Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

1. Is your internet persona different from your real one?

2. If religion attempts to create order by intimidation and fear, which results in repressed anger, and repressed anger can turn into violence, does this mean that religion is the antithesis of order?

3. Is it more “humane” to execute someone than to keep them locked away in a prison or asylum for 20, 30, 40, more years? What if you could choose between say, 40 years or execution?

4. Are apparent physical and mental genetic differences between races generally downplayed?

5. If everything we do is driven by our subconscious need to elevate ourselves over as many rivals as possible with procreation as the ultimate goal, is monogamy (and resultant religious rules against fornication and adultery) unnatural; a man-made invention to even the playing field for the inferior?

6. Why the need to increase the penalties for a crime labeled a “hate” crime? Why not just choose the greater punishment and make that the penalty for all crimes of that type (murder, assault, whatever)?

7. Do certain words seem more distasteful when a girl says them?

8. Was the U.S. victory at the Battle of Midway more important to defeating the Japanese in WW2 than the development of the atomic bomb?

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

1. Yes most definetly, im not cocky/outgoingish in RL

2. No, assuming you are correct it is just another method of maintaining order. Everyway people attempt to maintain order will lead to some backlash against said method/order

3. Even locked in a cell, every person has the possibility to live their life to the fullest if they so choose.

4. i am not aware that there are any that are significant enough that would need to be downplayed to keep the equal rights thing justified

5. No, a couple raising children have a better chance of having those children being succesful and surviving than would a single parent. You could theoritically say that more women around would further increase the odds, but then there is the 1-1ish ratio of men to women. See mating habits of voles

6. hate doesnt go away as easily as a drug problem or money problems, or other things that may lead someone to kill just once out of need.

7. yes because we are conditioned that women are "ladys"

8. Yes, atomic bomb was pretty much just the ending note, at that point the US could have invaded japan, suffered horrible casualties but ultimately, and undeniably win the war eventually. the atomic bobm saved lives and time. Midway changed the direction of the war.

I am THE man.
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee15 ... 171424.jpg

Yes, but there is definitely quite a bit of overlap. Having been on the internet most of my life (forums, MMOs, etc.), I feel like the two meld together more and more.



Not sure how you can say definitively that religions attempts at creating order result in repressed anger. I've never had an inherent problem with the idea of religion, or even having a set of beliefs. I think that it's humanity, people, corruption, that cause the violence and chaos in this world. Religion is not the antithesis of order (consider Catholicism - you can't get much more order than that). No, I think humanity uses order and systems to promote their own personal agendas, which leads to chaos. Humanity, I think, is the antithesis of order, which is why we spend so much time trying to place order around us ( government, law, games with rules, lines of succession, leaders, followers, etc.).



An interesting question. I've always felt that execution is a kind thing...the easy way out. It's better to let someone live their natural course so they can think about all the mistakes and evil's they committed.



Yes, because it's politically incorrect to highlight them. Cultural differences are also downplayed. Fact: Black people are more athletic in general Fact: Asian culture lends itself to higher academic achievement and so on...these differences cannot be disputed, but are often overlooked because we want a color-blind society. I, for one, feel that we can have a color blind society while still acknowledging that cultures and races each have different strengths.



An interesting concept. I think monogamy is a man made idea, but it is now necessary for society to function.

What do you mean Azelma?

Back when we were all dumb apes, we were a nomadic society. Strength was in numbers...so screwing as many people as possible was advantageous. Get the women pregnant, procreate...more kids available for fighting, farming, hunting, whatever. Everyone took care of the kids, everyone worked together.

However, as this whole system of commerce developed (read: capitalism), raising a child became a lot more COSTLY. Why monogamy is necessary now is simple. Think about how much money, time, etc. it takes to raise a child today. You need two functioning (often working) parents to generally have the best chance to raise a child without incident. Even in cases of divorce, one parent will help care for the child through child support. Think about the tax breaks married people get.

Now monogamy is not for the inferior, but for the economically superior. Think of how the gap continues to widen between rich and poor. The rich are marrying the rich, and having kids.



This is just another manifestation of white guilt. Affirmative action, Title IX, the NFL's Rooney Rule, and yes..."hate crimes". The atrocities that were committed to so many races over the years can never be forgotten or fixed. However, we can put laws in place that say "well, since he killed a black guy...it was even WORSE" It just makes us feel good. A bandaid on the open gash that is the history of race relations in the United States.



Yeah, because girls are supposed to be more ladylike...less boorish.



This could almost be considered a chicken/egg question. However, in my opinion, the atomic bomb won that war. Nothing else would have stopped Japan (save a full-on, successful invasion of the country).

I'd say so, yeah. IRL I'm much less confrontational and a very patient person. I still think the same, I'm just much less likely to flat-out say what I'm thinking.


The idea of religion was created to create order and to explain the unexplained. People took it and twisted it to their own ends of power. I would say it wouldn't be religion that is the antithesis but instead the people behind it.


People shouldn't get a free way out of doing their time, nor should we assist in state-sponsored suicide for the lone reason of people wanting to dodge jail time. Personally, I'd go for the 40 years.

Not at all. Differences inside of a race are usually displayed proudly (ex. a rap video about asses won't have many white women). However, the differences between races are talked about frequently, just not in the spotlight (ex. my roommates watching the Packers/Bears game and making the comment after a pass "He would've been able to catch that pass if he was black").

I suppose. However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. You could argue that the idea of courting women for their affection is an unnecessary social construct, since the strongest man could literally bend anyone he wanted over and rape them in the street in order to further his seed. Women don't have to like you to get pregnant.


"Hate" crimes are done out of sheer hatred of a person for no other reason besides of who they are. A crime of passion (such as coming home to a cheating wife and then beating her fuckbuddy to death) has a different motivator than random violence because this guy was colored differently and somehow walked into your field of vision and thus should be treated differently.


Nope. I hold my girl friends to the same level as my guy friends. Then again, I get put off when some of my childhood friends start talking about dildos, but I feel that's more because we've known each other since we were kids.


Maybe, I'm not a WWII expert.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

No.



The question is meaningless as it is based on faulty assumptions. In any event, all order is based on fear to at least some extent - at the very least, fear of chaos.



Yes and the latter.



Biased and leading question but the basic answer is yes. It's not quite true in the way you mean to get at, though. I think people who make claims like this tend to define it narrowly in terms of blacks being big and dumb; in reality, I think temperament is an even greater consideration. Excellent example: the temperament of Siamese cats compared to tabbies. Size, intelligence and physical traits are less significant.




The question contains a faulty assumption.

The answer is no because humans are social creatures. The fact that many birds are mostly monogamous but sometimes cheat doesn't make monogamy any more against the grain for them than us. There are some polygamous cultures but on the whole the institution of monogamy is clearly fundamentally human since it is the rule and not the exception as it developed in many discrete cultures in parallel.



Loaded question. It's also a question asked in bad faith because you don't apply the standard you're imposing here to question other aggravating offenses such as conspiracy or violence.

In answer to your question, a crime that is fundamentally evil and antisocial is more wrong than a crime that is done out of greed or maladaptive behavior.



Yes and vice versa.



Definitely. If we lost at Midway we might have lost the war.

I don't think that's likely, however. I think, if we lost at Midway, which was a strong probability at the time, this is what would have happened:

The Japanese would invade the West Coast, occupying California at the cost of many lives (they were stockpiling poison gas for the invasion). Due to long supply lines and lack of control and familiarity with the terrain, the Japanese would have been unable to traverse the Sierra Nevadas and Mojave Desert. California wasn't that significant strategically except for its proximity to the Pacific theater; major centers of production and population at the time were in the Midwest. Eventually, reinforcements would have poured in from the rest of the country and the Japanese would have been forced out through sheer attrition.

Meanwhile, with the Americans focused on repelling the invaders, the Germans would have been able to consolidate their hold on Europe and Hitler might have overcome his irrational fear of amphibious assaults (this is actually the historical truth) and conquered England and Russia.

In this scenario, the war would have gone on until about 1960, and ended in a stalemate and a negotiated settlement. The Americans, Germans and Japanese would divide the world in three. In time, such an agreement would end the same way the Cold War did, with detente and everyone simply getting along.

To answer your question directly: the atom bomb didn't change anything, by 1944 it was decided that the Japanese had completely lost the war. All it did was save millions of lives, both Allied and Japanese.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If you're deeply religious and someone takes over your country and makes your entire belief set illegal and/or tries to force you and convert to their ideas.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Fair enough, but it wasn't the religion's attempts at creating order that resulted directly in the repressed anger. I think you're leaving something out, which is why I disagree with the statement.

Religion LEADS TO Repressed anger: FALSE

It's the human involvement (taking over a country, establishing a new order that makes the old belief system illegal) that results in the repressed anger and subsequent chaos. Sure, the existence of religion plays a part (no anger without the ingrained belief system), but it is not a direct cause and effect relationship. You need that missing piece of humanity:

Religion + Human Oppression/Interaction LEADS TO Repressed anger: TRUE

Ask yourself, if no one invaded the country and tried to establish a new belief system, or tried to outlaw the old beliefs...would people in this country have repressed anger?

Yes, slightly.



I live in a country where rehabilitation (punishment plus recidivism reduction) is used, and it works. So that's obvious to me.



I am 60% banana and 99+% chimpanzee, if I am genetically different with another ethnicity of the human race, the difference is minimal enough that it doesn't matter. Everyone of us is genetically different, anyway.



I don't know, I'm inclined towards racially driven crimes being punished more heavily.



I'm late.

1. Not that much, though I'm more likely to be a douche on the internet.

2. There's too many maybes here. Organized religion, according to itself, is the opposite of the antithesis of order. While intentions aren't always enough, religion has historically been both a unifier and a divider. On the broadest level though, I think religion cannot exist in a perfectly ordered world.

3. No, though prison conditions in this country are despicable. Dead people are gone forever, and there's nothing humane about destroying the personal connections a convict may have with his family/friends/other. I'd take the 40 years, not that it would ever happen because I'm white and I'd get it pleaded down to voluntary manslaughter.

4. It's not really possible to downplay physical differences since those are visually inescapable, and there's the less obviously apparent stuff like susceptibility to certain diseases and different types of earwax. I don't think there are any mental genetic differences.

5. This question is unanswerable on a technicality, because the word "unnatural" has ceased to have any meaning. Either nothing about our behavior is natural, or everything is; we can't pick and choose. Ignoring "nature" then, I'd say that monogamy almost certainly developed to protect the property interests of men in a patriarchal society, but it's caught on and we like it because we perceive "cheating" as being wrong.

6. Because it's a reminder that as much as we'd love to think we're an open society, we're still racist on some level. This is supposed to be the deterrent, and it works (well, "works") in every direction.

7. Cunt.

8. Sheer industrial power would have won us the war one way or another, though the atomic bomb has the distinction of being what actually defeated Japan. Midway was a sign that we could have done it conventionally as well.

I also completely disagree with Aestu's theoretical war scenario in regards to the European theatre. The Allies weren't so much doing it to liberate Western Europe from the Germans as they were doing it to keep Stalin from painting the entire goddamn thing red. The whole dramatization about Russia having more soldiers than rifles stopped being true by 1943, but the myth was reinforced by war movies and the American viewpoint that they saved all of beleaguered Europe when Russia would have handily done it themselves by late 1945.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

No. For better or worse, I'm the same.



I read this question someplace, and posted it here. Of course, the presupposition here could lead to the conclusion, and while I think this is probably true in specific cases, I don't think it is generally true. I agree with you guys who think there are too many layers in the presupposition.



Execution is clearly more humane than locking someone away for decades. While storing human beings in cages to let them think over their transgressions is a bad deal for them, it is also expensive for everyone else, and I don’t have much faith in rehabilitation. Petty crimes with very uncomfortable short-term confinement? Maybe. Big crimes deserving of decades of confinement? Nope. I think of it as a kindness to put someone out of their misery. Barbaric? Not any more than caging them for years and years. I'd choose execution if presented with a choice for myself.



4. I think this is definitely true. I don't understand why it is so politically incorrect to discuss something so obvious. One need look no further than professional football, where winning is paramount, to see genetic differences at work. There are reasons that cornerbacks are black. They are genetically superior for the qualities necessary to perform the functions of this position. It isn't much of a jump to think other races might have genetic advantages/disadvantages, too. Why the avoidance?



I think most of what we do is sexually driven, and I don't think we are naturally monogamous. I think most men would cover as many partners as possible, if not for societal restrictions. Further, I’ll wager that most men would not only cover as many women as possible, but would stop other men from being with any of his mates, if he could. Thumbs up for harems!



Designating some crimes as “hate” crimes only underscores our differences when everyone says all they want is to be treated the same. Nobody thinks that “Carmen” should get raped because a “green” guy doesn’t like “blue” people, but she isn’t less raped if he attacked her because he likes her “purple” hair, and he isn’t less of a villain nor does he deserve a lesser punishment. All crimes are hate crimes; just ask the victims. All people should be treated equally under the law, both victims and accused. Prosecuting differently for the same crime has long been decried by minorities, and rightfully so. Hate crime legislation is just a “look how far we’ve come!” version of the same injustice.



I think when girls say certain words, it diminishes them. I tend to hold females to a little higher standard probably because I'm old-fashioned and I love to love them.



Attacking Pearl Harbor when they were not in a position to take Hawaii was a monumental mistake, because it awakened the industrial might of the U.S. However, the arrogance of the Japanese was their undoing. They believed their coded transmissions were indecipherable, they didn’t properly prepare their naval crews to fight fires, and they underestimated their enemy. Committing basically their entire navy to Midway was an unnecessary “all-in” move (even though it was basically some bad luck that ultimately/probably led to defeat). I believe, if Japan had taken Midway, they would have taken Hawaii, then eventually menaced the West Coast in order to gain a peace treaty with the United States under their own terms. However, any chances Japan had sunk with those 4 aircraft carriers. Midway was the beginning of the end. Little Boy and Fat Man were simply the coup de grace.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

You could just as easily argue the American strategy at Midway - having fighter crews run sorties for days straight, risking serious pilot error an diminished performance - was just as much an "all-in" move that risked serious consequences. This is also why I said it was a "strong probability" at the time that we would lose the battle.

It wasn't Japanese but Germans whose transmissions were so easily deciphered. The Japanese didn't doubt America's might, they merely doubted the American will to fight.

Ultimately, the real issue at work was that the Japanese who made the decision to attack did not understand America. Tellingly, Yamamoto opposed the war, made highly accurate predictions about how it would play out - and had spent years in America. There's a good book "Japan At War" about Japanese perspectives on the war. Those who knew America best were least sanguine about the outcome.

I believe the Chinese will ultimately repeat the Japanese mistake, although not in a military context. The Google fiasco is a good case study - what gets Chinese people to do what you want, doesn't work on Americans, and vice versa. Westerners are very direct and typically talk their problems through. Asians have this concept of "face" which comes off as offensive to Westerners.

This is also why I believe that classical studies is so important to the future of our world. Even Westerners do not understand the ways in which we are different from Asians or how those differences influence our values and means. I think both Westerners and Asians would benefit greatly from understanding how the events of the classical word are the root cause of those differences - how Westerners very early on developed a world view based on reason and self-determination.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It is not

Midway was an all-in move no matter how you look at it.

If the admiral(nimitz? i don't remember) had taken the bait and split his forces to go after what we THOUGHT was a split japanese fleet, our remainder at midway would have been slaughtered, and the fleet he sent north to alaska(I think it was) would have eventually been caught and sank.

it was ballsy as hell to keep everyone together, and it paid off.

All of these questions are beyond my Care Meter to answer.

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

but not to post?