jlf13766 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) - Edited November 7, 2012 by jlf13766 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Hey guys, I've had this idea with some other people, on taking over the Republic of Nauru. 2nd smallest independent nation, in the world. No defense force and very weak police force. The approach you're implying would be seen as an act of war against a member of the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Nations. This is so insane that we should assume you don't really want to discuss this at all, that you've been misunderstood, especially since we have rules against discussing illegal activities on SFN. They have like no money or jobs. So, with all that out there, any real ideas on taking it over? Do you think the power of persuasion would work? I mean I have tons of ideas on how to bring money into that nation and to flip it so its actually a nice country. But I want to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks! I think tons of great ideas on how to turn their economy around and make it a nice country again would be powerfully persuasive. Do you have any kind of business plan to approach them with? Have you crunched numbers on what it takes to bring materiel over from New Guinea or Australia? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 It's not nice to redact posts after replies have been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Firstly I doubt that the OP poster has the foggiest about Nauru. While the nation does have a small police force, the guards at the new detention centre are quite numerous. Add to that, we are spending some $150 million on new facilities on the island and won't want to lose them. This means that if someone wanted to take over, "The Regiment" would be having a word with them. I can assure those interested that the conversation would be very short and extremely painful. Until we can dump our "progressive" government, we need Nauru, and after we dump them we will use the facilities until they are no longer needed. It's not big, bad Oz pushing a little nation around either, we pay very good money for them to have the centres. The icing on the cake is that when the detention centre in Nauru was run by that nasty, racist, exploitive, conservative government the Nauruans were paid some $400 per week, but under the new, caring plan by the compassionate progressives they will be paid $4 per hour, or less than half the old rate. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/locals-paid-4-an-hour-at-nauruan-detention-centre/story-fn9hm1gu-1226505683189 If I sound p*ssed by all this, I am. The policies of those incompetents in Canberra, the policies demanded by all the moronic, non thinking, touchy, feely left wingers have directly resulted in more deaths than any other policy by any other non wartime government in my nations history. Even the government now admits that it is probable that more than 1,000 asylum seekers have drowned while attempting the crossing to Australia. I say this to every Australian here who voted for Rudd to get rid of the "Pacific Solution" then the blood is on your hands too. You wanted the policies and you got what you wanted. I hope you're proud of yourselves because you make me sick, I've yet to meet a single one with the moral fibre and backbone, even the basic human humility to admit that they were wrong and be sorry about it. And if any want to doubt what I say, then look at the official government figures of boat arrivals; 2001 43 5516 2002 1 1 2003 1 53 2004 1 15 2005 4 11 2006 6 60 2007 5 148 2008 7 161 Year Number of boats Crew Number of people (excludes crew) 2009 60 141 2726 2010 134 345 6555 2011 69 168 4565 2012 (to 9.7.12) 75 138 5459 The Pacific solution was begun in 2001 ans we saw the boats go from 43 to 1 and illegal immigrants from 5,516 to 1 in 2002. Rudd was elected in 2007 and changed the policy during 2008, just as all the little lefty luvvies wanted and by 2009 we had 60 boats with 2,726 people on board. Note the 2012 figure is Australian dating and is current as of the 9th of July 2012. It is estimated that 1 in 10 have drowned so the figures are only 90% of those who tried the crossing. /rant Edited November 7, 2012 by JohnB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anders Hoveland Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I support small island nations. I think there should be both a radical left wing and a radical right wing nation, so we can see what the actual effects of both ideological extremes are and compare them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Bilko Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The Pacific solution was begun in 2001 ans we saw the boats go from 43 to 1 and illegal immigrants from 5,516 to 1 in 2002. Rudd was elected in 2007 and changed the policy during 2008, just as all the little lefty luvvies wanted and by 2009 we had 60 boats with 2,726 people on board. Note the 2012 figure is Australian dating and is current as of the 9th of July 2012. It is estimated that 1 in 10 have drowned so the figures are only 90% of those who tried the crossing. /rant I assume that you are a native Aboriginal Australian, or the descendant of a Convict then John. It always amazes me how the offspring of immigrants can be so hypocritical on these subjects and blame the situation on "lefty luvvies" Now you and your family are in pull up the drawbridge old chap! /rant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I support small island nations. I think there should be both a radical left wing and a radical right wing nation, so we can see what the actual effects of both ideological extremes are and compare them. What nonsense. To say that you could extrapolate anything from two small scale examples is rubbish. It is statistically wrong. Also, there are too many other parameters involved. In addition, we can observe right now that there are large differences between nations with pretty similar political ideologies: Take for example Scandinavia, which still maintains a relatively socialistic approach, with very high taxes, and lots of state-owned and state-supported institutions, infrastructure and even industry (note that there are multi billion multinationals on that list too), and compare that to Mozambique, which is also lead by a socialist party and president, but which is in comparison very poor. Furthermore, I reject your idea to use countries where human beings are living as test grounds. I reject the idea to subject a group of people to live in a political laboratory, just so we can find out what happens. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) I assume that you are a native Aboriginal Australian, or the descendant of a Convict then John. It always amazes me how the offspring of immigrants can be so hypocritical on these subjects and blame the situation on "lefty luvvies" Now you and your family are in pull up the drawbridge old chap! /rant! Then you assume wrong. It also goes to show that you know so little about my nation that you need an education before commenting on it. If you, a Brit thinks that Australia is just Aboriginals and convicts, then you are a maroon. How about addressing my points rather than making offensive personal comments? Or is it that you can't and personal insults are the only weapons in the locker? Nor did I say at any point I was against immigration from anywhere, a nice little strawman there but utterly silly and useless in the conversation. How about the "Left" down here not supporting policies that have directly led to the deaths of over 1,000 people? Or is it that this number of dead is a tiny thing in the "Big Picture"? I don't want an end to immigration, I want an end to policies that encourage illegal immigrants to pay people smugglers $10,000 a head to try the trip in leaky boats. The death toll is way too high. We had an answer that worked, the numbers say so. We changed that because of left ideology and not any reasonable reason and people are dying. Funny how the left was very vocally against the Vietnam war, which killed 521 Aussies in 13 years, but actually defend a policy that has possibly 3 times as many people in less than half the time. I wonder if it's because those dying aren't white? Hypocrisy stinks. Edited November 13, 2012 by JohnB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Furthermore, I reject your idea to use countries where human beings are living as test grounds. I reject the idea to subject a group of people to live in a political laboratory, just so we can find out what happens. Interesting that you would judge and reject the idea without any reference at all to coercion or force. This suggests you reject the idea even if I would love to be part of such an experiment. You don't really deny me the joy of being part of such a thing, do you? This is what happens when you get openly hostile with your right wingers over here. You end up with a lobsided high five forum with 21 votes for Obama and 0 for Romney. Boring over here. I've been on this site for an hour and have only found two things to comment on. Yeah, good thing they ran off Pangloss...smart move to eliminate diversity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Yeah, good thing they ran off Pangloss...smart move to eliminate diversity. Not to comment on that, specifically, but turn that sentiment around: how much deviation from the rules, e.g. use of logical fallacies, refusal to support arguments with facts, etc., do you tolerate in order to support diversity? If, hypothetically, someone shows up and starts insulting everyone, should that person not be banned simply because s/he is a rare right-winger on a science site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Not to comment on that, specifically, but turn that sentiment around: how much deviation from the rules, e.g. use of logical fallacies, refusal to support arguments with facts, etc., do you tolerate in order to support diversity? If, hypothetically, someone shows up and starts insulting everyone, should that person not be banned simply because s/he is a rare right-winger on a science site? To put that another way - maybe the problem is they're just aggravating twits, rather than their political leanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 maybe the easiest thing to do would be get a group of like minded people together and buy an island, make sure every one is armed to the teeth and choose up sides and fight it out over who has the best political system, make sure you have web cams all over the island so the rest of us can watch the fun... choose up sides and smell arm pits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 maybe the easiest thing to do would be get a group of like minded people together and buy an island, make sure every one is armed to the teeth and choose up sides and fight it out over who has the best political system, make sure you have web cams all over the island so the rest of us can watch the fun... choose up sides and smell arm pits... I'm sure there is a production company working on this somewhere for the 2013 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Not to comment on that, specifically, but turn that sentiment around: how much deviation from the rules, e.g. use of logical fallacies, refusal to support arguments with facts, etc., do you tolerate in order to support diversity? If, hypothetically, someone shows up and starts insulting everyone, should that person not be banned simply because s/he is a rare right-winger on a science site? But that's just it isn't swansont? Deviation from the rules being applied to opinions. I remember those days well. A certain somebody who overuses "myopic" and likes to pretend opinions aren't valid. Ah, good times. I have not seen an increase in quality in the politics forum. I've seen a decrease in intensity with poor ole rigney - who is wholly unprepared for this level of discussion - trying to fight a forum full of political experts. No, you had great ones on here. You ran them off. Doesn't bother me, it's kinda funny really. maybe the easiest thing to do would be get a group of like minded people together and buy an island, make sure every one is armed to the teeth and choose up sides and fight it out over who has the best political system, make sure you have web cams all over the island so the rest of us can watch the fun... Or maybe..I don't know...get two groups of passionately political people that would love to be a part of such an experiment and a couple of islands and let them create societies and stuff? Actually, we might just be able to use seasteading, but I'm not volunteering for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 But that's just it isn't swansont? Deviation from the rules being applied to opinions. I remember those days well. A certain somebody who overuses "myopic" and likes to pretend opinions aren't valid. That same somebody happens not to be a huge fan of strawman arguments, red herrings, or other logical fallacies, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 But that's just it isn't swansont? Deviation from the rules being applied to opinions. I remember those days well. Not so well, apparently. Stating an opinion as if it were a fact is not the same as simply stating an opinion. Stating a straw-man is not the statement of an opinion. You can't have an opinion over something that is, or isn't, factual. It is not an opinion, for example, that the sky is blue, and that it's because of Rayleigh scattering. One of the problems with the politics section is that very little opinion is actually discussed. It's kind of boring. Vanilla ice cream is the best flavor is an opinion. But that discussion goes nowhere. It's the justification of that opinion — which requires factual information — where things break down. The insistence that one's opinion is a truth — i.e. it's the presentation of an opinion as something other than an opinion — that another must also hold (everyone must think vanilla ice cream is the best, or vanilla is inherently the best) that causes problems. Stating a straw-man argument of someone with whom you disagree is not an opinion, and it is against the rules. Justifying your position with a fallacious argument is likewise against the rules. Making outrageous statements only to incite argument (i.e. trolling) is against the rules. Not engaging in an actual discussion (soapboxing) violates the rules. Plenty of things in politics can break the rules that aren't related to stating an opinion. Some opinions do run afoul of the rules, though. Insulting people is against the rules; regardless of your opinion of someone, you are not wholly free to state that opinion. Similarly, slurs and prejudice are forbidden. But there are plenty of ways to state and discuss an opinion and stay within the rules. It's convenient, though, to think that someone got booted, or run off, because of what they believe and wanted to discuss. It happens a lot outside of politics with cranks and crackpots. It is akin, to quote Megyn Kelly, to the "math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better". One bit of evidence that actions aren't based on one's views is that you haven't been tossed. I can't recall the subject of that possibility even being brought up. For the simple reason that you haven't engaged in any behavior that would lead to that action. If people are truly run off for their views, how is it that you are permitted to post here? That same somebody happens not to be a huge fan of strawman arguments, red herrings, or other logical fallacies, either. If it's who I think it is, that person left in protest because the rules weren't being applied, to the detriment of discussions. (and IMO was correct in that observation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Firstly I doubt that the OP poster has the foggiest about Nauru. I didn't mean to scare him so bad he blanked his whole opener. I just don't think he realized he was calling for an invasion of a small country with big allies. I was hoping to talk about some of his less aggressive ideas, like how to spruce up the old phosphate mines and make them tourist attractions (maybe some kind of hide and seek theme park for the kids?). While the nation does have a small police force, the guards at the new detention centre are quite numerous. Add to that, we are spending some $150 million on new facilities on the island and won't want to lose them. An island where Australians send their worst criminals? I'd rather visit the island where the porn industry sends women for sex training. I support small island nations. I think there should be both a radical left wing and a radical right wing nation, so we can see what the actual effects of both ideological extremes are and compare them. maybe the easiest thing to do would be get a group of like minded people together and buy an island, make sure every one is armed to the teeth and choose up sides and fight it out over who has the best political system, make sure you have web cams all over the island so the rest of us can watch the fun... Great minds... . No. You both watch too much reality TV.. Uh-uh. Now that I think about it, I've never seen the two of you in the same room.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Great minds... . No. You both watch too much reality TV.. Uh-uh. Now that I think about it, I've never seen the two of you in the same room.... Oh that was cold dude... I hate reality TV, that was my attempt at sarcasm... I'm sure there is a production company working on this somewhere for the 2013 season. I truly hope not, but I bet it wouldn't be difficult to get a group together to do it, if reality TV has taught us anything it's that there is nothing someone won't do on TV. Reality TV has ruined TV... assuming it has some merit beyond mindless... OK YES I WATCH TV, but not reality TV, it's an oxymoron... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) If it's who I think it is, that person left in protest because the rules weren't being applied, to the detriment of discussions. (and IMO was correct in that observation) I suspect ParanoiA referred to me above, but bascule did leave for that reason, as did I for quite some time (both voluntarily and involuntarily). Edited November 14, 2012 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Interesting that you would judge and reject the idea without any reference at all to coercion or force. This suggests you reject the idea even if I would love to be part of such an experiment. You don't really deny me the joy of being part of such a thing, do you? If we would construct two islands, and conduct the experiment, I would see little problem. If all participants are volunteers, then the only concern that comes to mind would be the cost of this, which would probably be quite feasible. I object using an actual independent nation, with people who already live there, for this experiment. Those are not volunteers. It seemed to me that this is what was proposed. Hope that clarifies things. Sorry to have caused a miscommunication. This is what happens when you get openly hostile with your right wingers over here. You end up with a lobsided high five forum with 21 votes for Obama and 0 for Romney. Boring over here. I've been on this site for an hour and have only found two things to comment on. Yeah, good thing they ran off Pangloss...smart move to eliminate diversity. Regarding the lack of Romney supporters: The fact that this is not an American forum, but rather an international forum might distort things in comparison to the election results. For example: the large majority of Europeans support Obama (and the democrats in general), according to these sources. The same goes for India. It seems that the English speaking world (excluding the USA) simply favors Obama, not Romney. It's not very strange that this is also what we find at this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Regarding the lack of Romney supporters: The fact that this is not an American forum, but rather an international forum might distort things in comparison to the election results. For example: the large majority of Europeans support Obama (and the democrats in general), according to these sources. The same goes for India. It seems that the English speaking world (excluding the USA) simply favors Obama, not Romney. It's not very strange that this is also what we find at this forum. Hey now, he still got ~63,000,000 to Romney's ~59,000,000 so the USA does seem to favor him as well. [edit] ParanoiA, thinking about the demographics it's unsurprising a science forum tends to lean to the (US) left. Scientists in general tend to be more democratic, and since the forum has a good amount of fairly young people, the overall left leanings are correlated more with age and interest than any sort of 'abuse' towards other members.[/edit] Edited November 16, 2012 by Ringer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 If we would construct two islands, and conduct the experiment, I would see little problem. If all participants are volunteers, then the only concern that comes to mind would be the cost of this, which would probably be quite feasible. Ah, probably seasteading then. Although they all seem to be libertarian experiments so far, or at least the ones I read about. I have zero faith in living on a manmade construction on the water. Screw that. Regarding the lack of Romney supporters: The fact that this is not an American forum, but rather an international forum might distort things in comparison to the election results. For example: the large majority of Europeans support Obama (and the democrats in general), according to these sources. The same goes for India. It seems that the English speaking world (excluding the USA) simply favors Obama, not Romney. It's not very strange that this is also what we find at this forum. Ha ha, we aren't talking about "less" or even "way less" or even "way way way less" or even a "major major minority" - we are talking 0. 21 Obama's last I checked, 2 Gary's (Ecoli and I) and 0 Romney's. The english speaking world is not 21:0 Obama to Romney. You are capsizing. Like I said, I think it's hilarious. And the rationalizations are just as fun. Please keep them coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now