I'm pretty sure the IPCC does and it is full of credible scientists who are not climate change deniers because they go out and actual research, not sit and write climate denying TRIBBLE for the K brothers. So who are YOU to decide what pollution is when other people alot smarter than you have studied and researched it all lives and thousands have concluded the same thing, that it is pollution?
So, private industry science is not credible because there is a conflict of interest with their profit motive. OK.
Yet state sponsored organizations and government funded universities have no such conflict of interest when their findings support the expansion of the state that provides their livelihood?
So, private industry science is not credible because there is a conflict of interest with their profit motive. OK.
Yet state sponsored organizations and government funded universities have no such conflict of interest when their findings support the expansion of the state that provides their livelihood?
Inconsistent logic is inconsistent.
Actually the IPCC is a whole bunch of countries banded together and sharing their findings, not just America.
Grim, perhaps. But necessary, given human overpopulation and
UNDERpopulation is the problem.
We have too many retirees, and not enough workers to replace them and pay for their entitlements. The fundamental imbalance in our system right now comes from the fact that it is designed for a population that grows much faster than ours does at this point.
We have too many retirees, and not enough workers to replace them and pay for their entitlements. The fundamental imbalance in our system right now comes from the fact that it is designed for a population that grows much faster than ours does at this point.
Bull.
We're already putting a huge strain on our planet. Our species was incredibly destructive even when the population was a few hundred million; we're at 7 billion and counting now.
On your second point: Very true. Which is why I suggest taxing the rich more and slashing military spending to pay for that stuff.
Meanwhile, Kate Mulgrew has publicly disavowed this film, and states that both her words and those of Dr. Strauss were manipulated to make it seem as if they were saying something other than what they said.
But carry on with your pointless debate - I'm sure an argument that has been roaring through legislative bodies, religious councils, and courts for decades will be settled firmly in only a few days of discussion in a gaming forum...
Yeah, I already mentioned that this Sungenis thing--some angry old white dude--went and deceived everyone involved, just like that "Sam Bacile" guy did with the people who he had in "Innocence of Muslims". Just like Ben Stein did to PZ Myers in "Expelled". But then the whole thing got lost in the politics.
I'm actually bored with the debate and playing the game right now. Which reminds me, I have an Elachi walker to kill. BRB.
Uhhhh.....I hope you know that by torch I think he means a LED flashlight. They call them torches in the UK.
Yes, an LED flashlight, about the size of an index finger, with a conical tip. While it was made as a completely legitimate flashlight, it would make a perfectly serviceable kubotan, which can be considered an offensive weapon (thus subject to confiscation and arrest for the owner) in the UK. Aside from the unreasonable and unnecessary search, which in the US would have been 4th amendment violation, I found it shameful that supposedly trained police officers did not recognize potential 'offensive weapons'...
We're already putting a huge strain on our planet. Our species was incredibly destructive even when the population was a few hundred million; we're at 7 billion and counting now.
The idea that the planet can not adapt to our influences is ridiculous. The planet can adapt to its own supervolcanos, it has adapted to extinction level asteroid impacts, it can adapt to continents crashing into eachother and reconfiguring the entire face of the world.
The planet is not some living organism worthy of preservation for the sake of preservation. It is a ball of rock that things grow on- and things will grow on it whether we affect it or not.
Nature is a violent, devastating process in and of itself- it creates creatures that feed on other creatures, encourages violence between the races, and requires us all to murder and cannibalize to survive. Though that all, one species has developed reason and rationale- humans. Humans are worth propagating and promoting, as we are the only lifeforms of real value to ever emerge from the chaos. So, I say no to 'nature for the sake of nature'. Sure, we can take care of our environment and manage resources in responsible ways; but that should be accomplished with the goal of preserving it for humans to further exploit.
Describing humans as destructive is silly, as we're the only thing here worth preserving. You can't destroy rubble.
On your second point: Very true. Which is why I suggest taxing the rich more and slashing military spending to pay for that stuff.
Let's pretend that raising taxes on the rich (let's say $1 million+ annual earners) won't stifle their level of prodictivity and profit- and let's pretend that you're able to raise taxes on the rich to 100%... That level of taxation would only raise about $616 billion annually- well less than our current spending deficit- even in good years.
Cutting pentagon spending is probably a good idea, but I don't think any of us want to see it eliminated entirely. Even if you did eliminate all national defense spending, it would only be enough to offset the cost of social security. A huge sum- no doubt, but that would still leave more than half of our entitlement problem unsolved, and would certainly not keep pace with our unfunded liabilities.
So, the problem is a little bit more systematic than any of these quick fixes. Either the population needs to increase, or the system needs a fundamental reboot.
The idea that the planet can not adapt to our influences is ridiculous. The planet can adapt to its own supervolcanos, it has adapted to extinction level asteroid impacts, it can adapt to continents crashing into eachother and reconfiguring the entire face of the world.
The planet is not some living organism worthy of preservation for the sake of preservation. It is a ball of rock that things grow on- and things will grow on it whether we affect it or not.
Nature is a violent, devastating process in and of itself- it creates creatures that feed on other creatures, encourages violence between the races, and requires us all to murder and cannibalize to survive. Though that all, one species has developed reason and rationale- humans. Humans are worth propagating and promoting, as we are the only lifeforms of real value to ever emerge from the chaos. So, I say no to 'nature for the sake of nature'. Sure, we can take care of our environment and manage resources in responsible ways; but that should be accomplished with the goal of preserving it for humans to further exploit.
Describing humans as destructive is silly, as we're the only thing here worth preserving. You can't destroy rubble.
I disagree with this on a number of levels, not the least of which being that humans are no more special than any other species.
Short version of my thoughts, because the long version is 10 pages:
--Humans are not special. We are no more worth preserving than the smallpox virus, E. coli strain 0157-H7, and/or fleas. Every species is precious and should be allowed to live out its course of existence without sentient interference.
--But not every ball of rock can support life, and it is ENTIRELY possible for a ball of rock that is capable of supporting life to lose that capacity. See Mars, Venus, and Pluto.
--Yes, nature is violent. It is also beautiful. And we are a product of nature; beautiful, in a way, but also violent and destructive.
--Again, and I cannot stress this enough: HUMANS ARE NOT SPECIAL. We are the same decaying organic matter as every other life-form on this planet. Our sentience does not make us any better than, say, frogs. As sentients, we have a responsibility to maintain the short- and intermediate-term ecological and environmental stability of our homeworld. Yes, the world will change on a geologic timescale, but that's just the thing; the ongoing human-caused mass extinction, the global warming mess; these are all proceeding literally thousands of times faster than any comparable prehistoric event (Chixcilub impact and pseudo-nuclear winter being only a partial exception).
Let's pretend that raising taxes on the rich (let's say $1 million+ annual earners) won't stifle their level of prodictivity and profit- and let's pretend that you're able to raise taxes on the rich to 100%... That level of taxation would only raise about $616 billion annually- well less than our current spending deficit- even in good years.
Cutting pentagon spending is probably a good idea, but I don't think any of us want to see it eliminated entirely. Even if you did eliminate all national defense spending, it would only be enough to offset the cost of social security. A huge sum- no doubt, but that would still leave more than half of our entitlement problem unsolved, and would certainly not keep pace with our unfunded liabilities.
So, the problem is a little bit more systematic than any of these quick fixes. Either the population needs to increase, or the system needs a fundamental reboot.
I agree in principle, but you're missing a big point here.
Rich people, as a rule, are not productive. They don't earn money; their money earns money.
When was the last time Donald Trump worked for a paycheck? Or the Koch brothers? Or Warren Buffet?
These guys get their money from the money they already have. At least Warren Buffet is honest about it.
I disagree with this on a number of levels, not the least of which being that humans are no more special than any other species.
Short version of my thoughts, because the long version is 10 pages:
--Humans are not special. We are no more worth preserving than the smallpox virus, E. coli strain 0157-H7, and/or fleas. Every species is precious and should be allowed to live out its course of existence without sentient interference.
--But not every ball of rock can support life, and it is ENTIRELY possible for a ball of rock that is capable of supporting life to lose that capacity. See Mars, Venus, and Pluto.
--Yes, nature is violent. It is also beautiful. And we are a product of nature; beautiful, in a way, but also violent and destructive.
--Again, and I cannot stress this enough: HUMANS ARE NOT SPECIAL. We are the same decaying organic matter as every other life-form on this planet. Our sentience does not make us any better than, say, frogs. As sentients, we have a responsibility to maintain the short- and intermediate-term ecological and environmental stability of our homeworld. Yes, the world will change on a geologic timescale, but that's just the thing; the ongoing human-caused mass extinction, the global warming mess; these are all proceeding literally thousands of times faster than any comparable prehistoric event (Chixcilub impact and pseudo-nuclear winter being only a partial exception).
I agree in principle, but you're missing a big point here.
Rich people, as a rule, are not productive. They don't earn money; their money earns money.
When was the last time Donald Trump worked for a paycheck? Or the Koch brothers? Or Warren Buffet?
These guys get their money from the money they already have. At least Warren Buffet is honest about it.
So why are you, a sentient, interfering with the lives of children who are still growing in the mother's womb? Since you say everything should be able to live out its course of existence.
I disagree with this on a number of levels, not the least of which being that humans are no more special than any other species.
Short version of my thoughts, because the long version is 10 pages:
--Humans are not special. We are no more worth preserving than the smallpox virus, E. coli strain 0157-H7, and/or fleas. Every species is precious and should be allowed to live out its course of existence without sentient interference.
--But not every ball of rock can support life, and it is ENTIRELY possible for a ball of rock that is capable of supporting life to lose that capacity. See Mars, Venus, and Pluto.
--Yes, nature is violent. It is also beautiful. And we are a product of nature; beautiful, in a way, but also violent and destructive.
If humans are not special, why should I find any value in your opinion on the subject? If humans are not special, why bothing maintaining anything? Who cares?
If we don't value ourselves, why value anything? Might as well just burn it all to the ground and be hedonistic in the process. There's no value to maintain.
--Again, and I cannot stress this enough: HUMANS ARE NOT SPECIAL. We are the same decaying organic matter as every other life-form on this planet. Our sentience does not make us any better than, say, frogs. As sentients, we have a responsibility to maintain the short- and intermediate-term ecological and environmental stability of our homeworld. Yes, the world will change on a geologic timescale, but that's just the thing; the ongoing human-caused mass extinction, the global warming mess; these are all proceeding literally thousands of times faster than any comparable prehistoric event (Chixcilub impact and pseudo-nuclear winter being only a partial exception).
If sentience doesn't make us special, then why do we have special responsibilities?
If we're all just the same matter, then why preserve anything? None of it is special.
I really don't see how you can have the world view you're espousing without embracing complete nihilism as a result. Nihilism certainly has some appeal, but I'd rather feel special- especially as the only species on this Earth who's able to abstract such concepts. (pretty special ability, eh?)
When was the last time Donald Trump worked for a paycheck?
The last time he filmed an episode of the Apprentice. He invested his time, capital and notoriety to produce a product that consumers used for entertainment, that put cameramen and advertisers to work, and created an outlet for dozens of companies to advertise their goods and do the same.
Might not be back breaking labor, but it still gets the job done.
If humans are not special, why should I find any value in your opinion on the subject? If humans are not special, why bothing maintaining anything? Who cares?
If we don't value ourselves, why value anything? Might as well just burn it all to the ground and be hedonistic in the process. There's no value to maintain.
Now you're twisting my words.
As sentients, we have no special rights, but the responsibility to maintain our environment. We should not value ourselves above other species; rather, we should recognize that all species have equal value.
While others (like government) eat money, these people create money.
But the government does NOT eat money. You have it backwards. Rich people consolidate money and sit on it, only using it for their amusement. The government literally creates money every day.
Not to mention that, by and large, the private sector will only do things when there is a profit motive, and a short-term one at that. A lot of important scientific research would never have happened without government organizations like (picking one out of a hat) DARPA funding them.
Oh, and one of the tricks the big bad guvmint has up its sleeve is to create the profit motive by legislating to encourage smart stuff and make short-term-profitable but long-term-idiotic things illegal or at least unprofitable.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
As sentients, we have no special rights, but the responsibility to maintain our environment. We should not value ourselves above other species; rather, we should recognize that all species have equal value.
That's just not realistic. We eat other species- if not animal then plant.
Nature pits species in an eternal fight against eachother for survival. The options are to kill or be killed.
So of course, we must value ourselves over other species. They do the same.
But the government does NOT eat money. You have it backwards. Rich people consolidate money and sit on it, only using it for their amusement. The government literally creates money every day.
No government generates a profit. If there is no profit, there is no capital creation. Therefore, every dollar spent by the government has an opportunity cost attached to it.
At its absolute best- a government spent dollar will be a zero-gain; and that's OK sometimes. I'm not an anarchist, we need government to serve some needs that supercede raw profit. We educate children at a loss because human beings are special and deserve opportunity. We protect our communities with police and fire presence at a loss being every human being deserves to have their equal rights protected. We paint the lines on the roads at a loss, because we've decided that everyone has the right to know what lane of traffic they're in so they don't crash into eachother.
We operate government toward social gains, and that's fine. We socialize some things because it's the morally right thing to do. That having been said, we need to accept that those acts have an economic cost. Sometimes doing the right thing requires that we destroy some wealth. But it's economics 101 to acknowledge that the government does not operate with profit in mind, and therefore will not turn out economic growth like private endeavors do.
Even if the wealthy are doing as you say and 'sitting on their money, using it for their amusement', the investment portfolio that they're sitting on is being put to use to finance businesses everywhere. The savings are being invested and grown, and lenders are benefiting from the credit availability, using that money to buy homes, cars, and businesses. The 'amusement' spending puts yacht manufacturers and airline mechanics to work.
Unless the wealthy are literally socking money away in a comical vault like Scrooge McDuck, it's going to use somewhere. And if they are socking it away, their causing themselves an opportunity cost as well, and the free market will disincentivize that action.
A halfway decent government is a MUCH more efficient cash-flow stimulator than any group of plutocrats.
Isn't it just high time we put Keynes to bed? Even Keynes acknowledged that his own economic principles were a short term stopgap with no sustainability. There are good arguments for a robust governments, but cash flow stimulus just isn't one of them. Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar stripped from some other endeavor- an endeavor with a profit motive.
And it is interesting that you chose to use the word "Plutocrat". A plutocrat is someone who uses their wealth to engage power over others- i.e. buying government favors to violate the equal rights of others. I oppose this too, but I oppose this by limiting the scope of the blunt instrument of government.
Oh, and one of the tricks the big bad guvmint has up its sleeve is to create the profit motive by legislating to encourage smart stuff and make short-term-profitable but long-term-idiotic things illegal or at least unprofitable.
You can not create a profit motive. You can only create an opportunity cost on competing ideas.
And then there's the more fundamental moral question: what of freedom? Freedom does not mean 'the freedom to do only what the government deems is smart'. Freedom means the freedom to pursue happiness however you best see fit. So long as it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is your right- and the government has no business interfering.
TRIBBLE it, I have better ways to spend my time than refuting libertarian arguments for the ten thousandth time.
I've said it all before, somewhere. Hundreds if not thousand of other people have said it before. This is neither the time nor the place for this debate.
I'm going to go fly my new Falchion (RRW Brandon Felczer, in honor of BranFlakes) around instead. Smart uses of time, and all.
TRIBBLE it, I have better ways to spend my time than refuting libertarian arguments for the ten thousandth time.
I've said it all before, somewhere. Hundreds if not thousand of other people have said it before. This is neither the time nor the place for this debate.
I'm going to go fly my new Falchion (RRW Brandon Felczer, in honor of BranFlakes) around instead. Smart uses of time, and all.
Hey come on. A disagreement doesn't need to turn into a fight. No need to get worked up bud.
You can not create a profit motive. You can only create an opportunity cost on competing ideas.
And then there's the more fundamental moral question: what of freedom? Freedom does not mean 'the freedom to do only what the government deems is smart'. Freedom means the freedom to pursue happiness however you best see fit. So long as it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is your right- and the government has no business interfering.
Ah, but the government does have business interfering. That's what you Randroids and libertarians never really grok: You don't live in a vacuum and actions have consequences years or decades down the road that you may never live to see but that are going to TRIBBLE the frak out of your kids and grandkids.
Without the government restraining them, these great business leaders you glorify are going to do what benefits them personally in the short term, as they abundantly demonstrated in '08 when they sent the world economy down the frakking tubes for their own profit because there was nobody telling them "No, you can't do that because it screws things up for everyone else." (There was a little small government agency whose name escapes me ATM actually trying to rein in the mortgage-backed derivatives crowd, but they were overridden by the Bush administration.) And then, insult to injury, they gave themselves taxpayer-funded bonuses for driving the economy of most of the civilized world off a frakking cliff.
Believe me, I'd love to be a libertarian and have the government do nothing but provide the military, but the philosophy doesn't work because people are @ssholes. I'm a leftist because it ****ing works. I'll take the practical over high-minded ideals any day of the week.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
And then there's the more fundamental moral question: what of freedom? Freedom does not mean 'the freedom to do only what the government deems is smart'. Freedom means the freedom to pursue happiness however you best see fit. So long as it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is your right- and the government has no business interfering.
But what if you derive your enjoyment from picking pockets and breaking legs? Why should the government have the right to interfere in that, but not in the control of pollution or the subtle froms of theft implied by the concept of a totally uncontrolled free market?
"Total freedom" is every bit as slippery a slope as "government control"...
But what if you derive your enjoyment from picking pockets and breaking legs? Why should the government have the right to interfere in that, but not in the control of pollution or the subtle froms of theft implied by the concept of a totally uncontrolled free market?
"Total freedom" is every bit as slippery a slope as "government control"...
Total freedom is not maximum freedom. There is a point where a lack of government causes the liberties of citizens to fall prey to coersion by crimiinal force. On the other side of that tipping point, the government itself becomes coersive through legal force.
I don't want to go down either side of that slippery slope. I want maximum freedom.
Total freedom is not maximum freedom. There is a point where a lack of government causes the liberties of citizens to fall prey to coersion by crimiinal force. On the other side of that tipping point, the government itself becomes coersive through legal force.
I don't want to go down either side of that slippery slope. I want maximum freedom.
Except with total freedom we get a bad TRIBBLE Mad Max world where everyone rides motorcycles and has badass mohawks and guns and it will be be completely hardcore. :eek:
Total freedom is not maximum freedom. There is a point where a lack of government causes the liberties of citizens to fall prey to coersion by crimiinal force. On the other side of that tipping point, the government itself becomes coersive through legal force.
I don't want to go down either side of that slippery slope. I want maximum freedom.
So organize people to protest and vote against government actions you disagree with. Lord knows there's a lot of bull**** laws on the books; I myself was an attendee at the NAACP demonstrations outside the North Carolina General Assembly last summer (against a whole host of bonehead moves by the state government).
That's the great thing about a representative democracy: you have the right to take action if you don't like what your reps are doing.
Oh, but guess what: Because the big business leaders like the Koch brothers that you glorify are now basically unrestricted in how they can fund political campaigns, your voice is a lot quieter than them. Great line somebody said in the comments section of an episode of The Diane Rehm Show: "Money isn't speech. It's volume control."
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
"I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew"
Ah, but the government does have business interfering. That's what you Randroids and libertarians never really grok: You don't live in a vacuum and actions have consequences years or decades down the road that you may never live to see but that are going to TRIBBLE the frak out of your kids and grandkids.
What really screws kids and grandkids is saddling them with debt, with an economy that lacks growth, and with a government that has no respect for their liberties.
I would rather take my chances in an nation that looks the other way as my neighbor runs afoul of me, than a nation that runs afoul of everyone itself.
Without the government restraining them, these great business leaders you glorify
Wait, wait, wait... who's done that? I just discussed with Worffan about how Plutocrats needs to be reigned in. If you want to have this discussion, it will be a lot more productive if you actually consider the goals I've expressed.
Without the government restraining them, these great business leaders you glorify are going to do what benefits them personally in the short term, as they abundantly demonstrated in '08 when they sent the world economy down the frakking tubes for their own profit because there was nobody telling them "No, you can't do that because it screws things up for everyone else." (There was a little small government agency whose name escapes me ATM actually trying to rein in the mortgage-backed derivatives crowd, but they were overridden by the Bush administration.)
Actually, the 2008 crisis was a crisis of loose economic policy. Politicians going all the way back to FDR- though more significantly to Carter- have benefited from claims about increased home ownership rates. They coerced banks away from so-called discriminatory lending practices, and used the federal reserve to assure that the money supply was always available for subsidized loans to people who really should not have met free market lending requirements.
No, the bankers aren't blameless. They cojolled with both political parties to entrench themselves in the system and used regulation to stifle competition and assure their monopolistic hold on the financial industry.
2008 was not the result of unrestricted markets. 2008 was the result of a government and a financial sector that were completely intertwined and corrupt. Blaming the free market for that collapse is absurd considering that we haven't had a free market in finance and banking since the early 30s!
And then, insult to injury, they gave themselves taxpayer-funded bonuses for driving the economy of most of the civilized world off a frakking cliff.
They didn't give themselves that taxpayer funding. Bush, Obama, McCain, Reid, and the rest of the establishment crowd did. They're all on the same team with this front. Libertarians, some TEA Partiers, and some OWS'ers seem to be the only folks that have a problem with this. The traditional partisans seem to ignore the real problem. There are great people on the right and the left in this country who are willing to point out the distorted, corrupted caricatures of themselves in government today. Funny that those folks all seem to share a libertarian bent on the left-right ideals they hold respectively.
Believe me, I'd love to be a libertarian and have the government do nothing but provide the military, but the philosophy doesn't work because people are @ssholes.
Some are. They usually get involved in government.
Government is the primary source of legitimate power in society. Power is a magnet for the corrupt. Therefore, Government is the primary magnet for the corrupt.
I'm a leftist because it ****ing works. I'll take the practical over high-minded ideals any day of the week.
Well, even if it did work, ends don't justify means. Pragmatism is no excuse for immorality.
But alas, as I've described above, it doesn't work anyways. Centralizing power in government only gives corrupt robber barrons a shiny powerful tool to get their hands on and beat us all down with.
So organize people to protest and vote against government actions you disagree with.
Yes. That is exactly how to handle things.
Another part of that is spreading the good word, and pointing out the corruption within the government.
I actually do believe in the system, even if I don't like the conclusion it leads to. We have a constitution of laws and limitations that tell us how we should exercise power, and you'll find no bigger proponent of that than I.
I applaud you for taking action toward your causes, and I am active toward doing the same.
Oh, but guess what: Because the big business leaders like the Koch brothers that you glorify are now basically unrestricted in how they can fund political campaigns, your voice is a lot quieter than them. Great line somebody said in the comments section of an episode of The Diane Rehm Show: "Money isn't speech. It's volume control."
Actually, the Koch Bros are a relatively small player in the political finance game. And I've not glorified them in the slightest. The largest campaign contributors in the country are on the left, but that's ok. It's their money, and their freedom. I don't like what they have to say, but I will defend their right to say it.
she might be able to get some traction if she's got a good lawyer and the terms of the contract were written in a deliberately deceptive manner.
Possible but unlikely.
Although, after the "Innocence of Muslims" debacle, people might be more willing to prosecute deception such as Sungenis's actions here. I don't think that what Sungenis did was actually illegal, though. Immoral and despicable, yes. Illegal? Probably not.
Time to put this thread back on its original set of rails.
Meh, it's not like it's her first time doing something like this...folks remember her role in Remo? Lol, tbh - it's why I couldn't watch Voyager - could never get past that. :P
I'm finding a lot of posts in this thread that violate these rules:
Spamming
You may not create posts which contain:
Posting of off-topic comments, including but not limited to comments or discussions of a religious, or political nature.
Flaming and/or Trolling
You may not post content which contains insults to other users or Perfect World Entertainment Staff, are specifically made to create undue discontent on the forums, disturbances in forum threads, pick fights or otherwise promote unfriendly conversation.
I am seeing a lot of political comments, in particular. Since this thread is stirring up that which need not be stirred, I am closing it.
[Wide Angle Forum Phaser Mk XIV [+Mod][-Flames]].
"ZAP!"
For future reference please remember that it helps a great deal when posts which violate the PWE Community Rules and Policies are not responded to and are reported via submitting a Forums and Website Ticket (click here).
If you think any of your posts within a thread have violated the PWE Community Rules and Policies, please edit your posts before a moderator takes action.
If you feel you need to get in touch with the Community Manager to discuss the actions taken by any Community Moderator, you can do so by submitting a Forums and Website ticket (click here).
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Comments
So, private industry science is not credible because there is a conflict of interest with their profit motive. OK.
Yet state sponsored organizations and government funded universities have no such conflict of interest when their findings support the expansion of the state that provides their livelihood?
Inconsistent logic is inconsistent.
Actually the IPCC is a whole bunch of countries banded together and sharing their findings, not just America.
I let you read up on them.......http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&source=android-browser&hl=en-US&q=ipcc
UNDERpopulation is the problem.
We have too many retirees, and not enough workers to replace them and pay for their entitlements. The fundamental imbalance in our system right now comes from the fact that it is designed for a population that grows much faster than ours does at this point.
I didn't say it was just the United States.
We're already putting a huge strain on our planet. Our species was incredibly destructive even when the population was a few hundred million; we're at 7 billion and counting now.
On your second point: Very true. Which is why I suggest taxing the rich more and slashing military spending to pay for that stuff.
Yeah, I already mentioned that this Sungenis thing--some angry old white dude--went and deceived everyone involved, just like that "Sam Bacile" guy did with the people who he had in "Innocence of Muslims". Just like Ben Stein did to PZ Myers in "Expelled". But then the whole thing got lost in the politics.
I'm actually bored with the debate and playing the game right now. Which reminds me, I have an Elachi walker to kill. BRB.
Yes, an LED flashlight, about the size of an index finger, with a conical tip. While it was made as a completely legitimate flashlight, it would make a perfectly serviceable kubotan, which can be considered an offensive weapon (thus subject to confiscation and arrest for the owner) in the UK. Aside from the unreasonable and unnecessary search, which in the US would have been 4th amendment violation, I found it shameful that supposedly trained police officers did not recognize potential 'offensive weapons'...
The idea that the planet can not adapt to our influences is ridiculous. The planet can adapt to its own supervolcanos, it has adapted to extinction level asteroid impacts, it can adapt to continents crashing into eachother and reconfiguring the entire face of the world.
The planet is not some living organism worthy of preservation for the sake of preservation. It is a ball of rock that things grow on- and things will grow on it whether we affect it or not.
Nature is a violent, devastating process in and of itself- it creates creatures that feed on other creatures, encourages violence between the races, and requires us all to murder and cannibalize to survive. Though that all, one species has developed reason and rationale- humans. Humans are worth propagating and promoting, as we are the only lifeforms of real value to ever emerge from the chaos. So, I say no to 'nature for the sake of nature'. Sure, we can take care of our environment and manage resources in responsible ways; but that should be accomplished with the goal of preserving it for humans to further exploit.
Describing humans as destructive is silly, as we're the only thing here worth preserving. You can't destroy rubble.
Let's pretend that raising taxes on the rich (let's say $1 million+ annual earners) won't stifle their level of prodictivity and profit- and let's pretend that you're able to raise taxes on the rich to 100%... That level of taxation would only raise about $616 billion annually- well less than our current spending deficit- even in good years.
Cutting pentagon spending is probably a good idea, but I don't think any of us want to see it eliminated entirely. Even if you did eliminate all national defense spending, it would only be enough to offset the cost of social security. A huge sum- no doubt, but that would still leave more than half of our entitlement problem unsolved, and would certainly not keep pace with our unfunded liabilities.
So, the problem is a little bit more systematic than any of these quick fixes. Either the population needs to increase, or the system needs a fundamental reboot.
Short version of my thoughts, because the long version is 10 pages:
--Humans are not special. We are no more worth preserving than the smallpox virus, E. coli strain 0157-H7, and/or fleas. Every species is precious and should be allowed to live out its course of existence without sentient interference.
--But not every ball of rock can support life, and it is ENTIRELY possible for a ball of rock that is capable of supporting life to lose that capacity. See Mars, Venus, and Pluto.
--Yes, nature is violent. It is also beautiful. And we are a product of nature; beautiful, in a way, but also violent and destructive.
--Again, and I cannot stress this enough: HUMANS ARE NOT SPECIAL. We are the same decaying organic matter as every other life-form on this planet. Our sentience does not make us any better than, say, frogs. As sentients, we have a responsibility to maintain the short- and intermediate-term ecological and environmental stability of our homeworld. Yes, the world will change on a geologic timescale, but that's just the thing; the ongoing human-caused mass extinction, the global warming mess; these are all proceeding literally thousands of times faster than any comparable prehistoric event (Chixcilub impact and pseudo-nuclear winter being only a partial exception).
I agree in principle, but you're missing a big point here.
Rich people, as a rule, are not productive. They don't earn money; their money earns money.
When was the last time Donald Trump worked for a paycheck? Or the Koch brothers? Or Warren Buffet?
These guys get their money from the money they already have. At least Warren Buffet is honest about it.
If humans are not special, why should I find any value in your opinion on the subject? If humans are not special, why bothing maintaining anything? Who cares?
If we don't value ourselves, why value anything? Might as well just burn it all to the ground and be hedonistic in the process. There's no value to maintain.
If sentience doesn't make us special, then why do we have special responsibilities?
If we're all just the same matter, then why preserve anything? None of it is special.
I really don't see how you can have the world view you're espousing without embracing complete nihilism as a result. Nihilism certainly has some appeal, but I'd rather feel special- especially as the only species on this Earth who's able to abstract such concepts. (pretty special ability, eh?)
So their money is productive. One way or another, that's income generation- that's the advancement of the human species.
The last time he filmed an episode of the Apprentice. He invested his time, capital and notoriety to produce a product that consumers used for entertainment, that put cameramen and advertisers to work, and created an outlet for dozens of companies to advertise their goods and do the same.
Might not be back breaking labor, but it still gets the job done.
Probably the last time they invested their capital in some business venture. The last time they opened a factory, developed a product line, etc...
Again, not back breaking labor, but they're putting their capital on the line to grow money for the greater economy.
While others (like government) eat money, these people create money.
And what's wrong with that? Investment is capital creation.
Without people who use money to make money, the economy would have little to no growth potential.
As sentients, we have no special rights, but the responsibility to maintain our environment. We should not value ourselves above other species; rather, we should recognize that all species have equal value. But the government does NOT eat money. You have it backwards. Rich people consolidate money and sit on it, only using it for their amusement. The government literally creates money every day.
This...makes no sense at all.
A halfway decent government is a MUCH more efficient cash-flow stimulator than any group of plutocrats.
Oh, and one of the tricks the big bad guvmint has up its sleeve is to create the profit motive by legislating to encourage smart stuff and make short-term-profitable but long-term-idiotic things illegal or at least unprofitable.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
That's just not realistic. We eat other species- if not animal then plant.
Nature pits species in an eternal fight against eachother for survival. The options are to kill or be killed.
So of course, we must value ourselves over other species. They do the same.
No government generates a profit. If there is no profit, there is no capital creation. Therefore, every dollar spent by the government has an opportunity cost attached to it.
At its absolute best- a government spent dollar will be a zero-gain; and that's OK sometimes. I'm not an anarchist, we need government to serve some needs that supercede raw profit. We educate children at a loss because human beings are special and deserve opportunity. We protect our communities with police and fire presence at a loss being every human being deserves to have their equal rights protected. We paint the lines on the roads at a loss, because we've decided that everyone has the right to know what lane of traffic they're in so they don't crash into eachother.
We operate government toward social gains, and that's fine. We socialize some things because it's the morally right thing to do. That having been said, we need to accept that those acts have an economic cost. Sometimes doing the right thing requires that we destroy some wealth. But it's economics 101 to acknowledge that the government does not operate with profit in mind, and therefore will not turn out economic growth like private endeavors do.
Even if the wealthy are doing as you say and 'sitting on their money, using it for their amusement', the investment portfolio that they're sitting on is being put to use to finance businesses everywhere. The savings are being invested and grown, and lenders are benefiting from the credit availability, using that money to buy homes, cars, and businesses. The 'amusement' spending puts yacht manufacturers and airline mechanics to work.
Unless the wealthy are literally socking money away in a comical vault like Scrooge McDuck, it's going to use somewhere. And if they are socking it away, their causing themselves an opportunity cost as well, and the free market will disincentivize that action.
Isn't it just high time we put Keynes to bed? Even Keynes acknowledged that his own economic principles were a short term stopgap with no sustainability. There are good arguments for a robust governments, but cash flow stimulus just isn't one of them. Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar stripped from some other endeavor- an endeavor with a profit motive.
And it is interesting that you chose to use the word "Plutocrat". A plutocrat is someone who uses their wealth to engage power over others- i.e. buying government favors to violate the equal rights of others. I oppose this too, but I oppose this by limiting the scope of the blunt instrument of government.
You can not create a profit motive. You can only create an opportunity cost on competing ideas.
And then there's the more fundamental moral question: what of freedom? Freedom does not mean 'the freedom to do only what the government deems is smart'. Freedom means the freedom to pursue happiness however you best see fit. So long as it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is your right- and the government has no business interfering.
I've said it all before, somewhere. Hundreds if not thousand of other people have said it before. This is neither the time nor the place for this debate.
I'm going to go fly my new Falchion (RRW Brandon Felczer, in honor of BranFlakes) around instead. Smart uses of time, and all.
Hey come on. A disagreement doesn't need to turn into a fight. No need to get worked up bud.
(Not being a smartass, I mean that.)
I know, but I lack the time and the patience to have this discussion.
I'll have much more fun taking the RRW Brandon Felczer out for a quick shakedown cruise.
Ah, but the government does have business interfering. That's what you Randroids and libertarians never really grok: You don't live in a vacuum and actions have consequences years or decades down the road that you may never live to see but that are going to TRIBBLE the frak out of your kids and grandkids.
Without the government restraining them, these great business leaders you glorify are going to do what benefits them personally in the short term, as they abundantly demonstrated in '08 when they sent the world economy down the frakking tubes for their own profit because there was nobody telling them "No, you can't do that because it screws things up for everyone else." (There was a little small government agency whose name escapes me ATM actually trying to rein in the mortgage-backed derivatives crowd, but they were overridden by the Bush administration.) And then, insult to injury, they gave themselves taxpayer-funded bonuses for driving the economy of most of the civilized world off a frakking cliff.
Believe me, I'd love to be a libertarian and have the government do nothing but provide the military, but the philosophy doesn't work because people are @ssholes. I'm a leftist because it ****ing works. I'll take the practical over high-minded ideals any day of the week.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
"Total freedom" is every bit as slippery a slope as "government control"...
Total freedom is not maximum freedom. There is a point where a lack of government causes the liberties of citizens to fall prey to coersion by crimiinal force. On the other side of that tipping point, the government itself becomes coersive through legal force.
I don't want to go down either side of that slippery slope. I want maximum freedom.
Except with total freedom we get a bad TRIBBLE Mad Max world where everyone rides motorcycles and has badass mohawks and guns and it will be be completely hardcore. :eek:
So organize people to protest and vote against government actions you disagree with. Lord knows there's a lot of bull**** laws on the books; I myself was an attendee at the NAACP demonstrations outside the North Carolina General Assembly last summer (against a whole host of bonehead moves by the state government).
That's the great thing about a representative democracy: you have the right to take action if you don't like what your reps are doing.
Oh, but guess what: Because the big business leaders like the Koch brothers that you glorify are now basically unrestricted in how they can fund political campaigns, your voice is a lot quieter than them. Great line somebody said in the comments section of an episode of The Diane Rehm Show: "Money isn't speech. It's volume control."
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
As I suspected was the case, Kate Mulgrew has said she was duped into narrating The Principle.
More on this story from Time magazine.
My Foundry missions | My STO Wiki page | My Twitter home page
What really screws kids and grandkids is saddling them with debt, with an economy that lacks growth, and with a government that has no respect for their liberties.
I would rather take my chances in an nation that looks the other way as my neighbor runs afoul of me, than a nation that runs afoul of everyone itself.
Wait, wait, wait... who's done that? I just discussed with Worffan about how Plutocrats needs to be reigned in. If you want to have this discussion, it will be a lot more productive if you actually consider the goals I've expressed.
Actually, the 2008 crisis was a crisis of loose economic policy. Politicians going all the way back to FDR- though more significantly to Carter- have benefited from claims about increased home ownership rates. They coerced banks away from so-called discriminatory lending practices, and used the federal reserve to assure that the money supply was always available for subsidized loans to people who really should not have met free market lending requirements.
No, the bankers aren't blameless. They cojolled with both political parties to entrench themselves in the system and used regulation to stifle competition and assure their monopolistic hold on the financial industry.
2008 was not the result of unrestricted markets. 2008 was the result of a government and a financial sector that were completely intertwined and corrupt. Blaming the free market for that collapse is absurd considering that we haven't had a free market in finance and banking since the early 30s!
They didn't give themselves that taxpayer funding. Bush, Obama, McCain, Reid, and the rest of the establishment crowd did. They're all on the same team with this front. Libertarians, some TEA Partiers, and some OWS'ers seem to be the only folks that have a problem with this. The traditional partisans seem to ignore the real problem. There are great people on the right and the left in this country who are willing to point out the distorted, corrupted caricatures of themselves in government today. Funny that those folks all seem to share a libertarian bent on the left-right ideals they hold respectively.
Some are. They usually get involved in government.
Government is the primary source of legitimate power in society. Power is a magnet for the corrupt. Therefore, Government is the primary magnet for the corrupt.
Well, even if it did work, ends don't justify means. Pragmatism is no excuse for immorality.
But alas, as I've described above, it doesn't work anyways. Centralizing power in government only gives corrupt robber barrons a shiny powerful tool to get their hands on and beat us all down with.
Yes. That is exactly how to handle things.
Another part of that is spreading the good word, and pointing out the corruption within the government.
I actually do believe in the system, even if I don't like the conclusion it leads to. We have a constitution of laws and limitations that tell us how we should exercise power, and you'll find no bigger proponent of that than I.
I applaud you for taking action toward your causes, and I am active toward doing the same.
Actually, the Koch Bros are a relatively small player in the political finance game. And I've not glorified them in the slightest. The largest campaign contributors in the country are on the left, but that's ok. It's their money, and their freedom. I don't like what they have to say, but I will defend their right to say it.
Possible but unlikely.
Although, after the "Innocence of Muslims" debacle, people might be more willing to prosecute deception such as Sungenis's actions here. I don't think that what Sungenis did was actually illegal, though. Immoral and despicable, yes. Illegal? Probably not.
Meh, it's not like it's her first time doing something like this...folks remember her role in Remo? Lol, tbh - it's why I couldn't watch Voyager - could never get past that. :P
Spamming
You may not create posts which contain:
Posting of off-topic comments, including but not limited to comments or discussions of a religious, or political nature.
Flaming and/or Trolling
You may not post content which contains insults to other users or Perfect World Entertainment Staff, are specifically made to create undue discontent on the forums, disturbances in forum threads, pick fights or otherwise promote unfriendly conversation.
I am seeing a lot of political comments, in particular. Since this thread is stirring up that which need not be stirred, I am closing it.
[Wide Angle Forum Phaser Mk XIV [+Mod][-Flames]].
"ZAP!"
For future reference please remember that it helps a great deal when posts which violate the PWE Community Rules and Policies are not responded to and are reported via submitting a Forums and Website Ticket (click here).
If you think any of your posts within a thread have violated the PWE Community Rules and Policies, please edit your posts before a moderator takes action.
If you feel you need to get in touch with the Community Manager to discuss the actions taken by any Community Moderator, you can do so by submitting a Forums and Website ticket (click here).
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek