Jump to content

Militaris

Members
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Militaris

  1. I agree with the others that same of the compassions/Reasons are not rock solid or are plan wrong.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You agreed that:

     

     

     

    The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends

     

     

     

    But disagreed that:

     

     

     

    People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Where to start.... So many holes in their arguments.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    A train is not always more environmentally friendly then a car. Just because there is another means of transport does not mean that there is not a justifiable use for a car. I could choose to walk 200km to a town, or I could drive. Walking could be more environmentally friendly but it would take a week or more of my time and a huge waste of resources. If I have to carry something heavy, it would be even less efficient use of my time. Choosing to drive has many advantages over the other methods of transport. Just because something can be done, does not mean it is the smartest option.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    ummm, no. If you meant ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅEssential to survival' that would have been included in the question. Just because something is not essential to survival does not make it necessary to do. I would consider in the context of the question asked, that unnecessarily refers to any 'damage' to the environment which is not advantageous (In anyway) to human ends. The question in no way suggested that it meant 'Essential to survival'.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You agreed that:

     

     

     

    So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends

     

     

     

    But disagreed that:

     

     

     

    The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In order not to be in contradiction here, you must be able to make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Every week there is news reports of a P addict killing, mugging or robbing people. So they are doing harm to others....

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    More than this - you must also show that prohibited drug use harms others more than other legal activities such as smoking, drinking and driving cars, unless you want to argue that these should also be made criminal offences.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Firstly, I must not also show that prohibited drug use harms more then other legal activities. But I would do it anyway. With the exception of smoking, if used in a legal manner the others listed do not harm others. With regards to smoking, I agree that it should be a criminal offense, and at least in my country it is a offense to smoke in most public places.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    As alcohol, tobacco and car accidents are among the leading killers in western society, this case may be hard to make.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Nope it was simple. Because causing death, or harm to others by the above is generally already illegal in western society.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You also have to make the case for each drug you think should not be decriminalised. The set of drugs which are currently illegal is not a natural one, so there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The questions reffered to all illegal drugs as a whole, not for each drug as a separate. So I do not have to make such a case and remain in the term of the question asked.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I could of expanded my arguments more, and did, but edited much of it out because it was taking to long and it is a waste of my time really.

  2. totally awesome game, although i cant seem to get any higher than 76, or upgrade my flower past the 1st upgrade, any tips?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    oh and bbal got introduced to the thread by meee :) lol

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Look at the Screen shots myself and a couple of others have posted on this thread. It shows the tatic to get into the low 80's.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Flowers seem to be a waste of money. Just build natural (fully upgraded), and maybe a couple of water in a 'central' location.

  3. The speed of which the balls move can be heavily influenced by your system performance. So if played on a old machine, or one operating at nearly 100% it is quite a bit easier then the at normal speed.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    If you want a high score, just make your computer run slow. But that is cheating.

  4. I am really bad at this game, and have been playing it heaps. My best is less then 27. Although many games I fail to reach even 10.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Although, one thing which helped me greatly is learning to completely ignore the timer. Concentrate on the small ball and often the large ball would be fixed automatically.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    edit: Got to 30 :) Maybe this would be a good time to stop playing.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    edit: 34.135

  5.  

    i cant get it started again #-o i keep dieing at the 10th or so stage <.< any tips on how to start out...?

     

     

     

    put a tower (green are the best generally, but the hardest to start with) at the end of one of the lines which the enemy will come along. upgrade it. keep upgrading it till its done.

     

     

     

    rinse, repeat.

     

     

     

    with the green ones, you have to get the upgrades costing 40 and 80 fast, because these actually make the tower WORSE per money spent.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That is generally what I do, but I normally start with 2 green towers and upgrade them until they cost 640 for the next level. Then I would upgrade one to max... followed by the next one, then repeat.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    A blue is easier to start with, and are quite good but pricy, I prefer only green. If you do choose to start with a blue place it in the center location. A single blue can hold out for the first 30 or so levels.

  6. I have never gotten past level 60 when playing around with flower towers.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The first upgrade only costs $2000 but you must have $3000 to make the purchase.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    edit: Tried a few Green/blue combinations. Mainly with a blue at the end of a long straight but it was still worst then solid green.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I was thinking, and I have held no mention of this tactic being used before. But, there is a slight chance that the game could give 'bonus' damage if the right combination of damage is done. For example something like Blue followed by Wind, then Earth and lastly fire....

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Would be a bit tricky finding placements without having more then one kind of damage done at a time.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I have also read about a 'easter egg' when you have upgraded the flower tower. I have upgraded it a couple of times but have not noticed it. Also only 1 person claimed about the 'easter egg' which makes me wonder.

  7. Living on a farm, as children we brought back quite a few weak animals and birds. With the exception of dumped kittens, most died within a week. Had a few young rabbits survived, but most die, our pet cat killed quite a few. Can not remember a bird surviving.

  8. Last night when I was about to drive into town in light rain. I was halfway along our driveway and in the middle sitting there was a juvenile bird. Just big enough to jump out of a nest but not nearly old enough to survive.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    At first I thought it was a small pheasant (Before looking) so got out but it turned out to be a thrash or something common. The little thing just watched me with big eyes then kept on opening its mouth wanting food. I felt so sorry for the small bugger I went to the garden and gave it a worm to eat, then I got a large one from the compost and he ate that to. I even made a small nest for it in a shoe box and put it to bed in the shed. Probably to be expected it was dead by morning.

  9.  

     

    Hmmm, I'd say Cartman. He was funnier in the movie though. Chef was funny. Is Chef on the show anymore? I didn't see him on the last couple of new episodes I saw.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    He is not in the show anymore. He turned into a pedophile, then died a painful and horrible death.

     

     

     

    At the end of the episode his pedophile mates 'revived' him into a new metal body creating Darth Chef.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    More info here

     

     

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Chef

     

     

     

    He quit because he felt the show offended his religon, Scientology, too much. It was on the South Park episode entitled "Trapped in the Closet".

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Nope... the guy which did his voice quit because of that.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Chef the character turned into a pedophile, got killed then ressurected by the Super Adventure club as Darth Chef.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    See the episode "return of chef" (They also attacked Scientology even more in that episode)

  10. I had that once. Never knew what is was called, cleared up after a couple of days. Woke up and could not see a thing because my eyes were stuck with junk.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I always thought pink eye was the start zombism. Maybe I watch to much south park.

  11. Hmmm, I'd say Cartman. He was funnier in the movie though. Chef was funny. Is Chef on the show anymore? I didn't see him on the last couple of new episodes I saw.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    He is not in the show anymore. He turned into a pedophile, then died a painful and horrible death.

     

     

     

    At the end of the episode his pedophile mates 'revived' him into a new metal body creating Darth Chef.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    More info here

     

     

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Chef

  12. I strongly disagree that Cartman is stupid. Yes, before episode 501 "Scott Tenorman Must Die" he was a stupid little spoilt brat. But after that episode he turned into a kind of evil twisted highly manipulative mastermind. Much of what he gets up to is very clever. He is clearly a great character, although he does get many main roles.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I also quite like Kenny. Mainly because of his highly perverted mind. Although in the later episodes he does not do much. I also quite funny when people claim that they can easily understand him when in reality sometimes he is truly just mumbling without any real words. I remember comparing a couple of online kenny translations and they both differed quite significantly on what he said. If you want to see him without his hood on check out 807 The Jeffersons, he even speaks a bit. He is also out in a couple of other episodes but without speaking roles, also in the movie.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I also find that Mr Slave was quite a good character. In general most of southparks main characters are well done.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    edit: In the first quote from ShadowFaxPZ,

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    kid1= Clyde

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    kid2= Craig

  13.  

    That guy sounds cool. I use to enjoy tricking people into phony arguments. If he is anything like me, he would be loving the fact how passionately magekillr is trying to prove him wrong.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    He really does have a point in regards to the cold war being a continuation to WWII. Just because people have given a name to a part of a conflict does not mean that the conflict ended.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I say that it is quite easily arguable that the cold war is indeed a extension to WWII, if you can not see the justification I suggest reading up on history.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    what ever you call it...the conflict was over in 1988...not 1992

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The soviet union did not officially dissolve until December 31 1991, which marked the end of the cold war. His date was accurate with regards to the end of the cold war.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.