ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
And1: 360
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1081 » by popper » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:22 pm

This is really good news and a bipartisan effort that should be applauded.


Sherrod Brown Teams Up With David Vitter To Break Up Big Banks

Posted: 02/28/2013 2:17 pm EST | Updated: 02/28/2013 3:05 pm EST
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is working with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to break up the big banks.

WASHINGTON -- Multi-trillion dollar financial institutions continue to get richer, exerting more and more control over both America's economy and its political system. The top 20 largest banks' assets are nearly equal to the nation's gross domestic product. Now, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), along with unlikely ally Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), is launching an effort to break up the taxpayer-funded party on Wall Street.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 82665.html
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 15,557
And1: 3,290
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1082 » by dobrojim » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:52 pm

popper wrote:This is really good news and a bipartisan effort that should be applauded.


Sherrod Brown Teams Up With David Vitter To Break Up Big Banks

Posted: 02/28/2013 2:17 pm EST | Updated: 02/28/2013 3:05 pm EST
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is working with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to break up the big banks.

WASHINGTON -- Multi-trillion dollar financial institutions continue to get richer, exerting more and more control over both America's economy and its political system. The top 20 largest banks' assets are nearly equal to the nation's gross domestic product. Now, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), along with unlikely ally Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), is launching an effort to break up the taxpayer-funded party on Wall Street.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 82665.html



absolutely Pop. I think Nate will agree too. It's not free market - what the banks
and financial institutions are and have been doing. The way to rob a bank is to own a bank.
I've recommended it before and I'll do it again, Griftopia by Matt Taibi. You have to have some
tolerance for profanity but for me, the profanity is justified given what is being described.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1083 » by hands11 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:21 pm

popper wrote:This is really good news and a bipartisan effort that should be applauded.


Sherrod Brown Teams Up With David Vitter To Break Up Big Banks

Posted: 02/28/2013 2:17 pm EST | Updated: 02/28/2013 3:05 pm EST
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is working with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to break up the big banks.

WASHINGTON -- Multi-trillion dollar financial institutions continue to get richer, exerting more and more control over both America's economy and its political system. The top 20 largest banks' assets are nearly equal to the nation's gross domestic product. Now, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), along with unlikely ally Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), is launching an effort to break up the taxpayer-funded party on Wall Street.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 82665.html


Get Er Done

This is a huge problem in my view. To big to fail create a moral hazard in so many ways not least of which is privatizing of profits while putting the loses on the pubic.

They need to also break up media corporations. Though I am a little less worried about that now that there is the internet.
User avatar
pineappleheadindc
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 22,118
And1: 3,479
Joined: Dec 17, 2001
Location: Cabin John, MD
       

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1084 » by pineappleheadindc » Fri Mar 1, 2013 12:11 am

Severn Hoos wrote:Don't worry hands, I'm not mad - take a look at my posts with pine and you'll see how people of different political stripes can be not just civil but truly respectful and even friendly in their posts. I'll offer you a few comments, you of course are free to accept them or not - but hey are not intended in any way to be a personal attack. If you see it as a friendly suggestion, that's great. If not, feel free to put me on ignore.

1. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the stuff like calling the Speaker of the House "Boner". Frankly, it's rather juvenile, and signals that you're less interested in dialog than in scoring a cheap point.
2. If you want to be taken seriously, just admit to who you are. pine and dobrojim are as liberal as they come on this board, and they acknowledge it up front (pine actually prefers to be called a Progressive). I have much more respect for that approach than for the person who claims not to be partisan and yet always seems to come down on one side - or more importantly, against one side.
3. "Personal attack stuff" can come in lots of forms. Consider that there are Republicans/Conservatives reading your posts when you talk about how crazy or evil or whatever "Rs" are. By extension, that could be taken as a personal attack (or shall we say, insult). Try this approach: Next time you're about to make a blanket statement, replace the word "Republican" or "Conservative" with "Muslim" or "Jew" or whatever other group you might think of. Would you still type it?

I'm sorry for being harsh last night - I guess I just overreacted after a bad Wizards loss... ;-)


Good post, Sev. Only quibble: I'm fine self-identifying as liberal.

That said, it's a real great thing to be able to discuss politics with you, Nate, popper and other conservatives here.

And I will publicly state this and mean it with every fiber in my being: Seven Hoos is the reason that political discussions here are respectful, thoughtful, etc. You are THE role model, not guys like me (I go off on political rants all the time). Thanks for leading by example.
"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart."
--Confucius

"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try"
- Yoda
User avatar
pineappleheadindc
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 22,118
And1: 3,479
Joined: Dec 17, 2001
Location: Cabin John, MD
       

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1085 » by pineappleheadindc » Fri Mar 1, 2013 12:13 am

popper wrote:This is really good news and a bipartisan effort that should be applauded.


Sherrod Brown Teams Up With David Vitter To Break Up Big Banks

Posted: 02/28/2013 2:17 pm EST | Updated: 02/28/2013 3:05 pm EST
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is working with Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to break up the big banks.

WASHINGTON -- Multi-trillion dollar financial institutions continue to get richer, exerting more and more control over both America's economy and its political system. The top 20 largest banks' assets are nearly equal to the nation's gross domestic product. Now, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), along with unlikely ally Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), is launching an effort to break up the taxpayer-funded party on Wall Street.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/2 ... 82665.html


+1

When people from various viewpoints all agree, this is low-hanging fruit. Just gotta get Congress to vote against a rich lobby....good luck to us all.
"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart."

--Confucius



"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try"

- Yoda
hands11
Banned User
Posts: 31,171
And1: 2,444
Joined: May 16, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1086 » by hands11 » Fri Mar 1, 2013 12:16 am

http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/gerrymandering

I would be interesting in hearing peoples views on this topic.

How did I do Sev ? :wink:
crackhed
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,403
And1: 66
Joined: Sep 27, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1087 » by crackhed » Fri Mar 1, 2013 12:47 am

the conservatives on this board are indeed a good model. they respect the liberal point of view, but just disagree w/it. popper's my favorite.
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the kind of man I am"
H. Simpson
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
And1: 360
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1088 » by popper » Fri Mar 1, 2013 4:47 pm

It's nice to hear the comments above. I think I'd lose my mind if I didn't have this thread to explore ideas, concepts, politics, etc. I hope I don't undo the goodwill by posting snippets from the following article. It is one of the most interesting I've read on the subject of abortion. Please skip it if the subject is too personal. I'd rather no one read it than spoil what's become an intellectually stimulating environment for discussion.

.......It doesn't really matter what month one says human life "may" begin because we're always presented with the same correlative questions. What week of that month? What day of that week? What hour and minute of that day? And, then, what second of that minute?

This lends perspective. For what we then must accept is that one second the intrauterine entity isn't a person, but the next second it ....somehow magically becomes one. And this isn't even the moment of conception, a seminal event without which there would be no development in the womb whatsoever. So how ....does this humanizing transformation take place?

And this logic also applies to the justification of abortion throughout pregnancy... and beyond. After all, if it's okay to kill the intrauterine being in a certain month, what is the exact week, day, hour, and second of that month before which it isn't morally licit? This is a case where when seconds count, the police will never come because the wrong second deems you ... prey.

But here is the reality: that being inside the womb is a person...... If it's all right to murder an innocent person one second, there is no reason to think it isn't okay the next, and then the next and the next and... well, finish the progression. So is...tolerance for killing the already born really surprising? "Already born" simply refers to a change in a person's location -- not status. And note, the same is true of "born a long, long time ago."

This brings us back to my question of how the post-conception, second-to-second humanizing transformation occurs. The only logical (which isn't necessarily synonymous with correct) argument is that the moment in question is when the being is implanted with a soul; this is, after all, why Christians say that conception is when personhood begins. Yet theological discussions would be pointless here because the vanguard ....are secularists who, by and large, don't subscribe to antiquated ideas about souls and "sky fairies." They are materialists.

And this is why the atheistic world view ultimately makes respect for life incomprehensible. For if we don't have souls, we're just some pounds of chemicals and water -- mere organic robots -- as Stephen Hawking says he considers us. And what could be wrong with terminating the function of a robot? This "insight" frees you from the burden of performing more complex intellectual contortions. Big robot, small robot, temporarily residing inside a larger robot; what does it matter? Robots are robots, no matter how tall.

Taking the matter further, note that if there is no God, there can be no transcendent Moral Truth. Following from this is that what we call morality is just a reflection of man's wants, which means there isn't really any such thing as right and wrong; as the liberals are wont to say, it's all just a matter of "perspective." And with no Truth but only taste, no virtues but only "values," the formula becomes, as occultist Aleister Crowley devilishly put it, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

This is why I've said that if ...... moral relativism is taken to its logical conclusion, the result is sociopathy. After all, how does a conscience compute, fellow organic robots, if there is nothing to be conscientious about?
Now perhaps you better understand why ..... behavior is often so sociopathic. And be afraid, be very afraid. Once the godless ..... has the power and the mask drops completely, it may be you who they push the button on next.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/ ... z2MIzzhTCW
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,723
And1: 18,999
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1089 » by nate33 » Fri Mar 1, 2013 5:13 pm

The abortion topic is always fascinating to me because it is one in which both sides can make powerful, convincing arguments that they are right. Basically, whatever side you fall on, you can be confronted with an extremely well-thought out treatise on why you are morally wrong in your belief.

From the conservative perspective, the argument starts with the fact that a late-term fetus is clearly a living entity, and that killing one is murder. Most ardent liberals would agree with that premise. From there you work backwards and show that there is no defining moment that "mass of tissue" becomes a living entity, so therefore, abortion at anytime after conception is murder. The logic is pretty much irrefutable.

From the liberal perspective, the argument is based on freedom over one's body. Start with a woman who is raped and a child is conceived. That woman made no affirmative choice in the matter and is in no way responsible. Having sovereignty over her own body, she should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy. Many conservatives would agree with that premise. So once you establish that abortion is permitted in some specific situations, you can slide down the slippery slope to say that abortion is solely a decision of the woman based on her own personal moral compass. Sovereignty over one's body is sovereignty over one's body, period.

Public policy generally falls somewhere between the two "extremes". (I don't consider either position extreme, it just depends on your perspective.) The compromise tends to piss off both sides to some degree. I think a lot less people would be pissed off if we exercised the principle of federalism and left the states to decide rather than the federal government. At least that way, a greater percentage of the population could choose to live in an area that coincided with their personal beliefs on the matter. 75% of the population could be happy with the legal solution, rather than 51%.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
And1: 360
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1090 » by popper » Fri Mar 1, 2013 5:20 pm

nate33 wrote:The abortion topic is always fascinating to me because it is one in which both sides can make powerful, convincing arguments that they are right. Basically, whatever side you fall on, you can be confronted with an extremely well-thought out treatise on why you are morally wrong in your belief.

From the conservative perspective, the argument starts with the fact that a late-term fetus is clearly a living entity, and that killing one is murder. Most ardent liberals would agree with that premise. From there you work backwards and show that there is no defining moment that "mass of tissue" becomes a living entity, so therefore, abortion at anytime after conception is murder. The logic is pretty much irrefutable.

From the liberal perspective, the argument is based on freedom over one's body. Start with a woman who is raped and a child is conceived. That woman made no affirmative choice in the matter and is in no way responsible. Having sovereignty over her own body, she should have the choice to terminate the pregnancy. Many conservatives would agree with that premise. So once you establish that abortion is permitted in some specific situations, you can slide down the slippery slope to say that abortion is solely a decision of the woman based on her own personal moral compass. Sovereignty over one's body is sovereignty over one's body, period.

Public policy generally falls somewhere between the two "extremes". (I don't consider either position extreme, it just depends on your perspective.) The compromise tends to piss off both sides to some degree. I think a lot less people would be pissed off if we exercised the principle of federalism and left the states to decide rather than the federal government. At least that way, a greater percentage of the population could choose to live in an area that coincided with their personal beliefs on the matter. 75% of the population could be happy with the legal solution, rather than 51%.


Well spoken Nate. I tend to agree with you. Edit - But what would happen if a nursing mother were to be stuck on an elevator with her baby. Say she refuses to nurse the baby and the baby dies of starvation. If I'm not mistaken, a court would indict the mother for willful neglect even though she used her body as she saw fit.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,723
And1: 18,999
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1091 » by nate33 » Fri Mar 1, 2013 5:28 pm

popper wrote:Well spoken Nate. I tend to agree with you. Edit - But what would happen if a nursing mother were to be stuck on an elevator with her baby. Say she refuses to nurse the baby and the baby dies of starvation. If I'm not mistaken, a court would indict the mother for willful neglect even though she used her body as she saw fit.

That's a little different because the mother made an affirmative, willful choice to have a baby and care for a baby. (This is a true choice, not something that can be written off as a mere "accident" during intercourse.) Once that choice is made, there are all kinds of legal obligations mandated by government relating to caring for a child. You must feed, clothe and shelter your child. You must refrain from abusing your child, etc. If you don't want those legal obligations, either don't have a child, or give it up for adoption.
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,565
And1: 7,699
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1092 » by montestewart » Fri Mar 1, 2013 5:46 pm

Good observations nate33. Popper, a few comments about atheists, often the whipping boys and girls for all that ails society, and frequently characterized by cherry-picked details and broad brush strokes.

Some atheists think that abortion is murder (Nat Hentoff is a prominent anti-abortion atheist). Others may view the fetus as a living but not yet human entity, and balance this conception against the right of a woman to control her body. That view is not unlike the views of numerous professed Christians that I know, including some family members, and aligns roughly with one of the two views nate33 described.

I used to work for a Christian organization, and the boss had many children who were all (as far as I could see) atheists. They didn't seem any less ethical or moral or virtuous than he was, all of them to varying degrees politically and socially committed and involved. They were not estranged from their father, they just had different beliefs.

Atheists I know would reject the beliefs of Crowley as they do other religious beliefs. When I think of the "dark arts," I think of an emphasis on art, because it all seems so arty.
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,565
And1: 7,699
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1093 » by montestewart » Fri Mar 1, 2013 5:50 pm

I don't know whether this is "random thought" or "political roundtable," but it's something, for sure.

Image

Leaving North Korea, Dennis Rodman calls Kims 'great leaders'
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-03-01/leaving-nkorea-rodman-calls-kims-great-leaders?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl18%7Csec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D276986
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 15,557
And1: 3,290
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1094 » by dobrojim » Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:11 pm

first of all - Dennis Rodman is an idiot, at least when it comes to his
judgement on the Kims. No one should take him seriously.

I think the following hypothetical if unlikely scenario is an interesting
starting point in thinking about what we all know if a difficult discussion:

There is a fire in a fertility clinic. In the clinic is a freezer with
several hundred frozen fertilized embryos. There is also a baby in
a car carrier. You are in the clinic and the fire is spreading quickly.
Do you save the baby or do you save the freezer? You only have time
to do one or the other.

I know what my answer is and it definitely informs the position
I take on whether or not I believe abortion should be legal.

If you do not believe abortion should be legal, what do you believe
should be the sanction against a prospective mother for consenting
to have an illegal abortion?
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,791
And1: 360
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1095 » by popper » Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:12 pm

montestewart wrote:Good observations nate33. Popper, a few comments about atheists, often the whipping boys and girls for all that ails society, and frequently characterized by cherry-picked details and broad brush strokes.

Some atheists think that abortion is murder (Nat Hentoff is a prominent anti-abortion atheist). Others may view the fetus as a living but not yet human entity, and balance this conception against the right of a woman to control her body. That view is not unlike the views of numerous professed Christians that I know, including some family members, and aligns roughly with one of the two views nate33 described.

I used to work for a Christian organization, and the boss had many children who were all (as far as I could see) atheists. They didn't seem any less ethical or moral or virtuous than he was, all of them to varying degrees politically and socially committed and involved. They were not estranged from their father, they just had different beliefs.

Atheists I know would reject the beliefs of Crowley as they do other religious beliefs. When I think of the "dark arts," I think of an emphasis on art, because it all seems so arty.


I agree Monte. I have a number of atheist friends that are easily my betters in regard to morality (I'm a big sinner). My issue is that if one aspires to wealth, comfort and acceptance (which almost all do), and if one is an atheist, then what logical reason exists to discourage a person from lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc in order to achieve one's objectives. I think the answer would be fear of prison and punishment or being ostracized by your peers. But if there is a high probability that one can get away with a crime then why not? That is not to say that many or most atheist do not lead honest and moral lives, I know they do, but I don't see the logic to it. I've debated a few who argue enlightened self interest is a restraint but what little I know of history and our political/business culture would refute that argument.
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 15,557
And1: 3,290
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1096 » by dobrojim » Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:25 pm

popper wrote:
I agree Monte. I have a number of atheist friends that are easily my betters in regard to morality (I'm a big sinner). My issue is that if one aspires to wealth, comfort and acceptance (which almost all do), and if one is an atheist, then what logical reason exists to discourage a person from lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc in order to achieve one's objectives. I think the answer would be fear of prison and punishment or being ostracized by your peers. But if there is a high probability that one can get away with a crime then why not? That is not to say that many or most atheist do not lead honest and moral lives, I know they do, but I don't see the logic to it. I've debated a few who argue enlightened self interest is a restraint but what little I know of history and our political/business culture would refute that argument.



Because you have to live with yourself afterward?

I agree with those who argue enlightened self interest.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
montestewart
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 14,565
And1: 7,699
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1097 » by montestewart » Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:31 pm

The primary difference I see is that believers do it and think they're going to hell for it, or they don't do it and think they're going to heaven, whereas non-believers just do it or don't do it (and the latter subset may be filled with psychic self-congratulations, just as with the believers). In practice, I don't really see a difference in level of good or bad behavior following from professed belief or non-belief. Ultimately, everyone follows their own code, believers and non-believers finding a wallet on the ground, and either keeping it or returning it to its owner.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,723
And1: 18,999
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1098 » by nate33 » Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:33 pm

dobrojim wrote:first of all - Dennis Rodman is an idiot, at least when it comes to his
judgement on the Kims. No one should take him seriously.

I think the following hypothetical if unlikely scenario is an interesting
starting point in thinking about what we all know if a difficult discussion:

There is a fire in a fertility clinic. In the clinic is a freezer with
several hundred frozen fertilized embryos. There is also a baby in
a car carrier. You are in the clinic and the fire is spreading quickly.
Do you save the baby or do you save the freezer? You only have time
to do one or the other.

I know what my answer is and it definitely informs the position
I take on whether or not I believe abortion should be legal.

If you do not believe abortion should be legal, what do you believe
should be the sanction against a prospective mother for consenting
to have an illegal abortion?

That's a very interesting hypothetical which really gets to the root of the matter.

Under duress, human beings often make emotional judgements that might differ from a judgement based on cold, hard logical reasoning. That doesn't make the choice any more right. I readily admit that if I was in that situation, I'd save the baby. It's an emotional call. It's much easier to identify with the plight of the baby because it's a living, breathing (and probably screaming) entity not unlike myself or my children. In a moment of duress, emotion takes over and you save the baby.

Let me tweak that scenario for you. What if an influenza virus knocked out 99.999% of the world's population and all that was left of humanity was a couple of dozen people plus the embryo's in that fertility clinic? Then what do you do?
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 15,557
And1: 3,290
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1099 » by dobrojim » Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:38 pm

not following what the dilemma is in your hypo?

Forced impregnation in order to widen the gene pool?

Ooops. I think I get it now. There has been a population crash.
Does that make the freezer more valuable relative to the single baby?
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 66,723
And1: 18,999
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V 

Post#1100 » by nate33 » Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:50 pm

dobrojim wrote:not following what the dilemma is in your hypo?

Forced impregnation in order to widen the gene pool?

Ooops. I think I get it now. There has been a population crash.
Does that make the freezer more valuable relative to the single baby?

Yes. I've just given those "lives" a lot more value because every fetus is precious in a post-apocalyptic world.

Return to Washington Wizards