Recent posts by JohnnyBeGood on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Distribution of Wealth

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

@FlyingCat: This is irrelevant as the amount distributed to each person is in accordance to their needs. There is no incentive to elevate one’s needs when the resources grow proportionately.

My source, (Wikipedia for the win!), puts the global GDP around 90-trillion (US dollars). With 7-billion people, that puts about $13,000 toward each person annually. I’m not sure if that’s enough to live on EVERYWHERE but it’s more than enough to live on in many parts of the world.

1. Your constantly mixing up two things. Destirbuting based on needs and just geiving everyne an equal share. The outcome of both is totally different, because hte needs of people are naturally totally different.

2. Depending on how you define Need the living standards are going to be fastly diffrent. If you devine as neded to survive then the people will be living in shanties sharing small sleeping bunks in shifts, eating bowls of masched vegtables and nutrion supplients. No clothes unless the weather or working conditions make it nessary. Travel being mostly done by shared bicycles suplemented with various forms of public transports. Some form of Iphone as multimedia device and all the rest of the economy being centered around medical needs. Because in that regard needs of many people will be as they are limitless. With the current technology ressources can ot be distributed in a way to cover the needs of everyone when survival is included as need, because the medical conditions of many people are endless.

3. Trying to calculate how much everyone would have based on the evaluation of the given Assests of the World in Money is not a good idea to be polite. Because its useless. The Value of things in terms of Money is directly connected to their supply and demand. Demand is directly connected to the ability of People to pay for what they desire/need.
If the distribution of said Assests is changed it totally changes supply and demand. Meaning what can be bought with said Assests changes dramatically.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Iran Nuclear Deal

Originally posted by issendorf:

This is all you really need to know about the deal:

We will have anywhere, anytime inspections. – April, 2015

JK! We never wanted anywhere, anytime inspections. – July, 2015.

Just when you thought the Obama Administration couldn’t become any more inept, they just continue to be committed to proving you wrong.

Oh common. Thats some cheap shot. In both sources the Position of Ben Rodes is totally consitent with the other.

At best you could make a case for the Journalist/Editors of the first sources being sloppy about what they(not Rodes) claim anytime, anywhere access is going to be.

Rodes claims in both sources that there will be direct anytime, anywhere access to the designated nuclear infrastructure. for other places outside of that infrastructure they can go to the IAEA to arrange access.

Fact is that one can be certain that a general anytime, anywhere access was never on the table. There are probably only a handfull historically very neutral Nations/Organisation in the World where any Country in there right mind would even think about giving them such rights before saying no. Such things tend to be misused both for spionage and simple bullying. The US track record like many other countries is not exactly clean in that regards and even if it was the chances of the Inspectors being used as Spies by other countries would be too high.

The deal they got is actually quite good in regards to Inspections, if the claims of Rode is true. Nuclear facilities needed for researching and producing Nuclear Weapons are generally not the Mobilie sort that can be covered up in a day or two.


Now to the topic more in general.

I think a thing thats over seen a lot is that a Iranian Nuclear Weapon is hardly a real threat. Fact is no Country has attacked with a Nuclear Weapon since WWII and that even though some seriously unscrupulus Goverments have had them in thier arsenal. Some who where in serious Military conflicts that they even lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

The lieklihood of the Iranians using the weapons if they had them is even closer to zero than other countries that can at least threaten MAD should a other Nuclear country try to take them in account for the use of such a weapon.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / American Conservatism versus the world.

Originally posted by Lozear_shelly3:

I have noticed that American Conservatism is a lot different from the world. They are usually a lot more stronger in argument, very polite and are more educated about history.

Many Americans want to have a free non socialist economy. The rest of the world wants different. They have conservative morals, but are not as strong as Americans.

My question is why, on both sides, this is so apparent?
Why are Americans so, sensitive about politics? And why doesn’t the rest of the world care as much or so little about the same issue?

I would say you don´t know much about the World. There are many more conservative People out there than the Americans. Quite frankly American conservatives look quite progressive compared to the majority of conservatives out there.

And the “more educated about history”. Finding a people less educated about history than the Americans in the first world is a challenge i think no one can accomplish. Most of the people in other first world countries know a decent amount of world history, a great helping focused on their own national history and a extra helping of American history(through film and media, besides whats learned in world history). The Americans generally lack this extra helping of history foreign nations and their own national history is quite a bit short compared to that of others.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Greek Elections Jan 2015

Originally posted by donseptico:

So, the results are in and it looks like Syriza (an anti-austerity, left wing party) have fallen just short of an outright majority.

Syriza is not actually anti-austerity. At least not in the sense of wanting a balanced budget. The idea how to get there is what differs. Fact is that while some of the austerity measures are showing some success some of the measures have done more harm than good. Much of the success we are now seeing is due to the Greece economy hitting rock bottom.
It shows that trying to fix the spending side without also fixing the income side can not lead to success when the Amount of Dept has reached a critical point. And that when fixing the spending side it should not be done blindly. Especially in a setting with such a corrupt political and bureaucratic system as exists in Greece.
Quite frankly many of the cuts in spending have gone hand in hand in equal cuts in income. Leading to the dept payments becoming an ever increasing Problem, because dept payments are taking up a ever increasing part of the Budget(because the Budget is getting smaller and smaller while the Dept is increasing).
The Greece have already cut spending everywhere they could(even places that where really stupid) and while they are close to or even have achieved a balanced budget when one ignores dept payments. There is no way for them to cut spending to a point where they can balance the budget and including dept payments in that budget. The only possible solution is increasing income or cutting debt.
Both are seen as possibilities by Syriza, but in both cases it takes Foreign Money. Either the Creditors have to say okay they will give up on some of the Dept(or freeze loan interest and dept payments) or Investors(new Creditors) need to be found willing to invest in future growth of Greece. I don´t see any willing Investors on the Horizon.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by teh_hobo:

would you guys kindly get off your high horse.
Our enemy tortures as well.
Most of these men being tortured have killed a lot of people or have order the deaths of a lot of people.
They deserve what they get.

? As far as it seems, most if not almost all of the people tortured by the USA were/are suspects and not condemned criminals. Some of them were/are Innocent (mistaken identity) and many more were/are only indirectly involved (for example drivers/bodyguards).

Considering this and the US and especially the CIA´s not so clean history the “they deserve what they get” attitude rapidly falls back on the US.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

Torture results in the tortured giving information that they think their captors want to have.

No as already pointed out by me and others, thats not how it works. The answers given by the tortured are those the tortured hopes will stop the torture. These do not have to be truthful, especially if a truthful answer is not the one a captive thinks will stop the torture.

What happens when you have an extremely mentally resilient person who contains information vital to saving lives of thousands of people? Should we just wait until feels like spilling the beans to the point where those thousands of people get killed because we didn’t have the information to stop it?

This vague example is brought out again and again but fails because it implies that the information is actually obtainable through torture. But as pointed out there are serious limitations to torture. As said the most important limitation is that the information needs to be verifiable quickly other wise the torture victim can just lie.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Torture, Its Legality and its effectiveness,

Originally posted by dias17se:

Torture has been proven effective since ancient times. If not why would it still be on practise ?

Because its emotionally satisfying for the Torturer. Looking at history we see Torture mostly used as punishment, revenge, coercion, re-education as well as being used for the pleasure of the torture or other audience.
On the other hand the Number of documented through torture successful interrogations is insignificant.

Originally posted by dias17se:

It still works, it´s a fact. You know something and i want it, i´m gonna torture you and threaten your family, you will spit it out, if it comes late or not depends on conditions such as time, place, agent. Even if i get late it will still be useful, so my point still stands, torture is effective.

Bullshit. Without a working Lie detector Torture is very limited on what information it can successfully extract. For obvious reasons current Lie detectors don´t work with torture.
One of the greatest limitations is that the information needs to be verifiable very quickly. If the tortured can tell lies to make the immediate torture stop why should it not? The motivation of the torture victim is to make the immediate torture stop and not prevent future torture.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Political Correctness as a Barrier to Communication

Originally posted by Pleasedonot5:

TL;DR Political correctness can be a barrier to communication, causing more bigotry to result, when actually the desired result was removing this bigotry…

What do you all think? Opinions? Where should we draw the line? How much caution is too much?

Formalities, decorum and etiquette in speech and communication are as ancient as language itself and even older than that. The Rules are various, complex and change depending on with whom, when, where and how your communicating and thats just the start of the list. There have also always been interests, politics and ethics/morals involved in a struggle over the control of these Rules and whilst the Rules can and are often a barrier to communication at the same time more often the opposite is true (because as complicated as the Rules are it makes many things simpler).

So whats there to say about political correctness? Well as said politics and interest have always been involved and if we look at all the other interests, politics and morals/ethics involved once or now. (Including for example the very political encouraged definition of political correctness your using) And if we were to compare them to what the OP said what political correct is, one might have to say as flawed as the implementation often is, its Goals are much better than most interests, politics and morals/ethics that are involved in the struggle over the control of the rules.

At the same time the Goal of preventing offense in communications is one of the hardest Goals to achieve, since as the shows a simple thoughtfulness can cause an offense and even established formalities, decorum and etiquette generally take years to master. Most of the implementations of non-offensive speech are far from established and quite often much more a recent (by-) product of modern social sciences.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Lol, because what you call “natural gender tendencies” are not natural tendencies (at least not natural in the sense your using it here), they are cultural ones and they are based on cultural traditions that were and are heavily discriminatory between genders. A look at the history in which the traditions were created and how they have developed shows that they are were created in service of a patriarchal society.

The existence of gender roles in the past in no way debunks what I said.

Yes it does. Because those artificial gender roles are largely still in effect today. And these gender roles are not based on nature but instead on nurture.

The statistical differences in career choice and behavior between men and women is well established.

Statistically women will make different career choices than men of their own volition.

Yes, but own volition is not the issue here, the question is where they brought up by society in general and both media and parents specifically according to artificial role models?

You missed the point of my statement. The post you quoted was about the burden of proof, not computer programming. If you are going to make the claim for widespread discrimination in a job field then you need to prove the case. This is especially true if you’re advocating government intervention as a solution for the problem.

Yes and my point was about you choosing a shitty example to suit your needs. Instead of taking an example where there is a major push for such Legislation based on employment you choose one where the result of male dominance is in effect a result of early role model imprinting and not employer discrimination. I basically agree with the necessity of burden of proof but your looking for it in the wrong place.
In the places where I see Legislation over employment quotas either being but into place or being advocated the evidence is clear that its not the womens choices nor qualification nor pregnancies that are the issue, but in fact deep routed and ingrained biases that lead to lack of women.

I believe in equal opportunity and see government intervention as a violation of equal opportunity.


Thats bullshit. For that to be the case equal opportunity has to exist in the first place without government intervention. Enough high quality studies show thats not the case. Instead the Government Intervention is actually aimed at reducing the inequality in opportunity.

You seem to be confusing equal opportunity with equality.

No i am not. No where do i claim that women and men number of women should or would be equal every where if equal opportunity existed. I am saying that equal opportunity does not in fact exist in the first place without government intervention and on top of that the government intervention generally advocated actually increases equal opportunity (if only in one specific dimension).

Anybody with a rudamentary understanding of psychology, neurology, or simply common sense knows that statistically men and women make different choices and have different behaviors. Equal opportunity should lead to an inequality in the job market unless you believe that the only difference between men and women are their genitals. If you do believe that, then you are at odds with science.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of psychology and sociology should know that the differences we see in the job market is based much more on nurture than nature and that there are many

Not just sometimes, in the upper leadership of companies its most times. No other way to get the statistical difference even counting other factors as less women being interested/qualified in the job or having to spend time on pregnancy and children.

Since you dismissed my computer programmer example I’ll think I’ll point out that upper leadership positions are a terrible example. Unlike the general job market top leadership positions are almost never given to the most qualified applicant, male or female.

I dismissed the computer programmer example specifically because there is no push for Quotas on it, while for upper Management it is. And no, in the general job market positions are also almost never given to the most qualified applicant. Except for very specific jobs (like running 100 meters as fast as possible) qualification are generally either only a minimum bar or a final feather on the scale.

In a non-discriminatory workplace quotas by their very nature always result in the less qualified applicant finding a job because the only time they come into play is when the employer is forced to take a different applicant than they would have had they based their decision on the application itself.

Wrong. First see above about generally not the best qualified applicant getting the job. Second, it s wrong because of the existing bias in which females applications are discarded even when having evidently superior Qualifications. The quotas force many employers to take a better look at the female applications than they otherwise would. And as studies show many unconsciously biased employers will change their biases just with the gained experience of having had to look at female Applicants more closely. 3rd. Only a minority of employers hold out on doing so until they are forced to take a female no matter what (unless the Quotas are really ridiculous like 50/50 or so, which are generally self established Quotas of Political Organizations and NGO´s).

They increase equal opportunity since one of the factors (male/female discrimination) is diminished, as well as give one of the groups that is being traditionally discriminated against a foothold in the field. That means the tradition of hiring less-qualified males over better qualified females takes a serious hit, in a generation and part of the net-working its based on, will likely be so far reduced that the quotas become largely unnecessary.

I believe the opposite is true – quotas increase the number of less qualified applicants that get jobs and violate equal opportunity.

And some people believe in creationism. Your belief does not matter against the facts.

Leaving a gab of ~+5% on which both conservative and liberal economist can agree, is not accounting for nearly all of the -23% Obama cites. Mathematically its leaves 25% around of the -23%unaccounted for(Note that the 5% is + and the 23% is -). Even more considering that many of the factors accounted for are themselves based on discrimination just not by the boss but by society (see traditional gender roles above).

The statement labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all only implies 5% if you ignore the last part of the statement. The gap is reduced to 5% when adjusted for other factors. The article explains the remaining 5% with the following:

I warned you to not use the logic of the Article since the other factors your citing are already accounted for in the studies and publications the 5% is based on.

If corporations are willing to outsource labor to sweat shops in other countries to make an extra buck, then I would expect them to hire more women if women were really cheaper.

No, because the biases of the employer is that males are worth 5% more than females. Corporations are not willing to outsource to sweat shops in other countries just because they know the workers are cheaper but because they believe the sweat shops are more cost efficient. Its a reason why many industries don´t outsource their work, because cheaper wages don´t always mean better cost efficiency.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do You Need Feminism?

Originally posted by Pawnzilla:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

If discrimination is subconscious employers would be unaware. Yes, it’s an assumption but it beats any other theory.

Why does it beat any other theory? Going back to the computer programmer example, tell me why I should assume that widespread discrimination is the primary cause of male dominance in the field over natural gender tendencies to choose different professions?

Lol, because what you call “natural gender tendencies” are not natural tendencies (at least not natural in the sense your using it here), they are cultural ones and they are based on cultural traditions that were and are heavily discriminatory between genders. A look at the history in which the traditions were created and how they have developed shows that they are were created in service of a patriarchal society.

If somebody wanted to equalize men and women in the field of computer programming through legislation, then I would expect that they prove their case. The burden of proof would be on them. It should not just be assumed that male dominance in a field proves widespread discrimination in the field.

The field of computer programing itself is actually relatively less discriminatory than many other fields because its relatively new(having received less gender based traditions) and because most work can be done anonymously without even meeting in real life. Its the connections where it meets other fields that are generally more discriminatory.
As such using legislation on the field itself is rather senseless and would have to focus on other places like the diversification of role models(stereotypes) from the traditional ones to modern ones.

I believe in equal opportunity and see government intervention as a violation of equal opportunity.

Thats bullshit. For that to be the case equal opportunity has to exist in the first place without government intervention. Enough high quality studies show thats not the case. Instead the Government Intervention is actually aimed at reducing the inequality in opportunity.

It is true that some biased employers will pass over a more qualified women and hire a less qualified man – but the government response to this should not be to enact the same injustice in reverse.

Not just sometimes, in the upper leadership of companies its most times. No other way to get the statistical difference even counting other factors as less women being interested/qualified in the job or having to spend time on pregnancy and children.

Giving a competitive advantage to a woman simply because she is a woman can lead to a more qualified man missing out on the job.

Yes but statistically much more unlikely than a man taking the position of a more qualified women. With the even extreme quotas like 40% you generally have the top 40% females facing off with the bottom 40% males. (Note that these quotas generally aim for places where there are sufficient women applicants available)
Yes in some cases a company will have used up its male quota on other jobs and be forced to give the top female the job even though there is a better qualified male. But its actually quite common that not the best qualified person is chosen (as seen by the lack of females in top positions even in fields dominated by females and with more qualified females outnumbering the males, a great example is school management).

What do such government initiatives really accomplish?

They increase equal opportunity since one of the factors (male/female discrimination) is diminished, as well as give one of the groups that is being traditionally discriminated against a foothold in the field. That means the tradition of hiring less-qualified males over better qualified females takes a serious hit, in a generation and part of the net-working its based on, will likely be so far reduced that the quotas become largely unnecessary.

Who loses? The one that loses out is not the source of the problem – the discriminating boss – it is the lower level employee who got displaced despite being more qualified.

No generally the one that losses is the less qualified male that used to get chosen over a better qualified female. And the source of the problem is more society as a whole than a discriminating boss.

In a more comprehensive study that controlled for most of these relevant variables simultaneously—such as that from economists June and Dave O’Neill for the American Enterprise Institute in 2012—nearly all of the 23% raw gender pay gap cited by Mr. Obama can be attributed to factors other than discrimination. The O’Neills conclude that, “labor market discrimination is unlikely to account for more than 5% but may not be present at all.”

Leaving a gab of ~+5% on which both conservative and liberal economist can agree, is not accounting for nearly all of the -23% Obama cites. Mathematically its leaves 25% around of the -23%unaccounted for(Note that the 5% is + and the 23% is -). Even more considering that many of the factors accounted for are themselves based on discrimination just not by the boss but by society (see traditional gender roles above).

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap

As source for numbers, not for logic.

These gender-disparity claims are also economically illogical. If women were paid 77 cents on the dollar, a profit-oriented firm could dramatically cut labor costs by replacing male employees with females. Progressives assume that businesses nickel-and-dime suppliers, customers, consultants, anyone with whom they come into contact—yet ignore a great opportunity to reduce wages costs by 23%. They don’t ignore the opportunity because it doesn’t exist. Women are not in fact paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.

Wrong, your argument should apply to the 5% as well. But logic can not applied one-to-one to business. I have worked as a quality & control consultant and the great majority of companies have bad controlling. Relying more on intuition than hard facts to make a decision. They often think they are employing according to merit even though they are in fact doing the opposite. Based on intuition both male and female employers tend to over estimate a males qualifications and work results compared to a female (with most estimates being more based on the quality of relationships than actual work output).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by Beegum:
Well, when we’re talking about welfare states in the Scandanavian club, one of the immediate things we recognize is that they have been applauded in many cases for certain areas of economic freedom. Here, you suppose I have not done this comparison, and point out some successful welfare state, that, among other things, are not in denial about the damage the economic model of socialism does. In fact, you find countries that go about their work attempting to make up for the damage done by high tax rates and so forth, such that their tax rate is arguably not all that high. You further find that these states are fairly small and resistant to EU interventions. Because they are fairly small, resistant to EU interventions, and do what they can to achieve economic freedom despite their embrace of the welfare state model, it seems like propaganda to consider them ‘socialist’ in the same way most people in the US, certainly, would define it, and likewise in in other countries like France and Spain.

1. As Jantonaitis already pointed out your mistakenly identifying things wrongly like confusing economic freedom with capitalism. What i see is you generally and happily mixing up words how it suits you with out a care in the world about the real definition.

2. You claim that socialism only works on the small scale, when someone points out Scandinavian well-fare states. Ironical the largest member of the EU is Germany.

Germany has the world’s fourth-largest economy by nominal GDP and the fifth-largest by purchasing power parity. As a global leader in several industrial and technological sectors, it is both the world’s third-largest exporter and third-largest importer of goods. It is a developed country with a very high standard of living, featuring comprehensive social security that includes the world’s oldest universal health care system.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany

Germany is by the way more socialist than all the European states that you have so far pointed out as negative. For further information before you reply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Economy

Originally posted by Beegum:
While we have seen some changes in democrats in the state recently, it’s clear that our progressive, liberals, democrats, have consistently wanted to use the biggest government in the world, essentially all the time to solve every problem. As I said, we’ve seen some change in this, at least in rhetoric in more conservative areas, we’ll see how it plays out. But, if you want to sell me on the worlds biggest government doing stuff, I’ll pass, I think most people in the developed world have decided that that isn’t working… even though it’s a typical socialist position, perhaps a definitive one that we’re supposed to ignore, often paying the price.

Sigh. Face-palm. Its quite clear your sprouting nonsense. While claims to small government being the way to go have become a mainstream rhetoric in American Conservative circles. Its about as true in action as former east Germany calling itself Democratic. Fact is everyone loves to use that hammer your talking about. Resistance only comes when the hammer is being held by the political opponent. As can be illustrated on every level of the government.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Why would you think anyone meant the literal landmass? Why would that distinction be needed? Also, that is clearly not what you meant. You went on to say that the only ‘great accomplishment’ the country [your words] made was in technological innovation. You can’t have it both ways.

I looked hard but could not find him saying that. I hope you don´t mean this:

Originally posted by Kasic:

The country isn’t responsible for any great accomplishments. There were technological innovations made here and that’s pretty much it. Our government is not unique anymore and it really only flourished in the first century after its founding because of the relatively limitless area to expand at the expense of the natives, lack of foreign powers and wars, and a resource rich land being tilled by slaves.

Because if you are, its certainly not Kasics fault your not understanding him.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An interpretation of God

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
ts less a question of believing if such beings exist and more of an issue about them fitting the definition of god/god.

Which I have done, by giving you an overview of the definition I use, which too seems to have stood up to public examination.

??? The sentence you quoted is not a thing you can do, so i don´t understand your argument.

I gave you the definition of gods I was using. I actually gave you multiple definitions of valid gods. These definitions seem to have stood up to public examination. Giving a solid definition is very much a thing anyone can do.

Yes, but i was neither asking you to give your definition, nor claiming that you did not give your definition. On the contrary in a other bit I even acknowledged you giving your definition and wrote about how according to that definition i am a deist. Thats why i was a bit confused when you said “Which i have done”.

But looking back perhaps your where not trying to answer BGS actual question, but just use it as header for getting into a/the discussion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An interpretation of God

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

The Problem i was talking about was the definition. Going by the definition of Gods you presented many s self-defined atheists/agnostics would be theists/deists (myself included), while many self-defined theists/deists would be atheists/agnostics.

Is that really a problem? It’s all about settling on a definition of yourself you are happy with and can explain satisfactorily to yourself, being able to critically examine and still be comfortable with in the light of others’ input.

What you say is true. But what i was referring to was that different definitions are a Problem for the Discussion and less for a Person applying his own Definition to himself.

Its less a question of believing if such beings exist and more of an issue about them fitting the definition of god/god.

Which I have done, by giving you an overview of the definition I use, which too seems to have stood up to public examination.

??? The sentence you quoted is not a thing you can do, so i don´t understand your argument.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An interpretation of God

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

I don´t think BSG was talking about your Type of Deism.

Well aware, and aware of the differences. However, it’s still deism because I believe in the existence of gods. I just don’t believe they particularly care (or even know) about our little planet, or even our solar system.

Atheism doesn’t suit me, because I cannot disbelieve gods exist whilst at the same time accept they’re real, and be trying to create them. Same problem with agnosticism. My actual codified belief is occultism, stripped to its core. But that says nothing one way or another about the existence of gods, just that there’s more to the universe than the bit we can detect, and is a way of seeking knowledge beyond the realm of science.

Whichever way I slice it, I come back to the acceptance that gods actually are a thing.


The Problem i was talking about was the definition. Going by the definition of Gods you presented many s self-defined atheists/agnostics would be theists/deists (myself included), while many self-defined theists/deists would be atheists/agnostics.

Its less a question of believing if such beings exist and more of an issue about them fitting the definition of god/god.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Besides, how is atheism cowardly anyway?


note that I qualified it as agnostic atheism. I’m sure there are agnostics who generally don’t know, but the bulk i’ve encountered might as well be gnostics, except since that’s not a strictly rational stance any more than deism is, they cover their asses by adding the ‘agnostic’ prefix.

As Vika showed and Kasic put in, that might be less due to them covering their asses but more due to the fact that the definition God is not all that clear. As shown above depending on the definition for God the label for example agnostic/gnostic and atheist/deist/theist can switch even into the contrary.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / An interpretation of God

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

I find Deism baffling. It’s more begging the question than animist theology, even. What question does the deistic god answer that is pressing about the universe?

Reassurance that it is going to be possible to transcend the limits of humanity for one thing. Being able to picture multiple practical forms a god could take gives fodder for hope, and allows us to start dissecting the functioning of those beings in preparation for actually creating something like them ourselves.

I don´t think BSG was talking about your Type of Deism. Since your Definition is away from the monotheistic Clockmaker/Overseer. If you check common definitions like for example Wikipedia you will find them actually defining Deism as the belief in a Creator God. This is mostly due to the fact that Deist typically come from a monotheistic Culture, a Theism which they intellectually disagree with as fairytale but one which they are still greatly influenced by when developing their own God(s most don´t even make it to this s, for example take a look at Jantonaitis Deistic God).

Your definition Vika differs greatly from this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by SWATLLAMA:

No that is not communism and that so many believe you shows how crappy schools are in some places.

It’s amazing that the schools are told to teach that. It’s not even personal bias from the teachers – that’s part of my state’s curriculum, to make sure that incorrect detail is emphasized. As you said, it’s for the means of production.


Other commonly assigned attributes like free-market-vs-planned-economy or in-communism-everyone is equally paid so there is no incentive to work hard are false. In communism its perfectly fine to both have a free-market and people getting paid on merit. And neither is a free-market necessary attribute of capitalism.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s also not that there’s exactly equal pay, right? The lawyer can still get more money than the janitor, but there would be a lower gap.

Your as highlighted correct. Paying people differently for their work is totally in accordance with communism (and was and is actually practiced in all tries at communism). The lower gap is made up by people not being able to privately accumulate and increase their Money by investments into businesses.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Communism Vs. Capitalism

Originally posted by HitmanPwner:
Originally posted by CaptMilkshake:

Well, they both have their ups and downs so I don’t think there really is one that is a better system. In this case its all a matter of opinion so, you won’t get one truly factual answer.

Communism allows all property to be publicly owned. This means that your property cant be seized and often will stay within the family. There is a fault to this though. The rich will own most of the property leading to a select few that own all of the property. This can easily lead to an uprising and anarchy starts. In my opinion, Communism is very flawed and an inefficient government system.

In Communism, everyone is equal, and money is equally distributed to everyone. There is no rich or poor.

And duh, its Ethan :P

No that is not communism and that so many believe you shows how crappy schools are in some places.

Communism and capitalism have one and only one core difference. The answer to who owns and may invest into nonhuman resources necessary for the production and the providing of goods and services.
In communism the ownership and investments of these lie with the people as a collective, while in capitalism the ownership and investments belong to private individuals (who may or may not share Ownership with other private individuals).

Other commonly assigned attributes like free-market-vs-planned-economy or in-communism-everyone is equally paid so there is no incentive to work hard are false. In communism its perfectly fine to both have a free-market and people getting paid on merit. And neither is a free-market necessary attribute of capitalism.

Now to which system is better. That depends on what you looking for.

It is correct that communism reduces the difference in wealth of people since the only way to get ahead is individual pay for work, gambling and money lending with the last two being more limited since you can´t make a business out of it. The easy way investing Money into businesses and letting Money work for you(a true meaning of Capitalism) is not possible, since thats done equally by everyone.
On the other side organizing a functioning Communist economy has shown to be much harder than a Capitalistic one. One of the hardest issue is how to invest the owned resources, without the distribution of investments being controlled by a Person who has a vested interest in the investment paying off.
Ironically any successful Company where the Owner and Manger are not one and the same shows how it can be easily and successfully done.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Let’s see…..
we are at our best when we heinously kill, maim, & torture thousands of ppl and destroy massive amounts of resources.

We are at our best when we perform something akin to a social ethnic cleansing wrought by (usually) the more advanced members of it. Bombs & guns win out over sticks & stones every time.

Not what I said. I said we are at our most innovative when our backs are up against the wall. Bombs and guns are just two examples of innovations (multiple levels of innovation) that came about when one culture or another’s backs were against the wall. A way to prevail in conflict. A way to change the gameboard.

We are cock-sure that acceptable-level advancements wouldn’t be made during peacetime that we should schedule a regular “social-maintenance” war so we can maintain a good level of “progress”.

We are absolutly certain that without adversity great change won’t occur, yes. Bog standard human nature. Growth only comes through challenge. The nature of the challenge does not matter, only both the severity and the immediacy.

Most of the smaller innovations you see during the normal course of things, are only building on what came before; natural extentions of what we already know. Even in the business world, it is only when the business has cutthroat competitors, and the business’ survival is on the line if they don’t deliver, that the resources needed to truly innovate, are ploughed in. It is only at these times that new directions are truly taken seriously.

I agree with most of what you say Vika. The only differences are that is quite certain that great wars would have happened anyways. The whole Political setup of the early 20th century were setup to go in that direction. Multiple imperialistic and expanding nationalistic Powers (Japan, USA, Russia, England, France and Italy) as well as multiple diminished former Powers striving to reobtain their former territories or at least slow their decent (Germany + China + ex-Austria/Hungery) add in the first onset of free-for-all political clashes involving monarchy vs democracy vs. fascism vs. communism vs. etc.. Things were certain to blow up.

So enough chances for War and Progress. The real loss of preventing the holocaust i think would be the humanitarian Lessons gained from it. If one looks around there were in history many ethical and political cleansing and death camps like that of the holocaust some even numerical greater. But they are hardly relevant in the common mind of the world. Mostly due to them happing behind close borders. Without Nazi Germany losing the War, being conquered and the Allies uncovering the workings of the Camps the Holocaust would not have reached the level of notoriety it has today. And that would have been a real loss because the Holocaust even if over instrumented offers a necessary warning of the Evil Humans can do to fellow Humans (including children) both individually and as a group.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immigration and citizenship

Originally posted by fma1:

Self sufficient societies have existed in the past and the United Stated has the potential to be one… Outsourcing is unnecessary. Just because my opinion is different than yours, that doesn’t make it naive. The belief that an economy can be self sufficient is not naive, it has been done successfully in some past societies. A self sufficient America would still have a separation of different economic classes based on what type of jobs people do. But outsourcing those jobs is not necessary.

Can you name any of those self sufficient societies? Not even Cuba and north Korea are self sufficient. The belief that an economy can be self sufficient is not naive the idea that in this day and age a big country can become so is naive. Especially a country thats at the top of the food chain. Why should Americans in general give up their current average life style and decide to live a life style that makes migrating to Cuba or even south Korea like a good idea?

When I say it should be easy for people to become citizens, that would be under the condition that they can perform work that would benefit the society in some way.

In the self sufficient society I refer to, public services will be available only to those who are in the country legally, and becoming legal would be a very simple process as long as there is useful work that the immigrant will do.


You can disagree with my opinion, but that does not make me naive.

Pro-Tip your going to need a wall to keep people in and not out of your self sufficient society.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immigration and citizenship

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Now thats even more naive than both the stuff that Karma was criticizing and what he was himself claiming.

Please explain the part in bold.
Obviously, I understand the naivete of fma1’s point; but, what part of mine was “lacking”?
Keep in mind any hyperbolizing was done for comparative impact.


Plus, it appears that I failed to place a very import word in one sentence:
“So, to solve all of this….we IMPORT labor which we can NOT find work for and so we put them on govt. assistance that is paid for by money that doesn’t exist because no one is drawing a paycheck that can be taxed?”


Also, I likely should make it clearer that the imported labor (immigrants…legal or not)I infer would be massive due to fma1’s “easy enter program” and is of a nature that is, for the most part, not skilled beyond “menial” labor.

The part i found lacking was the “We are EXPORTING American Jobs” and “we IMPORT labor which we can NOT find work for”. I already Explained the first one quite a bit in my comment on how Outsourcing works and why it used to be actually beneficial.

I find the “we IMPORT labor which we can NOT find work for” lacking because 1st generation of immigrants from less well off nations tend to be the most and hardest working People in a 1st world society. Due to the fact that the hardships of life in the place of origin(and the threat of having to go back) sets their expectations low regarding working and life conditions as well as pay.

With the “import” of these People jobs are actually kept/created in the 1st world countries that would otherwise be outsourced or even cease to exist. Together with the fact that these immigrants also have needs that need to be serviced. The number of jobs/work in the society actually increases. So the problem is generally not the amount of Jobs available but other things.

Like for Example 2nd generation immigrants that lack the hardship experience necessary to do unhealthy jobs for below minimal pay but lack education just as much or even more than their Parents. Or the fact that these hardworking 1st generation immigrants naturally put pressure on all those nationals that lack skill beyond menial labor, because the land in a direct market competition with the new comers. Or that some/many of the immigrants come illegally and such create a shadow economy and increase crime.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immigration and citizenship

Originally posted by fma1:

Karma, I believe that we should stop outsourcing to other countries. It is completely possible for this country to sustain itself. And I think that it should be easier for determined people to be integrated into that self sufficient economy if it arises.

Now thats even more naive than both the stuff that Karma was criticizing and what he was himself claiming. Outsourcing is the basis of the great Wealth difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries. 1st world countries being able to outsource both bad working conditions and poor paying jobs/work into 2nd and 3rd world countries, due to the great difference in infrastructure, while keeping the good paying jobs/work under better working conditions. With the people in the first World profiting from the jobs/work in 2nd and 3rd world countries due to the Capitalist setup. The profit of the outsourced jobs/work is split between the consumers and the 1st world Companies who use it to finance work in 1st World countries(At least as long as the infrastructure difference remains).

It is currently impossible for any 1st World country to sustain its current state of life and be self sufficient at the same time. That would be like the owner of a big company firing all his workers with the goal of becoming self sufficient.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immigration and citizenship

Originally posted by fma1:

“Citizens” was too specific of a term. I meant to refer to all people who are in the country legally. I changed it to be more clear.

Well then the question remains: How easy should(would) it be to become a legal immigrant? There are reasons why illegal Aliens are cared for by society to a certain degree.

For example not providing certain services for illegals does not get rid of the illegals and their needs. Instead it creates a illegal shadow economy both to provide for the needs as well as to provide for the money.

Now if your plan includes making it easier for illegal immigrants to become legals, then this problem could be solved. But it might create a new problem of causing such a rise in immigration that other problems associated with immigration increase.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immigration and citizenship

Originally posted by fma1:

I will now present when some might call an unpopular opinion.

I believe that illegal immigrants should not have access to things paid for by taxes, such as public schools or socialized healthcare. Only citizens should have access to these things. However, I also think that the process of becoming a citizen should be made much easier. That way, immigrants can come and be able to access these things more easily. These two things must both happen at the same time. If the government wants to restrict all public services to use by citizens only, then it must also make the process of becoming a citizen significantly easier.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well depends on the why and how. Why do you think that things paid for by taxes should only be available for Citizens? Is it because you think that citizens have no self interest in having taxes spent on someone else than themselves? What about legal Aliens that don´t want to be citizens or what about foreign companies? How easy do you want to make it, for immigrants to become legals?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it time to drop the death penalty?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

The legal system isn’t enough. To be absolutely sure you need the medical system in there as well. Only a medical diagnosis would be acceptable to determine eligibility for treatment. Their legal past history is not acceptable for a medical treatment.

1. The medical system is also not infallible. Especially in the case where the convicted was not actually the criminal. Since those people can not feel real remorse for something they did not do.
2. Right now the medical system can not claim that anyone (that is not a vegetable) is beyond treatment or if treatment will be or even has been successful with the necessary degree of certainty.
3. Even talking about case in the near future with a better medical system. What we know now points out that even Personality Traits that can not be treated can change over long periods of time. So one would actually have to keep People imprisoned for life just in case they change or in case a treatment is found in the future.

I also do not see your idea reducing the cost of Death Penalty. What it might reduce (if the medical system was better) is the cost of normal prison sentences aimed at rehab. It in no way reduces the costs for the Death Penalty because the extra cost come from 1) making extra sure that the System(s) have not failed, 2) the costs associated with Killing them(for example extra pay for wardens and medical executioner).