doesn't mean **** to you, only the ways used to obtain it, we have nothing else to talk about mate.
The effect doesn't mean **** when evaluating guilt, yes. Intent/action is what matters.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
