I believe it was I who used the honest debate statement when dealing with drugs and their legality. As such, I feel it is my responsibility to explain what I meant by the comment.

In an honest debate, it is recognized that both sides will have strong, logical arguments they use to uphold their own position. In a debate, it is not where you are critical of all other opinions, it is where you have rock-solid arguments which hold up your own arguments. When others poke at your arguments (which is expected), you are able to logically and reasonably explain your own stance without resorting to emotional entreaties, anecdotal evidence, or similar personal observations. It is not about the debater, it is about the topic and having sources completely unrelated to the debater as proof of their argument.

An honest debate is not about one person sharing their personal experience and saying it must apply universally; that would be arrogance. It is not about opinions, because everyone has those and they are irrefutable: you can't argue someone's opinion is wrong. An opinion can never be right or wrong because that is a matter of belief, not facts.

I suppose, putting it into a single sentence, the difference between a discussion and an honest debate is how much the participants 'personalize' matters . If the participants remain impersonal and focused on facts and evidence then the conversation is a debate. If they get personal and lack impartial evidence, the conversation is a discussion which will never have the ability to be concluded.

NJG

Phicksur, your answer is confusing because it says that you would do what you said you wouldn't do. I mean, destroying folks who do not follow the rules you pass down. Is no different than choosing or steering those civilizations down a path! Also, you would only be allowing folks to do as they please as long as they abide by the rules you pass down and that is not freedom. Don't you think the whole tyrant god role is going too far?

I would place women, creators and nurturers, to be at the top of the heap. Scientists and artists held in highest esteem. I would make The Golden Rule and "an eye for an eye" the basis of law, politics, and social interaction.

After that leave everything automatous with no restrictions.

I wouldn't choose a path for them, nor would I steer them. I would set out a series of rules that are appropriate for a society, then I would allow them to do whatever they wanted. If things got too bad, I would destroy the transgressors as an example to others.

TYH

There are few countries without armies, they rely on others to defend their home. We shouldn't, Canada is considered a peace country and guess what they have one of the best militaries from 5-10 in best militaries in the world. They want an island denmark wants. Guess what Canada doesn't attack denmark because they aren't selfish jerks. They are fighting isis and trust me Canada steps in they have a reason. Let's be like Canada we keep to our own issues unless something extreme happens. We can have a fighting force, security to ensure safety. We can be peaceful and show we have a fight in us.

@ Boone,

Thanks for saying so and to answer your question it is simple really, the most important thing to a nation is the citizens of it and as such they need to be protected. Though we all disagree at times, we are all Asgardians and I want nothing but the best for my fellow Asgardians. So, if that means that I must "beat a dead horse with a stick" I will do it

@Scarbs,

That would be good advice if it didn't leave you always chasing but never gaining knowledge. Better advice would be to "throw away what you think you know, admit that you do not know what you do not know, believe you always have more to learn, and never stop seeking knowledge" by Brandon Garrison

@Zahira,

Part of the goal of non transference is to keep groups that would transfer those issues into space. From gaining a foothold in space that would allow them to do just that. The goal of non transference will be an ongoing one as long as we humans continue to exist on Earth

Accordingly to wikipedia records:

_(excerpt)
" JSC GSKB Almaz-Antey named after A.A. Raspletin ( Russian : ГСКБ Концерна ПВО „Алмаз-Антей“ , former SB-1 , 1947–50; KB-1 , 1950–66; MKB Strela , 1966–71; TsKB Almaz , 1971–88; NPO Almaz , 1988–2008) is a Soviet /Russian military R&D enterprise founded in 1947. It is the core of the Almaz-Antey holding. Headquarters – Moscow, Leningradsky av. , 80.
Since 1955 KB-1 developed such air defence missile systems S-25 , S-75 , S-125 , S-200 , S-300 , S-400 Triumf , S-300PMU and S-300PMU2, and recently S-350E Vityaz missile system . (...)"

Dr. Ashurbeyli was CEO of SPA Almaz (later GSKB Almaz-Antey) so I'm pretty sure he knows extremely well all the " defense " matter, thus I'm definitely not worried about it. ;-)
That apart, my personal opinion reflects @Scarbs' one, even if I'm not an expert like him on the matter.

" Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. ” _{(I. Asimov by means of S. Hardin, Terminus' Major)}

Some people. LONG ago, created a society they called  ILLUMINATI. I have the feeling that many other groups have adopted the name simply as a way to get attention. They're all fake. After all the vey term "Illuminati" means "those who see the light", the AWAKENED ONES who really know what's going on, and who have the power to intervene... Given the sad state of affairs on our planet, I would say the onty people entitled to the term belong to the funny farm nearest you...

Brandon7, I do fully understand your concern and scepticism. So far more than 170+k individual shown interest unfortunately there are a handful of us participating in forums, I am sure neither of us has this delusion that there will be complete agreement on everything. We simply express our differences, as a result of human nature we sometimes over react. It is childish to seek consensus every on topic we brought up even it sound just.

In case of Asgardia and what is currently going on at forum level are two separate issues.

Asgardia is a project which we should not underestimate the size and scope wise. On the other hand, individuals, expressing disagreement, further more getting obsessed with it and prejudice.

Do we really believe that, a successful businessman and a potentially successful business venture will fail because MOD's of a forum are unjust ? Or the managers of the project, taking in the account, the human nature and weaknesses didn't built in the project the safe guards.

We must evaluate a project based on certain criteria whether they are smart or not.

Is the project specific, in our case it is, objectives are clearly defined with in the content of Concept of Asgardia, further more prioritized as, establish a state, put up a satellite, apply for UN membership. Eventually forming up a space nation hoping to care for mother earth in better way

Is the project measurable, although it is not clearly shared but Mr. Ashurbeyli's team must definitely budgeted it.  Besides the data regarding the cost and resources needed can easily be traced or accumulated to cross check.

Is the project attainable, so far it seems progressing OK. After been announced there has been over 600+k applicants shown interest,  nearly more than 1 qtr of it, 176+k converted their interest to some sort of commitment  A declaration of unity and content table of constitution published to be reviewed before being offficialized.

Is it relevant, taking in the consideration the current conjecture of world affairs and how unresponsively we are treating nature, etc.  And unfortunate fact that nothing is being done effectively except holding conferences by the acting statesmen of the world. At some responsible capacity we must try to do something.

is there a time frame attached to it. Current events demonstrated that there is ticking time agenda exist. By April 16 we will have  a Declaration of Unity, by June 18 we will be at a position to vote for constitution and move forward a new phase of citizenship with more defined responsibilities and obligations for the project.

Conclusion: taking in the consideration two different aspects of the project technical wise above argument, up to a  certain extent will justify the creditability and potential for success. This at least will enables us to achieve the prior objectives under the assumption that will be financed by Mr. Ashurbeyli's business. But human side of success very much depends on us. Managing our differences, showing ability to tolerate each other and ideas, overcoming the challenge of working with each other in unity will decide the future and success of this project. I am optimistic existing and future Asgardians  have that will.

Considering the ISS has winows smalls ones admittedly but windows all the same. I personally do not see any reason why having windows would not be possible. Also, no matter what is done a replicated view will never be guaranteed to have the same effects. As being able to look out a window and see the real deal. On everyone in every situation, because once the brain realizes the view is not authentic, it ceases to be tricked by the replicated view.

If we are talking about a station that is spinning to create artificial gravity, the windows would be in the "floor". The scene out of the 'floor' would be constantly shifting between Earth and dark space and, maybe, the moon. It would be terribly disconcerting to always have the 'floor' changing and moving under your feet, without actually feeling the movement. Bear in mind that the station would be spinning such that the speed at the point of the residential areas would be in excess of 100 miles an hour at all times.

The windows would also be points of structural weakness, and potential holes for micrometeorite impacts. Weighing the benefits of 'being able to look out a window and see space' and 'catastrophic decompression, structural weakness, and possible nausea', there is no real need for windows in the residential areas. An observation area in the zero-g areas could be done relatively safely, but not in the spinning part.

KZC

hi

Psychological Fear is often connected to and confused with anger. A man loses his job and says: I didn’t feel fear when I lost my job. I was angry! But fear is a natural reaction in such a situation due to the uncertainty of what will happen next.

http://www.contenthoop.com/magnetic-science-fun/8187/ "> MAGNETIC SCIENCE FUN

I don't know much about this technology, but I think it would be easier to 3D print metal in space because of reasons: you don't have to create vacuum for electron emission gun and for vacuum atomization. Also there is no gravity, it means you can print enormous constructions. And it's possible to use metal powder made out of metals collected from asteroids.

Metals won't oxidate in space. So wielding will never be so simple.

And temperature - it's cold there so it's easy to harden those metals.

I am glad it did.

This brings up the very point of why censorship is counter-productive. As a curious-minded individual, I want to know what that last bit was. I do not care if it was illegal, immoral, or heinous. I am just wanting to know the end of the thought.

It would be simpler if the post was edited to put the censored speech behind a spoiler or something, where one would be warned that it may be offensive or illegal, and then allow the individual to decide whether or not to look and see.

GNV

Reviving the topic just to answer a couple of questions, even though they do not deserve a response given the rude nature of them. First off bog, I do not do any drugs and secondly, I can present you with a compelling argument in support of their being intelligent alien life elsewhere in space. An argument that would be based on the discoveries made here on Earth regarding life that is proven fact and one you could not in anyway refute!

@Jason,

Given that space time is a warpable fabric and people's tendency to use what we humans are not capable of regarding space flight when this question comes up, I personally see no validity to the distance argument when it comes to an alien race traveling through space. Humans managed to travel to the moon and send other craft even further out into space, so, I see no reason why a much older and wiser race could not have managed to develop the tech needed to cross even vaster distances. After all the only barriers would be 1) the knowledge necessary to develop said tech and get it to work correctly, 2) sufficient resources to build prototypes and eventually a finished design, 3) the time to properly test every component to ensure it functions correctly. Depending on the technology being sought to be created there is an additional barrier and that is the moral barrier. All of the things mentioned are things a race that managed to avoid destroying themselves as the reached new technological plateaus would have

Hello there !

I see this topic went off the rail !  If you read head of the topic, it says: "Does anyone think it possible that ET might just stop by for a visit?" - why do you need any proof or solid evidences of - what are your thoughts ?

I think that this topic was more in the feelings of the ones conciousness, what do you think / feel.

My personal feelings are that this is possible, and probably happens without our knowledge, at least by some part of existing singularities of matter corelation in random environment (If someone is interested in this matter, I am here to talk).

If someone is still here in this topic,

PS, I must admit, that in my opinion, user 'birthofgenesis' destroyed this topic - it has already been moved to the 'offtopic' section. With all respect, you should not ask for proofs when someone asks about what other people THINK. But I agree with you, that for some serious actions, we would need further 'solid evidences', but this is not for now, in this topic.

Rgds,

Krz