Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Concrete knowledge comes with references. Of course, you might have ideas about publishing a book that nobody is going to take seriously--because you don't use sources. But that will be your call.
And you should definitely look into hiring a proofreader, especially if you use phrases like "off of."
On War and Terror: In Response to Lupe Fiasco and Cornell West's Comments regarding the United States of America as the biggest terrorist entity in the world because war is terror and we are the largest military force.
The Counter Argument -
It is now believed by many intelligent men that the United States of America as well as any other nations that lead campaigns of war across the globe are indeed terrorists. The logic of formulation that allows for this idea is that war is terror and war is a terrible action. It is known by all that where there is war there is chaos and terror. It is believed that because the United States of America is fighting these wars it is creating more terror than the terrorism that is its enemy. Thus it is clear that the United States of America or any country that wages war is creating terror but because of this the term terrorism must be broken down into two definitions. The first definition being the primary reason for the U.S.A. waging war and that is intended harm of the innocent. The second definition should be unintended harm of the innocent. Those who the U.S.A. and it's allies are fighting are those who intend to harm the innocent. The result is the defeat of this ideology and the unfortunate and unintended harm of the innocent. Now because this unintended harm is still harm it is believed that defeating the terrorism in which there is intended harm on the innocent is not justified because the action of war incorporates more of the innocent. Yet to believe that the action of war is never justified will only result in no war and no defeat of the terrorism that intends to harm. You see, if there is no unintended terror through war there will be large amounts of intended terror but if there is unintended terror through war and the intended terror is defeated then there will be no unintended or intended terror at all or at least dramatically decreased in action and magnitude. With this we come to see that although war contributes to the overall terror in the world the war on terror is defeating the intended terror and even though unintended terror may be a result of war it is only temporary there in by making the intended terror only temporary instead of ongoing. In conclusion we must identify war as a sacrifice and a justified action whenever there is intended harm on the innocent.
Digging up some old theories out of the notebook i put on the sidelines for a while...
On Time Travel Order- (Stephen Hawking )" The theory of relativity says that not only that there is no unique measure of time on which all observers will agree but that , under certain circumstances, observers need not even agree on the order of events. In particular if two events, A and B, are so far away in space that a rocket must travel faster than the speed of light to get from event A to event B, then two observers moving at different speeds can disagree on whether event A happened before event B, or event B occurred before event A. Suppose for instance, that event A is the finish of the final hundred-meter race of the Olympic Games in 2012 and event B is the opening of the 100,004th meeting of Congress of Proxima Centauri. Suppose that to an observer on Earth, event A happened first, and then event B. Let's say event B happened a year later, in 2013 by Earth's time. Since the earth and Proxima Centauri are some four light-years apart, these two events satisfy the above criterion: though A happens before B, to get from A to B you would have to travel faster than light. Then, to an observer on Proxima Centauri moving away from earth at nearly the speed of light, it would appear that the order of events is reversed: it appears that event B occurred before event A. This observer would say it is possible, if you could move faster than light, to get to event B to event A. In fact, if you went really fast , you could also get back from A to Proxima Centauri before the race and place a bet on it in the sure knowledge of who would win."
Time has do with connection thus general relativity involves the connection of time. Assume someone on earth is talking to someone on Proxima Centauri and say on 1,2,3 blink you eye and I will. Then on 1,2,3 those two people blinked there eyes at the same time in the universe. Those two events happened at the same time. However although they happened at the same time they occurred on different dates in respects to there regions of space. Say the planet in Proxima only had 12 hours in one day at the time of 12 pm on Earth would be 6 pm on the Proxima planet, also lets assume on Earth it was 2/10/2013 and in the Proxima region 3/10/3672. With these dates we would then have to assume that 3/10/3672 was equivalent to 2/19/2013. However 3/10/3673 would not be equivalent to 2/10/2014 because of the differences in orbit. However it is safe to assume that there is an infinite number of different equivalents. With this concept out of the way it must be applied to the order of time travel concept. We must understand that Proxima could never disagree which event happened first it would have to know about event A in advance before it happened. Thus if the ship traveled faster than light to get there and made it easily and still was back for event B with no debate on which happened first the only way B could be witnessed first is if observers on Proxima went to only the congress meeting and missed the 2012 games. In this hypothetical state assuming faster than light travel we should assume cable t.v. existed in a manner that live events on Earth could be watched on Proxima and if this is the case then the 2012 games could be watched at Proxima with no debate on which happened first. In conclusion the only way there could ever be a logical debate on which happened first is if Proxima knew about the 2012 games in advance before the Congressional meeting and at the other end of the spectrum if Proxima argued which occurred first after Event A had taken place then they would automatically know because it will never occur again because they had simply missed it. So even if the argument existed it will be illogical due to the fact that Proxima proposition was that the 2012 games occurred after the Congressional meeting but they would realize they were wrong when the next Olympics came forth. So although time is the problem IN TIME it becomes the solution.
On War and Terror: In Response to Lupe Fiasco and Cornell West's Comments regarding the United States of America as the biggest terrorist entity in the world because war is terror and we are the largest military force.
The Counter Argument -
It is now believed by many intelligent men that the United States of America as well as any other nations that lead campaigns of war across the globe are indeed terrorists. The logic of formulation that allows for this idea is that war is terror and war is a terrible action. It is known by all that where there is war there is chaos and terror. It is believed that because the United States of America is fighting these wars it is creating more terror than the terrorism that is its enemy. Thus it is clear that the United States of America or any country that wages war is creating terror but because of this the term terrorism must be broken down into two definitions. The first definition being the primary reason for the U.S.A. waging war and that is intended harm of the innocent. The second definition should be unintended harm of the innocent. Those who the U.S.A. and it's allies are fighting are those who intend to harm the innocent. The result is the defeat of this ideology and the unfortunate and unintended harm of the innocent. Now because this unintended harm is still harm it is believed that defeating the terrorism in which there is intended harm on the innocent is not justified because the action of war incorporates more of the innocent. Yet to believe that the action of war is never justified will only result in no war and no defeat of the terrorism that intends to harm. You see, if there is no unintended terror through war there will be large amounts of intended terror but if there is unintended terror through war and the intended terror is defeated then there will be no unintended or intended terror at all or at least dramatically decreased in action and magnitude. With this we come to see that although war contributes to the overall terror in the world the war on terror is defeating the intended terror and even though unintended terror may be a result of war it is only temporary there in by making the intended terror only temporary instead of ongoing. In conclusion we must identify war as a sacrifice and a justified action whenever there is intended harm on the innocent.
This is a fairly widely held and plausible argument. While people don't like war (or so they say) it is reluctantly assumed that until we can all live securely at peace, we are going to need it.
While the harm of the innocent has always been a handy propaganda symbol, the fact is that a war in which the innocent are regrettably going to be harmed is ether justified by necessity or not. So it comes down to what is justified apart from harm of innocents. It strikes me that trying to give a case for military action taken purely on the bases of protecting innocents is a bit misdirected.
Mind, your argument against saying that since all war causes terror and therefore the most powerful military nation is the biggest terrorist is valid since that is based on equivocating terror (caused by war) with the intention to cause terror though using violence. Lupe and Cornell were using a rhetorical trick to make their case.
This is a fairly widely held and plausible argument. While people don't like war (or so they say) it is reluctantly assumed that until we can all live securely at peace, we are going to need it.
While the harm of the innocent has always been a handy propaganda symbol, the fact is that a war in which the innocent are regrettably going to be harmed is ether justified by necessity or not. So it comes down to what is justified apart from harm of innocents. It strikes me that trying to give a case for military action taken purely on the bases of protecting innocents is a bit misdirected.
Mind, your argument against saying that since all war causes terror and therefore the most powerful military nation is the biggest terrorist is valid since that is based on equivocating terror (caused by war) with the intention to cause terror though using violence. Lupe and Cornell were using a rhetorical trick to make their case.
Good point. Yea they were using a play on words.
Overall: Unintended harm of the innocent as a consequence of fighting intended harm (1) > the intended harm (2)
Even though 1 will most likely produce more overall harm than 2 because it is a clash of the 1 and 2 the intended harm of 2 is what inevitably calls for the action of 1 because it is always intended that the 2 alone will produce more harm than the clash of 1 and 2 because of the faith of peace in the future that will come from 1.
Last edited by GalacticBeach; 09-27-2011 at 09:33 PM..
Have you got a publisher for all this stuff, or do you reserve it for C-D?
No publisher as of yet and I think your asking if I keep it on a CD but no I keep it in my notebooks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
