If there's a moral sentiment to preserve things like you
And I say that non-human animals are things like me, and that we do possess sentiments to preserve them just as much as ourselves.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:33#510740 likes
Reply to Agustino No, I think that if a grown person somehow found a way into your body, even through no fault of their own, and became parasitic on it, many people would think it's reasonable that you can remove them, and that if this removal entailed death, the death would be justified.
I'm not saying that's my position, but it's a coherent one.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:34#510750 likes
Reply to Thorongil Yes, but humans are more like you, and the sentiment to preserve people is stronger. Perhaps that isn't true for you, which I would find spectacular; but then, you would be extraordinarily unusual.
Not as long as there is a breath in my body.
Go ahead, challenge me and my sisters.
So what will you do if Roe vs Wade is overturned in the US? You do realise that this doesn't depend on you as a person. You are just one vote, and just one person, you're not the government or the other people... You have no choice but to follow the rest of your society or leave it. Even if you protest, you'll protest one or two days, weeks, years, but to what end?
But Agustino, I am married and that does not change the right for me to choose to end a pregnancy within the first 20 weeks. Now it would be a respectful thing to make sure my husband agreed with my choice but I would not legally need his consent to have an abortion.
Okay, under my society, people in your condition would be allowed to have abortions provided there is mutual consent from the husband and the wife.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:36#510780 likes
I believe I understand what you are saying but maybe I was misunderstood. Please let me know if I did not make it clear that my right to have an abortion is very much a moral decision. One that is for me and my choice of influence around me, such as my Doctor, my family or my choice alone.
No, I think that if a grown person somehow found a way into your body, even through no fault of their own, and became parasitic on it, many people would think it's reasonable that you can remove them, and that if this removal entailed death, the death would be justified.
>:O I agree, and that's kind of creepy tbh LOL
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:38#510820 likes
Reply to Agustino Yeah, I'm wary of using sci-fi scenarios for moral arguments, but the idea is that the right to bodily autonomy is more fundamental than the right to life. I think many people, when pressed, would agree to that.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:39#510830 likes
So what will you do if Roe vs Wade is overturned in the US? You do realise that this doesn't depend on you as a person. You are just one vote, and just one person, you're not the government or the other people... You have no choice but to follow the rest of your society or leave it. Even if you protest, you'll protest one or two days, weeks, years, but to what end?
I am a proactive person Agustino, you know that, so I would not be a person who waits until Roe vs Wade was overturned to stand firm in my beliefs and assert them with conviction if I believe they are being threatened. BUT I refuse to raise such arms at a false narrative and right now the overturning of Roe vs Wade is just that, a talking point.
But wait a second, you yourself have said that it's the capacity for pain and suffering that makes killing it immoral. So if man has a greater capacity for pain and suffering than an animal, doesn't it follow on your own view that killing a man is worse than killing an animal?
No. The mere capacity on its own is the condition. This means, however, that even if I do grant that killing a human is worse, that doesn't remove the immorality of killing the animal.
You have given it life the moment you have conceived it as far as I see things.
This is a perspective that we will have to agree to disagree on. I have cohabitated my body twice in my life and have those personal experiences to draw from and while I understand your position, I have to respectively hold my own.
I think that if a grown person somehow found a way into your body, even through no fault of their own, and became parasitic on it, many people would think it's reasonable that you can remove them, and that if this removal entailed death, the death would be justified.
I'm not saying that's my position, but it's a coherent one.
That is a BRILLIANT example! (Y)
Would you mind if I posted it on The Philosophy Forum Facebook Page?
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 16:53#510870 likes
I haven't given a fetus "life" in the first 20 weeks after the day of insemination.
The fetus is not alive until 20 weeks after insemination? Could you tell me what is the basis for this claim?
Below is the pic from Wiki of a human fetus at 18 weeks. Not only is the fetus alive by that stage, it is recognizably human, I would say.
(Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, but to be honest I've learned the hard way not to search for photos of human embryos in general Google searches. I just don't have the stomach for it, as, in so doing, one encounters many unwanted search results which, once seen, cannot easily be unseen.)
Yes, but humans are more like you, and the sentiment to preserve people is stronger. Perhaps that isn't true for you, which I would find spectacular; but then, you would be extraordinarily unusual.
I don't know. I like watching nature documentaries, and I feel profound sympathy for animals that are the victims of predation, no less than when I see images of humans tortured or murdered. I'm still haunted, for example, by the image of a baby rhino that had been wounded and couldn't walk properly, which forced its herd to abandon it. The sound of its cries as they left and as predators started to circle around it almost made me visibly cry. Perhaps I sound like a ridiculous sap, but I would be nervous around anyone who didn't feel the same.
To then kill such creatures for personal pleasure, whether that pleasure is the thrill of the hunt or the taste of their flesh, is repulsively abhorrent to me.
To then kill such creatures for personal pleasure, whether that pleasure is the thrill of the hunt or the taste of their flesh, is repulsively abhorrent to me.
One of the latest frontiers in food science is "lab-grown" meat, derived from cultured stem cells. This method is still in its early developmental stages, but, if it becomes commercially viable (which would involve bringing down the cost and improving the taste and texture), it could potentially sidestep some of the more problematic aspects of eating meat.
One of the latest frontiers in food science is "lab-grown" meat, derived from cultured stem cells. This method is still in its early developmental stages, but, if it becomes commercially viable (which would involve bringing down the cost and improving the taste and texture), it could potentially sidestep some of the more problematic aspects of eating meat.
Yes, I hold out hopes that this can come to fruition.
Yes, I hold out hopes that this can come to fruition. If it does, then I would cease my objections and people can eat as much fake flesh as they want.
I'm not sure I'd call it "fake," though. Tofu-based meat substitutes are "fake" meat, but lab-grown meat (from cultured muscle progenitor stem cells, or whatever the source material) is real meat, simply procured by means radically different than those which we've heretofore employed.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 17:05#510950 likes
Reply to Thorongil I'm not saying killing animals is okay, or that it's not normal to empathize with them.
I am saying that if you feel as disturbed by animals getting killed as by humans, you are highly psychologically unusual, and almost no one is going to agree that running over a cat and running over a person are equally bad.
Whether you have such psychological reactions is irrelevant to the fact that, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to convince other people that their psychological reactions are misplaced, which is an uphill battle.
Reply to The Great Whatever I wouldn't try to do that, though. I would try to argue that it's immoral to kill animals regardless of the psychological reactions people have to it.
almost no one is going to agree that running over a cat and running over a person are equally bad.
This claim, as I have already pointed out, is less relevant to the position I have been arguing for. Even if it is less bad to run over a cat, that doesn't make killing cats (or other sentient animals) not wrong, which in turn means that eating meat is still not justified.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 17:16#510970 likes
Reply to Arkady http://www.msichicago.org/explore/whats-here/exhibits/you-the-experience/the-exhibit/your-beginning/prenatal-development/
This is where I was educated, every year on many family field trips during the summer and is not just a guess what the fetus looks like but they are actual fetus. Take a look through and if you are ever in Chicago, walk through the exhibit and go deep into thought about the women who donated these fetuses and know that having an abortion is absolutely a personal and moral decision.
This is where I was educated, every year on many family field trips during the summer and is not just a guess but an actual fetus. Take a look through and if you are ever in Chicago, walk through the exhibit and go deep into thought about the women who donated these fetuses and know that having an abortion is absolutely a personal and moral decision.
Right...but my question was what is the basis for the claim that a human fetus less than 20 weeks old (i.e. approximately 5 months, or more than halfway through its typical gestational period) is not alive?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 17:21#510990 likes
How is it not a moral decision?
Example: many people follow their moral compass that guides their decisions in life but one may have a Catholic designed compass or maybe a Jewish designed compass. Are their positions on abortion the same? I honestly don't know but I can tell you that I believe that THEY believe in their moral compasses that guide them on this topic.
Can you see how I believe that abortion is a moral decision?
Right...but my question was what is the basis for the claim that a human fetus less than 20 weeks old (i.e. approximately 5 months, or more than halfway through its typical gestational period) is not alive?
I am impressed that you understand that the duration of a human pregnancy is 40 weeks and not 9.5 months. I did not learn this until AFTER I was pregnant and had horrible morning sickness. It was such joyous news.
To be truthful Arkady, I am not really all that comfortable with an abortion at 20 weeks but as long as that is the legal time frame, I can give a woman wanting to end a pregnancy the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make that very difficult decision.
Is the fetus alive at 20 weeks? There is a fetus in the woman at 20 weeks, but it is solely dependent upon her existence for it's survival (which does continue thru her WHOLE life if she were to go thru with the pregnancy) so it's not it's own life but rather a (ugh I hate this verbiage) parasite on her, the host.
(thinking this through as I am trying to be honest yet allow for movement of my position)
For me? I was told to never have another pregnancy because of the delicate nature the first two left my hormonal level in, so I have had to address this very concept with my husband and my Doctors and the same conclusion was arrived at by all parties involved. Which means, if I ever have a 'chance' of getting pregnant, I have to choose between the morning after pill or a possible abortion, yet technically my life would not be considered "in danger" of carrying a fetus to full term.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2017 at 17:38#511030 likes
Yeah, I'm wary of using sci-fi scenarios for moral arguments, but the idea is that the right to bodily autonomy is more fundamental than the right to life. I think many people, when pressed, would agree to that.
Yes, but this scenario is very different from the scenario in which you, by your own fault, got a defenceless person to be temporarily parasitic on your own body, without threatening your bodily integrity. Indeed, in such a scenario you'd have to wait until they're no longer parasitic, instead of remove them if this ensues in their death.
I am saying that if you feel as disturbed by animals getting killed as by humans, you are highly psychologically unusual, and almost no one is going to agree that running over a cat and running over a person are equally bad.
Which means, if I ever have a 'chance' of getting pregnant, I have to choose between the morning after pill or a possible abortion, yet technically my life would not be considered "in danger" of carrying a fetus to full term.
But certainly it seems to me that you would (1) unintentionally have the child (since you, your family and your doctor clearly don't intend this to happen, and presumably do what's necessary to avoid it) and (2) having the child would negatively affect your body in a potentially severe way, even though this wouldn't be life threatening. So I think those two conditions make the situation more clearly in favour of abortion if necessary.
Reply to Agustino What's the context? Did you deliberately buy the meat or was it just given to you? I can admit a difference between the two, as the Buddha did, whereby the former is impermissible and the latter permissible. Speaking for myself, I would refrain from eating it in either case and reiterate that we ought to stop killing animals period.
I am impressed that you understand that the duration of a human pregnancy is 40 weeks and not 9.5 months. I did not learn this until AFTER I was pregnant and had horrible morning sickness. It was such joyous news.
Sorry to disappoint, but my comment was predicated on an assumed 36 week (i.e. approximately 9 month) human gestational period, not a 40 weeks' gestation (however, my point remains, either way).
Is the fetus alive at 20 weeks? There is a fetus in the woman at 20 weeks, but it is solely dependent upon her existence for it's survival (which does continue thru her WHOLE life if she were to go thru with the pregnancy) so it's not it's own life but rather a (ugh I hate this verbiage) parasite on her, the host. (thinking this through as I am trying to be honest yet allow for movement of my position)
I am here narrowly focused on the claim that the human fetus is not "alive" prior to 20 weeks' development. To make that claim in conjunction with the claim that the fetus depends upon the woman for its survival seems to be contradictory: how can it depend upon anything for its survival if it is not alive? Parasites are no less "alive" because they are dependent upon another organism for their survival (for that matter, neither are organisms involved in symbioses, which are mutualistic).
No, I think that if a grown person somehow found a way into your body, even through no fault of their own, and became parasitic on it, many people would think it's reasonable that you can remove them, and that if this removal entailed death, the death would be justified.
I'm not saying that's my position, but it's a coherent one.
It is perhaps a coherent position in arguing for the permissibility of abortion in cases of rape or unplanned pregnancies which the woman took reasonable steps to preclude (i.e. those cases in which her birth control failed due to no fault of her own), but not abortion generally.
EDIT: I may have misunderstood whose potential culpability "their" refers to. If it refers to the dependent party's fault, then my above comment is irrelevant. If it refers to the independent party's fault, then my comment would stand. Either way, my question below about the conjoined twins example stands.
I would also ask if this view applies to conjoined twin pairs in which twin A is dependent upon twin B for his survival. Is twin B justified in demanding a separation surgery which would result in A's death, even if said surgery were carried out in defiance of A's wishes?
Reply to Thorongil In all seriousness now, I don't personally eat much meat, but that's for health reasons (as most meat isn't actually healthy). I could also see spiritual reasons for not eating meat. But moral reasons not so much. I think it natural for humans to eat meat - just as natural as it is for lions to eat meat for example.
Reply to Agustino It's natural in a setting that requires it for survival. But in the modern, industrialized world where one buys all of one's food at big grocery stores? Not so much.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 19:01#511310 likes
Reply to Arkady I don't think a position that makes decisions in clear cases must extend in a principled way to unclear cases. In other words, how the twin case is handled is a separate question.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 19:04#511320 likes
Reply to Agustino I agree. But then, most people's position on abortion is already nuanced in some way along those lines. The previous defense would just justify the possibility in principle.
I don't think a position that makes decisions in clear cases must extend in a principled way to unclear cases. In other words, how the twin case is handled is a separate question.
I'm not sure I follow. This was the original analogy which was offered in the service of justifying abortion:
"I think that if a grown person somehow found a way into your body, even through no fault of their own, and became parasitic on it, many people would think it's reasonable that you can remove them, and that if this removal entailed death, the death would be justified."
So, even assuming that the position asserted in this analogy is itself "clear" (which is debatable), it doesn't necessarily follow that it shares enough relevant commonalities with abortion to make the principle equally "clear" in that case. Indeed, it seems to share a greater degree of relevant commonalities with the conjoined twins case.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 20:59#511660 likes
So, even assuming that the position asserted in this analogy is itself "clear" (which is debatable), it doesn't necessarily follow that it shares enough relevant commonalities with abortion to make the principle equally "clear" in that case.
Sorry, I just don't share this intuition. The analogy seems obvious, and apparently at least Tiff thought so as well. Do you want me to explicitly explain the analogy?
And, as I said, the "no fault of [his or her's] own" clause in the above analogy would be an argument for the permissibility of abortions only in those cases in which the woman was not "at fault" for her pregnancy.
The mention of fault was meant to clarify that the fetus, whatever its status, is faultless, which I think everyone agrees on – it wasn't meant to reflect on any 'fault' a woman might bear.
Sorry, I just don't share this intuition. The analogy seems obvious, and apparently at least Tiff thought so as well. Do you want me to explicitly explain the analogy?
Again, even granted that it's "obvious," why does this "obviousness" translate to the abortion case, but not the conjoined twin case? As I said, the latter seems to share more relevant commonalities than the former.
The mention of fault was meant to clarify that the fetus, whatever its status, is faultless, which I think everyone agrees on – it wasn't meant to reflect on any 'fault' a woman might bear.
Ok. Notice that I deleted the above from my post, and also allowed for the possibility of this confusion in my earlier post.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 21:04#511680 likes
Conjoined twins are mutually dependent and both have a claim to the original body.
My example stipulated that they weren't mutually dependent, that one twin could survive the separation (this scenario is by no means medically unheard-of). And I'm not sure what "original body" you're referring to.
My example stipulated that they weren't mutually dependent, that one twin could survive the separation (this scenario is by no means medically unheard-of).
The whole point of gerrymandering this example is to create complications for the previously presented view -- do you understand what I'm saying about the dialectic here? I'm not giving a position on every way such a principle might be applied to every case.
In this case, the twins grow into the same body (same lump of organic matter) together. The other situations are not like this, hence why the application of the principle is clearer.
The whole point of gerrymandering this example is to create complications for the previously presented view -- do you understand what I'm saying about the dialectic here? I'm not giving a position on every way such a principle might be applied to every case.
You presented an analogy which was meant to apply to abortion (specifically in arguing for its permissibility). The point of argument by analogy (as opposed to using specific examples) is that the analogy serves as an "intuition pump" to clarify what otherwise might be murky aspects of the situation or thesis under consideration.
An analogy works only if there are enough relevant commonalities to the situation being analyzed (otherwise the analogy is irrelevant). Both the abortion example and the twins example share relevant commonalities with the analogy, but you accept its translation to the former situation, but not the latter. If you don't believe that it shares enough relevant commonalities with a given example for the analogy to translate, you must point out the relevant aspects in which the analogy breaks down.
In this case, the twins grow into the same body (same lump of organic matter) together. The other situations are not like this, hence why the application of the principle is clearer.
How does this mean that each twin has an equal claim to the shared body? The heart, for instance, might be wholly or primarily located within one of the twins' chest cavities.
Reply to Bitter Crank Cripes, I know that we were in the midst of the "space race" in the 1960s, but I just don't see what was the point of shooting that fetus into outer space.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 21:33#511850 likes
Reply to Arkady The point is that the conjoined twin case is constructed to be more difficult by presenting a situation in which two individuals form out of the same body, or sharing a piece of that body, as opposed to the situation in which one body forms independently and is fully formed before another body parasitically takes root within it.
This obscures intuitions regarding right to bodily autonomy because it is unclear who owns the body when the body was never in self-possession before the conjoinment.
It seems to me that the more fundamental condition for having moral worth is that something is a living being. Whether or not such a being feels pain or even is capable of feeling pain is much less important. Plants are still alive. Walking over and crushing a bunch of roses for fun is immoral, even if they feel no pain. Why? Because they are living beings, and my act is the equivalent of disrespecting and not valuing living beings.
The next time the opportunity arises, I'm going to crush a bunch of roses for fun. They're just a bunch of roses...
I don't see that reason somehow makes humans possess more moral worth.
Regardless of whatever it is that makes it so, humans have more worth to me than any other animal, and that's all that matters to me. I reject claims of the worth of any animal being more, less, or equivalent in worth to humans objectively.
The Great WhateverJanuary 29, 2017 at 21:50#511910 likes
Reply to Agustino Yeah, I think there's a case for plants having inherent worth, and destroying them for no reason is wrong. At the very least having a desire to destroy them for no reason shows a lack of moral character. Wanton destruction of life isn't healthy or normal.
Is killing a human being worse than killing an ant? Is running a human being over with your car worse than running a cat over? If you answer yes to any of these, you do actually believe in a hirearchy of being, as that is what is required to explain and justify why you have such feelings. If you don't have such feelings, then well, you don't. But I'd find that quite peculiar.
Almost as peculiar as your view about crushing a bunch of roses. I'd answer "yes" to those questions, of course.
The point is that the conjoined twin case is constructed to be more difficult by presenting a situation in which two individuals form out of the same body, or sharing a piece of that body, as opposed to the situation in which one body forms independently and is fully formed before another body parasitically takes root within it.
This obscures intuitions regarding right to bodily autonomy because it is unclear who owns the body when the body was never in self-possession before the conjoinment.
Fair enough. I'm still not fully swayed by the analogy, but I accept this explanation as to why you believe it applies to abortion but not to the conjoined twins case.
You are just one vote, and just one person, you're not the government or the other people... You have no choice but to follow the rest of your society or leave it. Even if you protest, you'll protest one or two days, weeks, years, but to what end?
That's a very naïve underestimation. It ain't gonna happen because the people in power aren't as naïve. There would be a [I]massive[/I] backlash.
You accuse others of lacking Realpolitik, yet come out with stuff like that...
It could happen. I think the chances are good that the matter would subsequently be ended by a Constitutional amendment. It seems to me that there are more important things the government needs to be paying attention to right now, though.
I don't know. I like watching nature documentaries, and I feel profound sympathy for animals that are the victims of predation, no less than when I see images of humans tortured or murdered. I'm still haunted, for example, by the image of a baby rhino that had been wounded and couldn't walk properly, which forced its herd to abandon it. The sound of its cries as they left and as predators started to circle around it almost made me visibly cry. Perhaps I sound like a ridiculous sap, but I would be nervous around anyone who didn't feel the same.
To then kill such creatures for personal pleasure, whether that pleasure is the thrill of the hunt or the taste of their flesh, is repulsively abhorrent to me.
Have you ever heard the dying shrieks of a bunch of roses as they're crushed? Terrible. Just terrible.
Yeah, I think there's a case for plants having inherent worth, and destroying them for no reason is wrong. At the very least having a desire to destroy them for no reason shows a lack of moral character. Wanton destruction of life isn't healthy or normal.
No, there's nothing unhealthy or abnormal about wanting to crush a bunch of roses for fun. That would only be so if there was some other reason, or if it was part of a larger problem.
Another non sequitur which doesn't follow from anything I've said. Try again?
If the roses are part of the living, then by destroying them, you are destroying life. Simple. Not all of life, but you are destroying things which are alive. So it makes a lot of sense to ask you whether you see nothing wrong in destroying life as a principle?
You love animals Sap, didn't you call someone a frog murderer before you realized it (maybe it was something else, but I'm thinking frog)?
>:O
Yes, I did. And it was indeed a frog. I can't believe you remember that.
And yes, I do love animals, but my fellow humans come first in moral matters. I'd never save a cat over another human being. I'd find that utterly despicable, depraved, shocking, outrageous, abnormal...
The vocabulary for disapprobation is wider than strictly moral terms. Destroying flowers for fun is an imprudent, irrational, inconsiderate, unreasonable, unseemly, unaesthetic, foolish, etc thing to do. Not everything one disapproves of is immoral, just as not everything one approves of is moral.
I'd never save a cat over another human being. I'd find that utterly despicable, depraved, shocking, outrageous...
That's different from the question Agustino asked, though, which was about whether it was worse to run over a human or a cat. I have said that I find it hard to choose which is worse as both outcomes are awful. Given your scenario of "saving" one or the other, I would save the human over the cat. But that doesn't mean it's then moral to kill animals for food, which was the point I was trying to defend.
It could happen. I think the chances are good that the matter would subsequently be ended by a Constitutional amendment. It seems to me that there are more important things the government needs to be paying attention to right now, though.
Yes, it could happen, but that seems highly unlikely. (To be clear, I'm talking about the overturning[/I] of [i]Roe v. Wade, as per the original comment, rather than an [i]amendment[/I], which could be slight in comparison. Nor am I assuming that it'd be replaced with a similar thing). And if it does happen, for how long will it remain that way, and what would be the reaction? I think there'd be a massive backlash if it wasn't handled in a more democratic manner. And I think it would only be temporary.
Yes, it could happen, but that seems highly unlikely. (To be clear, I'm talking about the overturning of Roe v. Wade, as per the original comment, rather than an amendment, which could be slight in comparison). And if it does happen, for how long will it remain that way, and what the reaction be? I think there'd be a massive backlash if it wasn't handled in a more democratic manner.
A Constitutional amendment would be the backlash. After that, the Supreme Court would have no power over the issue and Hanover could stop whining about it.
A Constitutional amendment would be the backlash. After that, the Supreme Court would have no power over the issue and Hanover could stop whining about it.
Oh, perhaps I misinterpreted your comment. I'm not sure I follow now... :s
Sappy, when you walk on the street, and a dog barks after you, what do you do? Let the dogs bark! >:O
So what do you reckon politicians would do?
A dog's bite hurts more than a dog's bark, and a dog's bark can be a warning before it resorts to biting. Also, it is wise to let sleeping dogs lie, rather than provoke them. So politicians, like people walking the street, should pay due attention and take care.
There's nothing pragmatic about stepping over roses for NO REASON AT ALL (or for a stupid reason for that matter) :-d
It obviously wouldn't be for no reason at all (sorry, I mean NO REASON AT ALL!!!1!!11!!1!). You should already know what the reason is, unless you have very bad memory.
As for it being stupid, it's no more stupid than caring in the first place.
Alright, I disagree. Desiring to destroy living things for fun is a bad quality.
That's fine, so long as you're disagreeing with me by way of [i]my[/I] position: which is more complex than a simple affirmation or negation of your second sentence, and takes into account distinctions among living things and their worth, as well as differences in terms of the significance of the consequences.
Not all of life, but you are destroying things which are alive.
[i]Those[/I] things [i]in particular[/I], i.e. the roses. Yes. They are indeed alive... at least until I crush them. But things which are alive are not [i]life[/I]... or [i]roses[/I]... or [i]those[/I] roses.
[I]"Oh noes! Poor little roses! The big mean man stamped on them! I'm telling my mummy!"
"It's alright, dear. Wipe those tears away. We'll give them a decent burial, and they'll go to flower heaven."[/I]
So it makes a lot of sense to ask you whether you see nothing wrong in destroying life as a principle?
No it doesn't. It is ill-considered and makes little sense. You should already know what my answer would be, since it is both common sense and implicit in my comments over the last several pages. Your leap from the particular to the general or universal is unwarranted.
Destroying flowers for fun is an imprudent, irrational, inconsiderate, unreasonable, unseemly, unaesthetic, foolish, etc thing to do.
Imprudent means to not show care for the consequences of an action. So, sure, I suppose so. I wouldn't show care because the consequences would be insignificant.
Inconsiderate means thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to others. It wouldn't be thoughtless, strickly speaking. And the hurt or inconvenience caused would in part be because of the foolish sentiments of others.
It'd be neither irrational nor unreasonable.
I don't care whether or not it's unseemly or unaesthetic. In fact, I find that laughable.
And, again, it's no more foolish than to care in the first place.
That's different from the question Agustino asked, though, which was about whether it was worse to run over a human or a cat. I have said that I find it hard to choose which is worse as both outcomes are awful.
Yes, I realise that it's different, but it's related. If someone finds it hard to decide which is worse, then it isn't much of a stretch to infer that they may find it hard to decide who to save in an either-or situation, and that it could go either way, and that, therefore, they could decide to save the cat rather than the human.
Given your scenario of "saving" one or the other, I would save the human over the cat.
Good. But I don't think there should be any difficulty involved worth mentioning. All things being equal (sorry, no Hitler vs. super adorable cat, @Wosret), of course you should save the human over the bloody cat! And you should do so because the alternative would be worse. Why else?
But that doesn't mean it's then moral to kill animals for food, which was the point I was trying to defend.
I haven't claimed or implied otherwise here. I wasn't interested in addressing that point. I was only interested in addressing the comments of yours I quoted, which are much more controversial.
Reply to Mongrel I don't recall whining. My position is that abortion ought to remain legal in most circumstances it already is, that Roe v Wade is judicial creation neither explicit or implied in the Constitution, that a Constitutional amendment is impossible with the current polarization among the parties, and that the money spent by the millions of Trump protestors just to protest could have funded every abortion for the next decade or so, including providing transportation to and fro.
"Clang, clang, clang" went the trolley as it's commin' around the bend. A stupid child is playing with her Hitler doll between the tracks and will be run over unless you choose to act. You are in your usual position directly behind the 8-ball--on the overhead bridge. You have a box of your favorite cats with you. There is nary a lever in sight.
You can
a) eliminate the stupid, inattentive child from the gene pool by doing nothing;
b) you can throw your cats one by one, aiming carefully at the child, hoping the cat attack will cause her to move;
c) drop the box of cats on the third rail, shorting out the line, torching the cats, stopping the trolley, saving the child.
c) pray for a miracle.
Constitutional amendment is impossible with the current polarization among the parties, and that the money spent by the millions of Trump protestors just to protest could have funded every abortion for the next decade or so, including providing transportation to and fro.
Maybe so. So it would be ruled on state by state?
I'm fine with people spending their money on vagina hats. It's good for the fiber arts industry.
"Clang, clang, clang" went the trolley as it's commin' around the bend. A stupid child is playing with her Hitler doll between the tracks and will be run over unless you choose to act. You are in your usual position directly behind the 8-ball--on the overhead bridge. You have a box of your favorite cats with you. There is nary a lever in sight.
You can
a) eliminate the stupid, inattentive child from the gene pool by doing nothing;
b) you can throw your cats one by one, aiming carefully at the child, hoping the cat attack will cause her to move;
c) drop the box of cats on the third rail, shorting out the line, torching the cats, stopping the trolley, saving the child.
c) pray for a miracle.
What will you do?
This actually happened to me one time. I dropped the box, but it turned out that I had stored a bunch of C4 in the bottom and the impact blew everything up. I'm now a brain in a vat.
Reply to Mongrel The typical way that the federal government imposes its will on the states is by withholding federal funds on some unrelated issue (like highway funds).
At any rate, I really think that had the abortion issue been left to the democratic process, there'd have been some acceptable resolution of this issue, but by keeping it protected, it never went through that process and so this significant issue rests in the hands of 1 or 2 swing votes on the Court. I think the fear of democratic rule is misplaced. I fear judges more than citizens generally. I could go on and on about this, but the true changes to our society have been by the people, not the courts.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 30, 2017 at 14:36#513350 likes
Reply to Agustino I doubt the law would be on my side in the event of having to qualify for an abortion based upon my health being in danger, in my example, about me.
I shall remain both personally responsible and socially vigilant for the right to terminate a pregnancy, within the limits of the law.
Reply to Hanover I understand what you're saying. It's just that repeatedly in US history, the right answer ends up being forced by a temporary dictator (Lincoln) or a rogue Supreme Court (Roe V Wade and gay marriage.)
I just don't know of many cases where the opposite is true: that the wrong answer was pushed onto the people. But I know some wrong answers that were arrived at democratically: The Indian Removal Act, for instance.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 30, 2017 at 14:38#513370 likes
Sorry to disappoint, but my comment was predicated on an assumed 36 week (i.e. approximately 9 month) human gestational period, not a 40 weeks' gestation (however, my point remains, either way).
A full term pregnancy is 40 weeks or 10 lunar months and to know that 20 weeks is halfway thru the pregnancy, should matter a lot considering that is what the USA law is based upon.
To make that claim in conjunction with the claim that the fetus depends upon the woman for its survival seems to be contradictory: how can it depend upon anything for its survival if it is not alive? Parasites are no less "alive" because they are dependent upon another organism for their survival (for that matter, neither are organisms involved in symbioses, which are mutualistic).
I am thinking about this as I converse with you Arkady so please let me know if any of this helps.
You are right in that in using the parasite analogy was a bit confusing so let me try and express it this way. There is a term called Late Term Abortion and one of the terms they use to explain what a LTA is "postviability abortion". Which means that prior to 20 weeks gestation, the fetus is pre viable, meaning unable to survive on it's own and after 20 weeks there is a chance that the fetus would survive on it's own.
I doubt the law would be on my side in the event of having to qualify for an abortion based upon my health being in danger, in my example, about me.
I shall remain both personally responsible and socially vigilant for the right to terminate a pregnancy, within the limits of the law.
President Donald Trump signed an order on Monday that will seek to dramatically pare back federal regulations by requiring agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new rule introduced.
Might save some paper and require some exceptions, but I doubt it will hinder rule makers.
In many ways it is worse than the US bans, because it has been in place for years, and has been tested in the high court, and is accepted by both major parties.
[quote=Susie Boniface]We should nationalise the train services, because that would be infinitely better than the situation we have now. However, you have to have it run by somebody competent, and that's not this government. Certainly not Chris Grayling.[/quote]
Reply to Banno It's expensive to settle refugees. The US govt is joined by charities to pay for it's annual intake. Is it that Australia just doesn't have the money to do it?
If that's the problem, the UN should tax the world's countries for the funds to resettle refugees and give Australia what it needs. Please vote for me for Empress of the Universe and this will be one of my first actions.
Is it that Australia just doesn't have the money to do it?
Not at all. The economics is insane. The government decided Cambodia was a nice place to resettle refugees, and sent nine of them over. One stayed, the others moved on. Cost - $18 million.
Get yourself tested lads (for autism): http://socialintelligence.labinthewild.org/mite/
unenlightenedJanuary 30, 2017 at 22:11#514370 likes
If you enjoyed this test, buy a few women's magazines and answer endless questions about you - yes you - the centre of the world and the most important thing. It's all about you and we can tell you, buy some now , you deserve it.
Are you a bit weird? And if so, might that be a good thing? Find out in this scientifically validated questionnaire that will measure your weirdness in ways you haven't even thought about. We will explain how a bit of weirdness - but not too much obviously - is actually good for you and proves you are someone and not everyone. The one thing worse than being abnormal is being normal, but don't worry, you probably aren't.
"Clang, clang, clang" went the trolley as it's commin' around the bend. A stupid child is playing with her Hitler doll between the tracks and will be run over unless you choose to act. You are in your usual position directly behind the 8-ball--on the overhead bridge. You have a box of your favorite cats with you. There is nary a lever in sight.
You can
a) eliminate the stupid, inattentive child from the gene pool by doing nothing;
b) you can throw your cats one by one, aiming carefully at the child, hoping the cat attack will cause her to move;
c) drop the box of cats on the third rail, shorting out the line, torching the cats, stopping the trolley, saving the child.
c) pray for a miracle.
What will you do?
d) Take some gory photos of the smashed, previously stupid, dead child and retrieve the Hitler doll to sell it on eBay along with the photographs of the scene.
Your score is 30 out of 36.
Your score is lower than 26% of all participants.
Does this test work equally well for all people around the world?
This test was developed in Great Britain and the images you saw were taken from British magazines in 1990's. Unsurprisingly, the test doesn't work perfectly for people who are not native speakers of English or for people who come from cultures that are very different from Britain's.
Should you worry if you got a low score?
No. Your screen lighting level, mood, fatigue and many other factors might have affected your score. The results of this test are useful when they are averaged across many people, but they can be inaccurate for any individual person.
I am thinking about this as I converse with you Arkady so please let me know if any of this helps.
I understand that this a complex issue and that your views may shift somewhat as we converse, but can we be in agreement that, whether or not it is viable outside the womb at that stage of development, a 20-week-old human fetus is alive?
I understand that this a complex issue and that your views may shift somewhat as we converse, but can we be in agreement that, whether or not it is viable outside the womb at that stage of development, a 20-week-old human fetus is alive?
Going by that definition my pinky is alive too. Although questions regarding my sanity may arise if I decide to cut it off, it won't be a legal issue.
Going by that definition my pinky is alive too. Although questions regarding my sanity may arise if I decide to cut it off, it won't be a legal issue.
Which "definition?" Tiff used the analogy of fetus as parasitic on the mother, which your pinky is not.
Someone made the claim that a human fetus at 20 weeks was not alive. My comments in this thread on that subject have largely focused on discussing that particular claim. Your pinky comment doesn't really clarify much of anything.
Reply to Arkady The definition of "alive". I'm assuming we're still talking English... Something being alive doesn't clarify much of anything either, which was kind of the point.
The definition of "alive". I'm assuming we're still talking English... Something being alive doesn't clarify much of anything either, which was kind of the point.
You said "going by that definition..." your pinky is alive. I wasn't aware that any particular definition had been offered in this discussion, so I don't know which definition we're "going" by.
Having said that, I maintain that pinkies and 20-week-old fetuses are both alive.
Go on. I'm sure there's some ethical claim around the corner here somewhere...
Go on to what? This would seem a non-sequitur. My interjection into this topic in this thread solely concerned that factual matter whether or not a 20-week-old human fetus is alive.
Reply to Arkady No, she asked the question "Is the fetus alive at 20 weeks?" and then pointed out that a fetus is dependent on the mother to survive and stated it's not its "own life" but rather a parasite (a living thing too, yay!) on the mother. Neither has she not denied it but kind of makes the point that whether it's alive or not is neither here nor there with regards to the ethics of the question.
So again, what is the point of establishing whether it's alive? Because I don't see it yet unless you're forwarding that ethical claim you're inching towards or we're really not having an interesting conversation.
No, she asked the question "Is the fetus alive at 20 weeks?" and then pointed out that a fetus is dependent on the mother to survive and stated it's not its "own life" but rather a parasite (a living thing too, yay!) on the mother. Neither has she not denied it but kind of makes the point that whether it's alive or not is neither here nor there with regards to the ethics of the question.
I haven't given a fetus "life" in the first 20 weeks after the day of insemination.
which is the comment that provoked my initial response. She then went on to say it is dependent upon the mother for its survival, etc which I pointed out is incoherent. So, you're wrong that she never claimed that a 20-week-old fetus is not alive.
So again, what is the point of establishing whether it's alive?
Again, I am engaging on the factual issue as to whether a 20-week-old fetus is alive.
Because I don't see it yet unless you're forwarding that ethical claim your inching towards or we're really not having an interesting conversation.
It is interesting to me. You evidently felt compelled to respond to my post, which no one forced you to do.
It is perhaps a coherent position in arguing for the permissibility of abortion in cases of rape or unplanned pregnancies which the woman took reasonable steps to preclude (i.e. those cases in which her birth control failed due to no fault of her own), but not abortion generally.
Is "coherent" really the right word here? I don't think it's incoherent to argue that abortion is always permissible. False, perhaps, but not incoherent.
Is "coherent" really the right word here? I don't think it's incoherent to argue that abortion is always permissible. False, perhaps, but not incoherent.
Yes, I made what was apparently an error in the post you're quoting (explained in the bolded middle paragraph). It was unclear to me who "their" was referring to there, so the portion you quoted is moot.
He tells the House that he has "always advocated voting Conservative" but sometimes the country elected a Labour government.
During those times he never felt "it was my democratic duty to support Labour policies" and to do so "would have been treated with ridicule and scorn".
Because I thought that it might function on my PS4's internet browser? Simply because I own a PS4? Or perhaps because, like Agustino, you refer to Dr. Terrapin's previous diagnosis?
Let me guess, my failure to understand your meaning is further evidence that I have Aspergers Syndrome, right?
Reply to Michael But it's not a partisan issue. It's about honouring the result of the referendum. If the Scottish electorate had voted by majority for independence, then arguing that the result should be honoured wouldn't be about supporting the SNP.
But it's not a partisan issue. It's about honouring the result of the referendum. If the Scottish electorate had voted by majority for independence, then arguing that the result should be honoured wouldn't be about supporting the SNP.
The point is that it is strange to suggest that MPs have a democratic responsibility to support the popular opinion. A labour MP doesn't have a democratic responsibility to support conservative policies simply because more people voted in their favour than against. And so a Remain MP shouldn't have a democratic responsibility to support Brexit simply because more people voted in its favour than against.
And remember also that democracy in the UK amounts to a representative democracy where each eligible person can vote for a representative in Parliament. That's it. You're only "anti-democratic" if you oppose this system. An MP voting against a referendum result has nothing to do with this.
Unless by "democracy" you mean direct democracy, but then this country isn't a direct democracy...
The point is that it is strange to suggest that MPs have a democratic responsibility to support the popular opinion. A labour MP doesn't have a democratic responsibility to support conservative policies simply because more people voted in their favour than against. And so a Remain MP shouldn't have a democratic responsibility to support Brexit simply because more people voted in its favour than against.
It isn't that strange given that:
Britain is a democracy.
The two main parties you referred to are democratic.
Reply to Sapientia See my addition. Also, it doesn't even address the point you quoted. Even in a democracy, even if all parties are democratic, and even if it's a general election, the "losing side" is not obliged to support the policies (as represented by the MPs/party) that received the majority vote. So why would it be any different in this case?
And remember also that democracy in the UK amounts to a representative democracy where each eligible person can vote for a representative in Parliament. That's it. You're only "anti-democratic" if you oppose this system. An MP voting against a referendum result has nothing to do with this.
Unless by "democracy" you mean direct democracy, but then this country isn't a direct democracy...
And "being representative" in a representative democracy like ours amounts to being freely elected to a seat in Parliament. That's done-and-dusted. An MP choosing to vote against the result of a referendum has nothing to do with this.
Saying that it's "anti-democratic" is just to say that it's against direct democracy, but again, we don't live in a direct democracy; we live in a representative democracy.
And that we live in a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy is why your conclusion doesn't follow from the three reasons you gave. There's no relevant connection between "Britain is a [representative] democracy" and "there was a referendum".
And "being representative" in a representative democracy like ours amounts to being freely elected to a seat in Parliament. That's done-and-dusted. An MP choosing to vote against the result of a referendum has nothing to do with this.
No, that's wrong. What do you think that their job entails as a representative and member of the House of Commons? Being freely elected is merely how they get the job. The clue is in the name. Their duties don't end once they're elected - it certainly isn't "done and dusted". On the contrary, that's when they formally begin.
No, that's wrong. What do you think that their job entails as a representative and member of the House of Commons? The clue is in the name. Their duties don't end once they're elected - it certainly isn't "done and dusted". On the contrary, that's when they formally begin.
That depends on whether we're using the trustee model of representation, where representatives "have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies" or the delegate model of representation, where representatives "act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency".
I think we tend to use (and expect) the former. But even with the latter, it doesn't entail supporting the result of a nationwide vote.
The fact is that the UK isn't a direct democracy, and so MPs are not democratically obligated to support the result of a referendum.
Saying that it's "anti-democratic" is just to say that it's against direct democracy, but again, we don't live in a direct democracy; we live in a representative democracy.
I haven't even used the term "anti-democratic", and I said that it's about failing to be representative.
And that we live in a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy is why your conclusion doesn't follow from the three reasons you gave. There's no relevant connection between "Britain is a [representative] democracy" and "there was a referendum".
Of course there is. The result of the referendum is representative of the people, and MP's are supposed to represent the people - or at least their constituents. And if they all did so, then either way, the result of the referendum would be honoured.
We're discussing Ken Clarke's claim that because he doesn't have a "democratic duty to support Labour policies" even when the majority vote for Labour, he doesn't have a democratic duty to support Brexit even when the majority vote to Leave. That's not how democracy works in the UK.
That depends on whether we're using the trustee model of representation, where representative "have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies" or the delegate model of representation, where representatives "act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency".
It isn't quite so black and white, but in this case, given its context, I think that they should be representing the majority vote.
We're discussing Ken Clarke's claim that because he doesn't have a "democratic duty to support Labour policies" even when the majority vote for Labour, he doesn't have a democratic duty to support Brexit, even when the majority voted to Leave.
It's a false analogy, given the role of the opposition, general elections, referendums, and democratic parties. The role of the opposition is to oppose the government, not the people. And referendums aren't partisan in the way that general elections are. Bringing up the Labour Party is a red herring. The difference between partisan issues and nonpartisan issues is important.
It isn't quite so black and white, but in this case, given its context, I think that they should be representing the majority vote.
In the delegate or the trustee sense? And is this "should" a moral claim or are you claiming that they have a democratic duty to be this type of representative?
It's a false analogy, given the role of the opposition, general elections, referendums, and democratic parties. The role of the opposition is to oppose the government, not the people. And referendums aren't partisan in the way that general elections are. Bringing up the Labour Party is a red herring.
What's the difference between grouping a bunch of people who agree with certain policies under the label "the Labour party" and grouping a bunch of people who agree with a certain policy under the label "the Leave campaign"? I don't see any relevant difference. So I fail to see how this is a false analogy.
Again, the simple fact remains that under our representative democracy, MPs do not have a democratic duty to support the popular opinion.
And is this "should" a moral claim or are you claiming that they have a democratic duty to be this type of representative?
Both in this case. I'm not making a general point about the details of parliamentary representation. My point is specifically about this case in particular, and the context is important.
What's the difference between grouping a bunch of people who agree with certain policies under the label "the Labour party" and grouping a bunch of people who agree with a certain policy under the label "the Leave campaign"?
There are differences between political parties and political campaigns. The Leave campaign is bipartisan. The Conservative Party is not. And the Parliamentary Conservative Party were (eventually) permitted the freedom to support either the Leave campaign or the Remain campaign. But that was at the campaign stage, whereas things are different now, as good MP's acknowledge. If you're a member of the Conservative Party and you're found to support another political party then you risk expulsion from the party. It wouldn't make much sense to do that unless you're an entryist. But it would make sense to do the right thing and honour the referendum result. Although I'd be happy if a Conservative like Ken did the right thing by supporting the Labour Party as well, even if he was expelled from his party as a result. He's retiring soon anyway, and this way he could go out with a bang.
Given what I said, it couldn't be in the delegate sense, except by coincidence.
So in the trustee sense, where they "have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of [the voters]"?
There are differences between political parties and political campaigns. The Leave campaign is bipartisan. The Conservative Party is not. And the Parliamentary Conservative Party were (eventually) permitted the freedom to support either the Leave campaign or the Remain campaign.
Yes, the Leave campaign involved the cooperation of more than one party. And the Labour party involves the cooperation of more than one Brexit campaign. I don't understand the relevance of this, and so I fail to see how an MP can have a democratic duty to support the winner of the referendum but not to support the winner of the General Election.
Although I'd be happy if a Conservative like Ken did the right thing by supporting the Labour Party as well, even if he was expelled from his party as a result. He's retiring soon anyway.
But the issue is whether or not he has a democratic duty to support the Labour party, not whether or not you'd be happy for him to do so.
So in the trustee sense, where they "have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of [the voters]"?
When I said that it isn't quite so black and white, I meant that it doesn't have to be either one or the other. To represent the majority vote would in some cases require some autonomy from a constituency, but it also wouldn't necessarily favour the greater common good and national interest. It's not so much about consequences as it is about principles. I think it is the right thing to do, in principle, to honour the referendum result.
Yes, the Leave campaign involved the cooperation of more than one party. And the Labour party involves the cooperation of more than one Brexit campaign. I don't understand the relevance of this, and so I fail to see how an MP can have a democratic duty to support the winner of the referendum but not to support the winner of the General Election.
Well, the answers are in the explanation I've just given. In one case they have a conflicting duty to support their party rather than another party, and this duty takes precedence over the duty to support the winner of the General Election, which makes no sense, and isn't even a duty that any MP in opposition would recognise, except on those occasions in which there is bipartisan agreement. Whereas in the other case, I think that the duty to honour the referendum result should take precedence over an MP's personal beliefs about whether it would be better if we leave or remain, because the matter has been settled by the referendum. Both matters are respectively settled by referendum or General Election. But, like I said, the opposition is supposed to oppose the government, but not the people. So if the people, rather than the government, vote to leave on a bipartisan issue, then it shouldn't be blocked by MP's.
Reply to SapientiaReply to Michael You're probably done with this topic, but it seems to me that "representative democracy" in the United States means only this: In each congressional district of approximately 700,000 people (not sure what the precise figure is) there is 1 person who is elected to the House. From each state, 2 people are elected to the Senate, no matter what the population is. The president is elected by the entire country and/or the Electoral College.
No one is bound to vote to match what the citizens in their district think -- indeed, it is certain they will displease from 1/3 to 1/2 of the electorate most of the time, no matter how they vote.
What about the parties?
No one is bound to vote according to party platforms established at the various nominating conventions. No one is bound to vote according to party dictates as directed by the Majority or minority whips. The one real lever the party has over its members is committee memberships. If you don't follow party wishes, you'll get the very worst committees (Antarctic Affairs sub-committee--the ones where the assigned go to die). If you want a plum committee assignment (Ways and Means, Intelligence, Judicial or Commerce, etc.), you follow voting directions AND you raise more than your quota of funds for the party, plus your own reelection funds.
What's "representative" about that? At least for two years, an elected rep can do what he or she wishes. Senators have 6, the president gets 4. Yes recall is possible, but rarely happens (it's difficult) and generally people in the government are usually not quite obviously crooked enough to be thrown out of office.
Reply to Heister Eggcart By the way, I'm disappointed that I'm no longer your favorite philosopher :-} - I mean who the hell is that Leister Blowdart? :-*
Reply to Heister Eggcart Hah - how have I never thought of this for all this time ... Heister Meister Eckhart Eggcart - now it makes sense - you're playing your Eckhart/Eggcart to my Augustine/Agustino X-) >:O
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 01, 2017 at 21:07#519930 likes
Hah - how have I never thought of this for all this time ... Heister Meister Eckhart Eggcart - now it makes sense - you're playing your Eckhart/Eggcart to my Augustine/Agustino
[quote=The Guardian]The Resolution Foundation’s study found that the current parliament would be the worst for living standards for the poorest half of households since comparable records began in the mid-1960s and the worst since the early years of Thatcher’s 1979-90 premiership for inequality.[/quote]
[quote=John McDonnell]This report is damning of the unfair economic policies of this Chancellor, as the gap between working families and a wealthy few gets wider, with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. It demonstrates to us all once again that the economy under a Tory government will be rigged for those at the top, with poor and middle income households facing their worst Parliament for income growth since the 1960s.[/quote]
I am the 1,815,561st person to have added their signature to a petition to the UK Parliament to prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom.
Trump Accuses Australia Of Trying To Send U.S. The ‘Next Boston Bombers’: Report
The president reportedly berated Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and hung up a half-hour ahead of schedule.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-australia-malcolm-turnbull_us_589293c3e4b070cf8b80b22e?xpl8scfljo10jm7vi&
Reply to Sapientia Almost 2 million irrelevant signatures. Keep up the good work!
The typical response of the left is to appeal to their inept government for help instead of actually getting out and doing something. What is it that irks you so about Trump? Is it that you think he hates women, for example? If so, go help women as opposed to signing your name and feeling like you've done something other than scribbling on a piece of paper.
Almost 2 million irrelevant signatures. Keep up the good work!
The typical response of the left is to appeal to their inept government for help instead of actually getting out and doing something. What is it that irks you so about Trump? Is it that you think he hates women, for example? If so, go help women as opposed to signing your name and feeling like you've done something other than scribbling on a piece of paper.
It isn't an appeal to the government, which I agree is inept in many ways. It is a petition to the UK Parliament. And it succeeded in forcing the UK Parliament to debate the matter by securing well over the 100,000 signatures required.
And I am only one man, and I don't have anywhere near the power or influence that the President of the United States has, so addressing the bigger problem makes sense. If I have a really bad tooth, should I seek a dentist or just keep seeking painkillers and hope it doesn't get any worse? That analogy isn't quite exact, but it is similar to what you're arguing.
"America first" isn't isolationist it's expansionist and imperialist.
It could be read that way, but doesn't necessarily have to be. I think Trump is quite isolationist in terms of military. He wants US to be strong and invincible compared to other countries, but he doesn't want to get involved with them except when it's good for US, or they represent threats.
Iran is put on notice merely because they're a potential threat to the US, which is true, they are. Iran did it with their own hand - for many years Iranian officials have publicly made statements about taking military action against Israel and US. "A violent man will die a violent death" as the DaoDeJing tells us.
And a similar Realpolitik principle also applies to Trump, because Trump is too brash and in the spot light with what he's doing, he's garnering too much hatred to his name. This isn't good for him. There would have been better ways to implement the same policies, such as first drafting all of them, talking about them incessantly, and only then implementing. But at the moment it's implementation without justification to the people, which can very easily backfire. The changes are undertaken too quickly to be sustainable.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 02, 2017 at 16:13#522190 likes
It's always good for the US to keep everywhere else in subjection.
True, but people don't like to be in subjection, so that's difficult for the US. If you keep them too much in subjection they will rebel and form a coalition against you. If you put no restraints on them, they'll become bigger and greater than you. You need to strike a balance. A great winner is a hidden winner - nobody sees him when he's winning, like China. People aren't aware how powerful China is becoming. It's doing all this while hiding that strength.
Quality over quantity. Even so, you underestimate how much the US has put into the military.
Yes but military is less important than economy - US cannot attack China militarily because they'd just destroy themselves - that's suicide. China has placed itself in a great strategic position. Almost all the world's economies depend on it. It is the engine of the global economy.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 02, 2017 at 16:25#522260 likes
Yes but military is less important than economy - US cannot attack China militarily because they'd just destroy themselves - that's suicide. China has placed itself in a great strategic position. Almost all the world's economies depend on it. It is the engine of the global economy.
Neither can they attack us. You're also underestimated the US economy, >:O
Neither can they attack us. You're also underestimated the US economy, >:O
They don't need to attack you - they'll steal your influence by becoming bigger and better and stronger than you. There's no need to hurry doing it either. By then, you're going to be puny compared to them. To beat China you must keep their growth below yours - which I doubt you'll be able to do.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 02, 2017 at 16:31#522300 likes
They don't need to attack you - they'll steal your influence by becoming bigger and better and stronger than you. There's no need to hurry doing it either. By then, you're going to be puny compared to them. To beat China you must keep their growth below yours - which I doubt you'll be able to do.
The Grand Conservative Chinese Agenda working miracles, (Y)
It isn't an appeal to the government, which I agree is inept in many ways. It is a petition to the UK Parliament.
The University of Kentucky doesn't have a parliament.
But yea.. you feel like "No Trump," so you want to express how you feel. I think that in the same way the Trump immigration ban gets turned into a Muslim ban (whether it really is or not), a UK Trump ban is basically an American ban. Not many Americans actually understand how much British people hate Americans (a blind spot that's more than 200 years old). I guess you could say it a little louder. But American school kids are still going to be singing the British national anthem (with the words changed) after they salute the flag.
I think that in the same way the Trump immigration ban gets turned into a Muslim ban (whether it really is or not), a UK Trump ban is basically an American ban.
No. No it isn't. Not at all. This is very clearly about Trump; not Americans. Your speculation is way off the mark.
And it wouldn't even be a Trump ban; it'd only "ban" Trump from official State Visits. He'd still be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government.
No. No it isn't. Not at all. This is very clearly about Trump; not Americans. Your speculation is way off the mark.
OK. Likewise the "Muslim ban" is bullshit. It's not a Muslim ban. It gets turned into that. And likewise (my new favorite word), saying "no" to an official visit from the POTUS would be an extraordinary move on the part of the UK. It would be the end of something. The next week, large radioactive cockroaches would start appearing everywhere signalling The End of The World.
OK. Likewise the "Muslim ban" is bullshit. It's not a Muslim ban. It gets turned into that. And likewise (my new favorite word), saying "no" to an official visit from the POTUS would be an extraordinary move on the part of the UK. It would be the end of something. The next week, large radioactive cockroaches would start appearing everywhere signalling The End of The World.
I'm actually inclined to agree with your point about the relationship between the immigration ban and a Muslim ban. But I do think that your other point was bullshit, and I don't agree that the two are analogous. There's no "likewise" there, I'm afraid.
Reply to Sapientia
I don't know why the Trump administration and his supporters would try and insist on a PC view of the muslim ban at this stage?
Trump was clear during his campaign that he did not care if it was politically correct or not, his supporters did not seem to care either, so it does not make sense to me why they would back peddle now that the order was enacted.
Trump also said it would be temporary until he can "figure out what's going on" so he definitely has a way to save face if or when it is decided the executive order is unconstitutional.
I imagine that is exactly what he would do if it is ruled unconstitutional, he would resend the order and claim that it was his decision all along because the order was only supposed to be temporary.
Not many Americans actually understand how much British people hate Americans (a blind spot that's more than 200 years old).
I'm a Brit married to an American woman. I can't say she's experienced any hatred here in the UK, unless you count a few bad caricature accents. I confess if I say 'Gee Honey' that gets her all riled up, but I think transatlantic relations can survive such skirmishes.
This is an odd idea. I thought Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan (where only just over half the country is now under the control of the current regime) might be evidential challenges to that. Only their military budget looks invincible to me.
I don't know why the Trump administration and his supporters would try and insist on a PC view of the muslim ban at this stage?
Trump was clear during his campaign that he did not care if it was politically correct or not, his supporters did not seem to care either, so it does not make sense to me why they would back peddle now that the order was enacted.
Trump also said it would be temporary until he can "figure out what's going on" so he definitely has a way to save face if or when it is decided the executive order is unconstitutional.
I imagine that is exactly what he would do if it is ruled unconstitutional, he would resend the order and claim that it was his decision all along because the order was only supposed to be temporary.
It seems that backpedaling is the order of the day across the pond. Although we've had our fair share of it over here after the EU referendum - whatever happened to that £350 million for the NHS? The other day I was watching The Daily Politics where the topic was Trump's backpedaling over his comments about the use of torture.
Reply to Agustino
This is interesting.
The US is already highly developed compared to China.
China is growing at a much faster rate than the US because they are less developed in terms of basic modern infrastructure.
The runway for the US to grow is severely limited compared to China.
Unless there is some new industry or technology that emerges US can not ever hope to compete with China in terms of growth.
In fact it is not in the best interest of the US to use up our development runway quickly by trying to grow at as fast a rate as possible.
Also comparing the US with China is something of an apples to oranges comparison.
The Chinese economy is manufacture based in that most of the jobs available in the Chinese economy are factory type manufacturing jobs.
The US on the other hand has transitioned to a service based economy in that most of the jobs available in the US are service based jobs.
It is not realistic that the US can return to a manufacturing based economy as this would result in massive inflation of goods.
This is why it is unclear how Trump intends to grow the economy.
He says he wants to increase spending by funding infrastructure projects, which would stimulate the economy temporarily sure, but it would also burn up the US growth runway quicker and leave us in even more of a growth bind in the long term strategic view.
The calls to increase the rate of US growth, without new industries or technologies driving that growth, are not actually in the strategic best interest of the US with regards to competing with China economically.
I'm a Brit married to an American woman. I can't say she's experienced any hatred here in the UK, unless you count a few bad caricature accents. I confess if I say 'Gee Honey' that gets her all riled up, but I think transatlantic relations can survive such skirmishes.
Well nobody hates actual people. Your Muslim dentist nextdoor neighbor is just the salt of the earth friendly guy with his two beautiful daughters got to remember to make sure it's beef hotdogs at the cook-out, but those Muslims... they're trying to kill us.
The US is already highly developed compared to China.
No the US isn't "highly developed" it merely created a myth to rationalise its own laziness and lack of economic growth. We grow at 1%... why? Ahhh we're highly developed X-)
China is growing at a much faster rate than the US because they are less developed in terms of basic modern infrastructure.
No. Rather because they have positioned their economy strategically given the needs of capitalism world-wide. Furthermore, Chinese people are disciplined and willing to live hard and difficult lives, while Americans are lazy and desiring comfort and easy money. Thus Chinese accept to do things that would be impossible to do in America.
This is why it is unclear how Trump intends to grow the economy.
He says he wants to increase spending by funding infrastructure projects, which would stimulate the economy temporarily sure, but it would also burn up the US growth runway quicker and leave us in even more of a growth bind in the long term strategic view.
The calls to increase the rate of US growth, without new industries or technologies driving that growth, are not actually in the strategic best interest of the US with regards to competing with China economically.
I don't think Trump will beat the Chinese, it's too late now. But we'll see.
Reply to Agustino
China's high GDP growth is driven by development, that is not really open for debate.
The US will not benefit from development growth because...we are already developed.
Also I would not say the Chinese people are motivated to live difficult lives when compared to western folk.
That is a strange thing to claim.
Again we will not be able to grow at the same rate as China, or any other developing country.
It simply is not possible to compete with developing country growth unless new industries or technologies emerge to drive that growth.
That's interesting. I've been reading about the Black Death. Did you know it's not for sure what organism actually caused it?
I might've known that at some point, but if so, I must've forgotten it. I thought that the experts had concluded that it was probably spread by fleas, and that it arose because of very poor standards of hygiene.
No the US isn't "highly developed" it merely created a myth to rationalise its own laziness and lack of economic growth. We grow at 1%... why? Ahhh we're highly developed X-)
In China the economy is shifting from domestic agrarian driven to manufacture driven.
The development of modern infrastructure is the primary driver of growth in China.
US growth is not driven by infrastructure development and the demand for infrastructure is far greater in China, and will be far greater in China than it is or will be in the US.
I suppose you could argue that the US is lazy because it is not developing infrastructure.
But to develop infrastructure where there is no demand for it just for the sake of not being lazy is...
Well it's like you don't think about what you are saying beforehand and instead just blurt out the first thought that pop's into your head.
Reply to Sapientia They think it was a bacterial infection transmitted by fleas. But the organism they identified still pops up from time to time and it doesn't have the effect described during the Black Death. So either there's a lot of falsehood in the stories or it was some other organism (maybe a mutant form of the one that still exists.)
The Black Death is believed to have jump-started a social transformation because it killed so much of the labor in Europe. Aristocrats were outraged that the remaining population either didn't want to work or they were charging a lot for their services. Time for a labor movement?
They think it was a bacterial infection transmitted by fleas. But the organism they identified still pops up from time to time and it doesn't have the effect described during the Black Death. So either there's a lot of falsehood in the stories or it was some other organism (maybe a mutant form of the one that still exists.)
The Black Death is believed to have jump-started a social transformation because it killed so much of the labor in Europe. Aristocrats were outraged that the remaining population either didn't want to work or they were charging a lot for their services. Time for a labor movement?
It's imperative that we find what the cause was. Forget "socialism or death", it's socialism [i]by[/I] death.
Reply to Sapientia Dude, what do you think the CDC is for? The US is secretly a Marxist project (true it started before Marx was born, but don't forget time travel).
Again we will not be able to grow at the same rate as China, or any other developing country.
It simply is not possible to compete with developing country growth unless new industries or technologies emerge to drive that growth.
It is possible, if you get your lazy bums up and running day in and day out, shut down and clamp on time-wasting activity, remove hedonism from your culture and so forth.
Reply to Agustino
Another poorly thought out post.
The problem is not a productivity one, developed countries actually tend to be more productive than developing countries.
Again there is a lack of demand for infrastructure development in developed countries.
In fact that is why they are called developed.
It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 03, 2017 at 00:40#523890 likes
Reply to Mongrel Otherwise known as our very good friend, THE PLAGUE. Y. pestis is spread by Oriental rat fleas.
Europeans discovered the connection between plague and oriental fleas when they looked at the fleas very closely and discovered that the death vectors were wearing little kimonos, elevated shoes, Mao jackets, saffron monks robes, and the like. Plus, they used chop sticks when biting rats and humans. High class fleas rode rickshaws.
Reply to Bitter Crank Yep. "Plague" is associated with divine retribution. During the Black Death, a weird Christian sect developed made of people who would walk through city streets beating themselves with ropes that had sharp objects tied to them. Blood would be splattering everywhere. I guess they thought they were being helpful.
Actually... we do have plague. On average, 7 cases a year appear in the US, of the bubonic form. Some result in death. Here is a map of where the plague has appeared in the last few decades. As you can see, Trump should not only get his wall built, but he should fumigate New Mexico and Arizona. Way too many rats there. Do Chicago too -- it's an outlier, but obviously the cases there are due to Crooked Hillary and Obamacare.
Reply to Heister Eggcart Obviously they do. Not only is there demand for new infrastructure (like fiber-optic cable) but there is a demand for old infrastructure to be rebuilt, fixed, and/or upgraded. Sewers, water systems, highways, railroads, locks and dams, electrical distribution... etc.
Do Chicago too -- it's an outlier, but obviously the cases there are due to Crooked Hillary and Obamacare.
I think he recently threatened via Twitter to deploy federal troops to Chicago to tackle the crime there, so maybe they can take care of this plague issue while they're at it.
The Great WhateverFebruary 03, 2017 at 04:24#524210 likes
No kidding.
Robert LockhartFebruary 03, 2017 at 15:45#525200 likes
Sure and Certain sign? - I once knew a guy who was foolhardy enough to deny the existence of God an' then - eight months later...his goldfish got up an' died. - 'Nuff said!
A developed country, industrialized country, or "more economically developed country" (MEDC), is a sovereign state that has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less industrialized nations. Most commonly, the criteria for evaluating the degree of economic development are gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product (GNP), the per capita income, level of industrialization, amount of widespread infrastructure and general standard of living
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
A developing country, also called a less developed country or underdeveloped country, is a nation or sovereign state with a less developed industrial base and a low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries.[1] However, since the late 1990s developing countries tended to demonstrate higher growth rates than the developed ones.[2] There are no universally agreed-upon criteria for what makes a country developing versus developed and which countries fit these two categories,[3] although there are general reference points such as a nation's GDP per capita compared to other nations. Also, the general term less-developed country should not be confused with the specific least developed country.
Reply to Bitter Crank
In developed country the demand for infrastructure is far less than when compared to an undeveloped country.
Suggesting that a developed country will be able to compete in growth with a developing country based solely on demand for infrastructure is ignorance.
Developing countries have a much higher demand for infrastructure than developed countries.
Again that is why they are called developed, because they lack the same demand for infrastructure that a developing country has.
China's high GDP growth is driven by development, that is not really open for debate.
The US will not benefit from development growth because...we are already developed.
That's bullshit in itself. The US as all other countries are still developing, and in fact trying to develop as much as possible, and grow as much as possible. Some - despite their size - manage to do this better than others.
And I don't want to tell you what I advise people to do with their macroeconomics - that quaint art that is useful for nothing except being thrown out the window. I never trust any expert on economics and I never have. Practical decisions are never taken on those considerations.
Practical certainly means making forecasts that are always wrong ;)
There is nothing practical in building infrastructure that will go completely without utilization.
Sure we could develop our country at the same pace as China.
The difference is there is a demand for that supply in China.
What you have not shown is that there will be the same demand for that supply in the west.
In fact making roads nobody will drive on, power and phone lines nobody uses, homes that nobody lives in, factories that sit idle and urban areas nobody migrates to, well that would not result in GDP growth at all.
You have an opinion, but it is a useless one because you have no idea what you are talking about.
There is nothing practical in building infrastructure that will go completely without utilization.
Sure we could develop our country at the same pace as China.
The difference is there is a demand for that supply in China.
What you have not shown is that there will be the same demand for that supply in the west.
In fact making roads nobody will drive on, power and phone lines nobody uses, homes that nobody lives in, factories that sit idle and urban areas nobody migrates to, well that would not result in GDP growth at all.
You have an opinion, but it is a useless one because you have no idea what you are talking about.
As I have explained to you, the problem isn't this. The problem is that people in the West are no longer motivated by discipline and hard work. Instead they are motivated by the possibility of having access to drugs, to parties, to alcohol, to hedonism/consumerism, to traveling around the world, and other such bullshit (this is your "service based" economy). This is a problem - this isn't a peoples devoted to survival and thriving - it's not a peoples thinking how it can outsmart the Chinese, or anyone else. This is a peoples which dedicates itself to completely different goals, which are actually detrimental to their survival.
Reply to Heister Eggcart
If you can't grasp why you are wrong it would be a waste of time, because clearly you are not interested in the knowledge.
:-d
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 03, 2017 at 19:10#525840 likes
Reply to m-theory If there was proper knowledge to be had, then I wouldn't be bitching with you. Unfortunately...
You can pretend like the evidence of your ignorance does not exist, sure.
If that makes you feel better go for it, just don't expect me to pander to that delusion.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 03, 2017 at 19:19#525900 likes
Reply to m-theory Sorry sweetie, but referencing wikipedia paragraphs that don't address my qualm isn't suggesting of my having a delusion in any way. It is, however, indicative of your ineptitude, as I've already pointed out.
Perhaps you could cite some source that gives evidence to the case that sometimes in developed economies there is a greater demand for infrastructure than there is in developing economies because of variation in demand.
Show me why you believe there is equal demand for infrastructure in the US as there is in China.
Cite some source that there actually is the same demand.
Show me why you believe there is equal demand for infrastructure in the US as there is in China.
:-} I never said the demand is equal, I said it could be equal. Also I'm not exactly sure how you'd measure your demand, except by noting the number of infrastructure projects undertaken and the total money invested in it year by year...
In developed country the demand for infrastructure is far less than when compared to an undeveloped country.
When I think of East Africa, for example, and its several more or less undeveloped economies, there are numerous basic infrastructure needs: water, sanitation, housing, transportation, power generation, schools, health care systems, etc. Granted: were financing available, building to meet all of the infrastructure needs would be a tremendous economic stimulus.
Suggesting that a developed country will be able to compete in growth with a developing country based solely on demand for infrastructure is ignorance.
Not entirely ignorance.
East Africa's people have telephones. How did they get these without a major infrastructure project? Simple: The technology changed. When western countries developed, telephones required dense networks of copper wires, switching equipment that took up large buildings, each telephone weighed at least a pound. It was moderately heavy industry.
Africa's telephones weigh a few ounces, are wireless, and require only transmitter/receivers on towers, and switching is handled by computers. The economic and social value of this piece of infrastructure isn't in its building, it's in its use.
Railroads, highways, ditches, excavation, buildings, and so forth no longer employ huge numbers of people. When the west developed, the labor was performed largely by men and horses. Railroads aren't built that way anymore and highway construction is almost entirely mechanized. Millions of East Africans won't be employed building the infrastructure. It will be hundreds of thousands.
Basic infrastructure, unlike diamonds, is not forever. It all needs to be replaced, eventually, but developed countries can not get a huge boost from these public works projects for two reasons: First, these projects are not labor intensive: They are technology and power intensive. Small crews and heavy equipment does the work. Secondly, there are costs in disruptions resulting from the work. It will take quite a while for the Big Dig in Boston to balance out. Imagine how disruptive replacing Boston's or New York's many leaking water pipes would be.
So, ignorance? Yes and no.
Infrastructure is always a good thing, but from investors' POV, the projects have to pay off reliably. Would you buy bonds for African infrastructure projects, if you had a few million sitting around? It would be a major gamble.
Reply to Bitter Crank
I did not mean to be so terse with you bitter I took some of my frustration out on you when I should not have.
I respect that you are at least willing to defend your point by measure of reason.
Of course I conceded the point that infrastructure investment would result in a temporary stimulus for a developed country and that was my point, that planning this uses up our growth runway faster than doing it organically and on an as needed basis.
The potential growth from infrastructure for a developed economy simply cannot compete with the potential growth from infrastructure that a developing has.
And I do not agree that counting upon this alone is a wise long term economic strategy for a developed economy.
So...
Of course I still don't agree that developed economies will have as much demand for infrastructure as developing economies even taking into account obsolescence and this is unfortunate.
What developed economies need for sustainable growth is disruption and the introduction of new industries and/or technologies.
At least in terms of economic strategy I would not advise that we could manage sustainable growth competitiveness by investing in equal rates of supply of infrastructure as developing countries.
Reply to m-theory Another way developing countries will get a bigger payback from infrastructure is in agriculture, industry, and consumption. Developed countries will get small increases in agriculture, industry, and consumption from infrastructure improvement. A 20% better road doesn't make a corn field more productive; a good gravel road where there was previously nothing makes a huge difference.
The other thing that developed economies get are fewer problems -- like Flint's lead problem (not unique to Flint), flooded basements from broken old water mains, and the like.
Just an aside, in 1992 a section of a 'freight tunnel' under the Chicago River was broken into by a pile-driving operation. About 40 miles of tunnels were (still are) in use for electrical and other service conduit, and to move freight. Of course the tunnels took on a great deal of river water which ran into sub-basements, basements, and lobbies all over the Chicago Loop. It's a good example of infrastructure problems.
Reply to Bitter Crank
You are an old dinosaur so that means you are wise right...
:P
so I was hoping you might share your opinion by answering a few of these questions?
How do you think developed countries should fund infrastructure?
Is it wise to lower taxes and increase spending?
Should we cut social programs to fund infrastructure?
How do you think developed countries should fund infrastructure?
There are two methods: internal funding and external funding.
In order to manage internal funding, they require a sufficient level of economic activity--producing a cash surplus--which can be coaxed into investment in long-term debt (bonds).
In order to attract affordable external funding, they require enough stability to assure bond purchasers that project will be completed (and not be blown up) and have enough economic activity to indicate that the indebted economy will be an on-going concern and will be able to make debt payments over the long run.
Obviously, many small undeveloped or even developing countries have difficulty on all fronts.
The process of development is not a short-term affair. East Africa, like other parts of the world, will need many decades to complete the road to full development -- some of which they have already traveled.
It's an open question whether the world can afford to be 100% developed, especially if development is as wasteful in the future as it has been in the past. Your children or grandchildren will find out.
Definitely not. Lower (corporate and wealth) taxes do not reliably lead to increased investment in production, and do not "trickle down". Mostly they result in more disproportionate wealth accumulation and dividend payouts. Increased spending (without adequate tax support) leads to costly deficit spending and inflation, both bad.
Deficit spending requires borrowing, and we are already indebted up to our eyeballs.
Should we cut social programs to fund infrastructure?
No, of course not.
We are not going to rebuild everything in one or two presidentiads; infrastructure replacement should go on continuously, at a reasonable and steady rate. We can afford a reasonable level of spending in this area, IF we don't cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and limit arms spending.
Social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Education, Disease Prevention, etc.) are essential to social stability.
I am willing to concede supply side (trickle down) economics can work (in theory) if there is actually pent up demand in the economy.
But I am skeptical that there is pent up demand in the economy.
For example if we lower taxes will apple spend it to produce more iphones to drive down the price of this item?
If apple does spend the tax relief that way will there be a large demographic of people that suddenly go out and buy those iphones?
It seems to me we have been burned to many times by the trickle down argument.
For one thing manufacturing has been outsourced so even if apple does produce more iphones to drive the price down then it will not be the US that benefits in terms of more jobs, more hours to work etc.
The past few times trickle down has been attempted the tax relief did not result in reinvestment that benefited the working class and I have not seen any convincing arguments that it would be different if we do so again.
Supply side looks good on paper and could work under that right economic conditions, but I do not agree that these are the conditions currently for the US.
The bulk of those $60 trillion in debt is government spending debt. "Any amount" of public debt isn't good. Public debt, like private debt, should be subject to a reasonable pay-off plan. Far from having a pay-off plan, we seem to have a no-pay-off plan.
Individuals who can not afford to pay off their credit cards within 1 or 2 payment cycles should probably operate on a cash basis. Is that really possible?
Most people fritter away a substantial portion of their take-home pay. Buying coffee every work day, even if it's only $2 a cup, is $40. Buying even a very modest lunch every work day adds up to at least $140 ($7 per). 1 coffee and lunch per day adds up to $180 a month -- that's $2160 a year. Packing ones own lunch and coffee isn't free, of course, but it will probably cost at least half as much.
Coffee and lunch aren't the only optional expenditures, of course. And for purposes of paying off debt, as many optional expenses as one can stand to do without should be cut. Once one gets out of debt, one should start to save. Once one has a little pile in the bank, one can loosen up a bit.
Government cutting spending too deeply too fast is likely to trigger either a severe recession or an outright depression, which is not the goal.
Supply side looks good on paper and could work under that right economic conditions, but I do not agree that these are the conditions currently for the US.
No, they are not.
The last time there was a major level of pent-up demand was the period following the Great Depression and World War II (70+ years ago). For 15 years, many people had been either very short of cash or wartime rationing was in effect.
All that unsatisfied consumption was finally met by the mid to late 1970s. Since then it's been down hill--almost 40 years ago. Satiated consumer demand wasn't the only thing in play:
Labor unions were being crushed (cutting average wages),
jobs were being automated and off-shored (reducing jobs at even lower wages),
wealth was being concentrated in the industry-owning/controlling top class (reducing the amount of wealth to be shared among the rest of us).
There were a number of terribly wasteful defense drives (Star Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, and some other unpacified territories) which added hugely to the national debt.
Consumer spending accounts for 70%+ of GDP. Cutting consumer spending too much too quickly won't be nice and easy, either.
Reply to Bitter Crank
Well I was thinking of derivatives and credit default gambling as well.
... the risk that is still staring us in the face: the lack of transparency in derivative trading that now totals in notional amount more than $700 trillion. That is more than ten times the size of the entire world economy. Yet incredibly, we have little information about it or its implications for the financial strength of any of the big banks.
Moreover the derivatives market is steadily growing. “The total notional value, or face value, of the global derivatives market when the housing bubble popped in 2007 stood at around $500 trillion... The Over-The-Counter derivatives market alone had grown to a notional value of at least $648 trillion as of the end of 2011… the market is likely worth closer to $707 trillion and perhaps more,”
I today coined the phrase "shitting in the ambiance" to refer to what occurs when the bathroom lightbulb burns out and you must light a candle. Feel free to use this phrase as your own.
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 04, 2017 at 13:21#528420 likes
Reply to Arkady I am so sorry for my delay in responding Arkady, life has kept me very busy lately. Our business is finally finding some solid footing again, as our clients are small businesses and are finally looking to invest in their own infrastructure, hardware, software, upgrades and expansion. I am taking small measured breaths to keep my excitement in check but optimism is in style.
Picking up where we left off, I feel that the analogy of the pinky that Benkei used is very much what I am trying to explain. The appendage is only as "alive" as the body that it is attached to. A fetus that is 20 weeks old is non viable outside of Mom's and so it is not "alive". I know the line is finer than a frog's hair but it is all the same A line.
Let's say that we put a bowl of cake batter in a pan and place it in the oven to cook at 350* for 40 minutes, at which time the cake will be done. So I ask the question: at what minute does the cake batter made up of eggs, flour, sugar, baking powder, butter and salt become cake as opposed to the batter? I can tell you that it would be provable at minute 40. Earlier than that? I cannot pinpoint but I can tell you that at minute 20, it is not yet cake.
I am so sorry for my delay in responding Arkady, life has kept me very busy lately. Our business is finally finding some solid footing again, as our clients are small businesses and are finally looking to invest in their own infrastructure, hardware, software, upgrades and expansion. I am taking small measured breaths to keep my excitement in check but optimism is in style.
Glad to hear that things are picking up.
Picking up where we left off, I feel that the analogy of the pinky that Benkei used is very much what I am trying to explain. The appendage is only as "alive" as the body that it is attached to. A fetus that is 20 weeks old is non viable outside of Mom's and so it is not "alive". I know the line is finer than a frog's hair but it is all the same A line.
But, again, the fact that something is dependent upon something else for its survival in no way entails that it's not "alive." I think we're in agreement that parasites are "alive," for instance. A person may be hooked up to a respirator in order to breathe, but it doesn't follow that he's not alive (if he weren't, there would be little point in keeping him on said respirator).
Let's say that we put a bowl of cake batter in a pan and place it in the oven to cook at 350* for 40 minutes, at which time the cake will be done. So I ask the question: at what minute does the cake batter made up of eggs, flour, sugar, baking powder, butter and salt become cake as opposed to the batter? I can tell you that it would be provable at minute 40. Earlier than that? I cannot pinpoint but I can tell you that at minute 20, it is not yet cake.
Does that help?
Yes, there are definitely Sorites-type problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) which arise in these discussions. Your cake example is illustrative only insofar as the stages of cake baking exactly mimic the stages of fetal development on time scales to which we can apply a 1-to-1 mapping. Otherwise, the fact that a cake is unbaked halfway through its allotted baking time has little bearing on the aliveness of a human fetus halfway (or more) through its developmental period.
Given the stage of development at human fetus at 20 weeks (approx. halfway through its development, or slightly more), including the fact that it looks recognizably human, I don't think that it can seriously be contested that it is "alive."
Given the stage of development at human fetus at 20 weeks (approx. halfway through its development, or slightly more), including the fact that it looks recognizably human, I don't think that it can seriously be contested that it is "alive."
@Hanover@Bitter Crank I suspect you're old enough; I'm reading up on the Smothers Brothers in the NYT. Sounds like fun. Did you watch it and what's your take on them? Considering getting my hands on some copies now...
Reply to Benkei The Smothers Brothers were very good. So was "Laugh In". For the time, of course. Neither are quite 'raw' enough for today's jaded, fornicating, drugged out generation, but the writing was very snappy, especially on Laugh In. Try Carol Burnet, too. She was a bit later than the other two, but was multi-talented. I loved her skits. Like this
But, again, the fact that something is dependent upon something else for its survival in no way entails that it's not "alive." I think we're in agreement that parasites are "alive," for instance. A person may be hooked up to a respirator in order to breathe, but it doesn't follow that he's not alive (if he weren't, there would be little point in keeping him on said respirator).
Given the stage of development at human fetus at 20 weeks (approx. halfway through its development, or slightly more), including the fact that it looks recognizably human, I don't think that it can seriously be contested that it is "alive."
I am thinking we still disagree here.
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 05, 2017 at 00:08#530840 likes
Bring the USS Cole home now before we lose one more of our children's lives, only to be the country, to root against around the world.
FFS this is bullshit
It truly is time to take ALL of our marbles and go home. I'm done trying to walk on egg shells the world over, only to be berated for getting it wrong again and again.
Reply to BenkeiReply to Benkei I was born in 1966, and the Smothers Brothers aired from 67 to 69, so I consider them formative influences. My dear mother would turn her back to the television so I could peek over her shoulder and watch their brand of anti-vietnam war humor, as I suckled her teat and knowingly smirked.
That's my response to your "tell me about old shit, grandpa" post.
In truth I found them a bit corny, hardly as clever as I.
Robert LockhartFebruary 05, 2017 at 15:05#532010 likes
It seems the more I try to clarify, the more complicated it becomes which is very okay with me as long as you are patient with my movement. Having said that: in my opinion, a person who is hooked up to a respirator in order to breathe, can be alive but can still be not alive. What I mean by that is even though the body might be going thru the reactions (breathing) to a machine induced action does not mean that the mind of the body is alive. If the mind of the body was alive and functioning, it would be breathing.
A functioning mind is a not a necessary condition of something's being alive. That's why we draw a distinction between "brain dead" and "dead" simpliciter. The latter implies biological death of the organism. As I said, if people on respirators weren't alive, there would be little point in keeping them on a respirator for any length of time.
I am thinking we still disagree here.
Right. But I'm still not clear on your reason for withholding assent that a 20-week-old human fetus is alive. We've covered the dependency issue, but I don't know what other reasons you might have.
I was born in 1966, and the Smothers Brothers aired from 67 to 69, so I consider them formative influences. My dear mother would turn her back to the television so I could peek over her shoulder and watch their brand of anti-vietnam war humor, as I suckled her teat and knowingly smirked.
Yea. I would imagine it looked something like this:
Robert LockhartFebruary 05, 2017 at 17:47#532260 likes
Er...touching photo of young Hanover there - Only hope that wasn't his good side! Anyway, in a gentler vain..."Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.” - Charles Lamb." :)...Think it was Ambrose Bierce who - in his infamous ‘Devil’s Dictionary’ - defined the term, ‘Lawyer’ as, “- One skilled in the circumvention of the law.” Maybe one qualification essential to individuals capable firstly of the audacity to embark on a trade so perverse – apart from an attitude of cupidity that is - is a capacity for solipsism, regarding the popularly received truism concerning how progress within the profession reflects merely an aptitude for ingenious duplicity, sometimes capable of inspiring awe even in the most discredited of clients! - There. Managed it that time!
Found an ironic image (while searching for "atheist picketer" to try to find something to throw in Sap's face).
But even if you had've found an atheist picketer, that wouldn't go against what I claimed.
I agree with the correction in the picture, by the way.
I find it amusing to think what would've happened if I had've instead mentioned a few [i]good[/I] ways in which Christianity can be useful. Would I have gotten the same reaction from Tweedledum and Tweedledee? I doubt I would've gotten that look of disapproval from Agustino. I wonder if he even realised that I wasn't criticising Christianity. He probably just saw his reflection in what I said, and assumed that it was aimed at him! :D
Did you not see the irony in the correction itself?
I don't see the irony. Atheism isn't a lack of belief generally, but a lack of belief in God, so it is admittedly a belief system. If I don't believe cats created the universe and I'm an afelinist, is that ironic?
Reply to Baden It's much funnier to call someone a retard than to call him retarded. Everyone knows that. Funnier still is to say "Everything what you say is retarded" because of the word "what" makes you sound like the very retard you're claiming the other guy is.
I don't see the irony. Atheism isn't a lack of belief generally, but a lack of belief in God, so it is admittedly a belief system. If I don't believe cats created the universe and I'm an afelinist, is that ironic?
The irony is that it tells someone to learn to read but the author didn't read the first word in the definition: disbelief, i.e. the belief that something is false.
The irony is that it tells someone to learn to read but the author didn't read the first word in the definition: disbelief, i.e. the belief that something is false.
That isn't the definition of disbelief. Google it. Or perhaps just contemplate how it's used.
That isn't the definition of disbelief. Google it. Or perhaps just contemplate how it's used.
Sure it does. What else would it mean? Lack of belief? Then the definition above would be "lack of belief or lack of belief in the existence of God". But that would be redundant. It explicitly distinguishes disbelief from lack of belief.
If I don't believe cats created the universe and I'm an afelinist, is that ironic?
No, but you'd be going to cat hell, and would be constantly chased up trees, cough up fur balls, be irritated by fleas, and be forced to endure terrifying visits to the vet on a regular basis.
Not to mention the kind of things you yourself subject cats to, based on your obscene poetry...
Sure it does. What else would it mean? Lack of belief? Then the definition above would be "lack of belief or lack of belief in the existence of God". But that would be redundant. It explicitly distinguishes disbelief from lack of belief.
I take it you didn't google it, then?
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 07, 2017 at 20:51#535640 likes
Note to self - every stray declaration Sappy makes must be pure, unmitigated truthiness of the highest degree.
Reply to Agustino, get thee to a monastery, I'm off for the mountains. Western civilization offers us nothing more than Pentecostals and Brit tits, now, it seems.
A U.C. Berkeley evolutionary biologist declared his intention to run for the Senate. His slogan: “Liberty, Equality, Reality.” according to the New York Times. "Fraternity" lost out.
Leader of the Nick Xenophon Team, Australian Senator Nick Xenophon arrives at the Senate entrance holding a novelty doormat depicting US President Donald Trump and reading ‘Australia: Not Your Doormat,’ at Parliament House in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, Feb. 7, 2017.
Have you been reactivated by someone? >:O You seemed to have vanished
I was down under on a secret mission that involved carousing and being admired by beautiful antipodeans. I am now up over again and ready to read more crappy posts interspersed with occasional gems of wit and insight.
It's much funnier to call someone a retard than to call him retarded. Everyone knows that. Funnier still is to say "Everything what you say is retarded" because of the word "what" makes you sound like the very retard you're claiming the other guy is.
My mental jury is out on this one. I will probably file it under "wit" when I figure out it's not retard.
Reply to Bitter Crank Brilliant BC. I confess I googled Xenophon on the suspicion that you were spreading fake news....Yes, I'm sorry, the very idea :)
Xenophon is a popular member of parliament that is Independent - ie not aligned with either of the two major parties.
He has a great knack for using physical props to gain media attention for the causes he cares about, and this is an instance of that. I remember a previous photo op with him sitting in a kids' toy car. I can't remember what the issue was.
Some people think his use of props is shallow and showy, but I think if it gets the message across, good luck to him. [But then I would say that, because I agree with him on the majority of issues] Plato, per the Gorgias dialogue and the other anti-rhetoric dialog whose name I forget, would strongly disagree.
Reply to Sapientia Sure I did. Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief, hence the definition of atheism given being "disbelief or lack of belief...". If I disbelieve something then I believe it to be false.
There's an interesting answer here (found by googling it, as per your suggestion) on the topic.
Sure I did. Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief, hence the definition of atheism given being "disbelief or lack of belief...".
I agree. I never suggested otherwise. If you googled it, then the first bunch of results you would've seen would all define "disbelief" as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real - which is neither equivalent to lack of belief nor equivalent to belief in the contrary. It's about rejection, not affirmation.
If you googled it, then the first bunch of results you would've seen would all define "disbelief" as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real - which is neither equivalent to lack of belief nor equivalent to belief in the contrary. It's about rejection, not affirmation.
?Agustino, get thee to a monastery, I'm off for the mountains. Western civilization offers us nothing more than Pentecostals and Brit tits, now, it seems.
Even the monasteries and the mountains aren't safe anymore!!
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 08, 2017 at 19:43#538850 likes
Is hanging up the phone on somebody (or a country) still bad manners in the twitter age?
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 08, 2017 at 22:59#539460 likes
Reply to Mongrel It's more insulting to me when you call somebody and they give you a hundred reasons why they can't talk to you, while you're on the phone....
Reply to Thorongil Well, I am not one for the hedonistic imperative, but I am all for a sprinkling, at least, of intelligent utopian loons through the human world, they seem a positive influence to me. So thanks to db for posting.
Not really a link but I attached it because you wrote this: "Even so, you underestimate how much the US has put into the military." and I posted it as confirmation that it would not be difficult to underestimate US defense spending.
Well, I think that it's far from uncontroversial; but it's a very complex and nuanced issue, so I don't think there would be much point arguing about it here.
I am not a US citizen, so I am not a part of the "we" you refer to, so it may be understandable that we could have different perspectives on such astronomical defense spending.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 10, 2017 at 01:35#541890 likes
Where is trickle down when you need it? I am honestly waiting for the day when someone high up decides that the interests of the few lobbyists should be fucked over and the coffers of high military intelligence gathering and patent designs come to the rescue to the public. This has happened to some degree; but, not enough in my opinion.
So, trickle down is the theory that given large enough investments in some sector that the benefits derived from those investments will "trickle down" to the public sector.
Now, with so much investment, which is by the way more than even your graph presents due to black projects and such kept under strict secrecy (as one can estimate the level of advancement of a nation by comparing expenditures relative to other expenditures). Anyway, with so much investment in the sector of the military, which employs some of the largest industries in the US and the brightest minds in the world, then we should expect in that case for trickle down to actually apply.
Personally, as a Keynesian I see this the other way. Given the investments in the military, we should see positive externalities being created due to technological progress being created by said investments, which should translate to higher growth and prosperity for a nation. This is true to some degree and you can confirm with Chomsky that the majority of research funded in the past to large universities were actually grants from the Pentagon. This is still true today although not as much as in the past, and we know less and less about how much is being invested due to an expanding circle of secrecy even in university projects funded by the Pentagon.
However, a sort of wall should be maintained between the public sector and the military as to not let all your beans out of the bag, which have been so hardly gained.
Anyway, my personal opinion is that there is a treasure trove of technological advancement gained by such humongous investments in government funded projects over so many years; but, which have not yet translated entirely to the public sector. (Think for example the Manhattan Project)
I am familiar with Adam Smith's notion of "trickle down" in relation to prosperity. You seem to be talking about technology, but I suppose you believe that a trickle down of technological advancements would lead to prosperity? For the common folk?
Reply to John Uusally technology translates to efficiency gains, which leads to productivity gains, and with that lower costs or higher output depending on the goal of the employer, well technically the end goal is higher revenue with lower marginal costs.
Not universally though, think worker checking facebook at work instead of doing his spreadsheet.
Reply to John It's not how much you spend that counts, it's how well-spent it is - how efficiently you administrate the spending. Doing a lot with little is more valuable than having a lot and doing a little with it.
Reply to John I find that generally the more someone has, the less efficient they are, because they can afford it - it's not worth the bother anymore. That's why many rich people are wasteful and lose their fortune over a few generations. Which is helpful for us smaller guys :P
As they are to me. I'm not nearly as optimistic as Pearce is, but a cautious, pragmatic optimism is the best thing one can have in this situation. We can entirely give up, in which case the world will continue as it always has for million or billions of years (not to mention the universe for trillions of years), or we can at least try to make things comparatively better. I'm not sure how deep you read into Pearce's work, but he's put a lot of effort into providing a relatively believable biotechnological future.
And if we fail to make things better - so what? At least we tried. Nobody else can say that, I think.
Yes, as a landscape consultant/ designer/ contractor/ builder I certainly have benefited form the desires wealthy people have to improve their living environments. Many of the gardens the rich contract are certainly overblown and indulgent. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Australia it is without doubt possible, even if you are merely a tradesperson to become extremely wealthy, if that is your thing. I think this is probably true in all the other service industries too; child care, home and office cleaning, accounting, IT services, real estate, you name it.
The real problem is that new money is being artificially created, which would be OK if there were real growth, but it seems that all that is growing is debt and the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It's hard to see how a wall will not be hit in the near future. The question is how near?
I think it depends - one will definitely not become extremely wealthy working just by themselves in exercising a skill. A tradesperson could become extremely wealthy if he moves into managing other tradespersons and earning based on their work as well. But that's already more like an entrepreneur.
I work independently in IT, and while I make a good income and have sufficient spare-time for reading and learning (which is my current focus), I wouldn't say someone can become wealthy doing what I'm doing. Supposing I even worked nonstop (well I kind of do, but I don't concentrate heavily, except for short time frames) and in a very focused fashion (without peaking on TPF every now and again :P - or reading a few more pages of whatever book ) I doubt I'd be able to become truly wealthy - I'd just make income equivalent to someone having a very high paid job. So if I did want to become truly wealthy, I'd have to move to do administrative work - employing people and getting them to implement projects (or at minimum subcontracting my projects), while I focus full-time on acquiring work and managing clients. That way, the only thing that limits my income would be the number of people I have employed, and the number of contracts I manage to sign. The other thing is that I'm not that well-connected at the moment with other people in IT here - I've been working in engineering in a different country till recently lol. So I don't even know a lot of people, except old relatives, and a few old friends I still kept in touch with who work in unrelated fields. To build a good business you need to be well-connected with your community which I am not atm, I still feel like a "stranger".
The real problem is that new money is being artificially created, which would be OK if there were real growth, but it seems that all that is growing is debt and the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It's hard to see how a wall will not be hit in the near future. The question is how near?
I think more important than this is that it's become easier and easier to make money without doing something that is of value. Think about all the speculators - especially those on Wall Street. They make money pressing a few buttons on a computer - that adds nothing of value to the rest of society. Speculators make money, but they add zero to growth. And that's a very big problem - because more and more people want to make that kind of money, without doing anything valuable.
I agree with your points that one would need to become an entrepeneur. But that is an easy enough progression (at least in Australia) given a certain level of acumen and will. Having said that it is becoming more difficult for the small businesses ( which can still be very prosperous, and even with the proprietor being involved in the business at least in the role of project manager).
In IT it's probably a similar dynamic I'm guessing, but I'm not so familiar with that industry.
I agree with your last point, and I think the way the market works is strongly related to the tendency of governments to regulate currencies and print new money. So, I wouldn't say one factor is more important that another; they are all related. And it is a dangerous house of cards. It's true the speculators do not produce much except changing fortunes, but then think about a kind of parallel case: real estate development. If the market is strong, a lot of money can be made by the entrepeneur while he is out playing golf. But then that means real estate prices are so high, as they are in Sydney, as to put buying a property out of the reach of low to moderated income earners. On the other hand even the money made by the speculators gets spent, and provides work for others. We all consume a lot of useless shit, but then the growth of economies is dependent on the production and purchase of that useless shit, and modern prosperity, health care, leisure, world travel and all the other "good things" some of us enjoy are totally dependent on the production and consumption of that useless shit, too.
It's true the speculators do not produce much except changing fortunes, but then think about a kind of parallel case: real estate development
I think real estate developers do produce some real goods in the form of either buying and repairing properties, or building and maintaining new ones, etc. Their transactions involve real, palpable goods. However, trading Apple stock isn't a real and palpable good at all. It's completely virtual, and the price is set by speculation with no inherent link to the fundamentals. Furthermore, trading that stock adds no value to society - contrary to real estate, where at least a property is offered for rent, or for sale, etc. I think this makes the two completely different. I detest financial speculation and would probably never engage in it. It's not an honest way to make money. I think real estate is a good business to get in, but it takes quite a high starting capital to properly get started (unless you are sufficiently courageous to leverage yourself to like 80% from the very start :P ) . Having worked in civil engineering I wouldn't mind doing real estate at some point in the future.
Fair enough; I know where you are coming from. The problem is that real estate as investment rather than as a 'basic good' available to everyone without having to endure economic slavery, disadvantages low to middle income earners. Even if they can afford to own a home they are enslaved to an inflated mortgage; the interest rates of which are very much determined by the banks, and thus ultimately by the financial markets. Investment in real estate also siphons money away from being invested in innovative ideas and new industries.
Of course there are pros and cons for absolutely everything. But I generally agree with you that purely financial speculation and investment is probably a greater net negative than property speculation and investment. Do remember, though, that even deeds of property ownership are ultimately only pieces of paper, not essentially different to ownership of pure capital. And many of the largest property developers are publicly owned companies that are tied right into the financial markets. Economics is monstrously complex, and I confess I am no expert, though. Can anyone really grasp exactly what is going on in such complex systems? I doubt it, too much depends on human whim, insecurity and even neurosis.
In my opinion, economic slavery isn't really paying interest on mortgages/loans and much more being dependent for your earnings on others. The sad thing is that most people never learn to be independent, and they always need to work for someone else in order to earn their money - work in a system. This is because the practical skills that they acquire and are taught as they grow up aren't sufficient. In my opinion, everyone should be able to have something valuable to offer that depends solely on them, and not on being integrated within a larger system. A lot of smaller producers, and a lot less large corporations - distributism - is my ideal.
Our schools - and especially our universities - don't teach people how to be professionals in what they do. Take someone who has just finished a civil engineering university. After finishing university, such a person should, in my opinion, be able to design and organise the building of a house by themselves. But this isn't actually the case - they don't have anywhere near sufficient practical knowledge at that point (in fact a lot of it ends up being learned haphazardly by doing it half-blindly), and they are not legally allowed to practice by themselves, because they aren't yet licensed (a process which can take a few more years ). Basically university actually prepares people to be good at working in corporations - teaches them sufficient in order to make themselves useful in a corporation, but not enough in order to be able to go out on their own. This I think is actually the cause of economic slavery. People aren't actually taught how a project goes from A to Z. Which is just terrible - a mechanical engineer in my opinion should know how to build an engine from A to Z - he should be able to practically do it, including to know where he can acquire the parts from, how to put them together, etc. . He should know how to fix a car or an installation from A to Z. Maybe he doesn't know how to fix all installations or all cars, but he should certainly have learned to fix a complicated one in order to be able to deal with all the less complicated ones. A civil engineer should be able to design and organise building a house or a garage, or any small construction project, including preparing all the necessary papers according to the country's standards, knowing where and how he can source materials, etc. We should really be teaching all this - then people can actually be independent once they finish university.
Investment in real estate also siphons money away from being invested in innovative ideas and new industries.
Yes perhaps, but this has less to do with morality and more to do with the efficiency of the market. If you want to argue that markets operating under the invisible hand don't achieve Pareto optimality in their production of resources, I agree. But then any industry can become like this, not only real estate. Tobacco, etc. all those have negative externalities of production.
The point I was making regarding financial speculation wasn't about the market's allocation of resources though. It was about the fact that financial speculation actually produces nothing - thin air. It's not that financial speculation directs money away from innovative ideas and new industries, it's that it produces zero value. An inefficient market still produces some value - even in a real estate bubble, a lot more than necessary may end up being built, but at least that is still valuable or will be valuable at some point. Financial speculation is never valuable, especially short-selling, options trading, CFDs, and other forms of derivative-based commodities.
I've mentioned him several times in the past, but I personally found Julio Cabrera's A Critique of Affirmative Morality to be extremely provocative and deep. He's from Argentina, and sometimes the English translation can be a little clunky, but it's totally worth working through.
Basically Cabrera argues that Being is paradoxical and incoherent as a basis for ethics. "Affirmative" ethics are those second-order systems that are dependent upon a conception of life and Being as a legitimate ground, a conception that is un-analyzed and which he claims to be impossible to justify. He compares the second-order affirmative ethics to the culture of mafia gangs or an animal-loving terrorist, and argues that all beings are ethically disqualified: ethics is about the Other, and politics (the extension of self-preservation) is incompatible with ethics, and affirmative ethics are always going to be compromising, aggressive, and hypocritical when they try to twist politics and ethics together.
Although we may have good rational reason to kill a person (to end their being), we do not have any ethical reason to kill this person. Self-defense is not ethical, as ethics is again about the Other. And he quips that if ethics ever seems implausible, this is an indication that we are on the right path and that this may be a consequence of the fundamental unethical nature of Being itself.
Link for anyone interested: http://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/17430/3/Livro_CritiqueAffirmativeMorality.pdf
The point I was making regarding financial speculation wasn't about the market's allocation of resources though. It was about the fact that financial speculation actually produces nothing - thin air. It's not that financial speculation directs money away from innovative ideas and new industries, it's that it produces zero value.
Buildings are constructed to house the offices and equipment of the financial speculators, and computers and phones for their use and vehicles to take them to the office and back, They probably use some of the vast amount of money they make to buy homes, and probably pay trades people exorbitant rates to transform their homes and gardens extravagant enough to impress their friends, They probably buy very expensive motor vehicles, and eat at the best restaurants, and so on and on. So it's not as if the money they makes is withdrawn from circulation somehow.
Buildings are constructed to house the offices and equipment of the financial speculators, and computers and phones for their use and vehicles to take them to the office and back, They probably use some of the vast amount of money they make to buy homes, and probably pay trades people exorbitant rates to transform their homes and gardens extravagant enough to impress their friends, They probably buy very expensive motor vehicles, and eat at the best restaurants, and so on and on. So it's not as if the money they makes is withdrawn from circulation somehow.
>:O True, although the problem I'm pointing to is that they don't deserve that money - it's unjust that they have that money, because they haven't produced something worth that money - therefore they shouldn't get to decide on how that money is to be allocated.
So it's not as if the money they makes is withdrawn from circulation somehow.
That's because they're not too brainy, nor prudent enough. If I made that money, I'd withdraw it from circulation and re-invest it, so that my family lives on it for generations to come.
LOL, yes I agree they certainly don't deserve the money; I think the financial markets are a joke; particularly since governments have allowed investment of superannuation money therein.
I don't put any of my money in there, because I am too risk-averse. But if I did come into a lot of money, I wouldn't follow such extravagant behavior, either. But there is the point that wherever you invest ti it will not be withdrawn from circulation; unless you buy precious metals, collectables or property with it, I guess.
I don't put any of my money in there, because I am too risk-averse. But if I did come into a lot of money, I wouldn't follow such extravagant behavior, either. But there is the point that wherever you invest ti it will not be withdrawn from circulation; unless you buy precious metals, collectables or property with it, I guess.
Yes I agree when you put it like this. By virtue of protecting yourself from inflation - ie participating in the economy - you aren't withdrawing it. Indeed there are costs associated with withdrawing it.
Twitter users are annoying. They block you at the drop of a hat and can't stomach disagreement.
The guy that I was talking to was a moron, anyway. He said that a life was lost, which obviously sounds like someone had died, but when I asked him what he meant, it turns out that he merely meant that Labour had lost a voter, meaning himself, meaning that he will not vote for Labour in future.
He thought that it was better to not vote at all in an upcoming by-election, because he didn't like Labour's candidate - even though we seemed to share the view that the other candidate - Paul Nuttall, leader of UKIP - is far worse. (There are other candidates, but in reality, it's a two horse race).
Another case of Brexit going to peoples' heads and clouding their judgement. All he seemed to care about was the fact that he - along with the majority of his constituency - voted to leave, yet Labour's candidate voted to remain. They got what they wanted, yet some of them are still kicking up a fuss.
We have the term "remoaner" for moaning remainers, but what do we call the moaning leavers?
He thought that it was better to not vote at all in an upcoming by-election, because he didn't like Labour's candidate - even though we seemed to share the view that the other candidate - Paul Nuttall, leader of UKIP - is far worse. (There are other candidates, but in reality, it's a two horse race).
Shortsighted racists? Although that's just leavers in general
Just to repeat...I'm a brexit voter and I'm not a racist, although I quite accept that I am shortsighted.
I think saying 'Shortsighted racists' as a joke is not ok, frankly.
We voted one way or another in a referendum, how long are we going to let that define us? Let alone, justify ill-judged insults of great swathes of the population?
I think saying 'Shortsighted racists' as a joke is not ok, frankly.
Isn't it? Seems like if we can make jokes about babies in blenders ('cause I know a few!) then making a joke about Leavers being racists is pretty tame.
@Sapientia: see, even my milder suggestion caused offence!
And on the topic of not-OK jokes, here's a favourite from Frankie Boyle:
Isn't it? Seems like if we can make jokes about babies in blenders ('cause I know a few!) then making a joke about Leavers being racists is pretty tame.
Well, to each their own. I suppose I like my comedy to challenge stereotypes rather than get a (purported) laugh by playing to them. But then I'm not a Remoaner, to whom has been granted the one true vision of how the world should have been.
So, I hear that Wikipedia has decided to start rejecting the Daily Mail as a source, concluding the most popular news paper in the world (online at least) to be "generally unreliable"... though I also hear that the Daily Mail doesn't accept them as a source either, so there!
So, I hear that Wikipedia has decided to start rejecting the Daily Mail as a source, concluding the most popular news paper in the world (online at least) to be "generally unreliable"... though I also hear that the Daily Mail doesn't accept them as a source either, so there!
Unfortunately, in some cases, some of the most popular are some of the least reliable. Fox News was the most-watched network in all of cable in 2016.
I was just reading stuff on Cracked and saw that on a "14 things happening right now" article from a couple of days ago. I've never read the Daily Mail, but I assume they must be garbage. It only struck me as significant because Un posted critical stuff of them on facebook sometimes, plus other of you brits here may find that interesting.
I assume the most popular of anything is at best average... as most people are average.
Isn't it kind of odd that the US elected a president denying the scientific results? :-|
If the president is supposed to be sort of like a role model, or showing the way forward, then things could take a downwards turn, or trend backwards for years.
Similar questionable things have been expressed by some of his staff.
Reply to jorndoe Less than 24 hours ago, news reports began to appear that Scott Pruitt has been sworn in as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Scott Pruitt, for fuck's sake.
You Trump voters are partly to blame for this, you know. Congratulations for helping to screw us over, or at least accelerate the process. And by "us", I don't just mean those on the left, or those who oppose Trump. I mean [i]everyone[/I].
Reply to Agustino So you find [i]this[/I] a laughing matter, but not jokes about abortion? Even though both are literally a matter of life and death? How is this consistent with your supposed pro-life stance and your stance on what you should and shouldn't laugh at?
For that matter, why do Trump, et al. care about future generations when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to the threat of climate change?
I mean certainly I don't have to justify this. Abortion is certain death for the child. Appointing someone in whatever function isn't certain anything...
I mean certainly I don't have to justify this. Abortion is certain death for the child. Appointing someone in whatever function isn't certain anything...
Sure, it isn't certain - doesn't need to be. It also isn't just someone - it's Scott Pruitt. And it also isn't just an appointment - it's an appointment as the head of the EPA.
I mean, come on. All you have to do is connect the dots.
Speculative certainty? I don't need to speculate and I don't need to be certain. The evidence is sufficient.
You are speculating when you claim that the appointment of whoever in whatever position will cause deaths for "future generations" - that's empty rhetoric. You, nor any scientist can say with certainty what will happen if we overload the planet with greenhouse gases. They are all predictions, some more justifiable than others, and I do think we should be cautious, but to claim stuff with your certainty is nothing but idiocy. Furthermore, how that guy will act and what he will actually do isn't certain at all. Uncertainty times uncertainty equals more uncertainty.
I don't even know who the fuck Scott Pruitt is, and I can't give much of a fuck. A single person doesn't determine government policy alone.
You are speculating when you claim that the appointment of whoever in whatever position will cause deaths for "future generations" - that's empty rhetoric. You, nor any scientist can say with certainty what will happen if we overload the planet with greenhouse gases. They are all predictions, some more justifiable than others, and I do think we should be cautious, but to claim stuff with your certainty is nothing but idiocy. Furthermore, how that guy will act and what he will actually do isn't certain at all. Uncertainty times uncertainty equals more uncertainty.
I don't even know who the fuck Scott Pruitt is, and I can't give much of a fuck. A single person doesn't determine government policy alone.
It's an informed prediction based on evidence. I never claimed certainty, but there is reason enough to be very concerned. You don't even know who Scott Pruitt is, so you don't even really know what you're talking about. Given his background, and given the context in which he has been appointed, and given what we know about climate change, it'd be naïve to be as dismissive or "cautious" as you have been in reaction to what I've said.
"cautious" as you have been in reaction to what I've said.
No I said cautious because I actually do believe in global warming and do think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. By addressing it, we're just being cautious. In truth, I think that our predictions based on greenhouse gas are way off. But we can't bet on that, that's not prudent enough. But humans always think they know more than they actually do - that's what actually ends up hurting them the most. I don't have that arrogance.
No I said cautious because I actually do believe in global warming and do think it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
But it can't be [i]that[/I] important to you. Otherwise that would be yet another reason why you should not have voted for Trump if you had've had the chance.
No, it's more than that. That time has past. We don't have the luxury of being cautious. If we were serious about addressing this problem, then we should have taken more pressing action years ago. As a result, any proposed action would now have to be more radical in nature, and that means, all things being equal, it'd be even less likely to be translated into action by the authorities who're supposed to represent our best interests than earlier, more moderate, proposals.
Noami Klein makes this argument in her book [I]This Changes Everything[/I].
You are speculating when you claim that the appointment of whoever in whatever position will cause deaths for "future generations" - that's empty rhetoric. You, nor any scientist can say with certainty what will happen if we overload the planet with greenhouse gases. They are all predictions, some more justifiable than others, and I do think we should be cautious, but to claim stuff with your certainty is nothing but idiocy. Furthermore, how that guy will act and what he will actually do isn't certain at all. Uncertainty times uncertainty equals more uncertainty.
I don't even know who the fuck Scott Pruitt is, and I can't give much of a fuck. A single person doesn't determine government policy alone.
And yet you were so in favour of Trump over Clinton for President because you knew that it would be better? Or were you just speculating?
I can't even make it past the first line of that article without laughing. Why do mainstream media outlets continually paint Brexit/Trump supporters as voting the way they did due to "enormous pent-up anger?" That kind of hyperbole is completely unwarranted. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I don't see anything like that from Trump supporters, whereas I do see over-the-top anger and even violence coming from the left, as witnessed by the riots, protests, and shutting down of free speech that have resulted in the wake of Trump's presidency.
We love thinking everyone that disagrees with us is an idiot, evil piece of shit. Not many people can take someone not agreeing with them for more than a few minutes without loosing their composure.
People panic real fucking easy, and then become the stupid evil pieces of shit they fear.
unenlightenedFebruary 19, 2017 at 14:41#560350 likes
I am 42 minutes in, he's starting to talk about graphic violence... I can't even go on facebook anymore without having dead babies shoved in my face, with captions to hate muslims.
We have a knack for morbid obsession with victimizers, and complete disregard for victims. Everyone prefers to leave the guy with the poison arrow in his leg on the side of the road, heading off to find someone or something to blame for it.
Not to labor it, but I can't help myself... the age of anger has me! I suppose that I was primed because of a cracked article I read (I swear those guys are either stalking me, or just so happen to share a lot of my values and opinions because the writers are all about my age)
And then I can't help but notice that I got to learn the names, hobbies, allegiances, races, religions, and would have been their faces too, I'm sure, if it were video have a bunch of victimizers. Whereas no specific details are ever really given about victims, their families or communities, and the aftermath of the tragedy, and how things are getting on. Nope, nothing is ever mentioned that would humanize them. They're always just a faceless demongraphic, all you'll ever know is nation, religion/sexuality if relevant, but no names, no real consequences. They might as well be the extras in an action movie to the named, faced, center staged protagonist. These mass shooters even say that they're doing it for fame, attention, recognition, and it always works.
Let me put it this way. Who issued you with a warrant to declare laughable hyperbole on the basis of one sentence not even taken real issue with? It's all 'paint', isn't it, unless you already agree. And you wonder where the pent up anger is to be found. Somewhere out there with those others who can't think straight and don't understand us, or the real world.
Reply to unenlightened When I clicked on the link and read that line, I audibly chuckled at the hyperbole of it. That's all. I'm not sure what you're going on about.
Reply to Question I understand that to be the case, too. Not surprising since a lot of mastering 'organic' languages isn't in the basic rules, but in the exceptions, the cultural associations, and the slang.
Where did I hold one shouldn't be in favor of X in the absence of certainty? :s
You seemed to suggest multiple times that certainty is such a requirement. That's how I understood your comments, and that also seems to be how Michael and Heister understood your comments.
You seemed to jump between this false dilemma of either certainty or speculation, overlooking the possibility of an uncertainty supported by evidence, which is what my position is.
Say some Chinese invaded your territory and introduced a pastoral animal that eventually became central to your culture. Then some Koreans came and tried to kill all those animals because they thought they were inferior specimens. What would you do?
You seemed to suggest multiple times that certainty is such a requirement. That's how I understood your comments, and that also seems to be how Michael and Heister understood your comments.
Yes, to folks who read uncharitably. I never actually suggested so, if you read what I actually wrote.
You seemed to jump between this false dilemma of either certainty or speculation, overlooking the possibility of an uncertainty supported by evidence, which is what my position is.
:-} Don't be silly. It's one thing to desire and suggest we should prevent climate change, and it's another to say it's a disaster if we don't (to the point of calling the appointment of an anti-global warming guy as equivalent or worse than abortion). I don't say the latter, but I do say the former. Like you, I probably condemn such a nomination, as well as Trump's policies with regards to global warming, however, unlike you, I don't make this into such a big issue precisely because I'm not certain what will actually happen. I only voice my opinion that I don't think it's a good thing. End of story. I don't fly into a rage like you
This is patently insane, Agu. Scientists never deal in certainties, so why critique them on failing to live up to a goal they're not even after?
Sure, however, scientists don't demand so and so be done politically - they are not politicians. They just state what they think will happen if two different courses of action are undertaken.
Don't be silly. It's one thing to desire and suggest we should prevent climate change, and it's another to say it's a disaster if we don't (to the point of calling the appointment of an anti-global warming guy as equivalent or worse than abortion).
My point wasn't that they're equivalent, but that they're analogous, which they are, since both are about life and death and future generations. In terms of severity, it depends how you look at it. Ultimately, is delaying the extinction of humanity more or less of a concern than some women getting abortions? In terms of the cost to future generations, it seems to me that the former would be more costly. So, if that were your main concern, then you should take the appointment of Scott Pruitt more seriously.
Like you, I probably condemn such a nomination, as well as Trump's policies with regards to global warming, however, unlike you, I don't make this into such a big issue precisely because I'm not certain what will actually happen. I only voice my opinion that I don't think it's a good thing. End of story. I don't fly into a rage like you
Pah! There's that certainty red herring again. X-)
And actually, your initial reaction wasn't to voice your concern, it was to laugh, and then laugh some more, and then question what I'd said. I found your reaction rather hypocritical, to be honest.
In terms of the cost to future generations, it seems to me that the former would be more costly. So, if that were your main concern, then you should take the appointment of Scott Pruitt more seriously.
Future generations aren't my main concern. Current generations are, although future and past generations are also relevant and must be taken into consideration.
unenlightenedFebruary 19, 2017 at 18:16#560730 likes
Future generations aren't my main concern. Current generations are, although future and past generations are also relevant and must be taken into consideration.
That makes sense to me, but when it comes to the topic of abortion, that's about reproduction and subsequent generations, so the same considerations apply, but on a larger scale. It's looking at the bigger picture. If you follow through the reasoning of a pro-lifer to its logical conclusion, then it makes no sense to be pro-life and anti-climate change, like Trump and others.
If you follow through the reasoning of a pro-lifer to its logical conclusion, then it makes no sense to be pro-life and anti-climate change, like Trump and others.
Yes, if you are going to be very thorough about it. Hence why I am not anti-climate change ;)
Yes, but much farther from certainty for sure. Hence the two things aren't equivalent.
But both of those are irrelevant to my point. I never argued that it was more certain than predictions about what would happen if a pregnant woman had an abortion, and I never claimed that they're equivalent.
My point was just that there's enough evidence to warrant my concern, and make it more than speculation, and that it doesn't need to be certain. Your bringing up certainty is a complete red herring.
Reply to Thorongil It means I'm not a nominalist. I'm not sure what universals exist or how they instantiate themselves but I do believe that universals do actually exist, and that a hell of a lot of problems arise when this is denied.
Sure, however, scientists don't demand so and so be done politically - they are not politicians. They just state what they think will happen if two different courses of action are undertaken.
This is actually false or misleading when it comes to the topic we've been discussing, as evidenced in that book I referred to earlier:
[quote=Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything]As the Ohio State University climatologist Lonnie G. Thompson, a world-renowned specialist on glacier melt, explained in 2010, "Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theoretical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warning? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilisation."[/quote]
Many scientists have worked towards achieving political cooperation and the setting of targets to deal with the threat of climate change.
And scientists in the EPA have objected to the appointment of Scott Pruitt. Read the news.
Reply to darthbarracuda Did you read something recently that caused you to think this? I'd be interested to know how you came to this view. I don't exactly know why, but I wouldn't have pegged you to be opposed to nominalism so forcefully.
Reply to Thorongil Well, I think he said climate change is as funny to the left as abortion is to the right. I think aborting during a hot winter would really funny, because my humor knows no politics.
Hmm. Well, that sounds like an uncharitable characterization of the man to say the least.
That uncharitable characterisation is itself based on an uncharitable characterisation. I never said that Scott Pruitt is pro-death. But he does pose a threat to progress with regards to tackling the threat of climate change. In a slippery slope way, I suppose you could crudely boil that down to being pro-death.
Really? Can't you just look him up. He has been described as a fierce critic of the very agency that he is now heading, the Environmental Protection Agency. He has also been described as a climate change denier, and has questioned the science behind climate change. At the very least, without going too in depth, this should be a cause for concern for those who don't share that view. There's no smoke without fire.
Oh, and who appointed him? Donald Trump. Now, do you need me to explain the controversy with Trump and climate change?
I am both pro-choice and pro-Pruitt, making me consistenly pro-death and thus impervious to attack on the basis of inconsistency.
I'm in a sort of middle ground between pro-choice and pro-life, and am anti-Pruitt, so, in a nutshell, sometimes choosing death is acceptable, and brownie points if it's Scott Pruitt - although it might be a little late to abort him. But I'm in favour of aborting him from the EPA at least.
I've actually been interested in the problem of universals for a while now, it was my very first substantial issue introduced to me when I began studying analytic metaphysics. At first, the idea of universals seemed mystical and strange, but that was only really because I hadn't ever considered why things were similar and different. The whole question of similarity was unanalyzed by me, back in the day, and so universals initially seemed very strange and awkward.
After making my way through the first chapter or two of my intro book to analytic metaphysics, which were on universals, I read the next two chapters, which were on various nominalist positions. I was excited that maybe my suspicion of universals would finally be vindicated. But by the end of those chapters I was increasingly convinced that nominalism was just not adequate for a multitude of reasons.
Afterwards I began studying "properties" in more depth, and I not only began to understand the positions in more detail but also saw the motivations behind the positions, which surprisingly enough were oftentimes political. For example, early Buddhists wished to cut ties with the Hindu caste system, and so they adopted an austere nominalism in order to undermine the idea that people have "essential" properties that "place' them in the caste they belong. Or the Aristotelian natural law ethic tradition, which ascribes teleological goals to substances that have certain (universal) properties. And then you have the modern-day SJW-types that like to pretend that there's no difference between having a penis and not having a penis, which is just batshit crazy. I also don't think the move to nominalism is even necessary to maintain social freedoms and whatnot.
From my perspective, the tension between universal realism and nominalism, of whatever flavor, is largely due to a preconceived notion (desire) that the universe be a certain way. Universals, in my opinion, make sense and allow the universe to "hang together", however the admittance of such things can lead to sense that we have no freedom or that we're constrained or something. So nominalism pops up and tries to remove all universals from the world and locates them in the mind or in language or something like that. The dynamic arises between two extremes: mind-independent Platonic Forms and mind-dependent concepts or ideas.
It's very interesting, to me, how the mere location of things has such a massive effect on worldviews. And it's also interesting, to me, because I think Platonism and nominalism are both extremes that try to cut reality down into a dualism of sorts, isolating one half of reality from the other, when I think they're actually deeply connected. I think someone like Reply to apokrisis or Reply to aletheist would probably agree with me on this.
Reply to Thorongil Predicable. Look, why don't you do your own research, if you haven't already, and make your own mind up about him? I qualified my comments by saying this:
...without going too in depth, this should be a cause for concern for those who don't share that view. There's no smoke without fire.
And I don't know what you're getting at by mentioning an infringement on the right to free speech. Where did you get that from? Don't let yourself get carried away by your own imagination.
If you're going to question the science behind it, you should have a good reason, and not just use the opportunity of doing so for your dubious political agenda.
Many scientists have worked towards achieving political cooperation and the setting of targets to deal with the threat of climate change.
And scientists in the EPA have objected to the appointment of Scott Pruitt. Read the news.
Scientists have no business in political decisions. They can at most inform, and if they're trying to have a business in politics, then they should stop with the science and focus on politics.
Scientists have no business in political decisions. They can at most inform, and if they're trying to have a business in politics, then they should stop with the science and focus on politics.
Reply to Sapientia I think the British Labour Party should activate you, and unleash you on the streets of Britain. You'd be a force to be reckoned with you know... if you came to my door, I'd certainly not argue with you :P
If someone like you were running the country (touch wood), I would most certainly be a lot more politically active.
I might rule Britain one day actually... if the EU becomes more united - and we become the United States of Europe - and we invade you little traitors - then I may be installed as absolute ruler of England O:) So you should be nice, you never know who is going to rule you in the future :D >:O
For example, early Buddhists wished to cut ties with the Hindu caste system, and so they adopted an austere nominalism in order to undermine the idea that people have "essential" properties that "place' them in the caste they belong.
In these troubled times I sometimes turn for my news to the Telegraph, and I see that even they find Mr Pruitt a tad dodgy. This report is from Reuters but the headline 'climate change cynic' is by some Torygraph sub-editor:
Reply to mcdoodle There's no quote in that article saying he denies climate change. Just vague insinuations to that effect. All I got from it was that he sued the EPA, which doesn't say much. All of kinds of people sue the EPA, left, right, and center.
Well I take cultural matters to be very important, possibly more important than economic matters, as in no point resolving economic issues, if we can't resolve cultural ones.
You could be a free market socialist. Free exchange of goods and services determined by supply and demand + cooperatively owned businesses and corporations. If by socialism you mean "government planned economy, etc" then count me out. That would be nightmarish and has never worked.
You could be a free market socialist. Free exchange of goods and services determined by supply and demand + cooperatively owned businesses and corporations. If by socialism you mean "government planned economy, etc" then count me out. That would be nightmarish and has never worked.
'Pruitt, who has sued the EPA 14 times as Oklahoma Attorney General, and wouldn’t promise to recuse himself from ongoing suits once he was confirmed, once described himself as the “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” He is on the record saying that the “[climate change] debate is far from settled.” He even told a flabbergasted Bernie Sanders that his personal opinion of climate change is “immaterial” to his role as head of the EPA.
With Trump already targeting Obama-era regulations, Pruitt is part of a wide-scale realignment of several federal organizations, including the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior, to better serve fossil fuel interests. Here are three key areas of Obama’s climate and environmental legacy we can expect a Pruitt-led EPA to try and dismantle.'
~ Gizmodo
Something eerily similar is happening in Australia - suddenly the Gov., having literally dismantled a successful emissions control regime, is speaking about 'clean coal' and 'carbon capture and storage', neither of which have been shown to be remotely feasible.
There's no quote in that article saying he denies climate change. Just vague insinuations to that effect. All I got from it was that he sued the EPA, which doesn't say much. All of kinds of people sue the EPA, left, right, and center.
It's hard to understand what point you're making here in seeming to say you haven't read a thing about the fellow before. I am a fellow from an obscure corner of England and I know what Pruitt stands for. Here is an article Pruitt co-wrote with Luther Strange, himself a charming tribute, I understand, to the depths of corruption politics has sunk in Alabama. It includes the falsehood, 'Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.'
You could be a free market socialist. Free exchange of goods and services determined by supply and demand + cooperatively owned businesses and corporations. If by socialism you mean "government planned economy, etc" then count me out. That would be nightmarish and has never worked.
I wouldn't go as far as advocating a government planned economy, although I don't completely rule that out. I'm just very sceptical of it, given its failings when put into practice. But I don't know enough about it.
I am in favour of stronger regulations on big businesses, higher corporation tax, and that sort of thing.
I am socially liberal, but economically, I want a more authoritarian state that's tougher on fat cats. A prime example would be someone like Philip Green.
I'm strongly opposed to neo-liberalism, but not in favour of its opposite extreme either, if that's something like the USSR.
Meanwhile, Trump - it has become obvious that his constant refrain of 'lying media' is because he only ever wants to be sorrounded by adoring fans. Because he has the mental age of a school boy, he intrerprets any kind of disagreement as a personal attack. That is why after his ludicrous press appearance the other day, he had to hold a faux 'campaign rally' to sorround himself with adoring fans - just to get back the feeling of being loved. It's pathetic, and it would be funny, if the stakes weren't so high. But it's obvious that he ought not to continue in this role, he is manifestly, plainly, obviously incompetent and delusional.
Reply to Wayfarer Trump is just learning the system. This is perfectly normal. No one who hasn't been President before actually knows what is possible, what isn't possible, and how things can get done, etc. without trial and error. The media are just being stupid about it. Obviously Trump looks like he's stumbling around - anyone would. Obama was the same, the only difference was that he was more quiet about it, and he was protected by the media.
It includes the falsehood, 'Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.'
That's not false, though. There are scientists who aren't motivated by silly religious ideas and aren't energy corporation shills who question some of the science behind climate change. If you respond with the infamous 97% number, then you've not bothered to think about the sources you read critically.
But let's ask ourselves what "climate change denial" could mean:
- One could deny that the climate literally changes (which no one believes, except maybe people who have never seen daylight).
- One could deny that climate change is in any way affected by human activity.
- One could deny that climate change is largely affected by human activity.
- One could deny that we know enough to make a suitably informed opinion either way with respect to the human impact on climate change or that we have done enough to study it properly.
- One could deny that the effects of climate change are going to be as bad some people predict (lots of predictions have already failed miserably).
- One could deny that the government, out of all institutions, is uniquely capable of "solving" climate change, whatever its origin (that is, one could deny that the government throwing money at the problem would lead to any substantive improvements, given its track record of trying to solve other problems by this method).
The left likes to conflate all of these positions, so that anyone who holds to any one of them is branded an irrational science hater, when that's clearly not the case.
Reply to Sapientia >:O >:O The funny thing is that the boss actually agrees with Borat, but he's trying to be politically correct - that's the irony in all the Borat clips - that quite often the other people, who are supposedly civilised, are more racist and oppressive than him.
Plus, it's a bit rich for leftists to pretend to be great defenders of science when they also claim there are half a dozen genders; or when they claim that science is a tool of the patriarchy; or that reality is a social construction; or that truth, morality, and culture are relative. They literally have no leg to stand on.
Plus, it's a bit rich for leftists to pretend to be great defenders of science when they also claim there are half a dozen genders; or when they claim that science is a tool of the patriarchy; or that reality is a social construction; or that truth, morality, and culture are relative. They literally have no leg to stand on.
Only some, and they do with that last one, at least with regards to morality and culture. I don't agree with any of the other claims.
Plus, it's a bit rich for leftists to pretend to be great defenders of science when they also claim there are half a dozen genders; or when they claim that science is a tool of the patriarchy; or that reality is a social construction; or that truth, morality, and culture are relative. They literally have no leg to stand on.
>:O but they will show you some "scientific studies" which show that there are a dozen genders :D
Written by Edgar Leslie/James V. Monaco, and recorded by Merrit Brunies & His Friar's Inn Orchestra on Okeh 40593, 3/2/26
Note: these are the complete lyrics, from the piano roll version of the song. Not all versions contain all the lyrics.
Hey Hey women are going mad, today
Hey Hey fellers are just as bad, I'll say
Go anywhere, just stand and stare
You'll say they're bugs when you
look at the clothes they wear
Masculine Women Feminine Men
which is the rooster which is the hen
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
And SAY...
Sister is busy learning to shave
Brother just loves his permanent wave
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
HEY HEY
Girls were girls and boys were boys
when i was a tot,
Now we don't know who is who or
even what's what
Knickers and trousers baggy and wide,
Nobody knows who's walking inside
Those Masculine Women Feminine Men
Masculine Women Feminine Men
Which is the rooster which is the hen
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
And SAY...
Auntie is smoking, rolling her own,
Uncle is always buying cologne
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
HEY HEY
You go and give your girl a kiss in the hall
But instead you find you're kissing
her brother Paul
Mama's got a sweater up to her chin,
Papa's got a girtle holding him in
Those Masculine Women Feminine Men
Stop, Look, Listen and you'll agree... with me
Things are not what they used to be... you'll see
You say hello to Uncle Joe,
Then look again and you find it's your Aunti Flo
Masculine Women Feminine Men
Which is the rooster which is the hen
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
And SAY...
Wifey is playing billiards and pool,
Hubby is dressing kiddies for school
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
HEY HEY
Ever since the Prince of Wales in
dresses was seen,
What does he intend to be the King or the Queen
Grandmother buys those tailor-made clothes
Grandfather tries to smell like a rose
Those Masculine Women Feminine Men
I think Platonism and nominalism are both extremes that try to cut reality down into a dualism of sorts, isolating one half of reality from the other, when I think they're actually deeply connected. I think someone like @apokrisis or @aletheist would probably agree with me on this.
As you know, I recently tried starting a thread on "Extreme Nominalism vs. Extreme Realism," but it did not get very far. My hope was to identify some practical differences between them and how we might go about evaluating which is correct if they were the only two options. Rather than Platonism, I defined extreme realism as the view that reality consists entirely of generals (i.e., there are no real singulars), in order to draw a sharp contrast with extreme nominalism as the view that reality consists entirely of singulars (i.e., there are no real generals).
To address your point here, I suspect that the truth is indeed somewhere in between these two extremes, although I tend to locate it much closer to the realist end of the spectrum. I think that everything is general to some degree, such that there are no absolute singulars, because that would require an object to be determinate in every conceivable respect, including location in space and instant in time. Since I hold that space and time are truly continuous - there are no discrete locations or instants, except as we arbitrarily identify them for specific purposes - this is impossible.
Nevertheless, we obviously can and do distinguish individuals - things (including people) that are determinate in some respects and can only be in one location at a time. In other words, this kind of individuality includes generality, rather than being completely singular, and thus allows for things (including people) to maintain their identity despite undergoing constant changes. This is my own interpretation of what Peirce called synechism, the doctrine that everything is continuous.
The left likes to conflate all of these positions, so that anyone who holds to any one of them is branded an irrational science hater, when that's clearly not the case.
There are knee-jerkers on either side. And then there are the people who bother to read a book about it.
There are knee-jerkers on either side. And then there are the people who bother to read a book about it.
Like the one I referred to twice. And yet, I am on the left. Remarkable. Perhaps it's wrong to make hasty generalisations about the left, eh Thorongil?
Reply to Sapientia Talk about hastiness! I never accused you of anything. You strike me as a modern liberal, not a leftist, and I make a distinction between the two. Leftists aren't capable of humor or sarcasm, but you are, so that's one way I can tell. So relax.
Talk about hastiness! I never accused you of anything. You strike me as a modern liberal, not a leftist, and I make a distinction between the two. Leftists aren't capable of humor or sarcasm, but you are, so that's one way I can tell. So relax.
Oh. Well, your criticisms were directed at leftists, and I identify as a leftist - although not as you describe.
That's not false, though. There are scientists who aren't motivated by silly religious ideas and aren't energy corporation shills who question some of the science behind climate change. If you respond with the infamous 97% number, then you've not bothered to think about the sources you read critically.
This is an answer to a different question. The question was, what do we know of Scott Pruitt? To me he looks like a shill who'll do the energy corporations' bidding, but I'm happy to return here in four years' time and find out I'm mistaken.
I don't know what the diatribe against imaginary leftists is for; I'm certainly not one of them. For myself, I think the conservative response to climate science would be to act as if the moderate predictions will probably come true without remedial action. That seems the safe thing to do, and if we invest in such action well, it needn't really cost us that much, because solar energy, wind farms, large-scale battery storage and tidal power will become profitable enterprises. But we will have to fight energy corporations whose 'value' and 'assets' are tied up in fossil fuels. Mr Pruitt shows no sign of fighting them so far, but perhaps he will reveal another side to himself when faced with the responsibilities of government.
I think the contention that human-induced global warming is NOT occuring, is disinformation, pure and simple. There's been enough disinformation spread - fear, uncertainty and doubt, as they say - to have real impact, and it's been absorbed, like a pollutant, by otherwise intelligent people. But, I just think that it's beyond any doubt. The only thing that is uncertain is the capacity of elected governments to deal with it.
unenlightenedFebruary 20, 2017 at 09:58#562210 likes
Interesting read and listen. Not sure what else to say. Seems a novel take on things, which is nice to see.
I thought it was great, because it said in more detail some of the things I've been banging on about recently. 8-) To whit, All our problems are psychological, because practical problems are more or less trivial; the mechanical view of humanity is false, harmful etc; identification is the root of all evil; the conflicts being manufactured are solutions to problems of the past; the triumph of capitalism results in its downfall; that sot of thing.
For myself, I think the conservative response to climate science would be to act as if the moderate predictions will probably come true without remedial action. That seems the safe thing to do, and if we invest in such action well, it needn't really cost us that much, because solar energy, wind farms, large-scale battery storage and tidal power will become profitable enterprises. But we will have to fight energy corporations whose 'value' and 'assets' are tied up in fossil fuels. Mr Pruitt shows no sign of fighting them so far, but perhaps he will reveal another side to himself when faced with the responsibilities of government.
You've probably read a lot more than I have on this topic, but the one book I've been going back to makes me doubt any more moderate proposals. For example:
[Quote=Naomi Klein]I was struck recently by a mea culpa of sorts, written by Gary Stix, a senior editor of [I]Scientific American[/I]. Back in 2006, he edited a special issue on responses to climate change and, like most such efforts, the arguments were narrowly focused on showcasing exciting low-carbon technologies. But in 2012, Stix wrote that he had overlooked a much larger and more important part of the story - the need to create the social and political context in which these technological shifts stand a chance of displacing the all too profitable status quo. "If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of solar cells is trivial by comparison."[/quote]
I think that the conservative response, predictably, is too much about conserving the status quo, whereas radical solutions are required.
Like you say, fighting those who protect those capitalist interests which are an obstacle for the kind of action required to really tackle climate change is essential. Scott Pruitt and others of his ilk have a very poor record in this regard. Not only that, but he has built a reputation for being openly hostile to organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency, which, well... the clue is in the name.
Reply to unenlightened Well, yes. I saw the connections :D. But I'm still in digestion mode, I suppose, because every time I'd try to highlight this or that it seemed more of a hodge podge.
I liked: the similarity between McVeigh and the 9/11 terror attacks. The example of Germany being explicitly anti-Nazi in its founding, but having at least some of the same attitudes crop back up again into the mainstream while it was built on a similar political model. That he takes to task the socialist "alternative" as harboring the same illusions as the system who won that particular political struggle. And his pointing out that many of the perpetrators of political terror, while often taken as representatives of Islam, are not themselves terribly conversant in Islam nor do they follow some of the very basic tenets, such as prohibition on alcohol, of Islam.
And, overall, that it was simply novel. Which I take to be necessary for a productive political approach these days.
unenlightenedFebruary 20, 2017 at 11:45#562390 likes
[reply="Wayfarer"]Well I liked it (your link that seems to have vanished for some reason). Particularly the thoughts on the trinity - well known to students of the I Ching, with the one arrow stalk put aside for the purposes of divination. And also related to the many trinities of psychology, and the triad of God, man, and nature (without God, man dissolves into nature).
Reply to Sapientia I think you have to admit that leftists aren't generally known for humor. Conservatives laugh a lot (though admittedly it's a kind of Goebbels laugh).
But who knows anymore what leftists believe? If Chomsky is a sign, they just trail off into whatever-ness.
unenlightenedFebruary 20, 2017 at 12:09#562430 likes
One exaggerates the unity of otherness, as if there is only one way of disagreeing with me.
Reply to Mongrel I don't know about that. I realise that you were making a generalisation, but Margaret Thatcher wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs, and two of my favourite comedians are leftists, and they also happen to be two of the most controversial and outlandish: Stewart Lee and Frankie Boyle. The latter even claimed to be more leftwing than Chomsky. And the formers material on subjects like UKIP and Rod Liddle is priceless.
I can't figure out how to upload a picture. I wanted to send a pic of my cat on the porch with the caption "porch cat." How can I make that happen?
Here is how to upload images without being a *Sponsor*
Click on this link
In the center of your screen, you will see three options
Select your answer for question 1 and question 2
Hoover your mouse over the *Choose Image* file folder, click your mouse
Choose your picture or file you wish to *Upload and select it
Once the *Upload is complete, you will see a thumbnail in the upper left
There are 9 choices of how to create the URL for *Uploading a picture here
Choose the 5th option down that says *Thumbnail for Forums
Copy the newly created URL listed
Return to TPF, choose the *Picture icon on the tool bar above reply box
Paste the URL you have loaded in the unpopulated box for the link
Preview your reply to make sure the image appears as you want and hit *Post comment
I do hope your cat is in better condition than my Rottweiler
That picture was taken on Valentine's Day $400 thank you kindly.
Since then I have slept when he finally gives into the meds the Vet has him on to keep him from messing with his 'hot spot' that was 3 inches in diameter before he was shaved and OMG....
So it's been one long day for me. He cannot be left unattended because he will tear apart all that has healed. Btw there is a reason a sectional couch is called that, because when you sleep on it so you can keep your hand on the dog, it makes your back aware of every section of your body that is not in your bed.
Here is a picture from Friday I think: the stick behind the dogs head is for an Air Soft Rifle, not a regular Rifle in the corner of the home office.
But sure.. Thorongil was being hyperbolic. But I think the leftist response to the world tends to be heavily moralistic... thus less humor.
The right have a tendency to be just as moralistic and lacking in humour as the left, if not more so. So I don't agree. Think pro-life or views on gay marriage or going against some tradition or convention or what is considered to be proper or immigration or religion or what people do in the privacy of their bedroom or [i]any number[/I] of issues.
Reply to Sapientia Pro-life is not a rightist viewpoint. It's socially conservative. Remember rightists are all lazy-fair (I refuse to spell out the French in the shoutbox) about the government. Pro-lifers want government intrusion and control with regard to feti (the plural of fetus). So the social conservative/rightist combination is contradictory. People have been noticing that for decades, dude.
In general, rightists want less government and more trust in and freedom for the individual.
Pro-life is not a rightist viewpoint. It's socially conservative. Remember rightists are all lazy-fair (I refuse to spell out the French in the shoutbox) about the government. Pro-lifers want government intrusion and control with regard to feti (the plural of fetus). So the social conservative/rightist combination is contradictory. People have been noticing that for decades, dude.
Laissez-faire is an economic thing, so there's no necessary contradiction. You can want the government to interfere with "moral" issues like abortion but not with trade.
Reply to Michael "The government which governs least, governs best." There may be no contradiction around your way, but there's a big one here. Again... old news.
"The government which governs least, governs best." There may be no contradiction around your way, but there's a big one here. Again... old news.
Doesn't seem to be. From the authority that is Wikipedia, "the contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals".
Pro-life is not a rightist viewpoint. It's socially conservative. Remember rightists are all lazy-fair (I refuse to spell out the French in the shoutbox) about the government. Pro-lifers want government intrusion and control with regard to feti (the plural of fetus). So the social conservative/rightist combination is contradictory. People have been noticing that for decades, dude.
In general, rightists want less government and more trust in and freedom for the individual.
Yes, it's contradictory with that general characterisation, but it's a right-wing viewpoint and tendency nevertheless. It's just that many people on both the left and the right have more complex views which don't neatly fit that simplistic characterisation. Both modern liberalism and modern conservatism contradict their classical counterparts in notable ways, but you still have those forms of liberalism on the left and those forms of conservatism on the right. Over time, there have been developments which have set the modern forms apart as more of a mixed bag.
Doesn't seem to be. From the authority that is Wikipedia, "the contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals".
Yep, social conservatism is a well known trait of the right. But of course, it's just a trait or characteristic, and there can be, and are, exceptions.
Reply to Michael I've noticed you Brits tend to have a much deeper understanding of American politics than we dim Americans. And with wiki backing you up... what can I say?
I've noticed you Brits tend to have a much deeper understanding of American politics than we dim Americans. And with wiki backing you up... what can I say?
You can say, "I was wrong, and I'm sorry. I don't know what I was thinking. We should have never forsaken our motherland, and all because of a quibble over tea".
By leftists, think the people who like to scream, violently riot, block speakers on college campuses, or try to publicly shame people who express different views from them. Or your average "professor" in a women's studies department. There is no hyperbole in saying these people are humorless and creepy authoritarians.
Reply to Sapientia I wasn't. It just seemed like he was talking about somebody in particular. And I don't have a category... except for the Categoriless. That's me.
Funny how the lefties are doing most all the sarcasm/humour here. Step up to the plate, @Thorongil! Jollify us! Show us you're not creepy and humourless!
Strangely enough, it's 10:37 at night, and I am actually working on preparing a class in between quips here. It's odd I know. Eventually, I hope to advance to the dole though.
Strangely enough, it's 10:37 at night, and I am actually working on preparing a class in between quips here. It's odd I know. Eventually, I hope to advance to the dole though.
Are you working hard in preparing that class to brainwash the students towards Leftism? >:)
Reply to Wayfarer LOL - that was me O:) , don't kill me unenlightened - I just said it's naval gazing :P
unenlightenedFebruary 20, 2017 at 21:50#563780 likes
Reply to Wayfarer I understand that feeling, but I urge you to take the pains to defend the truth, even at the cost of your peace of mind. The world is in sore need of truth right now. I often have to defend my sanity on these pages, before an argument or analysis will even be considered - and this is a laid back forum of intelligent people, by current standards. Bullshit and ad homs rule, but let's resist!
unenlightenedFebruary 20, 2017 at 21:53#563800 likes
Reply to Agustino Yeah, you're a thoughtless prat at times. We are delicate little flowers, some of us. A little kindness is not expensive.
Reply to unenlightened Actually to be totally honest, I entered a rather intemperate response, and then got annoyed with what I had entered - so then I deleted it, and kind of stormed off. I will post it again.
Reply to Wayfarer To be entirely honest, I didn't find your "intemperate" response offensive or anything, so no worries :P I found it quite funny actually
If you thought it would be money, then I'd have to convince you that it's not money - since money can be lost or stolen - but the ability to make money, which cannot be lost or stolen ;)
If you thought it would be money, then I'd have to convince you that it's not money - since money can be lost or stolen - but the ability to make money, which cannot be lost or stolen
Making money takes time and effort. Having (lots of) money means free time and laziness and - perhaps most importantly - lie-ins. God I hate the mornings.
The guy who always bullies Sapientia, and Sapientia never gets it O:)
Nonsense. Roli has always been nothing but kind to me. So much so that it could understandably lead one to believe that there's something more to it than that. In fact, to tell the truth, there have been a couple of times where I've felt it necessary to put my foot down. Roli and I will never have the kind of special relationship that Ron and Dan have.
The cool and popular guy who Sapientia always tries to pick on, but never succeeds >:O
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not just [I]my[/I] bitch, your Heister's bitch, Baden's bitch, Hanover's bitch... you're the [I]forum's[/I] bitch.
Sure, however, scientists don't demand so and so be done politically - they are not politicians. They just state what they think will happen if two different courses of action are undertaken.
Just as I might tell you that if you shoot yourself in the head, you'll probably die. If you don't, you'll live.
Reply to Heister Eggcart It's amazing how many people end up just shooting their faces off. Healthcare workers commonly lament that somebody ought to write an instruction manual.
I thought the comment was referencing the "deep state" -- what that will actually entail in terms of policy, though? First thing that comes to mind is slashing public sector jobs and unions. But my mind is built like that. I'm not sure what it would entail elsewhere in the government.
Reply to Moliere I imagine it means no taxes or regulations for corporations. Then we all climb into the way-back machine and redo the 19th and early 20th centuries. Yay!
I just officially got my degree in Industrial Engineering and Business management (i.e. engineering management). I may have to take IQ and personality tests for some vacancies.
One mistake which is forgiveable in an noisy environment.
Reply to Emptyheady
I got 118 - 29/33 - >92% people, but I rushed the last 3 questions for fear of running out of time - guess-timated them >:O (actually I think I had more time, but I wasn't sure, since I didn't look at the time properly when I started it)
But to be honest, it's kind of a weak IT test. It's only geometrical/visual pattern recognition which is quite possibly my weakest area.
A Trump-supporting colleague of mine just informed me that he is a national socialist and a fascist. He wants a "benign" Trump dictatorship in the U.S. and a Nigel Farage dictatorship in the U.K. I have to share an office with this guy... :(
Yeah, well I had a colleague who would bawl openly every few days due to work stress and I'd have to try to talk her off the ledge. I'll take your revolutionary wanna be any day.
A Trump-supporting colleague of mine just informed me that he is a national socialist and a fascist. He wants a "benign" Trump dictatorship in the U.S. and a Nigel Farage dictatorship in the U.K. I have to share an office with this guy... :(
Couldn't that get him fired? Inform the company that he is a self-professed national socialist and fascist. Get him fired. Problem solved. X-)
I don't think you can be fired just for being a national socialist and a fascist, can you? Also, it would feel kind of nasty seeing as he can be quite a decent guy at times. Odd that he turned out the way he did. Hard to process.
I mean I've known the guy for over a year, and we've been quite friendly at times. I knew he was a Trump supporter, which I could deal with, but now this...
It is quite strange that communism and libertarian socialism -- or any form of socialism for that matter -- is not received in the same manner, really shows you the left wing bias.
Equating socialism with Nazism is dumb. Nazism incorporates racism and anti-semitism. Socialism in its general form is merely:
"The social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." (Wiki).
There's no bias here; one is a theory of economic and social organization and racism/anti-semitism and one is a theory of economic and social organization.
Reply to Baden National socialism has the least amount of body counts of all forms of socialism. I know which one I would prefer if I had to choose a dystopia.
Look at the definition of socialism and then look at the one of Nazism. Take a deep breath. Then understand why Nazism is worse. Of course, if you're a racist or an anti-semite, it isn't, but charitably I'll presume you aren't.
Reply to Baden Open a book about history (not the dictionary) lad. Ignoring all the suffering of socialism is like denying the holocaust but objectively worse -- disgraceful.
That dictators who referred to themselves as socialist or communist did terrible things (and killed more innocent people than than fascists did) doesn't make socialism a worse ideology than Nazism. You need to look at what socialism actually is to make that judgement. And there are plenty of socialist countries out there now, the vast majority of which are infinitely better places to live than Nazi Germany was.
EDIT:
So, if someone says they're a socialist these days, it's extremely unlikely that they support the atrocities of Stalin or are any kind of racist etc. If someone says they're a Nazi, all that is much more likely. It's very simple really.
He's probably just angry about something. Give him space.
This is absurd. You do realise how insulting that is - you're basically saying someone cannot support Trump unless they have personal problems - you're basically negating and refusing to acknowledge all their reasons for supporting him - putting it all to some emotional issue. Indeed, it's not long before you'll accuse them of mental illness and seek to isolate them - put them on pills - or whatever, because they don't agree with you. That's fucked up - people can support whatever they want so long as it's not a threat to the state or illegal. If someone supports terrorism or some other illegal activity, then I would be worried about them, and report them to the police - not because I disagree with them, but because they are an actual danger and threat to others, and so they have to be restrained somehow. But if they support a different form of political organisation than I do, then that's their right, even if that form is fascism. All I can do in that case is discuss with them, understand what their values are, and that's it. In the political arena I will fight against them, but they have as much legitimacy as I do to be in the political arena and fight. The only time they lose that legitimacy is if they break the law - or intend to break the law.
They guy said he was a Nazi. That's the point at issue that Mongrel was responding to. I already said that the fact that he was a Trump supporter hadn't prevented us from being friendly.
That dictators who referred to themselves as socialist or communist did terrible things (and killed more innocent people than than fascists did) doesn't make socialism a worse ideology than Nazism.
They guy said he was a Nazi. That's the point at issue. I already said that the fact that he was a Trump supporter hadn't prevented us from being friendly.
I think it depends what kind of Nazi he is. Nazis are quite common in the part of the world where I'm from - or at least people who claim they are Nazis - so what really hides beneath his claim? Does he actually support putting Jews in gas chambers or otherwise killing them? If he does, then I would report on him since I would consider such a person a threat to others' well-being. But if on the other hand he merely thinks that Jews have too much influence or whatever, then that's not such a big deal. So what are the actual Nazi beliefs that he has that you are concerned about?
If someone these days says they're a socialist, the likelihood that they consider that to mean they support the kind of regime they have in North Korea is close to zero. As for Venezuela, how is that a worse regime than Nazi Germany? The Nazis are guilty of race-based genocide against millions? What has the Venezuelan government done to compare with that?
I'm actually starting to feel like I'm talking to my office colleague, so let me ask you directly, seeing as I don't want to waste more time. Are you a racist or an anti-semite?
So what are the actual Nazi beliefs that he has that you are concerned about?
Taking away a free press, so if you dissent you get thrown in jail etc. Plus, possible discrimination against minorities due to his racist beliefs etc.
If someone these days says they're a socialist, the likelihood that they consider that to mean they support the kind of regime they have in North Korea is close to zero. As for Venezuela, how is that a worse regime than Nazi Germany?
There is a difference between intentions, imagined and the actual consequences thereof. Hitler had good intentions and a very rosy utopia in mind, if only those nasty [s]jews[/s] I mean capitalists were not exploiting us -- sounds familiar?
Taking away a free press, so if you dissent you get thrown in jail etc.
Okay, I'd probably be opposed to that personally - however. What does "dissenting" mean? It's one thing that dissenting means not being able to say or advertise so and so in movies/TV - which I would qualify as control of popular culture - and a different thing to say that no scientific, philosophical, etc. literature which doesn't agree with a set of views can be published or discussed outside of the scope of popular culture. I could see an argument being framed for the limited control of popular culture, but not of culture as a whole. However, I'd likely be opposed to any control of culture beyond the bare minimum because I don't see much point in it. People cannot be made to be moral by controlling their culture - you'll just make them hypocrites. The media cannot be controlled either - so all we have to do is discredit it. Let it remain where it is, but let everyone understand that it is a web of lies.
Well, you wouldn't like him much more than me then. And you would probably find yourself in an awkward position if he were your office colleague as other than Nazism you two would politically have a lot in common. How would you deal with his revelation then?
No, I don't. So, you're not a racist or anti-semite. Now explain why the Venezuelan government's actions are worse than the deliberate race-based genocide of millions the Nazis carried out.
So it seems that what worries you about him is taking away the freedom of the press - so you should perhaps inquire into more detail what he actually means by that. Does that mean that you can't publish a book against Trump for example? Does it mean that the TV stations can't continually deride and undermine the President? What exactly does he mean?
Personally I'd be curious to find out why he believes so, and how he thinks it will help. What is the problem to which he proposes Nazism as a solution, and how would that solution look like in detail?
Reply to Baden Are you changing the topic? I am fully willing to go in depth on Venezuela, but won't allow you to get away with such controversial views before I've confirmed we are finished with it.
Lol, what controversial view have I expressed? I answered your questions as far as I can see. Now are you afraid to admit that the Venezuelan government has done less harm than Hitler's Nazis? Something that is so trivially obvious, it's almost embarrassing to have to ask you. Really? Just answer the question and stop running away.
One should always seek to understand what problem someone seeks to solve when they are advocating a particular political system. For example, what problem was Plato trying to solve through the political analysis undertaken in the Republic? If you ask that question, it may become obvious why they are in favour of that particular political system, namely that they think that's the only way to solve the problem.
Yes, I have been taking a kind of questioning approach to it. As I said we had been friendly up until then. However, I find the ideology so repulsive I would rather just cut the guy loose.
Yes, I have been taking a kind of questioning approach to it. As I said we had been friendly up until then. However, I find the ideology so repulsive I would rather just cut the guy loose.
Well from what you have described so far, I wouldn't say you really know his ideology - it's a specific label you and him have associated with it. That label has a certain baggage - it doesn't mean he's actually carrying all that baggage in practice. And every person is different - there are no two Communists with the same ideology. So to properly judge one must go beyond the label/image to the actual and particular set of beliefs beyond it.
I know. I'm trying to bear that in mind. But he's not a kid, he's in his forties. He should know that if he labels himself like that, the burden is on him to explain what he means by it if it's something less sinister than most people think.
We seem to factually agree that national socialism has the least amount of body counts compared to all other forms of socialism, yet you claimed you do not care about that -- that is extremely controversial. It is like you acknowledge the holocaust, but shrug it off, as if it is just a meaningless detail of national socialism.
I know. I'm trying to bear that in mind. But he's not a kid, he's in his forties. He should know that if he labels himself like that, the burden is on him to explain what he means by it if it's something less sinister than most people think.
It's hard to label yourself politically. Before I realised I was a conservative I attached no label to myself because I just didn't think any was adequate. Even conservatism in some of its forms isn't adequate, because I'm not a conservative the way this guy who is having a chat with Zizek+Assange is a conservative for example:
No I didn't claim I didn't care about it. It's not the issue we're discussing. As I keep saying, you have to look at what it means when someone today says they're a socialist vs. when they say they're a Nazi. That's the issue because we're talking about what my colleague said. In the case of socialism, racism is not an integral part of the ideology (and it's extremely unlikely someone claiming to be a socialist would condone genocide); in the case of Nazism it is. So if someone says they're a socialist, there's no justification for suspecting them of racism or anti-semitism. If they say they're a Nazi, there is, because that's part of what Nazism is. This is why the latter is more objectionable.
Now, I've answered your question again. Your turn. Deal with the Venezuela issue, which you brought up.
You did. You shrugged it off, saying it did not matter (morally?), lol, even for a bloke like me, that is extreme.
I have a reasonable knowledge about Venezuela, as it was a part of my readings of populism, and I am willing to go in depth to it with all its atrocities. I am fully willing to change the topic, but I won't let you just sneak away with that...
That dictators who referred to themselves as socialist or communist did terrible things (and killed more innocent people than than fascists did) doesn't make socialism a worse ideology than Nazism.
Where's Venezuela on the list? Oh, I see it's not there. Wonder why. Anyway, everyone knows this stuff (except for the bullshit part about Nazi Germany being different to Nazi Europe) and no-one here is going to defend early to mid Communist China or Stalinist Russia. They were horrible murderous regimes. But they are not exemplars of socialism; socialism is a form of economic and social organization. It doesn't require genocide.
Think of the huge population of China. But this is a distraction anyway so Emptyheady can run away from his own comments concerning modern socialist countries such as Venezuela etc.
Lol. The Nazis didn't kill the Jews, Nazi Europe did because it mostly happened in Poland making them no worse than Venezuela. Where did you get that graphic, a Neo-Nazi site?
No, you've just made a complete fool of yourself with a graphic that tries to disculpate Nazi Germany for it's crimes because it did them outside of Germany. Hilarious. And you still can't bring yourself to admit that the Nazis were worse than the Venezuelan government, which is sick and disgusting. To compare the holocaust to anything Venezuela has done is beyond the pale.
Oh, this is the imaginary Nazi Germany that's not responsible for killing all the Jews and so on because it was Nazi Europe that did that. I see. Now where did you get the graph from? Because if you got it from a Neo-Nazi site and you think you're going to get away with spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda here, you're wrong.
Now where did you get the graph from because if you got it from a Neo-Nazi site and you think you're going to get away with spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda here, you're wrong.
Reply to Baden I answer your question regarding Venezuela -- of late, because I did not want to change the topic and let you get away with controversial statements.
No you didn't answer my question. The Nazis were responsible for the holocaust, yes or no? This was worse than anything the Venezuelan government has done, yes or no?
Note that I'm not asking about the murder rate within the bounds of Nazi Germany vs Modern Venezuela. We all know the Nazis did most of their murdering outside Germany. Plus, the Venezuelan government is not responsible for all murders in Venezuela. We are talking about governments murdering people. Socialist vs. Fascist.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 26, 2017 at 17:15#579040 likes
If only I weren't a swarthy and disabled Gypsy gigolo, perhaps I'd pick Nazi Germany, too :’(
Note that I'm not asking about the murder rate within the bounds of Nazi Germany vs Modern Venezuela. We all know the Nazis did most of their murdering outside Germany.
I know. Note that we are also not even including the indirect suffering that should not be ignored by socialists, like increase famine and deaths by ailments.
Also note that we are basically arguing why socialism X is worse than socialism Y. I hate all forms of socialism.
So what is it that the Venezuelan government has done that is worse than killing 6 million Jews, for example?
Also, I want to repeat that the disculpation of Nazi Germany from the crime of the holocaust is neo-nazi propaganda. So, I'll give you a chance to withdraw that or I'll have to presume you're a Neo-nazi sympathizer, which I may presume anyway seeing as you think something the Venezuelan governent has done is worse than the genocide of millions by the Nazis.
Reply to Baden Venezuela is objectively speaking more violent than Nazi Germany -- as in higher rates of homicide -- going by absolute body counts, not obviously, but communism would dwarf anything in the world with that.
I would prefer to live in a place with the least amount of violence.
Reply to Baden Their governance has increase violence by (roughly) 370% (which is 4,7 times higher) than it was, which makes it objectively speaking more violent than Nazi Germany.
So, their poor policies which have resulted in crime rates increasing dramatically is worse morally than the killing of six million Jews. So presumably if they had managed to kill six million Jews but keep crime rates down, you'd look on them more favourably. Interesting perspective.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 26, 2017 at 17:34#579170 likes
I think a key difference here is that the Venezuelan government has not intended to kill its citizenry like Nazi Germany did. Bad policies do not equate to mass murder.
Reply to Emptyheady I'm confused by this. Are you saying that national socialism is better than other forms of socialism because, even though the Nazis killed a greater proportion of people, they did it away from home?
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 26, 2017 at 17:36#579210 likes
Reply to Emptyheady Intending to exterminate the Jewish population, and nearly succeeding, is objectively worse than a government merely having bad policy.
I don't think we need to normalize this. The guy just said killing six million Jews in Nazi Germany was morally more acceptable than the Venezuelan government causing the murder rate there to rise due to poor policies. I'm just presuming he's a Neo-Nazi sympathizer now.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 26, 2017 at 17:40#579250 likes
Reply to Emptyheady Nazi Germany includes countries like Belgium, Norway, Poland, Austria, and so on.
I don't think we need to normalize this. The guy just said killing six million Jews in Nazi Germany was morally more acceptable than the Venezuelan government causing the murder rate to rise due to poor policies. I'm just presuming he's a neo-nazi sympathizer now.
>:O
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 26, 2017 at 17:42#579290 likes
Reply to Wosret I like my breads smeared with fascist cream cheese. The taste really overpowers your mouth and forces you to love it.
I don't think you can be fired just for being a national socialist and a fascist, can you? Also, it would feel kind of nasty seeing as he can be quite a decent guy at times. Odd that he turned out the way he did. Hard to process.
Well, with many companies, by working for them, you have to be seen to accept and represent their values, and it is my understanding that extreme views which clash with those values and may cause damage to the reputation of the company can be grounds for dismissal. Sometimes it will state something along those lines in company policy. Imagine if the media found out that this company has a fascist working for them.
It's hard to say because I know virtually nothing about him except what I saw in that video. In fact, that video is the first time I heard of him, I just googled him now for the first time in fact. But from the video, he appears to me like the reason-skeptical conservative - as defined here. I would include myself as amongst rational conservatives, also as described in the article. Basically I don't disagree with him over the values - we share much of the same values - but I disagree on the way of reaching those values. I think those values are rational and make sense, and it's not merely because we have to be cautious, and prudent "and so on and so on" to imitate Zizek. It's rather because we are justified rationally in holding to those values. I also disagree with him on the war in Iraq - America should never have gone to war there (and yes after they went to war, the Left shouldn't have opposed them).
He says things like it's regrettable that our defence is so big (but it nevertheless has to be so), yada yada, I again disagree with him there. It's only normal and rational for a country to train and prepare its military defences, even if it had no enemies, because the capacity to be able to defend and protect yourself is always important and must be developed as a flowering of a nation's potential.
I agree with him with regards to the Left being a religious utopia. I also agree with Zizek that liberalism is a utopia as well :P I disagree when he says to Zizek - oh your proposals are too radical and could potentially cause great harm - that reason skepticism - as if reason couldn't determine what should be done, that I disagree with.
Damn, it's late, I have work in a few hours and after having spent the last couple debating a Nazi, I'll have to go to the office and sit next to another one. :(
Nazi Germany includes countries like Belgium, Norway, Poland, Austria, and so on.
Is this a joke? You mean that Poland was happy they had concentration camps on its soils while even Hitler would have found the idea repugnant to have them in the homeland? Which, would seem to mean that Poland was more Nazi than Nazi Germany?
Reply to Baden Common dude... why did he get banned now? :s This is very fucked up. If people keep getting banned like this for holding different views some of us will move somewhere else.... I think Emptyheaded should be unbanned. He isn't even a pro-Nazi to begin with... All he's saying is that X is worse than Y, not that Y isn't bad. Furthermore, this is the Shoutbox, and he didn't even get a warning. Why did you ban him?
Emptyheaded - if they leave you banned, and I ever start a philosophy forum in the future, I will give a moderator position to you. However, you must find away to PM me your email (or a way to contact you) until then :P
Different views are fine, but Nazis and their ilk don't get to stay here nor do racists etc. That should be clear from the guidelines. And I gave him plenty of chances to say he wasn't a Neo-Nazi sympathizer. So, believe me I won't be losing any sleep about flushing Empty away.
Objectively not, perhaps subjectively. Objectively speaking, Nazi Germany was less violent.
Subjectively he's saying that it was worse than the Venezuela. Objectively he's saying it was less violent by comparing one specific statistic - not taking the intention into account at all. The intention is taken into account in the subjective analysis in his terms, where of course Nazi Germany is worse than Venezuela. There is no clear evidence that he is a Nazi, and I remain firm in this conviction. Not to mention he has never claimed being one, nor did he say that the holocaust was morally permissible or anything of that sort. But whatever...
Perhaps is an indication that it probably is. He certainly didn't state that it's not, and it is ridiculous and presumptuous to think otherwise. It goes against the very principle of charity that we are expected to assume when discussing one with the other...
Reply to Agustino I didn't ban him, Baden did. And I doubt that any member of the site staff would say that that's an impossibility. So yes, perhaps (in my sense, not yours).
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 26, 2017 at 19:15#579820 likes
Is this a joke? You mean that Poland was happy they had concentration camps on its soils while even Hitler would have found the idea repugnant to have them in the homeland? Which, would seem to mean that Poland was more Nazi than Nazi Germany?
No mistake. Nobody gets to downplay, belittle or deny the holocaust or its seriousness on this site. Weasel-worded obsfucations aren't going to cut it. He's gone. He's not coming back. Move on.
I disagree with the ban. The insinuation that he's a Nazi is based on pretty flimsy evidence. If you're going to accuse someone of almost the worst thing possible, then you'd better have some damn good evidence, and I don't see that you do. Maybe he is one, but you couldn't conclusively prove it from his posts.
I also don't see any direct evidence that he's a holocaust denier. Again, that's a pretty bold accusation, which ought to be conclusively proven before action is taken, but your gun is already cocked and pointed at him before he's even turned around to face you.
I might add that I see this incident as reflective of the current political climate, wherein the left pretends that there are Nazis behind every bush, that it's okay to punch them without knowing if they are, and that we just elected the reincarnation of Hitler. Like the boy who cried wolf, I wonder what people will say and do if ever a real dictator comes to power on the backs of a genuine totalitarian movement. Emptyhead, whoever he is, doesn't strike me as one of the "bad guys" who needs to be muzzled.
You've been in an especially combative and belligerent mood lately, Baden, so my advice, for whatever it's worth, is that you take a little break from the forum.
I might add that I see this incident as reflective of the current political climate, wherein the left pretends that there are Nazis behind every bush, that it's okay to punch them without knowing if they are, and that we just elected the reincarnation of Hitler.
I thought you'd use this as an excuse to attack the left. How boring. I would hope if there's one thing the left and right could agree on it would be a zero tolerance policy on antisemitism, but I'm not going to re-litigate the affair.
You've been in an especially combative and belligerent mood lately, Baden, so my advice, for whatever it's worth, is that you take a little break from the forum
I didn't expect you'd use it for a cheap patronizing dig though. Anyway, what you would call belligerent, I would refer to as firm.
My, how easily you throw terms like this around. How is he an antisemite? His comparison of Venezuela's crime statistics with the holocaust was sheer stupidity, but where in that exchange did you get the impression that he hates Jewish people? If you don't want to re-litigate the affair, fine, but I'm not letting you get away with such incendiary accusations.
I didn't expect you'd use it for a cheap patronizing dig though. Anyway, what you would call belligerent, I would refer to as firm.
It's a fact that I've never seen you more combative and belligerent than you've been recently. No doubt you're quite proud of yourself for being so "firm" with an alleged Nazi, but I think you're kidding yourself.
Well, the fact that we're rid of an idiot too is a bonus I guess.
On a private forum, I realize the speech codes can be whatever the owner likes, but I think it tells a great deal about someone that they would choose to ban first and ask questions later if given the power. I value free speech, which includes idiotic speech and even hateful speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," as the phrase goes. Empty didn't strike me as someone who ground the forum to a halt with a cacophony of irrational hatred, spam, or genuine threats of violence, which might be reasons for kicking him off the island. Rather it seems that a mod or two didn't like what they interpreted him to say on a shitposting thread called "The Shoutbox."
I value free speech, which includes idiotic speech and even hateful speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," as the phrase goes.
I do too in general but that's not how it works here. Read the guidelines, which I, as a mod, am obliged to enforce.
Empty didn't strike me as someone who ground the forum to a halt with a cacophony of irrational hatred, spam, or genuine threats of violence, which might be reasons for kicking him off the island.
It doesn't matter how it strikes you as you're not a mod, so you don't have to deal with it. And it's not like I enjoy being confronted with situations like this. I came to the shoutbox to get some relief from an extreme right winger not to meet another one.
Rather it seems that a mod or two didn't like what they interpreted him to say on a shitposting thread called "The Shoutbox."
Now, who's being combative and belligerent? Maybe you need to relax and take a break from the forum. ;) Anyway, don't worry, you're not on my rabid lefty hitlist.
Downplaying the holocaust is a form of antisemitism. If you're not aware of that, it's your problem.
This is still too vague. What does "downplaying" mean? You used that word earlier, but you also explicitly said he was a holocaust denier, so it seems you're now trying to downplay the force of your accusations.
Nobody gets to downplay, belittle or deny the holocaust or its seriousness on this site. — Baden
I'm not wrong.
Yes, you are wrong. There's an "or" in that sentence (two in fact). You said I accused him of holocaust denial, which I didn't. I stated a policy of which he was in contravention.
Nobody gets to do A, B, or C etc. So if you do any of those things, you are in contravention of the policy. You don't have to do them all, obviously. He did A.
Yes, you are wrong. There's an "or" in that sentence. You said I accused him of holocaust denial, which I didn't.
We're entering a semantics battle I see. One could read your sentence as implying that all three items in the list apply to Empty. The conjunction "or" is sometimes used to establish an identity between several words.
Correct, few things are impossible, but he is gone and he is not coming back.
That's fine with me. What he did was wrong and was grounds for being banned. Like it says in the guidelines:
[Quote]Racists/homophobes/sexists: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. [B]However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned[/b].[/quote]
This is almost too silly to respond to. Read my posts above, slowly if necessary, and figure out where you went wrong and why. Hint: your zeal to accuse me of saying something I didn't say outweighs your ability to understand basic English grammar.
government causing the murder rate to rise due to poor policies.
— Baden
Right, and the holocaust was not a poor policy...
This goes to show that he was in defense of Nazi Germany, which he claimed was less violent than the Venezuelan government, which might be true (as if living in North Korea would be a nice thing to do because their murder rates are nill, well at least the one's reported). But, you can't oversimplify this matter to idiocy like he did, which he did, without mentioning the fundamental difference between the reason why murder rates in Nazi Germany and Venezuela were higher or lower.
Metaphysician UndercoverFebruary 27, 2017 at 18:23#581640 likes
Reply to Question He was trying to say that objectively in terms of numbers the Venezuelan socialist government's policies have resulted in a greater number of deaths than the holocaust. He then implied, apparently on some sort of consequentialist grounds, that the former was worse than the latter because of this fact. That's when he went off the rails. But is that enough to label him a racist and so ban him? I think not. Nowhere did I detect that he thought the holocaust was not bad or wrong, he just thought it was less bad than other examples. Why did he think that? Who knows. He was banned before ever being able to explain himself.
If you want to bow out, go ahead, but you have neither refuted me nor shown to me that Empty's ban was justified.
See the guidelines. The guidelines are just guidelines, meaning we have some leeway. He cherry picked statistics and used them in a misleading and outrageous way to make what the Nazis did superficially appear not so bad, and he did so because of his agenda to attack socialism, which he said he hates.
You wanna attack socialism? Fine. But if you do so in a way which makes you seem like a Nazi sympathiser, by using what look like Nazi apologetics and propaganda, and by making outrageous statements about the holocaust, then don't be surprised if you get banned
I agree I tend to think that the majority of this forum is self-regulating and people can debate the issue with someone if they are sincere and reasonable, which Empty both displayed, though quite naive if I must add.
He was trying to say that objectively in terms of numbers the Venezuelan socialist government's policies have resulted in a greater number of deaths than the holocaust.
Still, he lumped an argument in that needs some rigorous data to prove and went on from there. That's a little too much on such an issue...
So here's what you do: Warn him in a PM that his words could be interpreted in a racist manner, but also encourage him to make a thread that more fully explains the reasoning behind his position so that it can be formally debated, seeing as the shoutbox will mostly result in mudslinging.
So here's what you do: Warn him in a PM that his words could be interpreted in a racist manner, but also encourage him to make a thread that more fully explains the reasoning behind his position so that it can be formally debated, seeing as the shoutbox is mostly filled with mudslinging.
That might be what you would have done. That might be your preferred course of action. But you are not a moderator or an administrator. Again, see the guidelines. They warn members about the possibility of summarily being banned without warning, and they also warn members that there are certain views which we do not consider worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
Well, seeing as everyone's so interested, I will oblige:
Straight on to the main issue that got him banned. The Nazis carrying out the holocaust being less morally serious than the Venezuelan government allowing crime rates to rise. There are other things going on (and obviously you can read the whole thing if you want to get the full context) but this is mostly what got him banned.
[quote=Baden]Now explain why the Venezuelan government's actions are worse than the deliberate race-based genocide of millions the Nazis carried out. [/quote]
[quote=Emptyheady]I just stated that National socialism has the least amount of body counts of all other forms of socialism -- without cherry picking.[/quote]
[quote=Baden]...tell me why the Venezuelan socialist government is worse than the Nazis or admit it's not. [/quote]
No answer
[quote=Baden]Just answer the question and stop running away.[/quote]
Doesn't answer.
[quote=Baden] Now, I've answered your question again. Your turn. Deal with the Venezuela issue, which you brought up.[/quote]
No answer.
[quote=Baden]Now for the third or fourth time, I don't need you to go into details just to answer this question, which you keep running away from.
Who did or has done more harm, the socialist government of Venezuela or the Nazi government of Hitler's Germany?[/quote]
Doesn't answer
[quote=Baden]Fifth time. Stop running away from my Venezuela question and answer it. [/quote]
Doesn't answer
[quote=Baden]And you still can't bring yourself to admit that the Nazis were worse than the Venezuelan government, which is sick and disgusting. To compare the holocaust to anything Venezuela has done is beyond the pale. [/quote]
Doesn't answer
[quote=Baden]The Nazis were responsible for the holocaust, yes or no? This was worse than anything the Venezuelan government has done, yes or no? [/quote]
Now answers
[quote=Emptyheady]
"The Nazis were responsible for the holocaust, yes or no?" — Baden
Yes
"This was worse than anything the Venezuelan government has done, yes or no?" — Baden
No, objectively speaking then.
[/quote]
Downplays holocaust (as I expected).
I warn him:
[quote=Baden]So what is it that the Venezuelan government has done that is worse than killing 6 million Jews, for example?
Also, I want to repeat that the disculpation of Nazi Germany from the crime of the holocaust is neo-nazi propaganda. So, I'll give you a chance to withdraw that or I'll have to presume you're a Neo-nazi sympathizer, which I may presume anyway seeing as you think something the Venezuelan governent has done is worse than the genocide of millions by the Nazis. [/quote]
Evades answering.
[quote=Baden]Answer my question: What is it that the Venezuelan government has done that is worse than killing 6 million Jews? [/quote]
[quote=Emptyheady]Their governance has increase violence by (roughly) 370% (which is 4,7 times higher) [/quote]
Downplays holocaust again
I intepret him as a Neo-Nazi sympathizer.
[quote=Baden]So, their poor policies which have resulted in crime rates increasing dramatically is worse morally than the killing of six million Jews. So presumably if they had managed to kill six million Jews but keep crime rates down, you'd look on them more favourably. Interesting perspective. [/quote]
No denial of interpretation
[quote=Baden]I don't think we need to normalize this. The guy just said killing six million Jews in Nazi Germany was morally more acceptable than the Venezuelan government causing the murder rate there to rise due to poor policies. I'm just presuming he's a Neo-Nazi sympathizer now. [/quote]
I again interpet him as a Neo-Nazi sympathizer.
No denial but a false accusation
[quote=Baden]And you condone rape, murder and famine. Interesting game to play[/quote]
[quote=Baden]Blah blah blah. You are a Neo-Nazi sympathizer then. Well, goodbye.[/quote]
No denial
[quote=Baden]Right, and the holocaust was not a poor policy... [/quote]
I ban him according to the aforementioned guidelines. Note that the above was spread over a period of a couple of hours. This was not a knee-jerk decision.
Yeah, I read all that too. You still haven't proven he's an anti-semite or a Nazi.
Baden:And you condone rape, murder and famine. Interesting game to play
This comment in particular can be read as turning the tables on you. If you can flippantly accuse him of being a Nazi without evidence, well guess what, he can accuse you of condoning rape, murder, and famine without evidence. That's the "game" he sees you playing.
Banning Emptyheaded is really so absurd Baden, that I see it as hardly worth even refuting. First of all, it seems you have little knowledge that among people on the right, the claim that Communism (and socialism) had a bigger death toll than Nazism is quite popular in order to illustrate just how terrible Communism and socialism (and leftism) are. Now you may disagree with that, but some much bigger brains than you have advocated it. So it is at least worth considering. This is not to detract from how terrible Nazism was, but trying to point how much worse Communism has actually been, in an effort to stay away from both and advocate for capitalism (or at least this is how generally the strategy is employed).
And by the way, it is statistically true that Communism has been more vicious than Nazism by far. Nazism is perhaps morally more reprehensible - as they went around targeting and hunting down a certain group of people - but Communism killed much more than 6 million people. As an ex. millions were purposefully killed by Stalin in fact, who used to sign papers ordering the death of 10% from here, 15% from there, and so forth at the height of his purges.
In fact I think you should educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism
Now you may think Empty is making a rhetorical point or strawmanning socialism or whatever - but the thing is, he cannot possibly be a Nazi. He considers Nazism to be a form of socialism. He hates socialism. He also hates Nazism. But he's making the point that objectively, Nazism killed less people than other forms of socialism have, so if he were to choose a DYSTOPIA it would be Nazism. Those were his words. Now that's more than clear - despite your petty protestations to the contrary.
Reply to Baden Is this political scientist a Neo-Nazi? Please answer me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
He is Jewish and his relatives suffered and were killed in gas chambers. Yet he thinks the Holocaust is overblown. So is he a Neo-Nazi according to you? Despite the fact that according to his own words, and to the rest of the historical establishment, he isn't one?!
But he's making the point that objectively, Nazism killed less people than other forms of socialism have
But not less than Venezuela, which was a silly example to use. The Venezuelan government has been misguided, even brutal at times, in the implementation of its brand of socialism, but that's not the same as genocide or starting a world war.
But I agree that if we add up all the deaths Nazism can be responsible for and all the deaths communism/socialism (of the USSR kind) can be responsible for, the latter massively exceeds the former.
But not less than Venezuela, which was a silly example to use. The Venezuelan government has been misguided, even brutal at times, in the implementation of its brand of socialism, but that's not the same as genocide or starting a world war.
I agree - that was silly, but from it being silly to Empty being a Neo-Nazi is different. At worst he is a right-wing propagandist - and there are many left-wing propagandists on this forum, I won't even get started in naming them.
But I agree that if we add up all the deaths Nazism can be responsible for and all the deaths communism/socialism (of the USSR brand) can be responsible for, the latter massively exceeds the former.
Even the Chinese version alone would exceed the death toll of Nazism.
Stupid, idiotic, moronic, misinformed, ignorant? All of those are fine by me.
All of those and more. It was misleasing, outrageous, and disgraceful. And, given that he seemed to willfully ignore the criticism of what he was doing, I think that that makes him more culpable.
I wouldn't call him a Nazi either, but he didn't do enough to offset the interpretation that he is, in Baden's words, a Neo-Nazi sympathiser, or something along those lines. So he was banned.
Reply to Thorongil
To me this is the sign of an up-coming wave of totalitarianism unfortunately - clamping down on ideologies which don't fit in whatever is the leftist view around here. And I'm not afraid to say this publicly, it's a fact now, established by the actions. The fact that no understanding is possible on this issue, and a "let the dogs bark" attitude is adopted, is more proof of this. I hate to say this, but I will refrain from any further postings as a sign of protest on Empty's behalf.
The fact that those in charge jump in cahoots publicly defending each other is also a serious problem - it's in fact exactly the power structure of a dictatorship, where one hand washes the other clean. It's not even the more intelligent bad-cop good-cop play - it's the straight there are no good cops play. They never make a mistake, and never walk back on their actions - just watch if they ever do. They are never wrong, nor will ever admit to it. Rather they'll jump defending each other whenever some members have a problem with it.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 27, 2017 at 20:06#582020 likes
Reply to Baden If you didn't warn Emptyheady in a PM to drop the discussion, then you've not done a very good job of giving the guy a chance to not go against the guidelines. As far as I know, he had gone 200-something posts without causing noticeable trouble. A one and done policy, with there not being particularly conclusive evidence toward the banned person's wrongdoing, is pretty stupid.
To me this is the sign of an up-coming wave of totalitarianism unfortunately - clamping down on ideologies which don't fit in whatever is the leftist view around here. And I'm not afraid to say this publicly, it's a fact now, established by the actions. The fact that no understanding is possible on this issue, and a "let the dogs bark" attitude is adopted, is more proof of this. I hate to say this, but I will refrain from any further postings as a sign of protest on Empty's behalf.
The fact that those in charge jump in cahoots publicly defending each other is also a serious problem - it's in fact exactly the power structure of a dictatorship, where one hand washes the other clean. It's not even the more intelligent bad-cop good-cop play - it's the straight there are no good cops play.
I object to what you seem to be insinuating there. In my role as a moderator, I don't defend anything that I don't agree with. I defended Baden's actions because they were within his remit, as per the guidelines. And I defended you in the moderator forum against what I considered to be too harsh a reaction.
Reply to Agustino Thorongil was the one who said he's so severely mentally challenged that he doesn't really know what he's saying when he repeatedly professes preference for Nazi Germany.
The fact that those in charge jump in cahoots publicly defending each other is also a serious problem
I think this is confirmation bias (or whatever the correct term is). When we disagree on moderating decisions we usually do so in the private moderators forum. I'd say it's improper for the staff to show a disunited front in public.
Parents shouldn't argue with each other in front of their children after all.
unenlightenedFebruary 27, 2017 at 21:07#582190 likes
To me this is the sign of an up-coming wave of totalitarianism unfortunately - clamping down on ideologies which don't fit in whatever is the leftist view around here. And I'm not afraid to say this publicly, it's a fact now, established by the actions
By an odd coincidence, I raised the issue of moderation quite recently. This was Empty's contribution to my thread:
[quote=Empty]Go get yourself a beer lad -- I donated some some money via pay pal -- this has probably been the most fruitless thread I have ever seen.[/quote]
Perhaps he thought he had bought himself immunity or something, but he would have been well advised, with hindsight, to have taken the discussion of moderation a little more seriously.
Accusations of totalitarianism are so familiar to moderators as to have no force at all. There are good and very obvious reasons to be extremely careful when talking about the holocaust and related matters, and care has not characterised the discussion above by empty.
Now it is possible that the moderators have a left wing bias, but a single banning does not a clampdown make, and your posting in such frankly offensive, exaggerated and categorical terms is more a reflection of your own bias than anything else.
Empty's disdain for moderation and for the discussion of moderation is 'the sign of an up coming wave of totalitarianism unfortunately'. The ease with which your words of support can be turned against empty rather shows their lack of persuasive cogency.
Parents shouldn't argue with each other in front of their children after all.
— Michael
Vomit.
Absolutely. Parents shouldn't vomit in front of their children. Moderators, on the other hand absolutely should model productive and respectful disagreement in public. I'm sure it is possible to legitimately disagree about this or any other decision. But as it happens, as far as I can tell, there happens to be no moderate disagreement on this occasion. Which is not to say that mods should not have private conversations too, in which they can moan about their innumerable unruly brats to each other without being interrupted.
Right, that's the last straw. In protest, this will be the last comment I ever make. Not just on the forum, but outside of the forum as well. Which means I'll probably lose my job as a customer service assistant, which means I'll lose my flat. Great. Thanks a lot, Question. This is all your fault.
unenlightenedFebruary 27, 2017 at 23:03#582470 likes
Smoked some weed for the first time last night at a concert. Fun time, I understand now why it has such a good reputation. Living in Colorado definitely has its perks.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 28, 2017 at 01:27#582610 likes
Smoked some weed for the first time last night at a concert. Fun time, I understand now why it has such a good reputation. Living in Colorado definitely has its perks.
I've heard that heroin is good stuff too, have you tried that yet?
I defended Baden's actions because they were within his remit, as per the guidelines. And I defended you in the moderator forum against what I considered to be too harsh a reaction.
I can confirm that and also that in the end I came round to agreeing with @Sapientia's view. Anyway, tell you what folks, when the next poster expressing offensive right-wing views comes along, I'll let another mod deal with it. It'll be a pity to miss out on the work, but what can you do? :-*
Those will have to be dealt with too, of course. (It goes without saying that all posts that contravene the guidelines regardless of their political orientation are subject to moderation).
Anyway, I have to go to work. If anyone wants more reassurance about mod policy, I'll be happy to do that later. Our right-leaning members are as important to the site as our left. Remember, it's a philosophy forum, the main criteria here is intelligent conversation not whether you are on the right or left.
Let me give my two cents just cuz. This is not the public square, but it is someone's home. In some homes you must shake hands, others you bow, others you must remove your shoes, and others you must remove your pants. Some homes I would not enter, others I eagerly enter. In none do I complain about the rules, the décor, or of the owners. That's how shit works. To the extent you think folks should be given a chance to explain how they're not really neo-nazis, pedophiles, or some other horribly disgusting entity despite the inferences they present otherwise, it's not your house and not your rules.
And this is meant to ridicule those who claim that the banning of Empty is a sign of the apocalypse, an omen foretelling the end of free speech, the beginning of totalitarianism, and the crushing of the spirit of us wee ones. No, this site will continue to be a bastion of both deep philosophical thought and of abject nonsense, spouted by those who romanticize the significance of what we do here at our little home.
I'd also point out that much of what generates the most vitriol isn't philosophy at all, but just personal musings of how one ought best live their life, general advice, or political rants. I'm not suggesting I'm above that fray, but I can certainly see why such discussions might come under greater scrutiny than others, considering many threads ride the fence of even being appropriate for this forum at all. In saying this, I realize that I've seen some mud slinging even when discussing such esoteric things as direct versus indirect realism, but I've not seen neo-Nazis views emerge in such debates.
And in case you've missed it, and you're really not sure of the rules of this house, let me explain: The word "Nazi" is synonymous for "worst evil." Don't use it another way.
I'd also point out that much of what generates the most vitriol isn't philosophy at all, but just personal musings of how one ought best live their life, general advice, or political rants. I'm not suggesting I'm above that fray, but I can certainly see why such discussions might come under greater scrutiny than others, considering many threads ride the fence of even being appropriate for this forum at all. In saying this, I realize that I've seen some mud slinging even when discussing such esoteric things as direct versus indirect realism, but I've not seen neo-Nazis views emerge in such debates.
The issue seems to be of what one values and does not. If one is not the same as me, then he is different and not worth talking to because I like hearing what I like hearing.
I'm against banning, and think we had things figured out pretty neatly at the old PF. Simply, sandbox the trouble makers into a unmoderated section; however, this software seems to not support that kind of sandboxing of categories.
I would put up money to support Paul and have this site run on his software if possible. Any ideas about that? We can kinda do our own Kickstarter of some sort as I have qualms with how threads are created and discussed here.
Everything here seems squeezed tight, with a jumble of various threads. The old PF had many categories where some members domesticated and then met at the Lounge area, kinda like an online university/forum ought be in my mind and was much more organized with the ability to return and search some really good old threads.
I thought the unmoderated section at old PF worked well too. But being sent there was essentially a ban - if a very slightly less severe one - and still sent the message that those posters weren't worth talking to. I also agree that there were some advantages to the old PF set-up, such as ease of searching old threads as you mentioned, but there are recognized advantages too to being here like increased speed of use; and there not being unanimity among posters as to which format they prefer means that, even apart from the practical difficulties, it's not realistic that we would do something as drastic as change to completely new software in the short term. Of course, if at some point we do achieve unanimity - or close to - on an alternative and the practical issues can be overcome, who knows.
Reply to Baden Better get working on my own forum software then. I did tell jamalrob when this place was first set up that I planned to build one, but I totally haven't had time... ;)
Hey, that would be great. I think @jamalrob and I are quite happy with most of what we have here, but if you can come up with something better at some point* it would be fantastic.
It's pretty certain we won't go back to WSN. I know @jamalrob likes the set-up here, and so do I, and we haven't done a poll but I doubt it's any less popular (and I would think more) than the old php set-up.
Metaphysician UndercoverFebruary 28, 2017 at 12:44#583170 likes
I thought the unmoderated section at old PF worked well too. But being sent there was essentially a ban - if a very slightly less severe one - and still sent the message that those posters weren't worth talking to.
You need a sinner's corner, with a confession both. All those banned members should be sent to the sinner's corner to confess their sins.
Reply to BadenReply to Michael There's plenty of free open-source forum software around, some of it very cool, developed by teams of top-class developers and designers. We could customize it as much as we wanted, we would host and maintain it, and the content would be stored on our servers too. So I don't see the appeal in creating your own.
Even without developing from scratch, it's a lot of work.
Reply to Hanover Except I don't hold fundraisers to pay my bills. I think a sense of group ownership. (of the kind Un was encouraging with his moderation thread) is a better idea.
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 28, 2017 at 14:49#583420 likes
Reply to jamalrob I'd also point out that despite the limitations in our current software, we haven't been plagued with the loss of service we'd see at PF every now and then. The more we have to rely upon our internal talent to keep the site up, the greater the hazard of failure. People come and go and get busy. The failure of PF was ultimately caused by lack of support from the owners.
Anyway, I'm in favor of better software, but the more polished and tried and true, the better.
Reply to Mongrel I think communal ownership will ultimately fail for reasons that would fill too many pages. I agree that any business should listen to and cater to its customer base, but the idea that everyone should have an ownership type interest is something I really disagree with.
I'm not going to get in between you two on the ownership thing. I'm not sure exactly what @Mongrel was suggesting. But just as a point of order, we're not a business, we're a community, albeit one that doesn't always see eye to eye.
Reply to Baden I was just pointing out that the "somebody else's home" analogy doesn't really work either. The way the forum has been moderated is fine. I just think if Hanover wants the forum to be more authoritarian, he should be paying for it.
You mean I'm not going to be getting any money in return for my work as a moderator? And here I was thinking I'd be given a share of the site and thus a share of inevitable sale to Mr Porat...
But just as a point of order, we're not a business, we're a community, albeit one that doesn't always see eye to eye.
Attempt to cast it as you will, but there is a name (I suspect Jamalrob's) attached to all of the great assets of this site and actual individuals assigned specific tasks for its upkeep. The point being that the rank and file are the rank and file and then a hierarchy above that. In order to keep this place afloat, someone is vested with the authority to decide who comes, who goes, what is bought, what is sold, what is added, and what is removed. So, yeah, we're a community center, but someone holds the keys.
What I like about Hanover is his humility, his kindness and generosity to others, his gentle self-deprecating wit, his insightful and well reasoned philosophical contributions, and the positive atmosphere he always cultivates with his fair-minded approach.
And the way he doesn't feel the need to parade his virtues ...
What about a "What do you like about going to the dentist" discussion? Might get more takers.
I like the fact that they do their job well and you often end up satisfied in the long term with their work. There's no pain nowadays to be felt, just psychological fear.
Just watch out for the snake dentists that will tell you, you need work on stuff that doesn't need work on. Some dentists don't know when its just 'good enough'.
What I like about Hanover, or, shall we say, An Ode to Hanover...
Having been blessed with true objectivity, something few, if any others have, I actually am qualified to itemize what I like best about myself. From most others, such would be preposterous, but with me, not only is it expected, but it is much appreciated.
What I like about me is how I at once am approachable while still being intimidatingly sexy. My openness to love in all its varied forms amazes even the most liberal, whether it be man/woman, man/man, and most of all woman/woman. Yes, most of all that. My kindness knows no bounds. I once saved a child from Baden's grasp and released an Asian from Wosret's basement. My humility forbids me from discussing further, but one can easily figure out the details through pure speculation. You won't be wrong in guessing what treachery had been planned.
This is just the tip of the iceberg about what is the greatness of Hanover. Everyone should feel free to add as they see fit.
What I like about Hanover is his humility, his kindness and generosity to others, his gentle self-deprecating wit, his insightful and well reasoned philosophical contributions, and the positive atmosphere he always cultivates with his fair-minded approach.
And the way he doesn't feel the need to parade his virtues ...
Funny. At work I went through some leadership program and was formally assessed as "condescending and indifferent." I told them that was a fair assessment, mostly because I didn't care what they had to say.
Funny. At work I went through some leadership program and was formally assessed as "condescending and indifferent." I told them that was a fair assessment, mostly because I didn't care what they had to say.
And here I thought a funny Republican was an oxymoron.
What about a "What do you like about going to the dentist" discussion?
My dentist is a University college of dentistry. I like going there because most of the young male dentists are so extremely attractive. They do good work because they are supervised by the faculty, which is more than you can say for the average practicing dentist. I suppose the young female dentist students are attractive too, but I pay little attention to them.
Having a stranger's fingers in my mouth is as close to oral sex as I get, these days.
Now, Hanover's law practice isn't going to offer any of these benefits. Hanover's a fine fellow (he says so himself) but other than witty and well reasoned statements, he doesn't do much for me. Sorry, but wit and reason can't compete with a root canal performed by a Dazzling Dental Adonis.
protectedplasticMarch 02, 2017 at 19:08#588140 likes
I need some advice here guys. I'm 18 years old and i recently found a job as a dog trainer, it pays 18/hr which for someone my age is great but i've gone two about three trainings now and I hate it. So now the question remains is it more important that i am happy or the money i will be making?
I need some advice here guys. I'm 18 years old and i recently found a job as a dog trainer, it pays 18/hr which for someone my age is great but i've gone two about three trainings now and I hate it. So now the question remains is it more important that i am happy or the money i will be making?
What is your ultimate aim in making money? And is that more or less important to you than happiness? We can't answer this for you. Or is your ultimate aim happiness in both cases? If so, then it would make sense to do whatever leads to the greatest happiness. If you quit your job, what then? You tell me. How much do you hate your job? Enough to face the consequences of quitting?
Given my circumstances, I would avoid quitting my job until I found another one with similar or better pay, and I would try to stick to that, even if I hated my job. But my circumstances are probably different to your circumstances. Given my past circumstances, I would simply quit without giving it too much thought - but circumstances change, and that is no longer the case for me.
protectedplasticMarch 02, 2017 at 19:27#588200 likes
Reply to protectedplastic you would have to love dogs, or be willing to try. And quitting any job, at 18, is often a really bad move. Try a bit harder to like it, would be my advice. Chances don't always come easily.
For there is no hope – fortunately! – that any kind of truly philosophical “text” can be voiced without approaching its questions with our own questions and inquiries… And without this voicing becoming an appeal or warning for the audience that they need to ask their own explicit – and simply irreplaceable!! – questions about the matter of “texts” as well!
i recently found a job as a dog trainer, it pays 18/hr which for someone my age is great but i've gone two about three trainings now and I hate it.
One of the eternal truths which philosophy teaches is "work sucks". There are at least 100 reasons why work sucks, so it is important to develop the right attitude towards work. ("You are free insofar as you obey" is not a right attitude but sometimes that's the way it works.)
You have probably made your decision by now, but I'll weigh in, anyway.
Understand the suckiness of the job. What is it about training dogs that you don't/didn't like? If the dislike was very intense, don't do that kind of work. If you loved training dogs, consider similar jobs, like working with people. Maybe you are not a dog person? Don't like dealing with dog saliva, urine, and feces? (Nobody does, actually. tip: If you don't like cleaning up after dogs, don't work as a personal care assistant in a nursing home.)
If the pay is high enough, suckiness can be overlooked for relatively short periods of time.
The specifics of the dog training job can't be too demanding if you've never done it before. You may not have a lot of skills to offer, yet.
On the one hand, $18 is not bad pay, unless you are living in a very expensive city or have expensive habits (already). On the other hand, this was probably not a full time job.
One job trial that doesn't work out is not a disaster. Try to stick at jobs you find long enough to establish a decent "work record". Having a job makes you a more attractive prospective employee. Employers prefer the employed over the unemployed -- ironically, paradoxically or logically--depending how you slice it.
If you loved training dogs, consider similar jobs, like working with people.
@protectedplastic, perhaps you'd like to be a dominatrix. That way, you'd still have a job where you get to pull a creature around on a lead, give it commands, and punish it. And if it's been a very good boy, then perhaps you'll let it fuck you. So it wouldn't be too different from your job working with dogs - only without the dogs. Problem solved.
I just found out that Obama's been rummaging through my bins.
If I caught him, I would invite him to come inside. But if it was Trump, I would consider shooting him and claiming that I thought it was a fox, and that I was just trying to take pest control measures.
Mt furnace broke a few days ago, and my wood stove is pretty small. Gotta stay up all night, and make sure no one freezes to death. I have a separate, private furnace for my room, so I don't see why this is my problem... but apparently it is.
Mt furnace broke a few days ago, and my wood stove is pretty small. Gotta stay up all night, and make sure no one freezes to death. I have a separate, private furnace for my room, so I don't see why this is my problem... but apparently it is.
They named a mountain after a furnace? Are you trying to tell us that you're in danger of being in proximity to a volcanic eruption?
Wait. I just googled "Mt furnace". Do you live in a place inhabited by pokémon?
I wish that I was about to be engulfed in molten stone... but no, I have to experience slightly below 0 temperatures momentarily while I get wood, like a sucker.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 05, 2017 at 14:56#592670 likes
My Mother in Law has decided that our ranch address will be her final destination. I have been mentally trying to wrap my mind around all that it involves. We are a working ranch and live here so we are here 24/7 and so she will be as well. Her plans are to snowbird here at our ranch and in CO and WA during the wicked AZ summers. This ONE season she will be in her Conversion Van down by the horse paddock but that is while we build a Mother In Law Quarters, here in AZ we call it a Casita. She will be paying for it to be completed by November when she returns. Guess who has the time to oversee this project? :D
On the upside, when she is snow birding, I will be listing the Casita on Air B&B for rent. Our ranch is snug up against the mountains of the Sonoran Wildlife Reserve which makes us centrally located to any and all outside activities. Our ranch provides a mare motel with an acre of open paddock for overnights and you can ride out of ranch into the mountains. The best Mexican food and Margaritas in town, are less than a mile away on horseback and they have a paddock for your rides, while you dine inside. Gorgeous Lake Pleasant is 30 minutes from our ranch to the boat launch and the lake is surrounded by some of the best ATV riding trails around.
So bring your toys, your animals (except cats sorry allergies) and yourselves for a stay that has everything you want, within a stones throw or stay close to the ranch for afternoon naps in the hammocks and nightcaps by the campfire, all while being serenaded by the desert wildlife. We are a green friendly ranch and ask that rules are followed in compliance with your license.
We offer a grocery list, for you to fill out in advance, if you would like your refrigerator full upon your arrival and look forward to having as much or as little interaction with you as you desire.
Mi Casa es Su Casa
Warmest wishes,
Winterbury Ranch
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 05, 2017 at 14:59#592690 likes
Thoughts??
Oh and I already thought about bolting for the hills but damn it all if I live in them!
There is no escape
I wish that I was about to be engulfed in molten stone... but no, I have to experience slightly below 0 temperatures momentarily while I get wood, like a sucker.
Chin up. Keep it going. At least when you've collected enough, your family will be grateful the next day when they awake to find your morning wood.
Since it's anecdote time, I'll join in. Last night was a funny night in hindsight, but I didn't exactly see it that way at the time. My friend saw what he assumed was an empty packet of cigarettes on the floor, and he kicked it, only to find out that it was full of cigarettes. He took the cigarettes, and then my other friend noticed that it smelt of weed. So we went back, and we found a decent sized spliff lying on the floor. So we went and smoked it and I had a panic attack, lol. Oops.
I have an extremely anxious heart. I can't experience any real, emotional confrontation without having something of a panic attack, even online.
When I first started working as a parking tooth attendant a few years ago, I had a woman work herself into a panic attack because I wanted her to pay for parking, and started to freak right out, with terror. That was like the worst panic attack ever, and all it sounded to me like she was saying with her yells and distressful noises was "help, help", as if I were wronging, or attacking her, and her life was really in danger. That freaked me right out, and I told them I was going to quit after that. They told me to take a few days off, and convinced me not to...
All antagonism injures me. I'm not as sensitive if I do drugs, or get drunk, or even just chain smoke a few cigarettes if stress is high. Could also eat a big meal, or judge things harshly, and deny them my sympathy.
Wish I had some weed... then I could just listen to the same song seven hundred times, and all would be well.
Lol, I didn't know what you were talking about for a minute. "Parking tooth" sounds cool though... I have the name, now all I need is the invention, investors, distributors, free time, disposable income and I'm rich!
Lol, I didn't know what you were talking about for a minute. "Parking tooth" sounds cool though... I have the name, now all I need is the invention, investors, distributors, free time, disposable income and I'm rich!
A parking booth shaped like a tooth. You could have them in carparks outside a dentist's. You'll hear more about it after my appearance on Dragon's Den.
You know that they found out that those ancient cave drawings aren't the shit work of unsophisticated savages after all. See when they were discovered there were also lamps in the caves that they collected without noting the locations of, but recently discovered that if they shine light the right way on the cave paintings, they're actually animations apparently!
Reply to Wosret If you twist your thumbs together and open your hands in front of a light, you'll make a bat on the wall. I bet those smart ass cave men couldn't do that.
I haven't been training, but just laying around all winter. I no longer need to in order to maintain this form, but I need to start trying to find a way to ascend. Got a lot of work if I plan to catch Goku.
According to Goku, each progressive form pollutes the heart, filling it with arrogance, pride and hostility. This is why Goku cannot channel the spirit bomb while in any super saiyan states until the very last fight of the series. where he is shown to be able to wield the spirit bomb while using the first super saiyan form.
Presumably this is also why Goku foregoes further training after attaining a new stage, and prefers to then just go lay around for at least a couple of weeks. He stresses the importance of this.
Goku definitely doesn't train so that he's killing himself, and pushing himself to his limit every single time, like Vegeta does.
Not nearly as good as the original, and I haven't watched it all, by no means, but the latest tournaments . I do like how they're painting Goku as the villain of this arch.
Not nearly as good as the original, and I haven't watched it all, by no means, but the latest tournaments . I do like how they're painting Goku as the villain of this arch.
I never really judged animes, as the story is more important. So, far most of the arks have been fantastic. The Zamasu one was a real treat. Besides, the story with Dragon Ball Super is better than the constant power ups and actually have a lesson to teach for most Dragon Ball fans in humility, which was something lacking in the Z series. Z, and GT were very solipsistic around Goku, whereas this one expanded the whole thing to... 11 universes?
Ahhhh after finally buying a new hard drive I have access to my philosophy pdf collection again which I have been without for like six monthhssss. It's like breathing again.
*all totally, absolutely, unquestionably legally obtained of course.
**Also, all my totally, absolutely, unquestionably legally obtained music as well.
That's like questioning why a grown ass man watches films. You do realise that, just like films, anime and video games can be similarly categorised based on age appropriateness. These are just different artistic mediums.
If anime is just for kids, and if video games are just for kids, then films are just for kids, and TV shows are just for kids, and books are just for kids. Would you suggest that books are just for kids because there are childish books? Would you suggest that TV shows are just for kids because there are childish TV shows?
Pretty sure I've pointed this out to you before, and pretty sure you'll nevertheless continue to make similar comments in future.
Can you name me a video game or anime cartoon that couldn't be understood or enjoyed by a 15 year old of average intelligence? There are thousands of books that fit the description.
Can you name me a video game or anime film that couldn't be understood or enjoyed by a 15 year old of average intelligence? There are thousands of books that fit the description.
I don't need to answer that question. It's not too dissimilar to films. There are plenty of films that are rated 18+ because of content such as sex and violence. And there are plenty of films with complex, mature, intellectual or disturbing themes better suited to an older audience, including - or even especially - adults. Likewise with anime, books, video games, etc. I could quite easily name several of each.
Out of those thousands of books you mention, there will most likely be some which could be turned into anime. If they were, then wouldn't they still be unsuitable in the same way as before?
Out of those thousands of books you mention, there will most likely be some which could be turned into anime. If they were, then wouldn't they still be unsuitable in the same way as before?
I look forward to the anime version of "The Critique of Pure Reason". Might be more fun. Anyway, wasn't trying to step on anyone's tastes. Just wasn't entirely convinced by the "if anime is for kids then books are" bit.
And to be fair, I'll venture that partaking of a bit of Goku and Vegeta is a more mentally enriching use of time than, say, reading the news these days.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about anime or contemporary video games to say any more, so I'll stay mum.
Just like with films and books, you can get ones which can be described as psychological thrillers, horrors, complex, intellectual, philosophical, intensely emotional, mature, taboo, graphic, explicit, violent, sexual. You can get ones which feature death and mourning, disturbing scenes, some form of abuse or criminal activity, and so on and so forth.
They might well be understood and enjoyed by a 15 year old of average intelligence, but that wasn't really my point, which is that they are more suited to an [i]older[/I] audience [i]including adults[/I] and not necessarily ruling out teenagers of a certain age: 15, 16, 17, 18, whatever. Not just for kids, and in some cases, they aren't even for kids at all, as evidenced by, for example, a rating of 18+.
I look forward to the anime version of "The Critique of Pure Reason". Might be more fun. Anyway, wasn't trying to step on anyone's tastes. Just wasn't entirely convinced by the "if anime is for kids then books are" bit.
Yeah, that isn't the best analogy to get the point across, but nevertheless...
I was thinking of adult fiction, with mature subject matter, which could be anything like what I previously mentioned.
I like the anime series Naruto: Shippuden, which is by no means the best example of an anime aimed at an older or more mature audience including adults. It has been given a rating of 11+ on one website, and features much immaturity. This is the kind of anime that might cause one to jump to the conclusion that it is just for kids. It does feature slapstick comedy and doesn't venture too far with regards to sex, gore or profanity, but it also features blood, violence, death, mourning, turmoil, emotional scenes, and it gets quite philosophical at times.
The anime part of Kill Bill: Volume 1 would be a much better example. It fits in with the rest of the film, rather than stands out as something childish or for kids.
It's a pity that anime is still thought of only in terms of its more upbeat and fun shows like Dragon Ball, Naruto, etc. There's such depth to the genre. It just takes a little bit of curiosity. Once you find the first show that makes you tear up or think about some unexpected idea for a few days, you'll keep finding more and more shows like it.
As with any artistic medium, you'll always get the bad with the good, and the bad usually comes first to stink up one's initial impression. Although, it doesn't always work like that. Most people come into contact with Shakespeare before reading drivel like Joyce or Wilde, *shrug*
Can you name me a video game or anime cartoon that couldn't be understood or enjoyed by a 15 year old of average intelligence? There are thousands of books that fit the description.
VagabondSpectreMarch 08, 2017 at 00:49#596840 likes
Just a random thought I had. What if Trump were to resign?
I mean, we all know Trump likes winning, but it also seems like he would be a much happier person if he were somehow not the president of the United States. I don't know if Trump, the media, public discourse, or the world can reliably handle 4 years of the emotional roller-coaster (or scrambler?) that we're presently riding...
Is there any way Trump could conjure an excuse to resign? This way he could retire a winner, undefeated as it were. He will avoid possible impeachment (I know that might be a long shot but I've long dreamed of it), having to run again in 4 years, and also not having to do actual work or make difficult decisions. As an ex president he will be able to cash in more on the Trump brand than ever before, and his word on social media will continue to be the stuff of legend.
Isn't that the optimal way out from his perspective?
P.S I have in fact heard impeachment rumblings from random but widespread sources. Anyone else see a rising probability of late?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 08, 2017 at 01:42#596930 likes
Is being a lawyer considered a positive thing in your world?
Yes, without a doubt. In fact some of my favorite 'thinkers' are attorneys here on the Forum and in real life. I have always been well taken care of by the attorneys I have interacted with both personally and professionally.
If you put Hanover, sheps, ciceronianus, xzJoel and Benkei all attending one thread?
Mmmm it is a nice gaggle of men to watch. ;)
You have knocked out one out of three. Keep going!
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 08, 2017 at 01:43#596950 likes
Just a random thought I had. What if Trump were to resign?
I think he could do it claiming family illness or need to be at home with Barron which would leave Mike Pence as President and we could get another 8+ years out of Pence.
Thoughts?
Comments (61561)
And I say that non-human animals are things like me, and that we do possess sentiments to preserve them just as much as ourselves.
I'm not saying that's my position, but it's a coherent one.
So what will you do if Roe vs Wade is overturned in the US? You do realise that this doesn't depend on you as a person. You are just one vote, and just one person, you're not the government or the other people... You have no choice but to follow the rest of your society or leave it. Even if you protest, you'll protest one or two days, weeks, years, but to what end?
You have given it life the moment you have conceived it as far as I see things.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Okay, under my society, people in your condition would be allowed to have abortions provided there is mutual consent from the husband and the wife.
I believe I understand what you are saying but maybe I was misunderstood. Please let me know if I did not make it clear that my right to have an abortion is very much a moral decision. One that is for me and my choice of influence around me, such as my Doctor, my family or my choice alone.
>:O I agree, and that's kind of creepy tbh LOL
I am a proactive person Agustino, you know that, so I would not be a person who waits until Roe vs Wade was overturned to stand firm in my beliefs and assert them with conviction if I believe they are being threatened. BUT I refuse to raise such arms at a false narrative and right now the overturning of Roe vs Wade is just that, a talking point.
No. The mere capacity on its own is the condition. This means, however, that even if I do grant that killing a human is worse, that doesn't remove the immorality of killing the animal.
Quoting Agustino
Then you are indirectly helping to perpetuate said vice.
Quoting Agustino
I could give less of a shit. Child sacrifice was traditional for the Aztecs, but it's still wrong.
This is a perspective that we will have to agree to disagree on. I have cohabitated my body twice in my life and have those personal experiences to draw from and while I understand your position, I have to respectively hold my own.
Quoting Agustino
Your society being?
That is a BRILLIANT example! (Y)
Would you mind if I posted it on The Philosophy Forum Facebook Page?
The fetus is not alive until 20 weeks after insemination? Could you tell me what is the basis for this claim?
Below is the pic from Wiki of a human fetus at 18 weeks. Not only is the fetus alive by that stage, it is recognizably human, I would say.
(Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a medical textbook, but to be honest I've learned the hard way not to search for photos of human embryos in general Google searches. I just don't have the stomach for it, as, in so doing, one encounters many unwanted search results which, once seen, cannot easily be unseen.)
I don't know. I like watching nature documentaries, and I feel profound sympathy for animals that are the victims of predation, no less than when I see images of humans tortured or murdered. I'm still haunted, for example, by the image of a baby rhino that had been wounded and couldn't walk properly, which forced its herd to abandon it. The sound of its cries as they left and as predators started to circle around it almost made me visibly cry. Perhaps I sound like a ridiculous sap, but I would be nervous around anyone who didn't feel the same.
To then kill such creatures for personal pleasure, whether that pleasure is the thrill of the hunt or the taste of their flesh, is repulsively abhorrent to me.
One of the latest frontiers in food science is "lab-grown" meat, derived from cultured stem cells. This method is still in its early developmental stages, but, if it becomes commercially viable (which would involve bringing down the cost and improving the taste and texture), it could potentially sidestep some of the more problematic aspects of eating meat.
How?
Yes, I hold out hopes that this can come to fruition.
I'm not sure I'd call it "fake," though. Tofu-based meat substitutes are "fake" meat, but lab-grown meat (from cultured muscle progenitor stem cells, or whatever the source material) is real meat, simply procured by means radically different than those which we've heretofore employed.
I am saying that if you feel as disturbed by animals getting killed as by humans, you are highly psychologically unusual, and almost no one is going to agree that running over a cat and running over a person are equally bad.
Whether you have such psychological reactions is irrelevant to the fact that, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to convince other people that their psychological reactions are misplaced, which is an uphill battle.
Quoting The Great Whatever
This claim, as I have already pointed out, is less relevant to the position I have been arguing for. Even if it is less bad to run over a cat, that doesn't make killing cats (or other sentient animals) not wrong, which in turn means that eating meat is still not justified.
This is where I was educated, every year on many family field trips during the summer and is not just a guess what the fetus looks like but they are actual fetus. Take a look through and if you are ever in Chicago, walk through the exhibit and go deep into thought about the women who donated these fetuses and know that having an abortion is absolutely a personal and moral decision.
Right...but my question was what is the basis for the claim that a human fetus less than 20 weeks old (i.e. approximately 5 months, or more than halfway through its typical gestational period) is not alive?
How is it not a moral decision?
Example: many people follow their moral compass that guides their decisions in life but one may have a Catholic designed compass or maybe a Jewish designed compass. Are their positions on abortion the same? I honestly don't know but I can tell you that I believe that THEY believe in their moral compasses that guide them on this topic.
Can you see how I believe that abortion is a moral decision?
I am impressed that you understand that the duration of a human pregnancy is 40 weeks and not 9.5 months. I did not learn this until AFTER I was pregnant and had horrible morning sickness. It was such joyous news.
To be truthful Arkady, I am not really all that comfortable with an abortion at 20 weeks but as long as that is the legal time frame, I can give a woman wanting to end a pregnancy the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make that very difficult decision.
Is the fetus alive at 20 weeks? There is a fetus in the woman at 20 weeks, but it is solely dependent upon her existence for it's survival (which does continue thru her WHOLE life if she were to go thru with the pregnancy) so it's not it's own life but rather a (ugh I hate this verbiage) parasite on her, the host.
(thinking this through as I am trying to be honest yet allow for movement of my position)
For me? I was told to never have another pregnancy because of the delicate nature the first two left my hormonal level in, so I have had to address this very concept with my husband and my Doctors and the same conclusion was arrived at by all parties involved. Which means, if I ever have a 'chance' of getting pregnant, I have to choose between the morning after pill or a possible abortion, yet technically my life would not be considered "in danger" of carrying a fetus to full term.
No, aborting a fetus is not an 'immoral' thing to do.
Why?
Yes, but this scenario is very different from the scenario in which you, by your own fault, got a defenceless person to be temporarily parasitic on your own body, without threatening your bodily integrity. Indeed, in such a scenario you'd have to wait until they're no longer parasitic, instead of remove them if this ensues in their death.
Yes, I agree to this
I agree.
Quoting Thorongil
But the deed has already been done so to speak. Should I then throw away that meat, instead of make the best possible use of it?
The society which I have conceived, where abortion is illegal, except for the circumstances I have outlined.
But certainly it seems to me that you would (1) unintentionally have the child (since you, your family and your doctor clearly don't intend this to happen, and presumably do what's necessary to avoid it) and (2) having the child would negatively affect your body in a potentially severe way, even though this wouldn't be life threatening. So I think those two conditions make the situation more clearly in favour of abortion if necessary.
Sorry to disappoint, but my comment was predicated on an assumed 36 week (i.e. approximately 9 month) human gestational period, not a 40 weeks' gestation (however, my point remains, either way).
I am here narrowly focused on the claim that the human fetus is not "alive" prior to 20 weeks' development. To make that claim in conjunction with the claim that the fetus depends upon the woman for its survival seems to be contradictory: how can it depend upon anything for its survival if it is not alive? Parasites are no less "alive" because they are dependent upon another organism for their survival (for that matter, neither are organisms involved in symbioses, which are mutualistic).
But she hates those though... :P
It is perhaps a coherent position in arguing for the permissibility of abortion in cases of rape or unplanned pregnancies which the woman took reasonable steps to preclude (i.e. those cases in which her birth control failed due to no fault of her own), but not abortion generally.
EDIT: I may have misunderstood whose potential culpability "their" refers to. If it refers to the dependent party's fault, then my above comment is irrelevant. If it refers to the independent party's fault, then my comment would stand. Either way, my question below about the conjoined twins example stands.
I would also ask if this view applies to conjoined twin pairs in which twin A is dependent upon twin B for his survival. Is twin B justified in demanding a separation surgery which would result in A's death, even if said surgery were carried out in defiance of A's wishes?
>:O But if I buy her vegeterian food, she'll start hating me LOL - that's certainly not good... she'll try to eat me at night :s
Australia's shameful policy has been in place for years. Welcome to our world.
I'm not sure I follow. This was the original analogy which was offered in the service of justifying abortion:
"I think that if a grown person somehow found a way into your body, even through no fault of their own, and became parasitic on it, many people would think it's reasonable that you can remove them, and that if this removal entailed death, the death would be justified."
So, even assuming that the position asserted in this analogy is itself "clear" (which is debatable), it doesn't necessarily follow that it shares enough relevant commonalities with abortion to make the principle equally "clear" in that case. Indeed, it seems to share a greater degree of relevant commonalities with the conjoined twins case.
Sorry, I just don't share this intuition. The analogy seems obvious, and apparently at least Tiff thought so as well. Do you want me to explicitly explain the analogy?
Quoting Arkady
The mention of fault was meant to clarify that the fetus, whatever its status, is faultless, which I think everyone agrees on – it wasn't meant to reflect on any 'fault' a woman might bear.
Again, even granted that it's "obvious," why does this "obviousness" translate to the abortion case, but not the conjoined twin case? As I said, the latter seems to share more relevant commonalities than the former.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Ok. Notice that I deleted the above from my post, and also allowed for the possibility of this confusion in my earlier post.
Conjoined twins are mutually dependent and both have a claim to the original body.
My example stipulated that they weren't mutually dependent, that one twin could survive the separation (this scenario is by no means medically unheard-of). And I'm not sure what "original body" you're referring to.
That's a cringeworthy phrase.
The body that the twins share. What else would I be referring to?
Quoting Arkady
The whole point of gerrymandering this example is to create complications for the previously presented view -- do you understand what I'm saying about the dialectic here? I'm not giving a position on every way such a principle might be applied to every case.
In this case, the twins grow into the same body (same lump of organic matter) together. The other situations are not like this, hence why the application of the principle is clearer.
:-}
*Skips past*
:D
You said "original" body. I'm not sure what the "original" added here.
Quoting The Great Whatever
You presented an analogy which was meant to apply to abortion (specifically in arguing for its permissibility). The point of argument by analogy (as opposed to using specific examples) is that the analogy serves as an "intuition pump" to clarify what otherwise might be murky aspects of the situation or thesis under consideration.
An analogy works only if there are enough relevant commonalities to the situation being analyzed (otherwise the analogy is irrelevant). Both the abortion example and the twins example share relevant commonalities with the analogy, but you accept its translation to the former situation, but not the latter. If you don't believe that it shares enough relevant commonalities with a given example for the analogy to translate, you must point out the relevant aspects in which the analogy breaks down.
How does this mean that each twin has an equal claim to the shared body? The heart, for instance, might be wholly or primarily located within one of the twins' chest cavities.
This obscures intuitions regarding right to bodily autonomy because it is unclear who owns the body when the body was never in self-possession before the conjoinment.
The next time the opportunity arises, I'm going to crush a bunch of roses for fun. They're just a bunch of roses...
(N) That's nasty man... why would you kill the plants?
Regardless of whatever it is that makes it so, humans have more worth to me than any other animal, and that's all that matters to me. I reject claims of the worth of any animal being more, less, or equivalent in worth to humans objectively.
Almost as peculiar as your view about crushing a bunch of roses. I'd answer "yes" to those questions, of course.
What, because you say so?
Fair enough. I'm still not fully swayed by the analogy, but I accept this explanation as to why you believe it applies to abortion but not to the conjoined twins case.
Quoting Thorongil
:-} So you see nothing wrong with purposefully destroying life?
Not gonna happen.
You mean like this:
There are better "excuses" than that one, though.
Do you reckon Sappy is like this:
That's a very naïve underestimation. It ain't gonna happen because the people in power aren't as naïve. There would be a [I]massive[/I] backlash.
You accuse others of lacking Realpolitik, yet come out with stuff like that...
It could happen. I think the chances are good that the matter would subsequently be ended by a Constitutional amendment. It seems to me that there are more important things the government needs to be paying attention to right now, though.
Sappy, when you walk on the street, and a dog barks after you, what do you do? Let the dogs bark! >:O
So what do you reckon politicians would do?
Stash corporate cash up their rectums.
>:O well that may cause rectal bleeding :-O
No, I imagine sappy being some hipster faggus who likes cats and drinks coffee while performing some mundane office supply/crafts job.
Not if you melt pennies down into a nice paste and loob yer bum, eh?
>:O >:O >:O LOL!
A utopia to him, a dystopia to us. But there are more of us than him, and we live in a democracy, so we have the advantage.
Have you ever heard the dying shrieks of a bunch of roses as they're crushed? Terrible. Just terrible.
For fun. And because they're just plants.
Riiiiight, and there's nothing wrong with that? :s
No, there's nothing unhealthy or abnormal about wanting to crush a bunch of roses for fun. That would only be so if there was some other reason, or if it was part of a larger problem.
Either there's nothing wrong with that, or there is, but it is so trivial that it doesn't really matter.
Funny how you've switched from pragmatism to some sort of namby-pamby romantic moralism.
There's nothing pragmatic about stepping over roses for NO REASON AT ALL (or for a stupid reason for that matter) :-d
I've only just gotten to that comment. I'm still catching up on this discussion. Currently on page 204.
Anyway, I found it quite amusing. Which means I'm probably not a Borg.
No, because that's how it is for me. I say so, because that's how it is for me - not vice versa. What's your point?
That doesn't follow. I was specifically talking about a bunch of roses.
So a bunch of roses aren't part of the living?
Huh? It was a "shaking head in disagreement/disapproval" gif.
Another [i]non sequitur[/I] which doesn't follow from anything I've said. Try again?
If the roses are part of the living, then by destroying them, you are destroying life. Simple. Not all of life, but you are destroying things which are alive. So it makes a lot of sense to ask you whether you see nothing wrong in destroying life as a principle?
Is it vegetarian? >:)
>:O
Yes, I did. And it was indeed a frog. I can't believe you remember that.
And yes, I do love animals, but my fellow humans come first in moral matters. I'd never save a cat over another human being. I'd find that utterly despicable, depraved, shocking, outrageous, abnormal...
What if the human was Hitler, and the cat was like super adorable?
:D
Oit! Cheeky git... It does happen from time to time, you know. Check my post history.
That's different from the question Agustino asked, though, which was about whether it was worse to run over a human or a cat. I have said that I find it hard to choose which is worse as both outcomes are awful. Given your scenario of "saving" one or the other, I would save the human over the cat. But that doesn't mean it's then moral to kill animals for food, which was the point I was trying to defend.
Yes, it could happen, but that seems highly unlikely. (To be clear, I'm talking about the overturning[/I] of [i]Roe v. Wade, as per the original comment, rather than an [i]amendment[/I], which could be slight in comparison. Nor am I assuming that it'd be replaced with a similar thing). And if it does happen, for how long will it remain that way, and what would be the reaction? I think there'd be a massive backlash if it wasn't handled in a more democratic manner. And I think it would only be temporary.
A Constitutional amendment would be the backlash. After that, the Supreme Court would have no power over the issue and Hanover could stop whining about it.
Oh, perhaps I misinterpreted your comment. I'm not sure I follow now... :s
Cheddar broccoli soup with some garlic toast, so yeah.
A dog's bite hurts more than a dog's bark, and a dog's bark can be a warning before it resorts to biting. Also, it is wise to let sleeping dogs lie, rather than provoke them. So politicians, like people walking the street, should pay due attention and take care.
It's nice to know you think so highly of me. But the only part of that which is correct is the part about liking cats.
It obviously wouldn't be for no reason at all (sorry, I mean NO REASON AT ALL!!!1!!11!!1!). You should already know what the reason is, unless you have very bad memory.
As for it being stupid, it's no more stupid than caring in the first place.
That's fine, so long as you're disagreeing with me by way of [i]my[/I] position: which is more complex than a simple affirmation or negation of your second sentence, and takes into account distinctions among living things and their worth, as well as differences in terms of the significance of the consequences.
No, that's an oversimplification. I would not be destroying life, I would only be destroying an almost incomprehensibly miniscule part of the living.
Quoting Agustino
[i]Those[/I] things [i]in particular[/I], i.e. the roses. Yes. They are indeed alive... at least until I crush them. But things which are alive are not [i]life[/I]... or [i]roses[/I]... or [i]those[/I] roses.
[I]"Oh noes! Poor little roses! The big mean man stamped on them! I'm telling my mummy!"
"It's alright, dear. Wipe those tears away. We'll give them a decent burial, and they'll go to flower heaven."[/I]
Quoting Agustino
No it doesn't. It is ill-considered and makes little sense. You should already know what my answer would be, since it is both common sense and implicit in my comments over the last several pages. Your leap from the particular to the general or universal is unwarranted.
O:)
Imprudent means to not show care for the consequences of an action. So, sure, I suppose so. I wouldn't show care because the consequences would be insignificant.
Inconsiderate means thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to others. It wouldn't be thoughtless, strickly speaking. And the hurt or inconvenience caused would in part be because of the foolish sentiments of others.
It'd be neither irrational nor unreasonable.
I don't care whether or not it's unseemly or unaesthetic. In fact, I find that laughable.
And, again, it's no more foolish than to care in the first place.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes, I agree. I consider that a truism. :-d
No cat could possibly be more adorable than Hitler. This little girl asked for a cat for her birthday, but just look how pleased she is:
Yes, I realise that it's different, but it's related. If someone finds it hard to decide which is worse, then it isn't much of a stretch to infer that they may find it hard to decide who to save in an either-or situation, and that it could go either way, and that, therefore, they could decide to save the cat rather than the human.
Quoting Thorongil
Good. But I don't think there should be any difficulty involved worth mentioning. All things being equal (sorry, no Hitler vs. super adorable cat, @Wosret), of course you should save the human over the bloody cat! And you should do so because the alternative would be worse. Why else?
Quoting Thorongil
I haven't claimed or implied otherwise here. I wasn't interested in addressing that point. I was only interested in addressing the comments of yours I quoted, which are much more controversial.
You can
a) eliminate the stupid, inattentive child from the gene pool by doing nothing;
b) you can throw your cats one by one, aiming carefully at the child, hoping the cat attack will cause her to move;
c) drop the box of cats on the third rail, shorting out the line, torching the cats, stopping the trolley, saving the child.
c) pray for a miracle.
What will you do?
Live or dead? Some prefer only dead, more predictable results.
Maybe so. So it would be ruled on state by state?
I'm fine with people spending their money on vagina hats. It's good for the fiber arts industry.
This actually happened to me one time. I dropped the box, but it turned out that I had stored a bunch of C4 in the bottom and the impact blew everything up. I'm now a brain in a vat.
At any rate, I really think that had the abortion issue been left to the democratic process, there'd have been some acceptable resolution of this issue, but by keeping it protected, it never went through that process and so this significant issue rests in the hands of 1 or 2 swing votes on the Court. I think the fear of democratic rule is misplaced. I fear judges more than citizens generally. I could go on and on about this, but the true changes to our society have been by the people, not the courts.
I shall remain both personally responsible and socially vigilant for the right to terminate a pregnancy, within the limits of the law.
I just don't know of many cases where the opposite is true: that the wrong answer was pushed onto the people. But I know some wrong answers that were arrived at democratically: The Indian Removal Act, for instance.
What "shameful policy" are you speaking of Banno?
A full term pregnancy is 40 weeks or 10 lunar months and to know that 20 weeks is halfway thru the pregnancy, should matter a lot considering that is what the USA law is based upon.
Quoting Arkady
I am thinking about this as I converse with you Arkady so please let me know if any of this helps.
You are right in that in using the parasite analogy was a bit confusing so let me try and express it this way. There is a term called Late Term Abortion and one of the terms they use to explain what a LTA is "postviability abortion". Which means that prior to 20 weeks gestation, the fetus is pre viable, meaning unable to survive on it's own and after 20 weeks there is a chance that the fetus would survive on it's own.
Oh well, in my ideal society at least it would :P
Might save some paper and require some exceptions, but I doubt it will hinder rule makers.
I haven't done so... yet. So you'll be pleased to know there's still a chance.
Come to think of it, I have a rose in my front garden. Maybe I'll crush that one. But if I do, what should I replace it with?
True pro's like me use only live ones. And live cats are better at attacking little girls on train tracks than dead cats.
Have you considered a trolley? Apparently they're very effective against other people's pets and children.
And I wouldn't have to water it or anything. There was a trolley around the back of my of flat, by the bins...
But I might just replace it with a bunch of plants, which I can then crush if I get bored of them. A trolley would be harder to crush.
If only I could plant Agustino's hopes and dreams in my garden...
That it's illegal to wear hot pink pants after midday on Sunday.
Or maybe this: Australia’s Brutal Treatment of Migrants
In many ways it is worse than the US bans, because it has been in place for years, and has been tested in the high court, and is accepted by both major parties.
(Y)
Self-flagellation?
If that's the problem, the UN should tax the world's countries for the funds to resettle refugees and give Australia what it needs. Please vote for me for Empress of the Universe and this will be one of my first actions.
Coincidence or no?
Not at all. The economics is insane. The government decided Cambodia was a nice place to resettle refugees, and sent nine of them over. One stayed, the others moved on. Cost - $18 million.
Yeah, Mad.
I liked Cambodia. Nice place.
>:O
Try to crush them and they will grow taller than you can imagine!
Quoting Sapientia
Is that a Sainsbury's trolley that no one bothered to return after they used it to carry goods to their flat? >:)
I would if I could, but my unity has been greatly exaggerated.
Probably. I live close to a Sainsbury's.
Have you been stalking me? :-|
>:O No but I know what shit you British people are up to - I've lived in your country for long enough
I'd do the same thing, but carrying my heavy shopping bags back to my flat is one of the few times I get some exercise.
Are you a bit weird? And if so, might that be a good thing? Find out in this scientifically validated questionnaire that will measure your weirdness in ways you haven't even thought about. We will explain how a bit of weirdness - but not too much obviously - is actually good for you and proves you are someone and not everyone. The one thing worse than being abnormal is being normal, but don't worry, you probably aren't.
>:O
No worries, you don't need to take the test.
d) Take some gory photos of the smashed, previously stupid, dead child and retrieve the Hitler doll to sell it on eBay along with the photographs of the scene.
Ask a stupid question...
Your score is lower than 26% of all participants.
Does this test work equally well for all people around the world?
This test was developed in Great Britain and the images you saw were taken from British magazines in 1990's. Unsurprisingly, the test doesn't work perfectly for people who are not native speakers of English or for people who come from cultures that are very different from Britain's.
Should you worry if you got a low score?
No. Your screen lighting level, mood, fatigue and many other factors might have affected your score. The results of this test are useful when they are averaged across many people, but they can be inaccurate for any individual person.
I understand that this a complex issue and that your views may shift somewhat as we converse, but can we be in agreement that, whether or not it is viable outside the womb at that stage of development, a 20-week-old human fetus is alive?
Going by that definition my pinky is alive too. Although questions regarding my sanity may arise if I decide to cut it off, it won't be a legal issue.
Which "definition?" Tiff used the analogy of fetus as parasitic on the mother, which your pinky is not.
Someone made the claim that a human fetus at 20 weeks was not alive. My comments in this thread on that subject have largely focused on discussing that particular claim. Your pinky comment doesn't really clarify much of anything.
You said "going by that definition..." your pinky is alive. I wasn't aware that any particular definition had been offered in this discussion, so I don't know which definition we're "going" by.
Having said that, I maintain that pinkies and 20-week-old fetuses are both alive.
Go on. I'm sure there's some ethical claim around the corner here somewhere...
Go on to what? This would seem a non-sequitur. My interjection into this topic in this thread solely concerned that factual matter whether or not a 20-week-old human fetus is alive.
Yes. Tiff denied it. Which is why she and I were engaged in the discussion that we were when you interjected.
So again, what is the point of establishing whether it's alive? Because I don't see it yet unless you're forwarding that ethical claim you're inching towards or we're really not having an interesting conversation.
Tiff said:
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
which is the comment that provoked my initial response. She then went on to say it is dependent upon the mother for its survival, etc which I pointed out is incoherent. So, you're wrong that she never claimed that a 20-week-old fetus is not alive.
Again, I am engaging on the factual issue as to whether a 20-week-old fetus is alive.
It is interesting to me. You evidently felt compelled to respond to my post, which no one forced you to do.
Is "coherent" really the right word here? I don't think it's incoherent to argue that abortion is always permissible. False, perhaps, but not incoherent.
Yes, I made what was apparently an error in the post you're quoting (explained in the bolded middle paragraph). It was unclear to me who "their" was referring to there, so the portion you quoted is moot.
Because I thought that it might function on my PS4's internet browser? Simply because I own a PS4? Or perhaps because, like Agustino, you refer to Dr. Terrapin's previous diagnosis?
Let me guess, my failure to understand your meaning is further evidence that I have Aspergers Syndrome, right?
For whatever reason that struck me as comedy gold, :D
Okay...
That and my phone are my only ways of accessing the internet at home.
The point is that it is strange to suggest that MPs have a democratic responsibility to support the popular opinion. A labour MP doesn't have a democratic responsibility to support conservative policies simply because more people voted in their favour than against. And so a Remain MP shouldn't have a democratic responsibility to support Brexit simply because more people voted in its favour than against.
And remember also that democracy in the UK amounts to a representative democracy where each eligible person can vote for a representative in Parliament. That's it. You're only "anti-democratic" if you oppose this system. An MP voting against a referendum result has nothing to do with this.
Unless by "democracy" you mean direct democracy, but then this country isn't a direct democracy...
It isn't that strange given that:
Yes, it does. You said it is strange. I addressed that by saying that it isn't, because of x, y, and z.
By "doesn't even address the point" I mean that your reasons are non sequiturs – they don't address the issue that Ken Clarke raised.
It's about failing to be representative.
They are part of a larger argument. Not all of which was explicit in the reasons I gave. So your charge of non sequitur is premature.
And "being representative" in a representative democracy like ours amounts to being freely elected to a seat in Parliament. That's done-and-dusted. An MP choosing to vote against the result of a referendum has nothing to do with this.
Saying that it's "anti-democratic" is just to say that it's against direct democracy, but again, we don't live in a direct democracy; we live in a representative democracy.
And that we live in a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy is why your conclusion doesn't follow from the three reasons you gave. There's no relevant connection between "Britain is a [representative] democracy" and "there was a referendum".
No, that's wrong. What do you think that their job entails as a representative and member of the House of Commons? Being freely elected is merely how they get the job. The clue is in the name. Their duties don't end once they're elected - it certainly isn't "done and dusted". On the contrary, that's when they formally begin.
That depends on whether we're using the trustee model of representation, where representatives "have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies" or the delegate model of representation, where representatives "act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency".
I think we tend to use (and expect) the former. But even with the latter, it doesn't entail supporting the result of a nationwide vote.
The fact is that the UK isn't a direct democracy, and so MPs are not democratically obligated to support the result of a referendum.
I haven't even used the term "anti-democratic", and I said that it's about failing to be representative.
Quoting Michael
Of course there is. The result of the referendum is representative of the people, and MP's are supposed to represent the people - or at least their constituents. And if they all did so, then either way, the result of the referendum would be honoured.
We're discussing Ken Clarke's claim that because he doesn't have a "democratic duty to support Labour policies" even when the majority vote for Labour, he doesn't have a democratic duty to support Brexit even when the majority vote to Leave. That's not how democracy works in the UK.
It isn't quite so black and white, but in this case, given its context, I think that they should be representing the majority vote.
Quoting Michael
It's a false analogy, given the role of the opposition, general elections, referendums, and democratic parties. The role of the opposition is to oppose the government, not the people. And referendums aren't partisan in the way that general elections are. Bringing up the Labour Party is a red herring. The difference between partisan issues and nonpartisan issues is important.
In the delegate or the trustee sense? And is this "should" a moral claim or are you claiming that they have a democratic duty to be this type of representative?
What's the difference between grouping a bunch of people who agree with certain policies under the label "the Labour party" and grouping a bunch of people who agree with a certain policy under the label "the Leave campaign"? I don't see any relevant difference. So I fail to see how this is a false analogy.
Again, the simple fact remains that under our representative democracy, MPs do not have a democratic duty to support the popular opinion.
Given what I said, it couldn't be in the delegate sense, except by coincidence.
Quoting Michael
Both in this case. I'm not making a general point about the details of parliamentary representation. My point is specifically about this case in particular, and the context is important.
Quoting Michael
There are differences between political parties and political campaigns. The Leave campaign is bipartisan. The Conservative Party is not. And the Parliamentary Conservative Party were (eventually) permitted the freedom to support either the Leave campaign or the Remain campaign. But that was at the campaign stage, whereas things are different now, as good MP's acknowledge. If you're a member of the Conservative Party and you're found to support another political party then you risk expulsion from the party. It wouldn't make much sense to do that unless you're an entryist. But it would make sense to do the right thing and honour the referendum result. Although I'd be happy if a Conservative like Ken did the right thing by supporting the Labour Party as well, even if he was expelled from his party as a result. He's retiring soon anyway, and this way he could go out with a bang.
So in the trustee sense, where they "have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of [the voters]"?
Yes, the Leave campaign involved the cooperation of more than one party. And the Labour party involves the cooperation of more than one Brexit campaign. I don't understand the relevance of this, and so I fail to see how an MP can have a democratic duty to support the winner of the referendum but not to support the winner of the General Election.
But the issue is whether or not he has a democratic duty to support the Labour party, not whether or not you'd be happy for him to do so.
When I said that it isn't quite so black and white, I meant that it doesn't have to be either one or the other. To represent the majority vote would in some cases require some autonomy from a constituency, but it also wouldn't necessarily favour the greater common good and national interest. It's not so much about consequences as it is about principles. I think it is the right thing to do, in principle, to honour the referendum result.
Quoting Michael
Well, the answers are in the explanation I've just given. In one case they have a conflicting duty to support their party rather than another party, and this duty takes precedence over the duty to support the winner of the General Election, which makes no sense, and isn't even a duty that any MP in opposition would recognise, except on those occasions in which there is bipartisan agreement. Whereas in the other case, I think that the duty to honour the referendum result should take precedence over an MP's personal beliefs about whether it would be better if we leave or remain, because the matter has been settled by the referendum. Both matters are respectively settled by referendum or General Election. But, like I said, the opposition is supposed to oppose the government, but not the people. So if the people, rather than the government, vote to leave on a bipartisan issue, then it shouldn't be blocked by MP's.
Quoting Michael
He doesn't. That's not an issue for me. For you, perhaps.
Who's which? >:)
Although saying that, I'm a black coffee drinker...
Are you Prince Charles? >:O 5:44
Are you all tampons too? >:)
No one is bound to vote to match what the citizens in their district think -- indeed, it is certain they will displease from 1/3 to 1/2 of the electorate most of the time, no matter how they vote.
What about the parties?
No one is bound to vote according to party platforms established at the various nominating conventions. No one is bound to vote according to party dictates as directed by the Majority or minority whips. The one real lever the party has over its members is committee memberships. If you don't follow party wishes, you'll get the very worst committees (Antarctic Affairs sub-committee--the ones where the assigned go to die). If you want a plum committee assignment (Ways and Means, Intelligence, Judicial or Commerce, etc.), you follow voting directions AND you raise more than your quota of funds for the party, plus your own reelection funds.
What's "representative" about that? At least for two years, an elected rep can do what he or she wishes. Senators have 6, the president gets 4. Yes recall is possible, but rarely happens (it's difficult) and generally people in the government are usually not quite obviously crooked enough to be thrown out of office.
>:O
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
..............
What am I to understand out of these dots? :P A gif would be better >:O
...
And since it works on Internet Explorer, I mean...I dunno what else to say >:O
Ha!
Yeah I see it.
[quote=The Guardian]The Resolution Foundation’s study found that the current parliament would be the worst for living standards for the poorest half of households since comparable records began in the mid-1960s and the worst since the early years of Thatcher’s 1979-90 premiership for inequality.[/quote]
John McDonnell MP responds to Resolution Foundation Report
[quote=John McDonnell]This report is damning of the unfair economic policies of this Chancellor, as the gap between working families and a wealthy few gets wider, with the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. It demonstrates to us all once again that the economy under a Tory government will be rigged for those at the top, with poor and middle income households facing their worst Parliament for income growth since the 1960s.[/quote]
The president reportedly berated Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and hung up a half-hour ahead of schedule.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-australia-malcolm-turnbull_us_589293c3e4b070cf8b80b22e?xpl8scfljo10jm7vi&
The typical response of the left is to appeal to their inept government for help instead of actually getting out and doing something. What is it that irks you so about Trump? Is it that you think he hates women, for example? If so, go help women as opposed to signing your name and feeling like you've done something other than scribbling on a piece of paper.
It isn't an appeal to the government, which I agree is inept in many ways. It is a petition to the UK Parliament. And it succeeded in forcing the UK Parliament to debate the matter by securing well over the 100,000 signatures required.
And I am only one man, and I don't have anywhere near the power or influence that the President of the United States has, so addressing the bigger problem makes sense. If I have a really bad tooth, should I seek a dentist or just keep seeking painkillers and hope it doesn't get any worse? That analogy isn't quite exact, but it is similar to what you're arguing.
It could be read that way, but doesn't necessarily have to be. I think Trump is quite isolationist in terms of military. He wants US to be strong and invincible compared to other countries, but he doesn't want to get involved with them except when it's good for US, or they represent threats.
Iran is put on notice merely because they're a potential threat to the US, which is true, they are. Iran did it with their own hand - for many years Iranian officials have publicly made statements about taking military action against Israel and US. "A violent man will die a violent death" as the DaoDeJing tells us.
And a similar Realpolitik principle also applies to Trump, because Trump is too brash and in the spot light with what he's doing, he's garnering too much hatred to his name. This isn't good for him. There would have been better ways to implement the same policies, such as first drafting all of them, talking about them incessantly, and only then implementing. But at the moment it's implementation without justification to the people, which can very easily backfire. The changes are undertaken too quickly to be sustainable.
Wants? The US already is invincible.
Not really. As things stand now, in 20 years, China will be twice the size of US X-)
Quality over quantity. Even so, you underestimate how much the US has put into the military.
It's always good for the US to keep everywhere else in subjection.
It is, actually, >:O
True, but people don't like to be in subjection, so that's difficult for the US. If you keep them too much in subjection they will rebel and form a coalition against you. If you put no restraints on them, they'll become bigger and greater than you. You need to strike a balance. A great winner is a hidden winner - nobody sees him when he's winning, like China. People aren't aware how powerful China is becoming. It's doing all this while hiding that strength.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes but military is less important than economy - US cannot attack China militarily because they'd just destroy themselves - that's suicide. China has placed itself in a great strategic position. Almost all the world's economies depend on it. It is the engine of the global economy.
Neither can they attack us. You're also underestimated the US economy, >:O
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. - Dubya
They don't need to attack you - they'll steal your influence by becoming bigger and better and stronger than you. There's no need to hurry doing it either. By then, you're going to be puny compared to them. To beat China you must keep their growth below yours - which I doubt you'll be able to do.
The Grand Conservative Chinese Agenda working miracles, (Y)
If you study Chinese history in detail, you'd be amazed by their strategic mind to be honest :P
The University of Kentucky doesn't have a parliament.
But yea.. you feel like "No Trump," so you want to express how you feel. I think that in the same way the Trump immigration ban gets turned into a Muslim ban (whether it really is or not), a UK Trump ban is basically an American ban. Not many Americans actually understand how much British people hate Americans (a blind spot that's more than 200 years old). I guess you could say it a little louder. But American school kids are still going to be singing the British national anthem (with the words changed) after they salute the flag.
Life is weird.
That's a misquote.
[quote=Dubya]Fool me once... shame on... shame on you... You fool me, you can't get fooled again.[/quote]
No. No it isn't. Not at all. This is very clearly about Trump; not Americans. Your speculation is way off the mark.
And it wouldn't even be a Trump ban; it'd only "ban" Trump from official State Visits. He'd still be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government.
OK. Likewise the "Muslim ban" is bullshit. It's not a Muslim ban. It gets turned into that. And likewise (my new favorite word), saying "no" to an official visit from the POTUS would be an extraordinary move on the part of the UK. It would be the end of something. The next week, large radioactive cockroaches would start appearing everywhere signalling The End of The World.
I think they call it a muslim ban because that is what Trump was calling it on the campaign trail.
I'm actually inclined to agree with your point about the relationship between the immigration ban and a Muslim ban. But I do think that your other point was bullshit, and I don't agree that the two are analogous. There's no "likewise" there, I'm afraid.
I don't know why the Trump administration and his supporters would try and insist on a PC view of the muslim ban at this stage?
Trump was clear during his campaign that he did not care if it was politically correct or not, his supporters did not seem to care either, so it does not make sense to me why they would back peddle now that the order was enacted.
Trump also said it would be temporary until he can "figure out what's going on" so he definitely has a way to save face if or when it is decided the executive order is unconstitutional.
I imagine that is exactly what he would do if it is ruled unconstitutional, he would resend the order and claim that it was his decision all along because the order was only supposed to be temporary.
I'm a Brit married to an American woman. I can't say she's experienced any hatred here in the UK, unless you count a few bad caricature accents. I confess if I say 'Gee Honey' that gets her all riled up, but I think transatlantic relations can survive such skirmishes.
This is an odd idea. I thought Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan (where only just over half the country is now under the control of the current regime) might be evidential challenges to that. Only their military budget looks invincible to me.
It seems that backpedaling is the order of the day across the pond. Although we've had our fair share of it over here after the EU referendum - whatever happened to that £350 million for the NHS? The other day I was watching The Daily Politics where the topic was Trump's backpedaling over his comments about the use of torture.
Done! They're not welcome over here. Britain should enforce a ban on cockroaches of any sort. Unless they're Christian.
This is interesting.
The US is already highly developed compared to China.
China is growing at a much faster rate than the US because they are less developed in terms of basic modern infrastructure.
The runway for the US to grow is severely limited compared to China.
Unless there is some new industry or technology that emerges US can not ever hope to compete with China in terms of growth.
In fact it is not in the best interest of the US to use up our development runway quickly by trying to grow at as fast a rate as possible.
Also comparing the US with China is something of an apples to oranges comparison.
The Chinese economy is manufacture based in that most of the jobs available in the Chinese economy are factory type manufacturing jobs.
The US on the other hand has transitioned to a service based economy in that most of the jobs available in the US are service based jobs.
It is not realistic that the US can return to a manufacturing based economy as this would result in massive inflation of goods.
This is why it is unclear how Trump intends to grow the economy.
He says he wants to increase spending by funding infrastructure projects, which would stimulate the economy temporarily sure, but it would also burn up the US growth runway quicker and leave us in even more of a growth bind in the long term strategic view.
The calls to increase the rate of US growth, without new industries or technologies driving that growth, are not actually in the strategic best interest of the US with regards to competing with China economically.
Well nobody hates actual people. Your Muslim dentist nextdoor neighbor is just the salt of the earth friendly guy with his two beautiful daughters got to remember to make sure it's beef hotdogs at the cook-out, but those Muslims... they're trying to kill us.
That's interesting. I've been reading about the Black Death. Did you know it's not for sure what organism actually caused it?
No the US isn't "highly developed" it merely created a myth to rationalise its own laziness and lack of economic growth. We grow at 1%... why? Ahhh we're highly developed X-)
Quoting m-theory
No. Rather because they have positioned their economy strategically given the needs of capitalism world-wide. Furthermore, Chinese people are disciplined and willing to live hard and difficult lives, while Americans are lazy and desiring comfort and easy money. Thus Chinese accept to do things that would be impossible to do in America.
Quoting m-theory
Yes
Quoting m-theory
I don't think Trump will beat the Chinese, it's too late now. But we'll see.
Did anyone else misread that? Or is it just my perverted subconscious filtering through?
China's high GDP growth is driven by development, that is not really open for debate.
The US will not benefit from development growth because...we are already developed.
Also I would not say the Chinese people are motivated to live difficult lives when compared to western folk.
That is a strange thing to claim.
Again we will not be able to grow at the same rate as China, or any other developing country.
It simply is not possible to compete with developing country growth unless new industries or technologies emerge to drive that growth.
I might've known that at some point, but if so, I must've forgotten it. I thought that the experts had concluded that it was probably spread by fleas, and that it arose because of very poor standards of hygiene.
In China the economy is shifting from domestic agrarian driven to manufacture driven.
The development of modern infrastructure is the primary driver of growth in China.
US growth is not driven by infrastructure development and the demand for infrastructure is far greater in China, and will be far greater in China than it is or will be in the US.
I suppose you could argue that the US is lazy because it is not developing infrastructure.
But to develop infrastructure where there is no demand for it just for the sake of not being lazy is...
Well it's like you don't think about what you are saying beforehand and instead just blurt out the first thought that pop's into your head.
The Black Death is believed to have jump-started a social transformation because it killed so much of the labor in Europe. Aristocrats were outraged that the remaining population either didn't want to work or they were charging a lot for their services. Time for a labor movement?
It's imperative that we find what the cause was. Forget "socialism or death", it's socialism [i]by[/I] death.
What was the suspect organism?
Was it bacterial?
It is possible, if you get your lazy bums up and running day in and day out, shut down and clamp on time-wasting activity, remove hedonism from your culture and so forth.
Another poorly thought out post.
The problem is not a productivity one, developed countries actually tend to be more productive than developing countries.
Again there is a lack of demand for infrastructure development in developed countries.
In fact that is why they are called developed.
It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
To save me some time...
Quoting m-theory
>:O
Too bad that time is not spent learning some basics about macroeconomics.
Yersinia pestis. Yep, bacteria.
Europeans discovered the connection between plague and oriental fleas when they looked at the fleas very closely and discovered that the death vectors were wearing little kimonos, elevated shoes, Mao jackets, saffron monks robes, and the like. Plus, they used chop sticks when biting rats and humans. High class fleas rode rickshaws.
We don't have cases of any plague nowa days.
Guess it worked!
X-)
You're dumb as fuck if you think developed countries don't have high demand for infrastructure. Please refrain from pulling shit out your ass.
I think he recently threatened via Twitter to deploy federal troops to Chicago to tackle the crime there, so maybe they can take care of this plague issue while they're at it.
No kidding.
Your ignorance is woeful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country
In developed country the demand for infrastructure is far less than when compared to an undeveloped country.
Suggesting that a developed country will be able to compete in growth with a developing country based solely on demand for infrastructure is ignorance.
Developing countries have a much higher demand for infrastructure than developed countries.
Again that is why they are called developed, because they lack the same demand for infrastructure that a developing country has.
That's bullshit in itself. The US as all other countries are still developing, and in fact trying to develop as much as possible, and grow as much as possible. Some - despite their size - manage to do this better than others.
And I don't want to tell you what I advise people to do with their macroeconomics - that quaint art that is useful for nothing except being thrown out the window. I never trust any expert on economics and I never have. Practical decisions are never taken on those considerations.
This is fine when you have no use for an informed opinion.
Quoting Agustino
I think you must not know what practical means.
No, it's just that I know how people who work in business (not speaking now of those who work in large corporations) treat economics - as bullshit.
Quoting m-theory
Practical certainly means making forecasts that are always wrong ;)
Again you are opinionated sure but by your own admission you are not willing to have your opinoin be one that is informed.
Quoting Agustino
There is nothing practical in building infrastructure that will go completely without utilization.
Sure we could develop our country at the same pace as China.
The difference is there is a demand for that supply in China.
What you have not shown is that there will be the same demand for that supply in the west.
In fact making roads nobody will drive on, power and phone lines nobody uses, homes that nobody lives in, factories that sit idle and urban areas nobody migrates to, well that would not result in GDP growth at all.
You have an opinion, but it is a useless one because you have no idea what you are talking about.
As I have explained to you, the problem isn't this. The problem is that people in the West are no longer motivated by discipline and hard work. Instead they are motivated by the possibility of having access to drugs, to parties, to alcohol, to hedonism/consumerism, to traveling around the world, and other such bullshit (this is your "service based" economy). This is a problem - this isn't a peoples devoted to survival and thriving - it's not a peoples thinking how it can outsmart the Chinese, or anyone else. This is a peoples which dedicates itself to completely different goals, which are actually detrimental to their survival.
Again you have no clue about which you speak.
Get the fuck outta here.
Sorry I did not have time for anything more remedial.
If you can't grasp why you are wrong it would be a waste of time, because clearly you are not interested in the knowledge.
:-d
You can pretend like the evidence of your ignorance does not exist, sure.
If that makes you feel better go for it, just don't expect me to pander to that delusion.
You did not have a question.
You had quip that made you feel better about being made to look a fool.
Never said I had a question.
Quoting m-theory
No, I think that is you, who I first laughed my ass off at, >:O
What you seem to fail to understand is that it is not debatable.
Developed markets have less demand for infrastructure compared to developing countries.
This is why they are referred to as developed.
I defy you to find any source that states the contrary.
Made into a law by a whole lot of economists :P
You are right I fail to understand how this is relevant.
Perhaps you could cite some source that gives evidence to the case that sometimes in developed economies there is a greater demand for infrastructure than there is in developing economies because of variation in demand.
Same goes for you.
Show me why you believe there is equal demand for infrastructure in the US as there is in China.
Cite some source that there actually is the same demand.
:-} I never said the demand is equal, I said it could be equal. Also I'm not exactly sure how you'd measure your demand, except by noting the number of infrastructure projects undertaken and the total money invested in it year by year...
No you argued that the supply could be equal.
You have not made the case that the demand can be made equal.
When I think of East Africa, for example, and its several more or less undeveloped economies, there are numerous basic infrastructure needs: water, sanitation, housing, transportation, power generation, schools, health care systems, etc. Granted: were financing available, building to meet all of the infrastructure needs would be a tremendous economic stimulus.
Quoting m-theory
Not entirely ignorance.
East Africa's people have telephones. How did they get these without a major infrastructure project? Simple: The technology changed. When western countries developed, telephones required dense networks of copper wires, switching equipment that took up large buildings, each telephone weighed at least a pound. It was moderately heavy industry.
Africa's telephones weigh a few ounces, are wireless, and require only transmitter/receivers on towers, and switching is handled by computers. The economic and social value of this piece of infrastructure isn't in its building, it's in its use.
Railroads, highways, ditches, excavation, buildings, and so forth no longer employ huge numbers of people. When the west developed, the labor was performed largely by men and horses. Railroads aren't built that way anymore and highway construction is almost entirely mechanized. Millions of East Africans won't be employed building the infrastructure. It will be hundreds of thousands.
Basic infrastructure, unlike diamonds, is not forever. It all needs to be replaced, eventually, but developed countries can not get a huge boost from these public works projects for two reasons: First, these projects are not labor intensive: They are technology and power intensive. Small crews and heavy equipment does the work. Secondly, there are costs in disruptions resulting from the work. It will take quite a while for the Big Dig in Boston to balance out. Imagine how disruptive replacing Boston's or New York's many leaking water pipes would be.
So, ignorance? Yes and no.
Infrastructure is always a good thing, but from investors' POV, the projects have to pay off reliably. Would you buy bonds for African infrastructure projects, if you had a few million sitting around? It would be a major gamble.
I did not mean to be so terse with you bitter I took some of my frustration out on you when I should not have.
I respect that you are at least willing to defend your point by measure of reason.
Of course I conceded the point that infrastructure investment would result in a temporary stimulus for a developed country and that was my point, that planning this uses up our growth runway faster than doing it organically and on an as needed basis.
The potential growth from infrastructure for a developed economy simply cannot compete with the potential growth from infrastructure that a developing has.
And I do not agree that counting upon this alone is a wise long term economic strategy for a developed economy.
So...
Of course I still don't agree that developed economies will have as much demand for infrastructure as developing economies even taking into account obsolescence and this is unfortunate.
What developed economies need for sustainable growth is disruption and the introduction of new industries and/or technologies.
At least in terms of economic strategy I would not advise that we could manage sustainable growth competitiveness by investing in equal rates of supply of infrastructure as developing countries.
The other thing that developed economies get are fewer problems -- like Flint's lead problem (not unique to Flint), flooded basements from broken old water mains, and the like.
Just an aside, in 1992 a section of a 'freight tunnel' under the Chicago River was broken into by a pile-driving operation. About 40 miles of tunnels were (still are) in use for electrical and other service conduit, and to move freight. Of course the tunnels took on a great deal of river water which ran into sub-basements, basements, and lobbies all over the Chicago Loop. It's a good example of infrastructure problems.
You are an old dinosaur so that means you are wise right...
:P
so I was hoping you might share your opinion by answering a few of these questions?
How do you think developed countries should fund infrastructure?
Is it wise to lower taxes and increase spending?
Should we cut social programs to fund infrastructure?
There are two methods: internal funding and external funding.
In order to manage internal funding, they require a sufficient level of economic activity--producing a cash surplus--which can be coaxed into investment in long-term debt (bonds).
In order to attract affordable external funding, they require enough stability to assure bond purchasers that project will be completed (and not be blown up) and have enough economic activity to indicate that the indebted economy will be an on-going concern and will be able to make debt payments over the long run.
Obviously, many small undeveloped or even developing countries have difficulty on all fronts.
The process of development is not a short-term affair. East Africa, like other parts of the world, will need many decades to complete the road to full development -- some of which they have already traveled.
It's an open question whether the world can afford to be 100% developed, especially if development is as wasteful in the future as it has been in the past. Your children or grandchildren will find out.
Quoting m-theory
Definitely not. Lower (corporate and wealth) taxes do not reliably lead to increased investment in production, and do not "trickle down". Mostly they result in more disproportionate wealth accumulation and dividend payouts. Increased spending (without adequate tax support) leads to costly deficit spending and inflation, both bad.
Deficit spending requires borrowing, and we are already indebted up to our eyeballs.
Quoting m-theory
No, of course not.
We are not going to rebuild everything in one or two presidentiads; infrastructure replacement should go on continuously, at a reasonable and steady rate. We can afford a reasonable level of spending in this area, IF we don't cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and limit arms spending.
Social programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Education, Disease Prevention, etc.) are essential to social stability.
What scares me is private sector debt.
It really calls into question if we should run our government as we would a business or a household.
Read the edits, thanks for responding.
I am willing to concede supply side (trickle down) economics can work (in theory) if there is actually pent up demand in the economy.
But I am skeptical that there is pent up demand in the economy.
For example if we lower taxes will apple spend it to produce more iphones to drive down the price of this item?
If apple does spend the tax relief that way will there be a large demographic of people that suddenly go out and buy those iphones?
It seems to me we have been burned to many times by the trickle down argument.
For one thing manufacturing has been outsourced so even if apple does produce more iphones to drive the price down then it will not be the US that benefits in terms of more jobs, more hours to work etc.
The past few times trickle down has been attempted the tax relief did not result in reinvestment that benefited the working class and I have not seen any convincing arguments that it would be different if we do so again.
Supply side looks good on paper and could work under that right economic conditions, but I do not agree that these are the conditions currently for the US.
The bulk of those $60 trillion in debt is government spending debt. "Any amount" of public debt isn't good. Public debt, like private debt, should be subject to a reasonable pay-off plan. Far from having a pay-off plan, we seem to have a no-pay-off plan.
Individuals who can not afford to pay off their credit cards within 1 or 2 payment cycles should probably operate on a cash basis. Is that really possible?
Most people fritter away a substantial portion of their take-home pay. Buying coffee every work day, even if it's only $2 a cup, is $40. Buying even a very modest lunch every work day adds up to at least $140 ($7 per). 1 coffee and lunch per day adds up to $180 a month -- that's $2160 a year. Packing ones own lunch and coffee isn't free, of course, but it will probably cost at least half as much.
Coffee and lunch aren't the only optional expenditures, of course. And for purposes of paying off debt, as many optional expenses as one can stand to do without should be cut. Once one gets out of debt, one should start to save. Once one has a little pile in the bank, one can loosen up a bit.
Government cutting spending too deeply too fast is likely to trigger either a severe recession or an outright depression, which is not the goal.
No, they are not.
The last time there was a major level of pent-up demand was the period following the Great Depression and World War II (70+ years ago). For 15 years, many people had been either very short of cash or wartime rationing was in effect.
All that unsatisfied consumption was finally met by the mid to late 1970s. Since then it's been down hill--almost 40 years ago. Satiated consumer demand wasn't the only thing in play:
There were a number of terribly wasteful defense drives (Star Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, and some other unpacified territories) which added hugely to the national debt.
Consumer spending accounts for 70%+ of GDP. Cutting consumer spending too much too quickly won't be nice and easy, either.
Well I was thinking of derivatives and credit default gambling as well.
-Forbes
Oh sorry.
I am sure it will all work out, for someone, somewhere, eventually.
Needs replacements again, not a reduction in companies, in my opinion.
Picking up where we left off, I feel that the analogy of the pinky that Benkei used is very much what I am trying to explain. The appendage is only as "alive" as the body that it is attached to. A fetus that is 20 weeks old is non viable outside of Mom's and so it is not "alive". I know the line is finer than a frog's hair but it is all the same A line.
Let's say that we put a bowl of cake batter in a pan and place it in the oven to cook at 350* for 40 minutes, at which time the cake will be done. So I ask the question: at what minute does the cake batter made up of eggs, flour, sugar, baking powder, butter and salt become cake as opposed to the batter? I can tell you that it would be provable at minute 40. Earlier than that? I cannot pinpoint but I can tell you that at minute 20, it is not yet cake.
Does that help?
Glad to hear that things are picking up.
But, again, the fact that something is dependent upon something else for its survival in no way entails that it's not "alive." I think we're in agreement that parasites are "alive," for instance. A person may be hooked up to a respirator in order to breathe, but it doesn't follow that he's not alive (if he weren't, there would be little point in keeping him on said respirator).
Yes, there are definitely Sorites-type problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) which arise in these discussions. Your cake example is illustrative only insofar as the stages of cake baking exactly mimic the stages of fetal development on time scales to which we can apply a 1-to-1 mapping. Otherwise, the fact that a cake is unbaked halfway through its allotted baking time has little bearing on the aliveness of a human fetus halfway (or more) through its developmental period.
Given the stage of development at human fetus at 20 weeks (approx. halfway through its development, or slightly more), including the fact that it looks recognizably human, I don't think that it can seriously be contested that it is "alive."
Trump should ask Buffet for an opinion on the matter.
Why bother? He isn't going to take advice from anyone.
But is it cake or not?
Implicitly my point. Which spells danger for making America Great Again.
Oh that's good stuff. Yeah watch some of that, it's a hoot.
Thank you Arkady, as I know you are genuine in your appreciation that our business is picking up. (Y)
Quoting Arkady
It seems the more I try to clarify, the more complicated it becomes which is very okay with me as long as you are patient with my movement. Having said that: in my opinion, a person who is hooked up to a respirator in order to breathe, can be alive but can still be not alive. What I mean by that is even though the body might be going thru the reactions (breathing) to a machine induced action does not mean that the mind of the body is alive. If the mind of the body was alive and functioning, it would be breathing.
Quoting Arkady
I am thinking we still disagree here.
FFS this is bullshit
It truly is time to take ALL of our marbles and go home. I'm done trying to walk on egg shells the world over, only to be berated for getting it wrong again and again.
That's my response to your "tell me about old shit, grandpa" post.
In truth I found them a bit corny, hardly as clever as I.
No, the fetus is not cake. Though I've read that human placenta can be quite delicious when prepared properly.
A functioning mind is a not a necessary condition of something's being alive. That's why we draw a distinction between "brain dead" and "dead" simpliciter. The latter implies biological death of the organism. As I said, if people on respirators weren't alive, there would be little point in keeping them on a respirator for any length of time.
Right. But I'm still not clear on your reason for withholding assent that a 20-week-old human fetus is alive. We've covered the dependency issue, but I don't know what other reasons you might have.
Yea. I would imagine it looked something like this:
No it's not. It can be a useful disguise for prejudice or a useful excuse for being a judgemental prig.
:-}
Who needs an excuse, unless some judgemental prig thinks there's something wrong with it?
Wow, has there ever been a more retarded claim than this one?
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, yes there has, >:O
Yeah, you'd have to be retarded to try to make a joke like that.
Take your pick.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Let's see you explain why, then.
Uh, no. If you start with a ridiculous claim, it's on your defend yourself first.
It's not ridiculous, it's obvious. You claimed that's it's ridiculous, so that's your burden. As for mine:
Speaks for itself...
Funnily, searching for "atheist picketer" has Google suggest "atheist poetry" and "atheist picture" as attempted corrections.
But even if you had've found an atheist picketer, that wouldn't go against what I claimed.
I agree with the correction in the picture, by the way.
I find it amusing to think what would've happened if I had've instead mentioned a few [i]good[/I] ways in which Christianity can be useful. Would I have gotten the same reaction from Tweedledum and Tweedledee? I doubt I would've gotten that look of disapproval from Agustino. I wonder if he even realised that I wasn't criticising Christianity. He probably just saw his reflection in what I said, and assumed that it was aimed at him! :D
Did you not see the irony in the correction itself?
I don't see the irony. Atheism isn't a lack of belief generally, but a lack of belief in God, so it is admittedly a belief system. If I don't believe cats created the universe and I'm an afelinist, is that ironic?
The irony is that it tells someone to learn to read but the author didn't read the first word in the definition: disbelief, i.e. the belief that something is false.
That isn't the definition of disbelief. Google it. Or perhaps just contemplate how it's used.
Sure it does. What else would it mean? Lack of belief? Then the definition above would be "lack of belief or lack of belief in the existence of God". But that would be redundant. It explicitly distinguishes disbelief from lack of belief.
No, but you'd be going to cat hell, and would be constantly chased up trees, cough up fur balls, be irritated by fleas, and be forced to endure terrifying visits to the vet on a regular basis.
Not to mention the kind of things you yourself subject cats to, based on your obscene poetry...
I take it you didn't google it, then?
, get thee to a monastery, I'm off for the mountains. Western civilization offers us nothing more than Pentecostals and Brit tits, now, it seems.
A U.C. Berkeley evolutionary biologist declared his intention to run for the Senate. His slogan: “Liberty, Equality, Reality.” according to the New York Times. "Fraternity" lost out.
I was down under on a secret mission that involved carousing and being admired by beautiful antipodeans. I am now up over again and ready to read more crappy posts interspersed with occasional gems of wit and insight.
Quoting Hanover
My mental jury is out on this one. I will probably file it under "wit" when I figure out it's not retard.
He has a great knack for using physical props to gain media attention for the causes he cares about, and this is an instance of that. I remember a previous photo op with him sitting in a kids' toy car. I can't remember what the issue was.
Some people think his use of props is shallow and showy, but I think if it gets the message across, good luck to him. [But then I would say that, because I agree with him on the majority of issues] Plato, per the Gorgias dialogue and the other anti-rhetoric dialog whose name I forget, would strongly disagree.
Ah, so he's chickened out. Better than making a fool of yourself, I suppose.
"If only I, Donald J. Trump had it my way, then and only then would America would have been Great Again."
It's going to be a preemptive excuse for the next 4'ish years of his administration.
There's an interesting answer here (found by googling it, as per your suggestion) on the topic.
I agree. I never suggested otherwise. If you googled it, then the first bunch of results you would've seen would all define "disbelief" as the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real - which is neither equivalent to lack of belief nor equivalent to belief in the contrary. It's about rejection, not affirmation.
I rest my case.
I reject the truth of this.
That's fine by me. That it's a truth matters more than your rejection of it. X-)
Even the monasteries and the mountains aren't safe anymore!!
This is why I said we're to go our separate ways, man.
So we are to go out separate ways because they're not safe anymore? :-O What does that mean? :P The English language is killing me! >:O
...
Quoting darthbarracuda
(N) >:o (N)
That's a very pithy single line prose poem. Why not give us an essay?
Peter J Hotez
The New York Times
Feb 2017
I guess they won't be putting refugees from certain Middle Eastern countries at risk.
Well, depending on how Trump's recent initiatives fare.
What do mean "?" ?
>:O
Not really a link but I attached it because you wrote this: "Even so, you underestimate how much the US has put into the military." and I posted it as confirmation that it would not be difficult to underestimate US defense spending.
Well, I think that it's far from uncontroversial; but it's a very complex and nuanced issue, so I don't think there would be much point arguing about it here.
I am not a US citizen, so I am not a part of the "we" you refer to, so it may be understandable that we could have different perspectives on such astronomical defense spending.
Where is trickle down when you need it? I am honestly waiting for the day when someone high up decides that the interests of the few lobbyists should be fucked over and the coffers of high military intelligence gathering and patent designs come to the rescue to the public. This has happened to some degree; but, not enough in my opinion.
Can you expand some more on what you are saying here? I am not sure what you are getting at.
So, trickle down is the theory that given large enough investments in some sector that the benefits derived from those investments will "trickle down" to the public sector.
Now, with so much investment, which is by the way more than even your graph presents due to black projects and such kept under strict secrecy (as one can estimate the level of advancement of a nation by comparing expenditures relative to other expenditures). Anyway, with so much investment in the sector of the military, which employs some of the largest industries in the US and the brightest minds in the world, then we should expect in that case for trickle down to actually apply.
Personally, as a Keynesian I see this the other way. Given the investments in the military, we should see positive externalities being created due to technological progress being created by said investments, which should translate to higher growth and prosperity for a nation. This is true to some degree and you can confirm with Chomsky that the majority of research funded in the past to large universities were actually grants from the Pentagon. This is still true today although not as much as in the past, and we know less and less about how much is being invested due to an expanding circle of secrecy even in university projects funded by the Pentagon.
However, a sort of wall should be maintained between the public sector and the military as to not let all your beans out of the bag, which have been so hardly gained.
Anyway, my personal opinion is that there is a treasure trove of technological advancement gained by such humongous investments in government funded projects over so many years; but, which have not yet translated entirely to the public sector. (Think for example the Manhattan Project)
Yes, I understood that. I was just making it clear that I am not.
I am familiar with Adam Smith's notion of "trickle down" in relation to prosperity. You seem to be talking about technology, but I suppose you believe that a trickle down of technological advancements would lead to prosperity? For the common folk?
Yes, my thought was that the expenditure would be easy to underestimate due to its astronomical size.
Ah, fair enough. I see what you mean (Y)
Not universally though, think worker checking facebook at work instead of doing his spreadsheet.
True that.
Quoting mcdoodle
As they are to me. I'm not nearly as optimistic as Pearce is, but a cautious, pragmatic optimism is the best thing one can have in this situation. We can entirely give up, in which case the world will continue as it always has for million or billions of years (not to mention the universe for trillions of years), or we can at least try to make things comparatively better. I'm not sure how deep you read into Pearce's work, but he's put a lot of effort into providing a relatively believable biotechnological future.
And if we fail to make things better - so what? At least we tried. Nobody else can say that, I think.
The real problem is that new money is being artificially created, which would be OK if there were real growth, but it seems that all that is growing is debt and the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It's hard to see how a wall will not be hit in the near future. The question is how near?
I think it depends - one will definitely not become extremely wealthy working just by themselves in exercising a skill. A tradesperson could become extremely wealthy if he moves into managing other tradespersons and earning based on their work as well. But that's already more like an entrepreneur.
Quoting John
I work independently in IT, and while I make a good income and have sufficient spare-time for reading and learning (which is my current focus), I wouldn't say someone can become wealthy doing what I'm doing. Supposing I even worked nonstop (well I kind of do, but I don't concentrate heavily, except for short time frames) and in a very focused fashion (without peaking on TPF every now and again :P - or reading a few more pages of whatever book ) I doubt I'd be able to become truly wealthy - I'd just make income equivalent to someone having a very high paid job. So if I did want to become truly wealthy, I'd have to move to do administrative work - employing people and getting them to implement projects (or at minimum subcontracting my projects), while I focus full-time on acquiring work and managing clients. That way, the only thing that limits my income would be the number of people I have employed, and the number of contracts I manage to sign. The other thing is that I'm not that well-connected at the moment with other people in IT here - I've been working in engineering in a different country till recently lol. So I don't even know a lot of people, except old relatives, and a few old friends I still kept in touch with who work in unrelated fields. To build a good business you need to be well-connected with your community which I am not atm, I still feel like a "stranger".
Quoting John
I think more important than this is that it's become easier and easier to make money without doing something that is of value. Think about all the speculators - especially those on Wall Street. They make money pressing a few buttons on a computer - that adds nothing of value to the rest of society. Speculators make money, but they add zero to growth. And that's a very big problem - because more and more people want to make that kind of money, without doing anything valuable.
I agree with your points that one would need to become an entrepeneur. But that is an easy enough progression (at least in Australia) given a certain level of acumen and will. Having said that it is becoming more difficult for the small businesses ( which can still be very prosperous, and even with the proprietor being involved in the business at least in the role of project manager).
In IT it's probably a similar dynamic I'm guessing, but I'm not so familiar with that industry.
I agree with your last point, and I think the way the market works is strongly related to the tendency of governments to regulate currencies and print new money. So, I wouldn't say one factor is more important that another; they are all related. And it is a dangerous house of cards. It's true the speculators do not produce much except changing fortunes, but then think about a kind of parallel case: real estate development. If the market is strong, a lot of money can be made by the entrepeneur while he is out playing golf. But then that means real estate prices are so high, as they are in Sydney, as to put buying a property out of the reach of low to moderated income earners. On the other hand even the money made by the speculators gets spent, and provides work for others. We all consume a lot of useless shit, but then the growth of economies is dependent on the production and purchase of that useless shit, and modern prosperity, health care, leisure, world travel and all the other "good things" some of us enjoy are totally dependent on the production and consumption of that useless shit, too.
I think real estate developers do produce some real goods in the form of either buying and repairing properties, or building and maintaining new ones, etc. Their transactions involve real, palpable goods. However, trading Apple stock isn't a real and palpable good at all. It's completely virtual, and the price is set by speculation with no inherent link to the fundamentals. Furthermore, trading that stock adds no value to society - contrary to real estate, where at least a property is offered for rent, or for sale, etc. I think this makes the two completely different. I detest financial speculation and would probably never engage in it. It's not an honest way to make money. I think real estate is a good business to get in, but it takes quite a high starting capital to properly get started (unless you are sufficiently courageous to leverage yourself to like 80% from the very start :P ) . Having worked in civil engineering I wouldn't mind doing real estate at some point in the future.
Of course there are pros and cons for absolutely everything. But I generally agree with you that purely financial speculation and investment is probably a greater net negative than property speculation and investment. Do remember, though, that even deeds of property ownership are ultimately only pieces of paper, not essentially different to ownership of pure capital. And many of the largest property developers are publicly owned companies that are tied right into the financial markets. Economics is monstrously complex, and I confess I am no expert, though. Can anyone really grasp exactly what is going on in such complex systems? I doubt it, too much depends on human whim, insecurity and even neurosis.
With new problems created.
Quoting John
In my opinion, economic slavery isn't really paying interest on mortgages/loans and much more being dependent for your earnings on others. The sad thing is that most people never learn to be independent, and they always need to work for someone else in order to earn their money - work in a system. This is because the practical skills that they acquire and are taught as they grow up aren't sufficient. In my opinion, everyone should be able to have something valuable to offer that depends solely on them, and not on being integrated within a larger system. A lot of smaller producers, and a lot less large corporations - distributism - is my ideal.
Our schools - and especially our universities - don't teach people how to be professionals in what they do. Take someone who has just finished a civil engineering university. After finishing university, such a person should, in my opinion, be able to design and organise the building of a house by themselves. But this isn't actually the case - they don't have anywhere near sufficient practical knowledge at that point (in fact a lot of it ends up being learned haphazardly by doing it half-blindly), and they are not legally allowed to practice by themselves, because they aren't yet licensed (a process which can take a few more years ). Basically university actually prepares people to be good at working in corporations - teaches them sufficient in order to make themselves useful in a corporation, but not enough in order to be able to go out on their own. This I think is actually the cause of economic slavery. People aren't actually taught how a project goes from A to Z. Which is just terrible - a mechanical engineer in my opinion should know how to build an engine from A to Z - he should be able to practically do it, including to know where he can acquire the parts from, how to put them together, etc. . He should know how to fix a car or an installation from A to Z. Maybe he doesn't know how to fix all installations or all cars, but he should certainly have learned to fix a complicated one in order to be able to deal with all the less complicated ones. A civil engineer should be able to design and organise building a house or a garage, or any small construction project, including preparing all the necessary papers according to the country's standards, knowing where and how he can source materials, etc. We should really be teaching all this - then people can actually be independent once they finish university.
Quoting John
Yes perhaps, but this has less to do with morality and more to do with the efficiency of the market. If you want to argue that markets operating under the invisible hand don't achieve Pareto optimality in their production of resources, I agree. But then any industry can become like this, not only real estate. Tobacco, etc. all those have negative externalities of production.
The point I was making regarding financial speculation wasn't about the market's allocation of resources though. It was about the fact that financial speculation actually produces nothing - thin air. It's not that financial speculation directs money away from innovative ideas and new industries, it's that it produces zero value. An inefficient market still produces some value - even in a real estate bubble, a lot more than necessary may end up being built, but at least that is still valuable or will be valuable at some point. Financial speculation is never valuable, especially short-selling, options trading, CFDs, and other forms of derivative-based commodities.
Basically Cabrera argues that Being is paradoxical and incoherent as a basis for ethics. "Affirmative" ethics are those second-order systems that are dependent upon a conception of life and Being as a legitimate ground, a conception that is un-analyzed and which he claims to be impossible to justify. He compares the second-order affirmative ethics to the culture of mafia gangs or an animal-loving terrorist, and argues that all beings are ethically disqualified: ethics is about the Other, and politics (the extension of self-preservation) is incompatible with ethics, and affirmative ethics are always going to be compromising, aggressive, and hypocritical when they try to twist politics and ethics together.
Although we may have good rational reason to kill a person (to end their being), we do not have any ethical reason to kill this person. Self-defense is not ethical, as ethics is again about the Other. And he quips that if ethics ever seems implausible, this is an indication that we are on the right path and that this may be a consequence of the fundamental unethical nature of Being itself.
Link for anyone interested: http://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/17430/3/Livro_CritiqueAffirmativeMorality.pdf
Buildings are constructed to house the offices and equipment of the financial speculators, and computers and phones for their use and vehicles to take them to the office and back, They probably use some of the vast amount of money they make to buy homes, and probably pay trades people exorbitant rates to transform their homes and gardens extravagant enough to impress their friends, They probably buy very expensive motor vehicles, and eat at the best restaurants, and so on and on. So it's not as if the money they makes is withdrawn from circulation somehow.
>:O True, although the problem I'm pointing to is that they don't deserve that money - it's unjust that they have that money, because they haven't produced something worth that money - therefore they shouldn't get to decide on how that money is to be allocated.
Quoting John
That's because they're not too brainy, nor prudent enough. If I made that money, I'd withdraw it from circulation and re-invest it, so that my family lives on it for generations to come.
LOL, yes I agree they certainly don't deserve the money; I think the financial markets are a joke; particularly since governments have allowed investment of superannuation money therein.
I don't put any of my money in there, because I am too risk-averse. But if I did come into a lot of money, I wouldn't follow such extravagant behavior, either. But there is the point that wherever you invest ti it will not be withdrawn from circulation; unless you buy precious metals, collectables or property with it, I guess.
Yes I agree when you put it like this. By virtue of protecting yourself from inflation - ie participating in the economy - you aren't withdrawing it. Indeed there are costs associated with withdrawing it.
Smile at a stranger today, it might make their day~ 8-)
And in the event you get arrested for smiling at a stranger and making them feel uncomfortable, call Hanover for Attorney representation. O:)
I don't fuck smilers, I just smile back, but to each their own.
[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2v0gvmc.jpg[/IMG]
Half of the time it is.
I think it's kind of a immovable rock and unstoppable force situation. Putin wants to tame and exploit the cat, while the cat will have none of it.
Notice how the cat looks at Putin.
How does she look at Putin? >:)
The guy that I was talking to was a moron, anyway. He said that a life was lost, which obviously sounds like someone had died, but when I asked him what he meant, it turns out that he merely meant that Labour had lost a voter, meaning himself, meaning that he will not vote for Labour in future.
He thought that it was better to not vote at all in an upcoming by-election, because he didn't like Labour's candidate - even though we seemed to share the view that the other candidate - Paul Nuttall, leader of UKIP - is far worse. (There are other candidates, but in reality, it's a two horse race).
Another case of Brexit going to peoples' heads and clouding their judgement. All he seemed to care about was the fact that he - along with the majority of his constituency - voted to leave, yet Labour's candidate voted to remain. They got what they wanted, yet some of them are still kicking up a fuss.
We have the term "remoaner" for moaning remainers, but what do we call the moaning leavers?
Doesn't matter. One vote won't make a difference.
True. I just hope that there aren't too many others in the electorate who think like him.
The brexercised.
Shortsighted racists? Although that's just leavers in general. ;)
Just to repeat...I'm a brexit voter and I'm not a racist, although I quite accept that I am shortsighted.
I think saying 'Shortsighted racists' as a joke is not ok, frankly.
We voted one way or another in a referendum, how long are we going to let that define us? Let alone, justify ill-judged insults of great swathes of the population?
Isn't it? Seems like if we can make jokes about babies in blenders ('cause I know a few!) then making a joke about Leavers being racists is pretty tame.
@Sapientia: see, even my milder suggestion caused offence!
And on the topic of not-OK jokes, here's a favourite from Frankie Boyle:
Well, to each their own. I suppose I like my comedy to challenge stereotypes rather than get a (purported) laugh by playing to them. But then I'm not a Remoaner, to whom has been granted the one true vision of how the world should have been.
See, that's your problem. ;)
Unfortunately, in some cases, some of the most popular are some of the least reliable. Fox News was the most-watched network in all of cable in 2016.
I was just reading stuff on Cracked and saw that on a "14 things happening right now" article from a couple of days ago. I've never read the Daily Mail, but I assume they must be garbage. It only struck me as significant because Un posted critical stuff of them on facebook sometimes, plus other of you brits here may find that interesting.
I assume the most popular of anything is at best average... as most people are average.
Yes, it's garbage. This will give you some ideas as to why: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
Yeah, they sound like winners...
Isn't it kind of odd that the US elected a president denying the scientific results? :-|
If the president is supposed to be sort of like a role model, or showing the way forward, then things could take a downwards turn, or trend backwards for years.
Similar questionable things have been expressed by some of his staff.
Also Leopardi's aesthetic of the spontaneous explorer is quite moving.
That is all.
Scott Pruitt, for fuck's sake.
You Trump voters are partly to blame for this, you know. Congratulations for helping to screw us over, or at least accelerate the process. And by "us", I don't just mean those on the left, or those who oppose Trump. I mean [i]everyone[/I].
>:O >:O >:O
For that matter, why do Trump, et al. care about future generations when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to the threat of climate change?
>:O >:O >:O
Quoting Sapientia
Right someone died because of Scott Pruitt being appointed whatever :-}
You don't have an answer?
Quoting Agustino
Shortsighted. Pretty sure I mentioned future generations.
With that kind of speculative certainty, I don't think you should ever try your hand in gambling ;)
Quoting Sapientia
All I can do is laugh :P
Speculative certainty? I don't need to speculate and I don't need to be certain. The evidence is sufficient.
Quoting Agustino
And be inconsistent. Well, go ahead, laugh away.
Wait till I invent a new one that is consistent and provable.
Sure, it isn't certain - doesn't need to be. It also isn't just someone - it's Scott Pruitt. And it also isn't just an appointment - it's an appointment as the head of the EPA.
I mean, come on. All you have to do is connect the dots.
You are speculating when you claim that the appointment of whoever in whatever position will cause deaths for "future generations" - that's empty rhetoric. You, nor any scientist can say with certainty what will happen if we overload the planet with greenhouse gases. They are all predictions, some more justifiable than others, and I do think we should be cautious, but to claim stuff with your certainty is nothing but idiocy. Furthermore, how that guy will act and what he will actually do isn't certain at all. Uncertainty times uncertainty equals more uncertainty.
I don't even know who the fuck Scott Pruitt is, and I can't give much of a fuck. A single person doesn't determine government policy alone.
It's an informed prediction based on evidence. I never claimed certainty, but there is reason enough to be very concerned. You don't even know who Scott Pruitt is, so you don't even really know what you're talking about. Given his background, and given the context in which he has been appointed, and given what we know about climate change, it'd be naïve to be as dismissive or "cautious" as you have been in reaction to what I've said.
No I said cautious because I actually do believe in global warming and do think it's a problem that needs to be addressed. By addressing it, we're just being cautious. In truth, I think that our predictions based on greenhouse gas are way off. But we can't bet on that, that's not prudent enough. But humans always think they know more than they actually do - that's what actually ends up hurting them the most. I don't have that arrogance.
But it can't be [i]that[/I] important to you. Otherwise that would be yet another reason why you should not have voted for Trump if you had've had the chance.
Quoting Agustino
No, it's more than that. That time has past. We don't have the luxury of being cautious. If we were serious about addressing this problem, then we should have taken more pressing action years ago. As a result, any proposed action would now have to be more radical in nature, and that means, all things being equal, it'd be even less likely to be translated into action by the authorities who're supposed to represent our best interests than earlier, more moderate, proposals.
Noami Klein makes this argument in her book [I]This Changes Everything[/I].
And yet you were so in favour of Trump over Clinton for President because you knew that it would be better? Or were you just speculating?
Isn't it amusing that you can quote Agustino to argue against Agustino? :D
"To claim stuff with your certainty is nothing but idiocy" - Agustino.
This is patently insane, Agu. Scientists never deal in certainties, so why critique them on failing to live up to a goal they're not even after?
Quoting Agustino
Then shut the fuck up, >:O
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08frr85
If not, read this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/welcome-age-anger-brexit-trump
Where did I hold one shouldn't be in favor of X in the absence of certainty? :s
People panic real fucking easy, and then become the stupid evil pieces of shit they fear.
QED.
We have a knack for morbid obsession with victimizers, and complete disregard for victims. Everyone prefers to leave the guy with the poison arrow in his leg on the side of the road, heading off to find someone or something to blame for it.
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2450-tragedy-tourism-my-life-after-surviving-columbine.html
And then I can't help but notice that I got to learn the names, hobbies, allegiances, races, religions, and would have been their faces too, I'm sure, if it were video have a bunch of victimizers. Whereas no specific details are ever really given about victims, their families or communities, and the aftermath of the tragedy, and how things are getting on. Nope, nothing is ever mentioned that would humanize them. They're always just a faceless demongraphic, all you'll ever know is nation, religion/sexuality if relevant, but no names, no real consequences. They might as well be the extras in an action movie to the named, faced, center staged protagonist. These mass shooters even say that they're doing it for fame, attention, recognition, and it always works.
What is?
Let me put it this way. Who issued you with a warrant to declare laughable hyperbole on the basis of one sentence not even taken real issue with? It's all 'paint', isn't it, unless you already agree. And you wonder where the pent up anger is to be found. Somewhere out there with those others who can't think straight and don't understand us, or the real world.
I actually grew up in the town where the inventor invented it. I heard it's an easy one to pick up.
You seemed to suggest multiple times that certainty is such a requirement. That's how I understood your comments, and that also seems to be how Michael and Heister understood your comments.
You seemed to jump between this false dilemma of either certainty or speculation, overlooking the possibility of an uncertainty supported by evidence, which is what my position is.
Yes, to folks who read uncharitably. I never actually suggested so, if you read what I actually wrote.
Quoting Sapientia
:-} Don't be silly. It's one thing to desire and suggest we should prevent climate change, and it's another to say it's a disaster if we don't (to the point of calling the appointment of an anti-global warming guy as equivalent or worse than abortion). I don't say the latter, but I do say the former. Like you, I probably condemn such a nomination, as well as Trump's policies with regards to global warming, however, unlike you, I don't make this into such a big issue precisely because I'm not certain what will actually happen. I only voice my opinion that I don't think it's a good thing. End of story. I don't fly into a rage like you
>:)
But Sappy has transformed himself into a butt-hurt liberal, so I feel the need to rub it in his face O:)
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure, however, scientists don't demand so and so be done politically - they are not politicians. They just state what they think will happen if two different courses of action are undertaken.
What does this mean? Are you suddenly a Platonist or something?
No, I don't that think that we were being uncharitable, I think that you just worded it poorly, so as to suggest something you didn't mean to suggest.
Quoting Agustino
My point wasn't that they're equivalent, but that they're analogous, which they are, since both are about life and death and future generations. In terms of severity, it depends how you look at it. Ultimately, is delaying the extinction of humanity more or less of a concern than some women getting abortions? In terms of the cost to future generations, it seems to me that the former would be more costly. So, if that were your main concern, then you should take the appointment of Scott Pruitt more seriously.
Quoting Agustino
Pah! There's that certainty red herring again. X-)
And actually, your initial reaction wasn't to voice your concern, it was to laugh, and then laugh some more, and then question what I'd said. I found your reaction rather hypocritical, to be honest.
No - one of them is about certain life and death. The other is about some remote possibility of life and death in 100 years... :-}
Quoting Sapientia
Future generations aren't my main concern. Current generations are, although future and past generations are also relevant and must be taken into consideration.
It's not a remote possibility. Shall I quote you what some of the authorities on this have said?
Quoting Agustino
That makes sense to me, but when it comes to the topic of abortion, that's about reproduction and subsequent generations, so the same considerations apply, but on a larger scale. It's looking at the bigger picture. If you follow through the reasoning of a pro-lifer to its logical conclusion, then it makes no sense to be pro-life and anti-climate change, like Trump and others.
Yes, but much farther from certainty for sure. Hence the two things aren't equivalent.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, if you are going to be very thorough about it. Hence why I am not anti-climate change ;)
But both of those are irrelevant to my point. I never argued that it was more certain than predictions about what would happen if a pregnant woman had an abortion, and I never claimed that they're equivalent.
My point was just that there's enough evidence to warrant my concern, and make it more than speculation, and that it doesn't need to be certain. Your bringing up certainty is a complete red herring.
Quoting Agustino
Good. But that doesn't excuse your willingness to vote for someone who is.
There's good things and bad things in candidates. More good in Trump than bad when compared to Crooked.
If that's what makes you sleep at night...
This is actually false or misleading when it comes to the topic we've been discussing, as evidenced in that book I referred to earlier:
[quote=Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything]As the Ohio State University climatologist Lonnie G. Thompson, a world-renowned specialist on glacier melt, explained in 2010, "Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theoretical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warning? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilisation."[/quote]
Many scientists have worked towards achieving political cooperation and the setting of targets to deal with the threat of climate change.
And scientists in the EPA have objected to the appointment of Scott Pruitt. Read the news.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Thorongil
That uncharitable characterisation is itself based on an uncharitable characterisation. I never said that Scott Pruitt is pro-death. But he does pose a threat to progress with regards to tackling the threat of climate change. In a slippery slope way, I suppose you could crudely boil that down to being pro-death.
Because?
Really? Can't you just look him up. He has been described as a fierce critic of the very agency that he is now heading, the Environmental Protection Agency. He has also been described as a climate change denier, and has questioned the science behind climate change. At the very least, without going too in depth, this should be a cause for concern for those who don't share that view. There's no smoke without fire.
Oh, and who appointed him? Donald Trump. Now, do you need me to explain the controversy with Trump and climate change?
I'm in a sort of middle ground between pro-choice and pro-life, and am anti-Pruitt, so, in a nutshell, sometimes choosing death is acceptable, and brownie points if it's Scott Pruitt - although it might be a little late to abort him. But I'm in favour of aborting him from the EPA at least.
Story time!
I've actually been interested in the problem of universals for a while now, it was my very first substantial issue introduced to me when I began studying analytic metaphysics. At first, the idea of universals seemed mystical and strange, but that was only really because I hadn't ever considered why things were similar and different. The whole question of similarity was unanalyzed by me, back in the day, and so universals initially seemed very strange and awkward.
After making my way through the first chapter or two of my intro book to analytic metaphysics, which were on universals, I read the next two chapters, which were on various nominalist positions. I was excited that maybe my suspicion of universals would finally be vindicated. But by the end of those chapters I was increasingly convinced that nominalism was just not adequate for a multitude of reasons.
Afterwards I began studying "properties" in more depth, and I not only began to understand the positions in more detail but also saw the motivations behind the positions, which surprisingly enough were oftentimes political. For example, early Buddhists wished to cut ties with the Hindu caste system, and so they adopted an austere nominalism in order to undermine the idea that people have "essential" properties that "place' them in the caste they belong. Or the Aristotelian natural law ethic tradition, which ascribes teleological goals to substances that have certain (universal) properties. And then you have the modern-day SJW-types that like to pretend that there's no difference between having a penis and not having a penis, which is just batshit crazy. I also don't think the move to nominalism is even necessary to maintain social freedoms and whatnot.
From my perspective, the tension between universal realism and nominalism, of whatever flavor, is largely due to a preconceived notion (desire) that the universe be a certain way. Universals, in my opinion, make sense and allow the universe to "hang together", however the admittance of such things can lead to sense that we have no freedom or that we're constrained or something. So nominalism pops up and tries to remove all universals from the world and locates them in the mind or in language or something like that. The dynamic arises between two extremes: mind-independent Platonic Forms and mind-dependent concepts or ideas.
It's very interesting, to me, how the mere location of things has such a massive effect on worldviews. And it's also interesting, to me, because I think Platonism and nominalism are both extremes that try to cut reality down into a dualism of sorts, isolating one half of reality from the other, when I think they're actually deeply connected. I think someone like or would probably agree with me on this.
So?
Quoting Sapientia
Been described? Is he one or not?
Quoting Sapientia
That doesn't make him a denier.
Quoting Sapientia
You're concerned that people can question climate science? Concerned enough to infringe on their right to free speech or just personally concerned?
Quoting Sapientia
And I don't know what you're getting at by mentioning an infringement on the right to free speech. Where did you get that from? Don't let yourself get carried away by your own imagination.
If you're going to question the science behind it, you should have a good reason, and not just use the opportunity of doing so for your dubious political agenda.
Man, see - butt-hurt liberals are fun to watch :P
Quoting Sapientia
Scientists have no business in political decisions. They can at most inform, and if they're trying to have a business in politics, then they should stop with the science and focus on politics.
That's outrageous. (Yeah, yeah - butt-hurt liberal, whatever).
Man Sappy, you'd actually make a great political activist, I swear >:O
If someone like you were running the country (touch wood), I would most certainly be a lot more politically active.
I might rule Britain one day actually... if the EU becomes more united - and we become the United States of Europe - and we invade you little traitors - then I may be installed as absolute ruler of England O:) So you should be nice, you never know who is going to rule you in the future :D >:O
Why, you would be a great asset! One just has to activate you for the right cause >:O
Paradoxically, the right cause is the left cause. (You're too far to the right, and are not a true leftie).
Quoting darthbarracuda
Where did you get this from?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/climate-change-cynic-scott-pruitt-takes-donald-trumps-head-environmental/
I agree >:)
Quoting Sapientia
I'm only right on cultural matters. Economically I'm quite leftie - including on global warming for that matter.
Castro's rallying cry was "Socialism or death!". Yours would be something like "Socialism! But everything else first!".
Well I take cultural matters to be very important, possibly more important than economic matters, as in no point resolving economic issues, if we can't resolve cultural ones.
Pray really hard. And if that doesn't work, sacrifice Agustino to the gods.
And if neither of those work. Click the square picture icon above where you enter your text when typing a comment.
Actually he should click on the "Upload Files" button to the right to UPLOAD images... ;)
I am a distributist.
With Trump already targeting Obama-era regulations, Pruitt is part of a wide-scale realignment of several federal organizations, including the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior, to better serve fossil fuel interests. Here are three key areas of Obama’s climate and environmental legacy we can expect a Pruitt-led EPA to try and dismantle.'
~ Gizmodo
Something eerily similar is happening in Australia - suddenly the Gov., having literally dismantled a successful emissions control regime, is speaking about 'clean coal' and 'carbon capture and storage', neither of which have been shown to be remotely feasible.
It's hard to understand what point you're making here in seeming to say you haven't read a thing about the fellow before. I am a fellow from an obscure corner of England and I know what Pruitt stands for. Here is an article Pruitt co-wrote with Luther Strange, himself a charming tribute, I understand, to the depths of corruption politics has sunk in Alabama. It includes the falsehood, 'Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.'
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435470/climate-change-attorneys-general?platform=hootsuite
I wouldn't go as far as advocating a government planned economy, although I don't completely rule that out. I'm just very sceptical of it, given its failings when put into practice. But I don't know enough about it.
I am in favour of stronger regulations on big businesses, higher corporation tax, and that sort of thing.
I am socially liberal, but economically, I want a more authoritarian state that's tougher on fat cats. A prime example would be someone like Philip Green.
I'm strongly opposed to neo-liberalism, but not in favour of its opposite extreme either, if that's something like the USSR.
>:O >:O >:O
That's not false, though. There are scientists who aren't motivated by silly religious ideas and aren't energy corporation shills who question some of the science behind climate change. If you respond with the infamous 97% number, then you've not bothered to think about the sources you read critically.
But let's ask ourselves what "climate change denial" could mean:
- One could deny that the climate literally changes (which no one believes, except maybe people who have never seen daylight).
- One could deny that climate change is in any way affected by human activity.
- One could deny that climate change is largely affected by human activity.
- One could deny that we know enough to make a suitably informed opinion either way with respect to the human impact on climate change or that we have done enough to study it properly.
- One could deny that the effects of climate change are going to be as bad some people predict (lots of predictions have already failed miserably).
- One could deny that the government, out of all institutions, is uniquely capable of "solving" climate change, whatever its origin (that is, one could deny that the government throwing money at the problem would lead to any substantive improvements, given its track record of trying to solve other problems by this method).
The left likes to conflate all of these positions, so that anyone who holds to any one of them is branded an irrational science hater, when that's clearly not the case.
Very funny.
"The rat will never be the horse."
"Well, if he works very hard..."
"No."
Only some, and they do with that last one, at least with regards to morality and culture. I don't agree with any of the other claims.
>:O but they will show you some "scientific studies" which show that there are a dozen genders :D
On the other hand, the confusion isn't altogether new:
Masculine Women, Feminine Men
Written by Edgar Leslie/James V. Monaco, and recorded by Merrit Brunies & His Friar's Inn Orchestra on Okeh 40593, 3/2/26
Note: these are the complete lyrics, from the piano roll version of the song. Not all versions contain all the lyrics.
Hey Hey women are going mad, today
Hey Hey fellers are just as bad, I'll say
Go anywhere, just stand and stare
You'll say they're bugs when you
look at the clothes they wear
Masculine Women Feminine Men
which is the rooster which is the hen
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
And SAY...
Sister is busy learning to shave
Brother just loves his permanent wave
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
HEY HEY
Girls were girls and boys were boys
when i was a tot,
Now we don't know who is who or
even what's what
Knickers and trousers baggy and wide,
Nobody knows who's walking inside
Those Masculine Women Feminine Men
Masculine Women Feminine Men
Which is the rooster which is the hen
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
And SAY...
Auntie is smoking, rolling her own,
Uncle is always buying cologne
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
HEY HEY
You go and give your girl a kiss in the hall
But instead you find you're kissing
her brother Paul
Mama's got a sweater up to her chin,
Papa's got a girtle holding him in
Those Masculine Women Feminine Men
Stop, Look, Listen and you'll agree... with me
Things are not what they used to be... you'll see
You say hello to Uncle Joe,
Then look again and you find it's your Aunti Flo
Masculine Women Feminine Men
Which is the rooster which is the hen
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
And SAY...
Wifey is playing billiards and pool,
Hubby is dressing kiddies for school
It's hard to tell 'em apart today
HEY HEY
Ever since the Prince of Wales in
dresses was seen,
What does he intend to be the King or the Queen
Grandmother buys those tailor-made clothes
Grandfather tries to smell like a rose
Those Masculine Women Feminine Men
As you know, I recently tried starting a thread on "Extreme Nominalism vs. Extreme Realism," but it did not get very far. My hope was to identify some practical differences between them and how we might go about evaluating which is correct if they were the only two options. Rather than Platonism, I defined extreme realism as the view that reality consists entirely of generals (i.e., there are no real singulars), in order to draw a sharp contrast with extreme nominalism as the view that reality consists entirely of singulars (i.e., there are no real generals).
To address your point here, I suspect that the truth is indeed somewhere in between these two extremes, although I tend to locate it much closer to the realist end of the spectrum. I think that everything is general to some degree, such that there are no absolute singulars, because that would require an object to be determinate in every conceivable respect, including location in space and instant in time. Since I hold that space and time are truly continuous - there are no discrete locations or instants, except as we arbitrarily identify them for specific purposes - this is impossible.
Nevertheless, we obviously can and do distinguish individuals - things (including people) that are determinate in some respects and can only be in one location at a time. In other words, this kind of individuality includes generality, rather than being completely singular, and thus allows for things (including people) to maintain their identity despite undergoing constant changes. This is my own interpretation of what Peirce called synechism, the doctrine that everything is continuous.
There are knee-jerkers on either side. And then there are the people who bother to read a book about it.
Like the one I referred to twice. And yet, I am on the left. Remarkable. Perhaps it's wrong to make hasty generalisations about the left, eh Thorongil?
Oh. Well, your criticisms were directed at leftists, and I identify as a leftist - although not as you describe.
Me too. But Thorongil's absolutely right, we leftists never do humour/sarcasm. [Insert relevant smiley here].
But who are the audience for the multitude of wittily sarcastic conservative comedians then??
Probably the same place those comedians are.
Indeed, it's amazing how many conservatives can be found dancing on the head of a pin.
This is an answer to a different question. The question was, what do we know of Scott Pruitt? To me he looks like a shill who'll do the energy corporations' bidding, but I'm happy to return here in four years' time and find out I'm mistaken.
I don't know what the diatribe against imaginary leftists is for; I'm certainly not one of them. For myself, I think the conservative response to climate science would be to act as if the moderate predictions will probably come true without remedial action. That seems the safe thing to do, and if we invest in such action well, it needn't really cost us that much, because solar energy, wind farms, large-scale battery storage and tidal power will become profitable enterprises. But we will have to fight energy corporations whose 'value' and 'assets' are tied up in fossil fuels. Mr Pruitt shows no sign of fighting them so far, but perhaps he will reveal another side to himself when faced with the responsibilities of government.
I thought it was great, because it said in more detail some of the things I've been banging on about recently. 8-) To whit, All our problems are psychological, because practical problems are more or less trivial; the mechanical view of humanity is false, harmful etc; identification is the root of all evil; the conflicts being manufactured are solutions to problems of the past; the triumph of capitalism results in its downfall; that sot of thing.
You've probably read a lot more than I have on this topic, but the one book I've been going back to makes me doubt any more moderate proposals. For example:
[Quote=Naomi Klein]I was struck recently by a mea culpa of sorts, written by Gary Stix, a senior editor of [I]Scientific American[/I]. Back in 2006, he edited a special issue on responses to climate change and, like most such efforts, the arguments were narrowly focused on showcasing exciting low-carbon technologies. But in 2012, Stix wrote that he had overlooked a much larger and more important part of the story - the need to create the social and political context in which these technological shifts stand a chance of displacing the all too profitable status quo. "If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of solar cells is trivial by comparison."[/quote]
I think that the conservative response, predictably, is too much about conserving the status quo, whereas radical solutions are required.
Like you say, fighting those who protect those capitalist interests which are an obstacle for the kind of action required to really tackle climate change is essential. Scott Pruitt and others of his ilk have a very poor record in this regard. Not only that, but he has built a reputation for being openly hostile to organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency, which, well... the clue is in the name.
I liked: the similarity between McVeigh and the 9/11 terror attacks. The example of Germany being explicitly anti-Nazi in its founding, but having at least some of the same attitudes crop back up again into the mainstream while it was built on a similar political model. That he takes to task the socialist "alternative" as harboring the same illusions as the system who won that particular political struggle. And his pointing out that many of the perpetrators of political terror, while often taken as representatives of Islam, are not themselves terribly conversant in Islam nor do they follow some of the very basic tenets, such as prohibition on alcohol, of Islam.
And, overall, that it was simply novel. Which I take to be necessary for a productive political approach these days.
But who knows anymore what leftists believe? If Chomsky is a sign, they just trail off into whatever-ness.
But sure.. Thorongil was being hyperbolic. But I think the leftist response to the world tends to be heavily moralistic... thus less humor.
Here is how to upload images without being a *Sponsor*
Click on this link
In the center of your screen, you will see three options
Select your answer for question 1 and question 2
Hoover your mouse over the *Choose Image* file folder, click your mouse
Choose your picture or file you wish to *Upload and select it
Once the *Upload is complete, you will see a thumbnail in the upper left
There are 9 choices of how to create the URL for *Uploading a picture here
Choose the 5th option down that says *Thumbnail for Forums
Copy the newly created URL listed
Return to TPF, choose the *Picture icon on the tool bar above reply box
Paste the URL you have loaded in the unpopulated box for the link
Preview your reply to make sure the image appears as you want and hit *Post comment
I do hope your cat is in better condition than my Rottweiler
That picture was taken on Valentine's Day $400 thank you kindly.
Since then I have slept when he finally gives into the meds the Vet has him on to keep him from messing with his 'hot spot' that was 3 inches in diameter before he was shaved and OMG....
So it's been one long day for me. He cannot be left unattended because he will tear apart all that has healed. Btw there is a reason a sectional couch is called that, because when you sleep on it so you can keep your hand on the dog, it makes your back aware of every section of your body that is not in your bed.
Here is a picture from Friday I think: the stick behind the dogs head is for an Air Soft Rifle, not a regular Rifle in the corner of the home office.
The right have a tendency to be just as moralistic and lacking in humour as the left, if not more so. So I don't agree. Think pro-life or views on gay marriage or going against some tradition or convention or what is considered to be proper or immigration or religion or what people do in the privacy of their bedroom or [i]any number[/I] of issues.
In general, rightists want less government and more trust in and freedom for the individual.
Laissez-faire is an economic thing, so there's no necessary contradiction. You can want the government to interfere with "moral" issues like abortion but not with trade.
Doesn't seem to be. From the authority that is Wikipedia, "the contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals".
Yes, it's contradictory with that general characterisation, but it's a right-wing viewpoint and tendency nevertheless. It's just that many people on both the left and the right have more complex views which don't neatly fit that simplistic characterisation. Both modern liberalism and modern conservatism contradict their classical counterparts in notable ways, but you still have those forms of liberalism on the left and those forms of conservatism on the right. Over time, there have been developments which have set the modern forms apart as more of a mixed bag.
Yep, social conservatism is a well known trait of the right. But of course, it's just a trait or characteristic, and there can be, and are, exceptions.
We like to keep a close eye on the colonies. Can't let your play independence get you into too much trouble.
You can say, "I was wrong, and I'm sorry. I don't know what I was thinking. We should have never forsaken our motherland, and all because of a quibble over tea".
But primarily the tea. ;)
Neither do I, but I do have awful teeth as well as that sardonic quick wit and self-deprecating humour that is stereotypical of us Brits.
Don't try to publicly shame him, you leftist scum. >:O
Good, because that's a path which leads directly to screaming and violent riots. And we don't want that to happen.
That will be all, class.
You really have professors like that? Cool. Eurolefties are so much boringer. :(
This is a sure way to tell that you're a leftist, and not a member of the far-right. Otherwise you would have said, "Tea. I don't like blacks".
Yes because the rest of us are busy working our asses off ;)
Strangely enough, it's 10:37 at night, and I am actually working on preparing a class in between quips here. It's odd I know. Eventually, I hope to advance to the dole though.
Those and five bucks will buy me a second-hand copy of Das Kapital. Ah well...
BBC covering real news.
Are you working hard in preparing that class to brainwash the students towards Leftism? >:)
I got it to work. Thanks.
O:)
These are your new names.
Fucking marxist professor!! :-O Typically enjoys censoring Stig Auno, and has a fantasy to ban him >:)
Quoting Sapientia
Naval gazer >:)
Quoting Sapientia
Old-school anti-reason conservative :D (with some non-conservative tendencies)
Quoting Sapientia
The guy who thinks sex is the best gift you can give a friend :B
Quoting Sapientia
(Un)wise Grandfather who advises the grandkids to do naughty things :-O
Quoting Sapientia
The guy who always bullies Sapientia, and Sapientia never gets it O:)
Quoting Sapientia
The cool and popular guy who Sapientia always tries to pick on, but never succeeds >:O
Guess we're all wasting our time here. We ain't gonna convince anyone!
Also, obligatory Trump bashing, 'cause obviously his supporters are wrong and his opponents are right.
Nah, that'd be money.
If you thought it would be money, then I'd have to convince you that it's not money - since money can be lost or stolen - but the ability to make money, which cannot be lost or stolen ;)
Making money takes time and effort. Having (lots of) money means free time and laziness and - perhaps most importantly - lie-ins. God I hate the mornings.
So money. Still waiting on that lottery win.
Nonsense. Roli has always been nothing but kind to me. So much so that it could understandably lead one to believe that there's something more to it than that. In fact, to tell the truth, there have been a couple of times where I've felt it necessary to put my foot down. Roli and I will never have the kind of special relationship that Ron and Dan have.
Quoting Agustino
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not just [I]my[/I] bitch, your Heister's bitch, Baden's bitch, Hanover's bitch... you're the [I]forum's[/I] bitch.
But herpa derpa Crooked herpa derpa great again. So you're wrong. Derp.
Quoting Sapientia
>:) This must be a demonstration in action of the points I've been making, right? :D
;)
Just as I might tell you that if you shoot yourself in the head, you'll probably die. If you don't, you'll live.
But, the choice is yours!
Yes, you've caught me red handed. Well done. (Y)
What bad luck. It was almost as though I was [I]trying[/I] to be ironic. But that would be so unlike me.
Are you oughtistic, Q?
Edit: Ha!
That's actually hilarious.
*continues to wallow*
*steeples hands*
That sounds awfully.... administrative.
"The filing cabinets will soon know [s]the meaning of the word[/s] pain."
?
I thought the comment was referencing the "deep state" -- what that will actually entail in terms of policy, though? First thing that comes to mind is slashing public sector jobs and unions. But my mind is built like that. I'm not sure what it would entail elsewhere in the government.
One mistake which is forgiveable in an noisy environment.
https://discovermyprofile.com/myIQ.html
I got 118 - 29/33 - >92% people, but I rushed the last 3 questions for fear of running out of time - guess-timated them >:O (actually I think I had more time, but I wasn't sure, since I didn't look at the time properly when I started it)
But to be honest, it's kind of a weak IT test. It's only geometrical/visual pattern recognition which is quite possibly my weakest area.
61 - 4/33.
Picked 1 as the answer to every question.
What a crazy world we live in.
Are you sure? To be fair, he did specify that he didn't want to kill all the Jews...
I may try that, thanks.
Couldn't that get him fired? Inform the company that he is a self-professed national socialist and fascist. Get him fired. Problem solved. X-)
I don't think you can be fired just for being a national socialist and a fascist, can you? Also, it would feel kind of nasty seeing as he can be quite a decent guy at times. Odd that he turned out the way he did. Hard to process.
Equating socialism with Nazism is dumb. Nazism incorporates racism and anti-semitism. Socialism in its general form is merely:
"The social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system." (Wiki).
There's no bias here; one is a theory of economic and social organization and racism/anti-semitism and one is a theory of economic and social organization.
He certainly is angry about stuff. I was thinking along those lines.
Look at the definition of socialism and then look at the one of Nazism. Take a deep breath. Then understand why Nazism is worse. Of course, if you're a racist or an anti-semite, it isn't, but charitably I'll presume you aren't.
That dictators who referred to themselves as socialist or communist did terrible things (and killed more innocent people than than fascists did) doesn't make socialism a worse ideology than Nazism. You need to look at what socialism actually is to make that judgement. And there are plenty of socialist countries out there now, the vast majority of which are infinitely better places to live than Nazi Germany was.
EDIT:
So, if someone says they're a socialist these days, it's extremely unlikely that they support the atrocities of Stalin or are any kind of racist etc. If someone says they're a Nazi, all that is much more likely. It's very simple really.
This is absurd. You do realise how insulting that is - you're basically saying someone cannot support Trump unless they have personal problems - you're basically negating and refusing to acknowledge all their reasons for supporting him - putting it all to some emotional issue. Indeed, it's not long before you'll accuse them of mental illness and seek to isolate them - put them on pills - or whatever, because they don't agree with you. That's fucked up - people can support whatever they want so long as it's not a threat to the state or illegal. If someone supports terrorism or some other illegal activity, then I would be worried about them, and report them to the police - not because I disagree with them, but because they are an actual danger and threat to others, and so they have to be restrained somehow. But if they support a different form of political organisation than I do, then that's their right, even if that form is fascism. All I can do in that case is discuss with them, understand what their values are, and that's it. In the political arena I will fight against them, but they have as much legitimacy as I do to be in the political arena and fight. The only time they lose that legitimacy is if they break the law - or intend to break the law.
They guy said he was a Nazi. That's the point at issue that Mongrel was responding to. I already said that the fact that he was a Trump supporter hadn't prevented us from being friendly.
Right...
Like North Korea and Venezuela?
"But..but... [insert not-real-socialism gobbledegook], it is not what I envisioned it to be in my Marxism classes" (?_?)
I think it depends what kind of Nazi he is. Nazis are quite common in the part of the world where I'm from - or at least people who claim they are Nazis - so what really hides beneath his claim? Does he actually support putting Jews in gas chambers or otherwise killing them? If he does, then I would report on him since I would consider such a person a threat to others' well-being. But if on the other hand he merely thinks that Jews have too much influence or whatever, then that's not such a big deal. So what are the actual Nazi beliefs that he has that you are concerned about?
If someone these days says they're a socialist, the likelihood that they consider that to mean they support the kind of regime they have in North Korea is close to zero. As for Venezuela, how is that a worse regime than Nazi Germany? The Nazis are guilty of race-based genocide against millions? What has the Venezuelan government done to compare with that?
I'm actually starting to feel like I'm talking to my office colleague, so let me ask you directly, seeing as I don't want to waste more time. Are you a racist or an anti-semite?
Taking away a free press, so if you dissent you get thrown in jail etc. Plus, possible discrimination against minorities due to his racist beliefs etc.
There is a difference between intentions, imagined and the actual consequences thereof. Hitler had good intentions and a very rosy utopia in mind, if only those nasty [s]jews[/s] I mean capitalists were not exploiting us -- sounds familiar?
Quoting Baden
Let's say I am a black woman married to a Jew to make this conversation more interesting.
I didn't ask for your race. I asked if you were a racist or anti-semite? Are you?
Okay, I'd probably be opposed to that personally - however. What does "dissenting" mean? It's one thing that dissenting means not being able to say or advertise so and so in movies/TV - which I would qualify as control of popular culture - and a different thing to say that no scientific, philosophical, etc. literature which doesn't agree with a set of views can be published or discussed outside of the scope of popular culture. I could see an argument being framed for the limited control of popular culture, but not of culture as a whole. However, I'd likely be opposed to any control of culture beyond the bare minimum because I don't see much point in it. People cannot be made to be moral by controlling their culture - you'll just make them hypocrites. The media cannot be controlled either - so all we have to do is discredit it. Let it remain where it is, but let everyone understand that it is a web of lies.
Quoting Baden
I'd obviously be opposed to that. I never understood why people hold to racist beliefs - discrimination based on race makes no sense to me.
Do you condone genocides, rapes and famine?
Well, you wouldn't like him much more than me then. And you would probably find yourself in an awkward position if he were your office colleague as other than Nazism you two would politically have a lot in common. How would you deal with his revelation then?
No, I don't. So, you're not a racist or anti-semite. Now explain why the Venezuelan government's actions are worse than the deliberate race-based genocide of millions the Nazis carried out.
Quoting Baden
Personally I'd be curious to find out why he believes so, and how he thinks it will help. What is the problem to which he proposes Nazism as a solution, and how would that solution look like in detail?
This is a fact that you confirmed.
You brought up Venezuela not me. Now tell me why the Venezuelan socialist government is worse than the Nazis or admit it's not.
Who called him a Nazi?
Lol, what controversial view have I expressed? I answered your questions as far as I can see. Now are you afraid to admit that the Venezuelan government has done less harm than Hitler's Nazis? Something that is so trivially obvious, it's almost embarrassing to have to ask you. Really? Just answer the question and stop running away.
Oh, never mind I know, Heister. Nobody. Bye.
(Y)
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/57828#Post_57828
One should always seek to understand what problem someone seeks to solve when they are advocating a particular political system. For example, what problem was Plato trying to solve through the political analysis undertaken in the Republic? If you ask that question, it may become obvious why they are in favour of that particular political system, namely that they think that's the only way to solve the problem.
Yes, I have been taking a kind of questioning approach to it. As I said we had been friendly up until then. However, I find the ideology so repulsive I would rather just cut the guy loose.
Well from what you have described so far, I wouldn't say you really know his ideology - it's a specific label you and him have associated with it. That label has a certain baggage - it doesn't mean he's actually carrying all that baggage in practice. And every person is different - there are no two Communists with the same ideology. So to properly judge one must go beyond the label/image to the actual and particular set of beliefs beyond it.
I know. I'm trying to bear that in mind. But he's not a kid, he's in his forties. He should know that if he labels himself like that, the burden is on him to explain what he means by it if it's something less sinister than most people think.
We seem to factually agree that national socialism has the least amount of body counts compared to all other forms of socialism, yet you claimed you do not care about that -- that is extremely controversial. It is like you acknowledge the holocaust, but shrug it off, as if it is just a meaningless detail of national socialism.
It's hard to label yourself politically. Before I realised I was a conservative I attached no label to myself because I just didn't think any was adequate. Even conservatism in some of its forms isn't adequate, because I'm not a conservative the way this guy who is having a chat with Zizek+Assange is a conservative for example:
But giving a label is better than not giving a label - in most cases at least.
No I didn't claim I didn't care about it. It's not the issue we're discussing. As I keep saying, you have to look at what it means when someone today says they're a socialist vs. when they say they're a Nazi. That's the issue because we're talking about what my colleague said. In the case of socialism, racism is not an integral part of the ideology (and it's extremely unlikely someone claiming to be a socialist would condone genocide); in the case of Nazism it is. So if someone says they're a socialist, there's no justification for suspecting them of racism or anti-semitism. If they say they're a Nazi, there is, because that's part of what Nazism is. This is why the latter is more objectionable.
Now, I've answered your question again. Your turn. Deal with the Venezuela issue, which you brought up.
You did. You shrugged it off, saying it did not matter (morally?), lol, even for a bloke like me, that is extreme.
I have a reasonable knowledge about Venezuela, as it was a part of my readings of populism, and I am willing to go in depth to it with all its atrocities. I am fully willing to change the topic, but I won't let you just sneak away with that...
Venezuela has had an increase of violence by almost 200% (= 3 times) under socialism.
Sneak away with what? Obviously I agree that all these atrocities on both sides were hideously immoral.
Now for the third or fourth time, I don't need you to go into details just to answer this question, which you keep running away from.
Who did or has done more harm, the socialist government of Venezuela or the Nazi government of Hitler's Germany?
(The answer to anyone but an insane fascist is obvious. But considering your repeated evasions, it's hard to give you credit yet that you're not one.)
Quoting Baden
Fifth time. Stop running away from my Venezuela question and answer it.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM
And this does not include the real crime of massive famine and all indirect crimes to humanity.
Where's Venezuela on the list? Oh, I see it's not there. Wonder why. Anyway, everyone knows this stuff (except for the bullshit part about Nazi Germany being different to Nazi Europe) and no-one here is going to defend early to mid Communist China or Stalinist Russia. They were horrible murderous regimes. But they are not exemplars of socialism; socialism is a form of economic and social organization. It doesn't require genocide.
I'm pretty familiar with what Communism did to the world. I didn't know the Nazism was worse proportionally.
Venezuela is on 73/100.000 --> 1:1370 (rough calculations), damn close to actual Nazi Germany.
http://fusion.net/story/4593/how-did-venezuela-become-so-violent/
Think of the huge population of China. But this is a distraction anyway so Emptyheady can run away from his own comments concerning modern socialist countries such as Venezuela etc.
Are you in any way a Nazi sympathizer Emptyheady?
Lol. The Nazis didn't kill the Jews, Nazi Europe did because it mostly happened in Poland making them no worse than Venezuela. Where did you get that graphic, a Neo-Nazi site?
Are you a Nazi sympathizer or a neo-nazi or not?
No, you've just made a complete fool of yourself with a graphic that tries to disculpate Nazi Germany for it's crimes because it did them outside of Germany. Hilarious. And you still can't bring yourself to admit that the Nazis were worse than the Venezuelan government, which is sick and disgusting. To compare the holocaust to anything Venezuela has done is beyond the pale.
Well, that's obvious. Sieg Heil and good luck.
I am pretty much the only one here bringing up facts.
You're not fooling anyone here. Not one person.
Oh, this is the imaginary Nazi Germany that's not responsible for killing all the Jews and so on because it was Nazi Europe that did that. I see. Now where did you get the graph from? Because if you got it from a Neo-Nazi site and you think you're going to get away with spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda here, you're wrong.
Wikipedia...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela#Homicide_and_violent_crime
Note the rise in violence, it is only getting worse.
Way I see it is that by trying to disculpate Nazi Germany from the holocaust, you're still spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda.
No you didn't answer my question. The Nazis were responsible for the holocaust, yes or no? This was worse than anything the Venezuelan government has done, yes or no?
Note that I'm not asking about the murder rate within the bounds of Nazi Germany vs Modern Venezuela. We all know the Nazis did most of their murdering outside Germany. Plus, the Venezuelan government is not responsible for all murders in Venezuela. We are talking about governments murdering people. Socialist vs. Fascist.
Yes
Quoting Baden
No, objectively speaking then.
Quoting Baden
I know. Note that we are also not even including the indirect suffering that should not be ignored by socialists, like increase famine and deaths by ailments.
Also note that we are basically arguing why socialism X is worse than socialism Y. I hate all forms of socialism.
So what is it that the Venezuelan government has done that is worse than killing 6 million Jews, for example?
Also, I want to repeat that the disculpation of Nazi Germany from the crime of the holocaust is neo-nazi propaganda. So, I'll give you a chance to withdraw that or I'll have to presume you're a Neo-nazi sympathizer, which I may presume anyway seeing as you think something the Venezuelan governent has done is worse than the genocide of millions by the Nazis.
I would prefer to live in a place with the least amount of violence.
Answer my question: What is it that the Venezuelan government has done that is worse than killing 6 million Jews?
So, their poor policies which have resulted in crime rates increasing dramatically is worse morally than the killing of six million Jews. So presumably if they had managed to kill six million Jews but keep crime rates down, you'd look on them more favourably. Interesting perspective.
>:O
All governments are responsible to minimise violence, it is their responsibility.
Oh, it's bland, and not the kind I thought it was... way worse than nazi germany.
Blah blah blah. You are a Neo-Nazi sympathizer then. Well, goodbye.
Right, and the holocaust was not a poor policy...
Well, with many companies, by working for them, you have to be seen to accept and represent their values, and it is my understanding that extreme views which clash with those values and may cause damage to the reputation of the company can be grounds for dismissal. Sometimes it will state something along those lines in company policy. Imagine if the media found out that this company has a fascist working for them.
It's hard to say because I know virtually nothing about him except what I saw in that video. In fact, that video is the first time I heard of him, I just googled him now for the first time in fact. But from the video, he appears to me like the reason-skeptical conservative - as defined here. I would include myself as amongst rational conservatives, also as described in the article. Basically I don't disagree with him over the values - we share much of the same values - but I disagree on the way of reaching those values. I think those values are rational and make sense, and it's not merely because we have to be cautious, and prudent "and so on and so on" to imitate Zizek. It's rather because we are justified rationally in holding to those values. I also disagree with him on the war in Iraq - America should never have gone to war there (and yes after they went to war, the Left shouldn't have opposed them).
He says things like it's regrettable that our defence is so big (but it nevertheless has to be so), yada yada, I again disagree with him there. It's only normal and rational for a country to train and prepare its military defences, even if it had no enemies, because the capacity to be able to defend and protect yourself is always important and must be developed as a flowering of a nation's potential.
I agree with him with regards to the Left being a religious utopia. I also agree with Zizek that liberalism is a utopia as well :P I disagree when he says to Zizek - oh your proposals are too radical and could potentially cause great harm - that reason skepticism - as if reason couldn't determine what should be done, that I disagree with.
Is this a joke? You mean that Poland was happy they had concentration camps on its soils while even Hitler would have found the idea repugnant to have them in the homeland? Which, would seem to mean that Poland was more Nazi than Nazi Germany?
Most employers have a zero tolerance approach to racism. I reckon if higher ups found out about that, he could get fired.
Emptyheaded - if they leave you banned, and I ever start a philosophy forum in the future, I will give a moderator position to you. However, you must find away to PM me your email (or a way to contact you) until then :P
You could be right. Though I think I'll try reasoning with him first.
Different views are fine, but Nazis and their ilk don't get to stay here nor do racists etc. That should be clear from the guidelines. And I gave him plenty of chances to say he wasn't a Neo-Nazi sympathizer. So, believe me I won't be losing any sleep about flushing Empty away.
Anyway, night all.
I didn't say that Nazis or their ilk should stay here. But you are just prejudiced if you think Empty is a Nazi...... That's just labelling.
Quoting Emptyheady
Subjectively he's saying that it was worse than the Venezuela. Objectively he's saying it was less violent by comparing one specific statistic - not taking the intention into account at all. The intention is taken into account in the subjective analysis in his terms, where of course Nazi Germany is worse than Venezuela. There is no clear evidence that he is a Nazi, and I remain firm in this conviction. Not to mention he has never claimed being one, nor did he say that the holocaust was morally permissible or anything of that sort. But whatever...
Ok, objection noted. Good night.
No, he said "perhaps". :-}
Perhaps is an indication that it probably is. He certainly didn't state that it's not, and it is ridiculous and presumptuous to think otherwise. It goes against the very principle of charity that we are expected to assume when discussing one with the other...
Should be "come on", not "common".
It is used to express uncertainty or possibility, but perhaps he meant it in the way you describe.
Thanks for the grammatical correction
Right so perhaps you made a mistake in banning him as well...
wut
No mistake. Nobody gets to downplay, belittle or deny the holocaust or its seriousness on this site. Weasel-worded obsfucations aren't going to cut it. He's gone. He's not coming back. Move on.
Correct, few things are impossible, but he is gone and he is not coming back.
I disagree with the ban. The insinuation that he's a Nazi is based on pretty flimsy evidence. If you're going to accuse someone of almost the worst thing possible, then you'd better have some damn good evidence, and I don't see that you do. Maybe he is one, but you couldn't conclusively prove it from his posts.
I also don't see any direct evidence that he's a holocaust denier. Again, that's a pretty bold accusation, which ought to be conclusively proven before action is taken, but your gun is already cocked and pointed at him before he's even turned around to face you.
I might add that I see this incident as reflective of the current political climate, wherein the left pretends that there are Nazis behind every bush, that it's okay to punch them without knowing if they are, and that we just elected the reincarnation of Hitler. Like the boy who cried wolf, I wonder what people will say and do if ever a real dictator comes to power on the backs of a genuine totalitarian movement. Emptyhead, whoever he is, doesn't strike me as one of the "bad guys" who needs to be muzzled.
You've been in an especially combative and belligerent mood lately, Baden, so my advice, for whatever it's worth, is that you take a little break from the forum.
I thought you'd use this as an excuse to attack the left. How boring. I would hope if there's one thing the left and right could agree on it would be a zero tolerance policy on antisemitism, but I'm not going to re-litigate the affair.
Quoting Thorongil
I didn't expect you'd use it for a cheap patronizing dig though. Anyway, what you would call belligerent, I would refer to as firm.
Well, the fact that we're rid of an idiot too is a bonus I guess. (Y)
My, how easily you throw terms like this around. How is he an antisemite? His comparison of Venezuela's crime statistics with the holocaust was sheer stupidity, but where in that exchange did you get the impression that he hates Jewish people? If you don't want to re-litigate the affair, fine, but I'm not letting you get away with such incendiary accusations.
Quoting Baden
It's a fact that I've never seen you more combative and belligerent than you've been recently. No doubt you're quite proud of yourself for being so "firm" with an alleged Nazi, but I think you're kidding yourself.
Quoting Baden
On a private forum, I realize the speech codes can be whatever the owner likes, but I think it tells a great deal about someone that they would choose to ban first and ask questions later if given the power. I value free speech, which includes idiotic speech and even hateful speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," as the phrase goes. Empty didn't strike me as someone who ground the forum to a halt with a cacophony of irrational hatred, spam, or genuine threats of violence, which might be reasons for kicking him off the island. Rather it seems that a mod or two didn't like what they interpreted him to say on a shitposting thread called "The Shoutbox."
Downplaying the holocaust is a form of antisemitism. If you're not aware of that, it's your problem.
Quoting Thorongil
I do too in general but that's not how it works here. Read the guidelines, which I, as a mod, am obliged to enforce.
Quoting Thorongil
It doesn't matter how it strikes you as you're not a mod, so you don't have to deal with it. And it's not like I enjoy being confronted with situations like this. I came to the shoutbox to get some relief from an extreme right winger not to meet another one.
Quoting Thorongil
Now, who's being combative and belligerent? Maybe you need to relax and take a break from the forum. ;) Anyway, don't worry, you're not on my rabid lefty hitlist.
This is still too vague. What does "downplaying" mean? You used that word earlier, but you also explicitly said he was a holocaust denier, so it seems you're now trying to downplay the force of your accusations.
Quoting Baden
What you quoted of me was neither.
No I didn't. I said:
Quoting Baden
Which is a statement of policy. He did the first one.
I'm not wrong.
Quoting Baden
Cite the policy. And notice that you wrote: "You're likely to have more freedom in the Shoutbox."
"Racists/homophobes/sexists: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."
Antisemitism is covered under racism.
Yes, you are wrong. There's an "or" in that sentence (two in fact). You said I accused him of holocaust denial, which I didn't. I stated a policy of which he was in contravention.
Nobody gets to do A, B, or C etc. So if you do any of those things, you are in contravention of the policy. You don't have to do them all, obviously. He did A.
But you haven't proven he's an antisemite. When asked to do so, you said he "downplayed" the holocaust, without showing how he did so.
Quoting Baden
We're entering a semantics battle I see. One could read your sentence as implying that all three items in the list apply to Empty. The conjunction "or" is sometimes used to establish an identity between several words.
That's fine with me. What he did was wrong and was grounds for being banned. Like it says in the guidelines:
[Quote]Racists/homophobes/sexists: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. [B]However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned[/b].[/quote]
He flew too close to the sun.
This is almost too silly to respond to. Read my posts above, slowly if necessary, and figure out where you went wrong and why. Hint: your zeal to accuse me of saying something I didn't say outweighs your ability to understand basic English grammar.
This goes to show that he was in defense of Nazi Germany, which he claimed was less violent than the Venezuelan government, which might be true (as if living in North Korea would be a nice thing to do because their murder rates are nill, well at least the one's reported). But, you can't oversimplify this matter to idiocy like he did, which he did, without mentioning the fundamental difference between the reason why murder rates in Nazi Germany and Venezuela were higher or lower.
Quoting Emptyheady
See the guidelines. The guidelines are just guidelines, meaning we have some leeway. He cherry picked statistics and used them in a misleading and outrageous way to make what the Nazis did superficially appear not so bad, and he did so because of his agenda to attack socialism, which he said he hates.
You wanna attack socialism? Fine. But if you do so in a way which makes you seem like a Nazi sympathiser, by using what look like Nazi apologetics and propaganda, and by making outrageous statements about the holocaust, then don't be surprised if you get banned
I agree I tend to think that the majority of this forum is self-regulating and people can debate the issue with someone if they are sincere and reasonable, which Empty both displayed, though quite naive if I must add.
Still, he lumped an argument in that needs some rigorous data to prove and went on from there. That's a little too much on such an issue...
That might be what you would have done. That might be your preferred course of action. But you are not a moderator or an administrator. Again, see the guidelines. They warn members about the possibility of summarily being banned without warning, and they also warn members that there are certain views which we do not consider worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
Baden acted within his remit.
Straight on to the main issue that got him banned. The Nazis carrying out the holocaust being less morally serious than the Venezuelan government allowing crime rates to rise. There are other things going on (and obviously you can read the whole thing if you want to get the full context) but this is mostly what got him banned.
[quote=Baden]Now explain why the Venezuelan government's actions are worse than the deliberate race-based genocide of millions the Nazis carried out. [/quote]
[quote=Emptyheady]I just stated that National socialism has the least amount of body counts of all other forms of socialism -- without cherry picking.[/quote]
[quote=Baden]...tell me why the Venezuelan socialist government is worse than the Nazis or admit it's not. [/quote]
No answer
[quote=Baden]Just answer the question and stop running away.[/quote]
Doesn't answer.
[quote=Baden] Now, I've answered your question again. Your turn. Deal with the Venezuela issue, which you brought up.[/quote]
No answer.
[quote=Baden]Now for the third or fourth time, I don't need you to go into details just to answer this question, which you keep running away from.
Who did or has done more harm, the socialist government of Venezuela or the Nazi government of Hitler's Germany?[/quote]
Doesn't answer
[quote=Baden]Fifth time. Stop running away from my Venezuela question and answer it. [/quote]
Doesn't answer
[quote=Baden]And you still can't bring yourself to admit that the Nazis were worse than the Venezuelan government, which is sick and disgusting. To compare the holocaust to anything Venezuela has done is beyond the pale. [/quote]
Doesn't answer
[quote=Baden]The Nazis were responsible for the holocaust, yes or no? This was worse than anything the Venezuelan government has done, yes or no? [/quote]
Now answers
[quote=Emptyheady]
"The Nazis were responsible for the holocaust, yes or no?" — Baden
Yes
"This was worse than anything the Venezuelan government has done, yes or no?" — Baden
No, objectively speaking then.
[/quote]
Downplays holocaust (as I expected).
I warn him:
[quote=Baden]So what is it that the Venezuelan government has done that is worse than killing 6 million Jews, for example?
Also, I want to repeat that the disculpation of Nazi Germany from the crime of the holocaust is neo-nazi propaganda. So, I'll give you a chance to withdraw that or I'll have to presume you're a Neo-nazi sympathizer, which I may presume anyway seeing as you think something the Venezuelan governent has done is worse than the genocide of millions by the Nazis. [/quote]
Evades answering.
[quote=Baden]Answer my question: What is it that the Venezuelan government has done that is worse than killing 6 million Jews? [/quote]
[quote=Emptyheady]Their governance has increase violence by (roughly) 370% (which is 4,7 times higher) [/quote]
Downplays holocaust again
I intepret him as a Neo-Nazi sympathizer.
[quote=Baden]So, their poor policies which have resulted in crime rates increasing dramatically is worse morally than the killing of six million Jews. So presumably if they had managed to kill six million Jews but keep crime rates down, you'd look on them more favourably. Interesting perspective. [/quote]
No denial of interpretation
[quote=Baden]I don't think we need to normalize this. The guy just said killing six million Jews in Nazi Germany was morally more acceptable than the Venezuelan government causing the murder rate there to rise due to poor policies. I'm just presuming he's a Neo-Nazi sympathizer now. [/quote]
I again interpet him as a Neo-Nazi sympathizer.
No denial but a false accusation
[quote=Baden]And you condone rape, murder and famine. Interesting game to play[/quote]
[quote=Baden]Blah blah blah. You are a Neo-Nazi sympathizer then. Well, goodbye.[/quote]
No denial
[quote=Baden]Right, and the holocaust was not a poor policy... [/quote]
I ban him according to the aforementioned guidelines. Note that the above was spread over a period of a couple of hours. This was not a knee-jerk decision.
This comment in particular can be read as turning the tables on you. If you can flippantly accuse him of being a Nazi without evidence, well guess what, he can accuse you of condoning rape, murder, and famine without evidence. That's the "game" he sees you playing.
You are utterly ridiculous. Really.
Banning Emptyheaded is really so absurd Baden, that I see it as hardly worth even refuting. First of all, it seems you have little knowledge that among people on the right, the claim that Communism (and socialism) had a bigger death toll than Nazism is quite popular in order to illustrate just how terrible Communism and socialism (and leftism) are. Now you may disagree with that, but some much bigger brains than you have advocated it. So it is at least worth considering. This is not to detract from how terrible Nazism was, but trying to point how much worse Communism has actually been, in an effort to stay away from both and advocate for capitalism (or at least this is how generally the strategy is employed).
And by the way, it is statistically true that Communism has been more vicious than Nazism by far. Nazism is perhaps morally more reprehensible - as they went around targeting and hunting down a certain group of people - but Communism killed much more than 6 million people. As an ex. millions were purposefully killed by Stalin in fact, who used to sign papers ordering the death of 10% from here, 15% from there, and so forth at the height of his purges.
In fact I think you should educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism
Now you may think Empty is making a rhetorical point or strawmanning socialism or whatever - but the thing is, he cannot possibly be a Nazi. He considers Nazism to be a form of socialism. He hates socialism. He also hates Nazism. But he's making the point that objectively, Nazism killed less people than other forms of socialism have, so if he were to choose a DYSTOPIA it would be Nazism. Those were his words. Now that's more than clear - despite your petty protestations to the contrary.
Quoting Mongrel
Actually his IQ is probably bigger than the average poster in this forum, as illustrated by the result he posted here:
I'm aware of your opinion on this one, thanks, @Agustino. And I've given my reasons. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
He is Jewish and his relatives suffered and were killed in gas chambers. Yet he thinks the Holocaust is overblown. So is he a Neo-Nazi according to you? Despite the fact that according to his own words, and to the rest of the historical establishment, he isn't one?!
Devastating refutation, that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry
But not less than Venezuela, which was a silly example to use. The Venezuelan government has been misguided, even brutal at times, in the implementation of its brand of socialism, but that's not the same as genocide or starting a world war.
But I agree that if we add up all the deaths Nazism can be responsible for and all the deaths communism/socialism (of the USSR kind) can be responsible for, the latter massively exceeds the former.
Quoting Agustino
Well said. This to me is the smoking gun that shows he isn't a Nazi. Is it is still possible that he is one? Yeah, I guess, but we'll never know now.
I agree - that was silly, but from it being silly to Empty being a Neo-Nazi is different. At worst he is a right-wing propagandist - and there are many left-wing propagandists on this forum, I won't even get started in naming them.
Quoting Thorongil
Even the Chinese version alone would exceed the death toll of Nazism.
Yes, that has been my point.
All of those and more. It was misleasing, outrageous, and disgraceful. And, given that he seemed to willfully ignore the criticism of what he was doing, I think that that makes him more culpable.
Quoting Thorongil
I wouldn't call him a Nazi either, but he didn't do enough to offset the interpretation that he is, in Baden's words, a Neo-Nazi sympathiser, or something along those lines. So he was banned.
To me this is the sign of an up-coming wave of totalitarianism unfortunately - clamping down on ideologies which don't fit in whatever is the leftist view around here. And I'm not afraid to say this publicly, it's a fact now, established by the actions. The fact that no understanding is possible on this issue, and a "let the dogs bark" attitude is adopted, is more proof of this. I hate to say this, but I will refrain from any further postings as a sign of protest on Empty's behalf.
The fact that those in charge jump in cahoots publicly defending each other is also a serious problem - it's in fact exactly the power structure of a dictatorship, where one hand washes the other clean. It's not even the more intelligent bad-cop good-cop play - it's the straight there are no good cops play. They never make a mistake, and never walk back on their actions - just watch if they ever do. They are never wrong, nor will ever admit to it. Rather they'll jump defending each other whenever some members have a problem with it.
I object to what you seem to be insinuating there. In my role as a moderator, I don't defend anything that I don't agree with. I defended Baden's actions because they were within his remit, as per the guidelines. And I defended you in the moderator forum against what I considered to be too harsh a reaction.
I think this is confirmation bias (or whatever the correct term is). When we disagree on moderating decisions we usually do so in the private moderators forum. I'd say it's improper for the staff to show a disunited front in public.
Parents shouldn't argue with each other in front of their children after all.
By an odd coincidence, I raised the issue of moderation quite recently. This was Empty's contribution to my thread:
[quote=Empty]Go get yourself a beer lad -- I donated some some money via pay pal -- this has probably been the most fruitless thread I have ever seen.[/quote]
Perhaps he thought he had bought himself immunity or something, but he would have been well advised, with hindsight, to have taken the discussion of moderation a little more seriously.
Accusations of totalitarianism are so familiar to moderators as to have no force at all. There are good and very obvious reasons to be extremely careful when talking about the holocaust and related matters, and care has not characterised the discussion above by empty.
Now it is possible that the moderators have a left wing bias, but a single banning does not a clampdown make, and your posting in such frankly offensive, exaggerated and categorical terms is more a reflection of your own bias than anything else.
Empty's disdain for moderation and for the discussion of moderation is 'the sign of an up coming wave of totalitarianism unfortunately'. The ease with which your words of support can be turned against empty rather shows their lack of persuasive cogency.
Vomit.
Absolutely. Parents shouldn't vomit in front of their children. Moderators, on the other hand absolutely should model productive and respectful disagreement in public. I'm sure it is possible to legitimately disagree about this or any other decision. But as it happens, as far as I can tell, there happens to be no moderate disagreement on this occasion. Which is not to say that mods should not have private conversations too, in which they can moan about their innumerable unruly brats to each other without being interrupted.
There's no such thing as a stupid Nazi.
Oops, I just pulled an Emptyheady there.
Right, that's the last straw. In protest, this will be the last comment I ever make. Not just on the forum, but outside of the forum as well. Which means I'll probably lose my job as a customer service assistant, which means I'll lose my flat. Great. Thanks a lot, Question. This is all your fault.
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/ernst-kantorowicz-life/
I've heard that heroin is good stuff too, have you tried that yet?
Quoting Sapientia
I can confirm that and also that in the end I came round to agreeing with @Sapientia's view. Anyway, tell you what folks, when the next poster expressing offensive right-wing views comes along, I'll let another mod deal with it. It'll be a pity to miss out on the work, but what can you do? :-*
Those will have to be dealt with too, of course. (It goes without saying that all posts that contravene the guidelines regardless of their political orientation are subject to moderation).
And this is meant to ridicule those who claim that the banning of Empty is a sign of the apocalypse, an omen foretelling the end of free speech, the beginning of totalitarianism, and the crushing of the spirit of us wee ones. No, this site will continue to be a bastion of both deep philosophical thought and of abject nonsense, spouted by those who romanticize the significance of what we do here at our little home.
I'd also point out that much of what generates the most vitriol isn't philosophy at all, but just personal musings of how one ought best live their life, general advice, or political rants. I'm not suggesting I'm above that fray, but I can certainly see why such discussions might come under greater scrutiny than others, considering many threads ride the fence of even being appropriate for this forum at all. In saying this, I realize that I've seen some mud slinging even when discussing such esoteric things as direct versus indirect realism, but I've not seen neo-Nazis views emerge in such debates.
And in case you've missed it, and you're really not sure of the rules of this house, let me explain: The word "Nazi" is synonymous for "worst evil." Don't use it another way.
The issue seems to be of what one values and does not. If one is not the same as me, then he is different and not worth talking to because I like hearing what I like hearing.
I'm against banning, and think we had things figured out pretty neatly at the old PF. Simply, sandbox the trouble makers into a unmoderated section; however, this software seems to not support that kind of sandboxing of categories.
I would put up money to support Paul and have this site run on his software if possible. Any ideas about that? We can kinda do our own Kickstarter of some sort as I have qualms with how threads are created and discussed here.
Everything here seems squeezed tight, with a jumble of various threads. The old PF had many categories where some members domesticated and then met at the Lounge area, kinda like an online university/forum ought be in my mind and was much more organized with the ability to return and search some really good old threads.
I have, in hospital. It's preferred over morphine in the UK. Good stuff.
I thought the unmoderated section at old PF worked well too. But being sent there was essentially a ban - if a very slightly less severe one - and still sent the message that those posters weren't worth talking to. I also agree that there were some advantages to the old PF set-up, such as ease of searching old threads as you mentioned, but there are recognized advantages too to being here like increased speed of use; and there not being unanimity among posters as to which format they prefer means that, even apart from the practical difficulties, it's not realistic that we would do something as drastic as change to completely new software in the short term. Of course, if at some point we do achieve unanimity - or close to - on an alternative and the practical issues can be overcome, who knows.
Hey, that would be great. I think @jamalrob and I are quite happy with most of what we have here, but if you can come up with something better at some point* it would be fantastic.
You've got two weeks. :-*
Or, you know, get a copy of WSN forums and get Paul back.
It's pretty certain we won't go back to WSN. I know @jamalrob likes the set-up here, and so do I, and we haven't done a poll but I doubt it's any less popular (and I would think more) than the old php set-up.
You need a sinner's corner, with a confession both. All those banned members should be sent to the sinner's corner to confess their sins.
We'll stick that one in the next feature requests list. ;)
I do have a week off work next week. Staycations are the best kind of holiday.
So it's a toss-up between doing web stuff or watching TV...
Even without developing from scratch, it's a lot of work.
Oh, it'll be for my benefit more than anything. Pretending that it'll be used here just gives me some motivation. ;)
I am a good listener if you need someone to confess their sins to. O:)
Anyway, I'm in favor of better software, but the more polished and tried and true, the better.
I'm not going to get in between you two on the ownership thing. I'm not sure exactly what @Mongrel was suggesting. But just as a point of order, we're not a business, we're a community, albeit one that doesn't always see eye to eye.
Yes, and I agree Hanover should pay for everything. It's about time he put his filthy lucre to good use.
Mr. Porat is in the basement. Gagged. jamalrob has the welding equipment. When we're finished with him, you'll get your share, no fear.
Attempt to cast it as you will, but there is a name (I suspect Jamalrob's) attached to all of the great assets of this site and actual individuals assigned specific tasks for its upkeep. The point being that the rank and file are the rank and file and then a hierarchy above that. In order to keep this place afloat, someone is vested with the authority to decide who comes, who goes, what is bought, what is sold, what is added, and what is removed. So, yeah, we're a community center, but someone holds the keys.
Oh come on now, you can squeeze between us. There's always plenty of room for you.
bomb threats
Why not? He sort of winked at the KKK while campaigning. Obviously a lot of people are fine with that.
Probably safer to just say I'm on @Mongrel's side. Whatever that is.
To be fair, I don't think it reflects antisemitism on his part. More like he's too obsessed with himself to care much about this kind of stuff.
I have heard your confession Mongrel and you will be absolved of your sins by sharing three aspects of Hanover that you find positive.
This could be fruitful. What about a "What do you like about Hanover" discussion?
What about a "What do you like about going to the dentist" discussion? Might get more takers.
And the way he doesn't feel the need to parade his virtues ...
I like the fact that they do their job well and you often end up satisfied in the long term with their work. There's no pain nowadays to be felt, just psychological fear.
Just watch out for the snake dentists that will tell you, you need work on stuff that doesn't need work on. Some dentists don't know when its just 'good enough'.
My dad is a dentist.
Having been blessed with true objectivity, something few, if any others have, I actually am qualified to itemize what I like best about myself. From most others, such would be preposterous, but with me, not only is it expected, but it is much appreciated.
What I like about me is how I at once am approachable while still being intimidatingly sexy. My openness to love in all its varied forms amazes even the most liberal, whether it be man/woman, man/man, and most of all woman/woman. Yes, most of all that. My kindness knows no bounds. I once saved a child from Baden's grasp and released an Asian from Wosret's basement. My humility forbids me from discussing further, but one can easily figure out the details through pure speculation. You won't be wrong in guessing what treachery had been planned.
This is just the tip of the iceberg about what is the greatness of Hanover. Everyone should feel free to add as they see fit.
Funny. At work I went through some leadership program and was formally assessed as "condescending and indifferent." I told them that was a fair assessment, mostly because I didn't care what they had to say.
And here I thought a funny Republican was an oxymoron.
Quoting Baden
My dentist is a University college of dentistry. I like going there because most of the young male dentists are so extremely attractive. They do good work because they are supervised by the faculty, which is more than you can say for the average practicing dentist. I suppose the young female dentist students are attractive too, but I pay little attention to them.
Having a stranger's fingers in my mouth is as close to oral sex as I get, these days.
Now, Hanover's law practice isn't going to offer any of these benefits. Hanover's a fine fellow (he says so himself) but other than witty and well reasoned statements, he doesn't do much for me. Sorry, but wit and reason can't compete with a root canal performed by a Dazzling Dental Adonis.
What is your ultimate aim in making money? And is that more or less important to you than happiness? We can't answer this for you. Or is your ultimate aim happiness in both cases? If so, then it would make sense to do whatever leads to the greatest happiness. If you quit your job, what then? You tell me. How much do you hate your job? Enough to face the consequences of quitting?
Given my circumstances, I would avoid quitting my job until I found another one with similar or better pay, and I would try to stick to that, even if I hated my job. But my circumstances are probably different to your circumstances. Given my past circumstances, I would simply quit without giving it too much thought - but circumstances change, and that is no longer the case for me.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273136063_A_Possible_Forum_for_Freedom_Faculty_of_Philosophy_Chair_Philosophy_and_Applied_Philosophy_-_A_Lecture_on_Philosophy_without_Thinker
Give me some Ritalin because that itch is killing me.
Or maybe we could have an AgustinoBot, like the old place had a ModBot.
{five paragraphs of censored insults}
So get used to it, peasant.
One of the eternal truths which philosophy teaches is "work sucks". There are at least 100 reasons why work sucks, so it is important to develop the right attitude towards work. ("You are free insofar as you obey" is not a right attitude but sometimes that's the way it works.)
You have probably made your decision by now, but I'll weigh in, anyway.
Understand the suckiness of the job. What is it about training dogs that you don't/didn't like? If the dislike was very intense, don't do that kind of work. If you loved training dogs, consider similar jobs, like working with people. Maybe you are not a dog person? Don't like dealing with dog saliva, urine, and feces? (Nobody does, actually. tip: If you don't like cleaning up after dogs, don't work as a personal care assistant in a nursing home.)
If the pay is high enough, suckiness can be overlooked for relatively short periods of time.
The specifics of the dog training job can't be too demanding if you've never done it before. You may not have a lot of skills to offer, yet.
On the one hand, $18 is not bad pay, unless you are living in a very expensive city or have expensive habits (already). On the other hand, this was probably not a full time job.
One job trial that doesn't work out is not a disaster. Try to stick at jobs you find long enough to establish a decent "work record". Having a job makes you a more attractive prospective employee. Employers prefer the employed over the unemployed -- ironically, paradoxically or logically--depending how you slice it.
@protectedplastic, perhaps you'd like to be a dominatrix. That way, you'd still have a job where you get to pull a creature around on a lead, give it commands, and punish it. And if it's been a very good boy, then perhaps you'll let it fuck you. So it wouldn't be too different from your job working with dogs - only without the dogs. Problem solved.
If I caught him, I would invite him to come inside. But if it was Trump, I would consider shooting him and claiming that I thought it was a fox, and that I was just trying to take pest control measures.
Start with his profession and work your way to his witty sense of humor. 8-)
Uh.
They named a mountain after a furnace? Are you trying to tell us that you're in danger of being in proximity to a volcanic eruption?
Wait. I just googled "Mt furnace". Do you live in a place inhabited by pokémon?
I wish that I was about to be engulfed in molten stone... but no, I have to experience slightly below 0 temperatures momentarily while I get wood, like a sucker.
On the upside, when she is snow birding, I will be listing the Casita on Air B&B for rent. Our ranch is snug up against the mountains of the Sonoran Wildlife Reserve which makes us centrally located to any and all outside activities. Our ranch provides a mare motel with an acre of open paddock for overnights and you can ride out of ranch into the mountains. The best Mexican food and Margaritas in town, are less than a mile away on horseback and they have a paddock for your rides, while you dine inside. Gorgeous Lake Pleasant is 30 minutes from our ranch to the boat launch and the lake is surrounded by some of the best ATV riding trails around.
So bring your toys, your animals (except cats sorry allergies) and yourselves for a stay that has everything you want, within a stones throw or stay close to the ranch for afternoon naps in the hammocks and nightcaps by the campfire, all while being serenaded by the desert wildlife. We are a green friendly ranch and ask that rules are followed in compliance with your license.
We offer a grocery list, for you to fill out in advance, if you would like your refrigerator full upon your arrival and look forward to having as much or as little interaction with you as you desire.
Mi Casa es Su Casa
Warmest wishes,
Winterbury Ranch
Oh and I already thought about bolting for the hills but damn it all if I live in them!
There is no escape
Chin up. Keep it going. At least when you've collected enough, your family will be grateful the next day when they awake to find your morning wood.
Ha. That was good.
When I first started working as a parking tooth attendant a few years ago, I had a woman work herself into a panic attack because I wanted her to pay for parking, and started to freak right out, with terror. That was like the worst panic attack ever, and all it sounded to me like she was saying with her yells and distressful noises was "help, help", as if I were wronging, or attacking her, and her life was really in danger. That freaked me right out, and I told them I was going to quit after that. They told me to take a few days off, and convinced me not to...
All antagonism injures me. I'm not as sensitive if I do drugs, or get drunk, or even just chain smoke a few cigarettes if stress is high. Could also eat a big meal, or judge things harshly, and deny them my sympathy.
Wish I had some weed... then I could just listen to the same song seven hundred times, and all would be well.
Blimey. They drive teeth instead of cars where you come from? Canada sounds like a fantastical place.
Lol, I didn't know what you were talking about for a minute. "Parking tooth" sounds cool though... I have the name, now all I need is the invention, investors, distributors, free time, disposable income and I'm rich!
A parking booth shaped like a tooth. You could have them in carparks outside a dentist's. You'll hear more about it after my appearance on Dragon's Den.
Well, then I'll go on Shark Tank! They already have a more plausibly existing life or death trial.
A language universal would bring evidence to Chomsky's controversial theories.
[i]Cathleen O'Grady
Ars Technica
Aug 2015[/i]
Don't know enough about the Chomsky'isms, but it looks interesting.
You'd blow their puny minds.
I haven't been training, but just laying around all winter. I no longer need to in order to maintain this form, but I need to start trying to find a way to ascend. Got a lot of work if I plan to catch Goku.
According to Goku, each progressive form pollutes the heart, filling it with arrogance, pride and hostility. This is why Goku cannot channel the spirit bomb while in any super saiyan states until the very last fight of the series. where he is shown to be able to wield the spirit bomb while using the first super saiyan form.
Presumably this is also why Goku foregoes further training after attaining a new stage, and prefers to then just go lay around for at least a couple of weeks. He stresses the importance of this.
Goku definitely doesn't train so that he's killing himself, and pushing himself to his limit every single time, like Vegeta does.
Anyway, waiting for Samurai Jack the new season.
It's kind of obvious at this point.
Not nearly as good as the original, and I haven't watched it all, by no means, but the latest tournaments . I do like how they're painting Goku as the villain of this arch.
I never really judged animes, as the story is more important. So, far most of the arks have been fantastic. The Zamasu one was a real treat. Besides, the story with Dragon Ball Super is better than the constant power ups and actually have a lesson to teach for most Dragon Ball fans in humility, which was something lacking in the Z series. Z, and GT were very solipsistic around Goku, whereas this one expanded the whole thing to... 11 universes?
Had to go there, when you're the most powerful one in your universe.
It's hardly comparative to z... but it has it's moments. It isn't so awful that it isn't worth seeing more Goku.
Uhh, I think that was the whole point? Let's find some other story to tell other than having an enemy that needs to be defeated.
Mark my words you'll see Goku uniting all the universes against the tyranny of the angels that secretly control Zeno.
And the cycle begins.
*all totally, absolutely, unquestionably legally obtained of course.
**Also, all my totally, absolutely, unquestionably legally obtained music as well.
How'd you do that? I had to get mine from The Pirate Bay. :s ;)
Disclaimer: Neither this site nor any member of its staff condone doing anything that would get us into trouble for condoning.
That's like questioning why a grown ass man watches films. You do realise that, just like films, anime and video games can be similarly categorised based on age appropriateness. These are just different artistic mediums.
If anime is just for kids, and if video games are just for kids, then films are just for kids, and TV shows are just for kids, and books are just for kids. Would you suggest that books are just for kids because there are childish books? Would you suggest that TV shows are just for kids because there are childish TV shows?
Pretty sure I've pointed this out to you before, and pretty sure you'll nevertheless continue to make similar comments in future.
He does have a quirky sense of humor. Is being a lawyer considered a positive thing in your world?
Can you name me a video game or anime cartoon that couldn't be understood or enjoyed by a 15 year old of average intelligence? There are thousands of books that fit the description.
Yep, can have entirely different functions in fact.
I don't need to answer that question. It's not too dissimilar to films. There are plenty of films that are rated 18+ because of content such as sex and violence. And there are plenty of films with complex, mature, intellectual or disturbing themes better suited to an older audience, including - or even especially - adults. Likewise with anime, books, video games, etc. I could quite easily name several of each.
Out of those thousands of books you mention, there will most likely be some which could be turned into anime. If they were, then wouldn't they still be unsuitable in the same way as before?
Fair enough. I don't know enough about anime or contemporary video games to say any more, so I'll stay mum.
Edit: Response to your edit below
I look forward to the anime version of "The Critique of Pure Reason". Might be more fun. Anyway, wasn't trying to step on anyone's tastes. Just wasn't entirely convinced by the "if anime is for kids then books are" bit.
Just like with films and books, you can get ones which can be described as psychological thrillers, horrors, complex, intellectual, philosophical, intensely emotional, mature, taboo, graphic, explicit, violent, sexual. You can get ones which feature death and mourning, disturbing scenes, some form of abuse or criminal activity, and so on and so forth.
They might well be understood and enjoyed by a 15 year old of average intelligence, but that wasn't really my point, which is that they are more suited to an [i]older[/I] audience [i]including adults[/I] and not necessarily ruling out teenagers of a certain age: 15, 16, 17, 18, whatever. Not just for kids, and in some cases, they aren't even for kids at all, as evidenced by, for example, a rating of 18+.
Points taken. I'll leave it to "grown-ass" Hanover to argue the toss.
Yeah, that isn't the best analogy to get the point across, but nevertheless...
I was thinking of adult fiction, with mature subject matter, which could be anything like what I previously mentioned.
Where is Postmodern anyway? Probably busy with work?
The anime part of Kill Bill: Volume 1 would be a much better example. It fits in with the rest of the film, rather than stands out as something childish or for kids.
As with any artistic medium, you'll always get the bad with the good, and the bad usually comes first to stink up one's initial impression. Although, it doesn't always work like that. Most people come into contact with Shakespeare before reading drivel like Joyce or Wilde, *shrug*
Utena.
I mean, we all know Trump likes winning, but it also seems like he would be a much happier person if he were somehow not the president of the United States. I don't know if Trump, the media, public discourse, or the world can reliably handle 4 years of the emotional roller-coaster (or scrambler?) that we're presently riding...
Is there any way Trump could conjure an excuse to resign? This way he could retire a winner, undefeated as it were. He will avoid possible impeachment (I know that might be a long shot but I've long dreamed of it), having to run again in 4 years, and also not having to do actual work or make difficult decisions. As an ex president he will be able to cash in more on the Trump brand than ever before, and his word on social media will continue to be the stuff of legend.
Isn't that the optimal way out from his perspective?
P.S I have in fact heard impeachment rumblings from random but widespread sources. Anyone else see a rising probability of late?
Yes, without a doubt. In fact some of my favorite 'thinkers' are attorneys here on the Forum and in real life. I have always been well taken care of by the attorneys I have interacted with both personally and professionally.
If you put Hanover, sheps, ciceronianus, xzJoel and Benkei all attending one thread?
Mmmm it is a nice gaggle of men to watch. ;)
You have knocked out one out of three. Keep going!
I think he could do it claiming family illness or need to be at home with Barron which would leave Mike Pence as President and we could get another 8+ years out of Pence.
Thoughts?