JackC

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,153

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by JackC

  1. JackC
    If the ultimate goals are those good works, then what need for religion? You don't need religion to do good things or be a good person and there are enough pitfalls in any religion so as to lead you down the wrong path entirely. Why complicate a simple thing (do good) with a doctrine that is easy to interpret in a malevolent way as many people have? It seems to me that religion is as much of an obstacle as it is an enabler.
  2. JackC
    People Coal You do ask some odd questions.
  3. JackC
    The original joke wasn't very funny but this was hilarious.
  4. JackC
    commonality 1.b. A shared feature or attribute uniqueness 1. Being the only one of its kind oxymoron A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist. Ah yes, the "Truth (TM)". A classic case of false advertising. Just because people don't buy into the "Truth (TM)", doens't mean their life is devoid of meaning, or truth.
  5. JackC
    By that measure you could say that Star Wars/Pulp Fiction/Sesame Street is true, just not literally true. It's a pretty useless measure because it means whatever the hell you want it to mean. As an author, God blows.
  6. JackC
    Nothing. I thought you'd have figured out how atheism works by now.
  7. JackC
    Quite so. There are a lot of religious people who accept science. Right up to the point where it threatens one of their strongly held beliefs, then science gets tossed faster than handgrenade with no pin. They even give it a fancy name like non-overlapping magisteria to make it sound like they haven't fudged anything.
  8. JackC
    Accepting the idea that historical person X once lived is one thing. Accepting that historical person X is actually God, creator of the universe, is quite another. Is that not utterly obvious to absolutely everyone?
  9. JackC
    And where exactly does that get you?
  10. JackC
    So this is a blatant troll thread then?
  11. JackC
    I dunno, maybe this particular excercise was specifically meant to investigate a smallpox outbreak but was only one of many excercises that together cover many threats. Anyway, pneumonic and bubonic plague are both curable with early treatment and there are only limited supplies of antiboiotics available. In general, I think many of the responses to smallpox would be applicable to lots of other outbreaks too. But I'm no expert.
  12. JackC
    It probably doesn't matter which bio-weapon you imagine for the excercise, in general principle the govermnent response is likely to be similar for all of them.
  13. JackC
    Ron, where exactly is the country of Al Qaeda?
  14. JackC
    It certainly doesn't. Personally I don't give a shit what guns you guys are allowed to own, I was just interested in exactly how deregulated you guys want to be. I figured that no one in their right mind would want no regulations at all because that would be completely absurd (as you keep pointing out). Yet here we are, you and several others have said quite plainly that you do indeed want the absurdity of zero weapon laws.
  15. JackC
    The fact that he's on record as saying he wants no laws whatsoever. None. Nada. I.e. everyone, regardless of station should have equal access to any and all weapons. Nah, you just think you did.
  16. JackC
    What is it with SC and people jumping to unfounded conclusions? What makes you think I'd want to invade anywhere? And are you really OK with Al Qaeda possessing nukes?
  17. JackC
    That makes it easier. You said you'd vote to scrap all weapons laws, in that case Al Qaeda could buy their nukes directly from a WMD dealer in the US. I think Osama Bin Laden would love you for that. But I was just wondering if you extended the same principle of complete weapons deregulation to other countries. So do you? So might you.
  18. JackC
    So you've got no problem with North Korea or Iran developing nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda buying them then? After all, it's a criminal/societal problem and everyone should be responsible for their own actions right? Yes, I reckon that's pretty fucked up.
  19. JackC
    Yup. Sure would. Remember, I did say ALL weapons laws. You would seriously vote to scrap all weapons related laws? You do realise that it would then be totally legal for convicted fellons, sectioned mental patients, suspected terrorists and even 12 year olds to openly carry RPGs, full autos and whatever other hardware they fancy? That absolutely anyone with the cover price could buy a Cruise missile if they so please? You don't see anything wrong with total deregulation of the Anthrax market? That is seriously fucked up.
  20. JackC
    OK, so suppose you need a tie breaker? Would a pledge to have no gun laws at all be enough to swing it in his favour?
  21. JackC
    I've got to wonder with all you gun fans, if some politician pledged to scrap every weapon related law on the books, absolutely all of them, and had the will and the clout to do it, would you vote for them?
  22. JackC
    It would just take longer to completely fuck up the planet - that's all. To a large extent the planet is self-sustaining, trees grow back, animals repopulate etc. But above some critical level of population of any species, the strain on the environment is greater than it can support and that's when the damage is done. Below that critical level of population, the planet can pretty well look after itself.
  23. JackC
    Earth would be better off with less people, but not no people.
  24. JackC
    Of course not, he hasn't done the deed yet. Honestly, try to keep up...
  25. JackC
    As Harlan Ellison once said "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity". Bush Jism theory could well explain half of that.