but I can tell you that riots/public looting has been well documented throughout history,

and that's but a small demonstration of what would essentially happen world-wide if a global catastrophe was announced.

but I tend to think there's more ''bad'' people out there than ''good'', if you know what I mean.

Wouldn't you agree with this? Or do you think that most of the world's population would just sit back, grab a drink and carry on with their lives as if nothing happened?

Unfortunately, this is how the world is,

OK, so you're fully acknowledging that you hold your own personal opinions in a higher regard as opposed to other people's opinions? You don't see the error of your ways here, or do I have to point it out to you more clearly?

Maybe if you didn't come across as a complete ''know it all''

I just pointed out that you're making it look as though your opinions matter

That's wrong, not to mention pretty disrespectful.

Have you thought over how much extreme panic, chaos, crime, senseless violence, etc there would be literally everywhere around the world once this announcement was made?

o please spare me the whole ''you should be ashamed of yourself for having such a low opinion of your fellow man'', okay?

I think that people would be in such an extreme state of panic and duress due to knowing they're about to die that this would alter their behavior drastically.

That's highly irrelevant to the severity of the global scenario we're talking about here. There would be mass riots all over the place, and they wouldn't just be limited to tiny, isolated groups of people.

Actually, my example was the ''global catastrophe'' scenario we have been discussing this entire time.

you give an assortment of your own opinions all the time in your own posts, as if your opinions are seemingly more important than others

You can give facts and evidence in this forum without coming across as a know-it-all who thinks everybody else is wrong, and you're right. Or maybe you just don't have any respect for anybody's views and beliefs but your own, who knows.

I think people are so low because of what I see every time I watch the news on TV. I think people are so low because of what I observe personally in my day to day life. I think people are so low because of how much injustice there is in this world. You get the picture. You're making it look like I'm suggesting that I think humanity as a whole is ''low''. Just goes to show that you jump to some pretty quick conclusions, or maybe you're just trying to make me look ''low'' because that's how you normally operate here.

No, I have a low opinion on how humanity will react to this scenario in general. You must think I'm a ''bad person'' for having this opinion. That's fine by me!

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by truthbringsfreedom777
reply to post by DJW001

---

Thank-you for this information, DJW001. I wasn't aware of this. I appreciate that instead of ridiculing me for having an alternative opinion, you provide me with information that is of use to not only myself, but others as well.

Cheers.

If you want to be protected from ridicule you need to make threads asking questions (not rhetorical questions). You made this thread declaring (implying) that there was some mass coverup, and the evidence you provided was weak.

Hence the ridicule.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Helious

---

Oh, I can substantiate it and common sense is on my side.

No. What you deem to be common sense is nothing more than your opinion.

In the event of an object large enough to cause extinction to the human race was found by NASA and collision was imminent, what exactly would be the benefit to informing the public? Those "in the know" would need all the available time and resources available to form a plan to carry on the human race and time and resources to achieve that plan.

You are contradicting yourself. You claim extinction and survival in the same paragraph. So which is it?

What would be the benefit? Why does there have to be an apparent benefit? OK, what about a religious benefit?

Governments world wide would be of the same mindset. There would be so many things to consider and at the end of the day it would probably be decided that the continuation of our species is more important than the moral obligation of informing everyone on earth.

First, not all governments of the world have the same mindset. Compare North Korea with Costa Rica. These places places have the same mindset? Are you kidding?

Again, here you are simply repeating your opinion. Do you have anything to substantiate this opinion?

It would be incredibly hard to plan for something of this magnitude and even harder to assess a working strategy to achieve those plans and my bet is they would prefer to do this without causing the largest mass panic situation the world has ever known.

Wouldn't it be easier if you told everyone and then the government could skip town. Otherwise, they have to give the false appearance of daily actions suggesting everything is normal. How can the government give the impression of normalcy and do this job you are suggesting is "incredibly hard to plan for something of this magnitude."

edit on 17-5-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious

---

Actually, as an exercise in ethical and moral speculation, the question I think you wanted to ask is good one: if you knew that the world was going to be destroyed and there was nothing anyone could do about it, would you warn everyone? Would people take it calmly and make their peace with life and/or the deity of their choice, or would they run amok in their final hours? Which would you anticipate? Does merciless devotion to the truth outweigh the comfort of a peaceful ending? Et cetera. The little "Twilight Zone" sketch I proposed was a stab in that direction. (I'm seriously considering turning it into a 20 minute "closed door" period drama and letting a student film maker shoot it. It would be a tongue in cheek parody on the one hand, but, like the show it parodies, a thought provoking Morality Play!) Anyway, if you want to start another thread in, say, "Philosophy and Metaphysics" with a more neutrally proposed question, I'd be delighted to participate!

No, common sense is what the majority of people who contemplate a situation would deem rational. Just because it happens to agree with my opinion on this occasion is coincidental.

Self preservation is the benefit, that is quite enough to motivate, wouldn't you say? Would you not do ANYTHING within your power to survive?

Yes my friend, all world governments are the same in a few choice things and those things are predominantly the same when you consider an extinction level event. Remain in power, preserve your life and have the ability to rebuild should you survive. All resources would be allocated to achieve those three goals, across the globe.

And no, it wouldn't be easier to just inform the masses and go about your business, that statement is just absurd. Faced with imminent death, the citizens that grossly outnumber government would rise up out of self preservation, panic and fear and make any possible attempt by government to prepare itself, chaotic at best. Inform the masses and go about there business indeed.................

You bring up a good point, the thread title was poorly thought out for the direction I was looking to go, I have learned from that simple mistake, believe me.

Bro.... Why are you still posting? Yours, is simply a failed argument that can not be shown to have the least amount of merit. You assume, for some unknown reason that mankind, despite all of it's flaws and everything that we see happening now on an every day basis, would somehow be inclined to "band together" in the event that something on the ELE scale would potentially have the power to wipe mankind of the map.

Thank God for people like you because in all reality and at the end of the day, one less person I have to kill to keep from getting into my house should something like this actually happen.

Your faith in structured society and the rule of government is misplaced, not only in my estimation but by the climate of the entire world in the state we are now all in.

Wake up Stereo, in that scenario, we are not in Kansas anymore and your supposed morality and science means absolutely nothing as human nature breaks down into what it always has been since the dawn of mankind.

NASA is a private corporation.

NASA Remains One of the Federal Government's Best Places to Work in 2009

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by crankyoldman

---

NASA is a private corporation.

NASA is a part of the US government. It is not a private company. It does not have shares and shareholders.

From the NASA web site

NASA Remains One of the Federal Government's Best Places to Work in 2009

About NASA

Help me out here, "one of the federal government's...." doesn't say anything about who owns them. It only makes reference to who controls them. The US has been bankrupt for nearly 100 years. Dig deep and you'll find out they don't own the agency. I'd defer to Zorgon for the exact situation has he is an established expert. NASA is not owned by the people of the US.

Dig deep and you'll find out they don't own the agency. I'd defer to Zorgon for the exact situation has he is an established expert. NASA is not owned by the people of the US.