Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Debate; A place to debate anything
Topic Started: Aug 4 2009, 10:45 PM (1,052 Views)
Shades
Member Avatar

Atmoran
Aug 9 2009, 12:30 AM
While we're at it I'd like to bring another subject to the front: central banking. I believe the US should either abolish the central banking system and instead have private banks print money but only when they have sufficient gold backing, or adopt a European banking strategy in which the focus of the central bank isn't growth, but stable value of the currency.
You're a regular Andrew Jackson, but I wouldn't say the modern central bank is focused on growth. I'd like to hear why you'd say the US central bank is different from the EU style banking system though.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_pigeon
Member Avatar

Atmoran
Aug 9 2009, 12:30 AM
You don't think there's anything wrong with killing babies? Seems self-evident to me.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying about global warming, but until it's proven the act of trying to save the world from global warming would cause less harm than not acting at all, I'm content. I certainly don't want us signing any kind of Kyoto. Certain, terrible damage to our economy for the purpose of saving the world from something immeasurable. We haven't the slightest clue what kind of effect we're having on our environment.

I think tampering with your child's genetics before they're born for any purpose other than to cure a genetic disease is a gross overstepping of what I believe to be proper parental bounds. Again, it just seems self-evident.


Bounds shmounds, what does it matter? it makes no difference to the child - they wouldn't even know what was happening, at the point in pregnancy when this would occuring the baby is about as close to being a separate living organism as your kidney, would you mind as much if i said that I could give you genetically modified, super kidneys?

On global warming, I won't bother trying to argue this one with you, you're very set in your views - mine are listed further up the topic if you're interested. What I will say is that opting for green technology is a huge advantage for the West politically and economically. Politically it makes the Western countries look good and globally minded - America is unpopular over here for its attitude towards climate change... and other things :)

Don't know anything about banking in the US

Economically, who is it that provides most of the oil used by the west? The Middle East, Russia foreign countries in general. Long term being self sufficient when it comes to power - something that can be accomplished anywhere using alternative energy forms is going to be far better for the economy.

Also @ killing babies, it seems wrong because it's a paradigm that you grew up with, others feel differently - think of all the Greek and Roman children exposed at birth because they were thought to be 'sickly' nobody had any qualms about that.
Edited by Evil_pigeon, Oct 6 2009, 04:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darkom
Member Avatar

Indeed, my friend, nothing is self evident in philosophy. You must have a reason for something to be wrong, though the term "reason" is rather loosely defined. One could say that for something to be "right" it must be pragmatic and useful, while on the other hand one could go by the current popular "ethics" of society. All of these things are hotly debated, with the skepticism ranging from nihilism to the average joe ideals. I think that most things are the way they are today for a reason, but if we do not know that reason then we are simply taking things at face value and not learning anything. If you never learned why two times two came out to be four, and just accepted that it was and memorized it, where would you get in math?

Yes, I am very much for genetic manipulation. Our society has destroyed evolution, why not take it into our own hands? We were once hunter-gatherers, with the idea of farming an impossible dream, possibly against some early religions. If we had never developed agriculture- a miracle and sacrilege in its own right- we could not possibly be at the level we are today. Though one could always bring the argument back to what good is advancing society with the meaning of life argument, I have found that to be a pointless paradox that ends arguments without anyone learning anything.

Global warming? It's real, all right. Whether it was caused entirely by humans, sped up, or completely unaffected by greenhouse gasses is up for debate, as is what we can do about it. However, one thing is certain: if the worst case scenario happens and the global temperature is raised to a point where human life cannot adapt to it, then all is lost (unless we find another home). So, no matter what your view, you have to accept that it is real and it does present a significant threat to humanity.

Ah, morals. What is more fun than asking someone why killing a baby is wrong? Watch them squirm as you destroy their argument that it is because of religious morals, and then leave them to suppress your statement so they can keep living their confined lives of idiocy and darkness. As you can see, I am very kind and humble :) It is true, what of countless cultures that go against our morals? Are they wrong? Savages to be corrected by any means necessary? Why is that? It is commonly accepted that murder is wrong (between people's feelings of not having the right to take another's life and religion), but what of the unumerable loopholes? War has been justified, crusades and inquisitions, holocausts. All evils have people at their roots, and no people see themselves as evil. Thus, is it possible for anyone to be any more evil than history and the general public views them? Morals are defined by society, not any intrinsic system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Community Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply