Recent posts by JohnnyBeGood on Kongregate

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).

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I consider the death penalty ok in those cases (retraction of breathing priviledges) because by that point we have an iron clad case that they will never improve, and likely will never feel remourse for their actions. Keeping them in prison is thus not a punishment for them, and is frankly a waste of money.

There are two Reasons why i don´t think the death sentence can ever be OK.

1. The legal system is never infallible.
2. Killing the criminals is not worse to them than life imprisonment.

Additionally.

Your claim that keeping them in prison is a waste of money has already been pointed out as wrong. A Death sentence costs more than Prison for life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Food science

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Aleazor:

Many of us who work hard for low pay spend our off days in physical pain and psychological turmoil as a result of our jobs.

Many of us who work hard for good pay spend our on days as well as our off, in considerable physical pain, and constant psychological turmoil from past life experiences.

What’s your point here? That you’re human?

Yes. That seems to be in fact his point. For me the Question is, is he just pointing out the flaw(lack of freewill) in the guilt-based
moral system or is arguing within that moral-system and claiming a special excuse from responsibility.
Considering that from as far as i can see DD was the first one in this thread to bring into the play the guilt-based moral system, in a rant attacking a post of Aleazor, i have the feeling its the first option.

Physical pain and psychological problems are nothing unique to those with low-paying jobs. The rest of us just deal with it, and don’t let it win. DD understands that, and I think his job is low-paying. He refuses to let it define him from what I can see, and as a result it doesn’t.

As you might imagine, I deal with a lot of people with physical disabilities either through assessment for a replacement bodypart, or general interaction inside and outside of hospital environments. Broadly, I can categorise them into two types: Those who let their disability define and control them, and those who do not.

Always I find that those who refuse to let their circumstances define them, are happier, and in relatively less pain than those with the same condition who choose to be defined by it, constantly bemoaning how their circumstances stop them from doing anything.

Personally i can digest what your saying on two levels so that i can both agree and disagree with it(though i do have to over read the “just” in any case). It depends on the definition of key words like “deal with it”, “let”, “choose”. Fact is the way people in general experience reality as being in control and having the ability to make choices, is objectively a flawed perception. Objectively people have no more of choice to do or not do something as any object.
Still, its the way people generally perceive reality. And with a slight nod to acknowledging this, i can agree and disagree at the same time.

Some people can manage a (hard) working life, with both a social life and a healthy personal life. Some can´t. Nods and cheers to those who can. Sympathy for those who can´t.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 600

Originally posted by thepunisher52:

This part always makes me wonder,
How can one be so lacking in sense of self preservation to charge at the enemy head first?

Because those who did not charge were commonly shot as deserters. Add in the fact that such charges were generally a lot less bloody at the time. Even more than 70% of the light brigade survived. And they did not just charge the enemy head first, but through this and back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charge_Timeline.jpg

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:

continuation of shooting rockets as an achievement of the Hizbullah?

Nasrallah is honest about bombing civilians.

Does not matter even if it were true. Either you use the same standards for both sides or continue being nothing more than Troll. Since you never started counting based on Humanitarian Achievements i suggest you stay honest about that.

I disagree with those numbers.

Nice catch, the Israeli number is a couple of billions short.

Those are the official numbers of 2007. With Isreals being 2 Billion higher than your claim. I disagree with both those numbers (ours and the official ones of 2007). I was trying to explain how an official damage of X billion can be many times more in real. Its because such damage estimates generally look at the data thats easiest to get. And thats what it cost to make the damaged good in the first place(you generally have such data archived). Problem is you won´t get a new object for that money. Its generally gonna cost many times more. The older an object is the greater the difference is going to be.
Why do i increase the Lebanon numbers while decreasing the Israeli number. Several reasons. 1. Israeli infrastructure and buildings tend to be newer than those in the Lebanon. 2. The Lebanon has been going through an economic boom before the war far greater than Israel which means as Wages went up so did production prices. 3. While the foreign Aid to the Lebanon was greater than that to Israel if compared directly it was not in terms of damage received.


But while Israel has recovered to postwar Status, the Lebanon has not

Really?

“hey they destroyed the bridge.”
“Oh how much did it cost.”
“About 2 million”
“Well we got 2 million lets rebuild it”
“Sorry, but thats gonna cost 200 Million”

Its like being a Hotel owner who´s hotel was making 20k $ before the war, who looks at his income sheet and says yay i made 100k this year. Ignoring the fact that those 100k were foreign aid/debt and that he had to spend those 100k on a new hotel because he lost the old one.

Is that your proof? At least there are no sports analogies. So, basically Israel recovered because they they lost 1.5 billion less?

Nope. Israel recovered because the damages were small compared to their GDP of around 140 billion at the time. Most of the Damages were paid for in advance or by foreign Aid.
Lebanon did not and has not recovered because the damages were a substantial part of their 20 billion GDP of that time (by my estimate actually equal to the GDP). While the GDP in the Lebanon has increased greatly most of that Money is being sunk in repairing the damages. The increase is still good, since it means that the Lebanon is certainly recovering. But there is deference between has and is.

Lebanon recovered. Get over it, Israel made zero accomplishments. Silly analogies don’t change anything. The statistics say that Lebanon recovered and the suffered again because of the Syrian civil war. Let’s ask the UN

Your source nowhere says that the Lebanon has recovered after the 2006 war. The most it comes to is saying that after debt went up to 180% of GDP it went down to 134% (which is not that grand considering the post-war increase of GDP).

You have yet to explain how that affects Hezbollah. Lebanon doesn’t pay their salaries or expand their arsenals, or control them. The extent of the damage to the Lebanese economy has pretty much zero influence on Hezbollah’s army.

No, i don´t. Its enough to know how it effects Israel. Again Lebanon was the greatest threat towards Israels Zionist policies and propaganda. Just by the Lebanon becoming a prosperous modern multi-ethnic democratic Country as direct Neighbor to Israel. Which would undermine their greatest propaganda selling point the image of: Israel as a bastion of Western-Civilization in a uncivilized Region.
Thats something that Israels Zionists do not have to worry about for now.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:

Because your forgetting the economical, infrastructural and political damage done to Lebanon. Before the War Lebanon was on its way to becoming one of the top 2nd Worldword countries, with prospects of even making the jump to 1st World Nation in the next decade or two. That was a dangerous situation for Israel in itself because having a prosperous and stable multi-ethnic democratic Country with a working civil Law Code as a Neighbour would undermine Israels propaganda that they are the only country like that in the area.

Wow, so indiscriminate bombing civilian infrastructure is an accomplishment in what way? Every war has “economical, infrastructural and political” damages. Stop trying to exaggerate this war crime into an accomplishment.

Sigh. 1.Are you trolling or just Stupid? You make this argument after citing Hamas continuation of shooting rockets as an achievement of the Hizbullah?
2. In Wars winners and losers are not chosen by who or what was morally right but by looking at the factual outcome.


Thats where the 20 points to 1 come from. 20 billion economic damage against about 1 billion (it gets even worse if you figure in GDP).¨

No. Inflating numbers by yourself is a bad idea. It’s 5 billion USD in direct and indirect damages versus 1.5 billion USD for Israel.

I disagree with those numbers. If you take the Raw data of 2007 it would be around(Source Wiki):

for Lebanon, with an official estimate of a fall in growth from +6% to 2% and US$5 Billion (22% of GDP)304 in direct and indirect costs, while the cost for Israel was estimated at US$3.5 billion.305 Indirect costs to Israel include a cut in growth by 0.9%.306 and the cost to tourism was estimated at 0.4% of Israel’s GDP in the following year.307

But that data is limited and misses major points. Both the Lebanon and Israel had financial help. Several Billions worth in both cases. But while Israel has recovered to postwar Status, the Lebanon has not. Thats because making Estimates of Damages can be done in many ways. The four most important are initial-value, market-value, rebuild-value and return-value.
Initial-value is the value that it cost to buy/make, market value is the money it would take to buy a similar as possible object on the market, rebuild value is the value it takes to rebuild it, and return-value is either the market-value or replacement value plus the upkeep/income generated for the rest of the objects life-expediency (or until the next expected major life prolonging overhaul becomes necessary).
To me the 5 billion and 3,5 billion represent the market value or even the initial building costs. Kinda like this:
“hey they destroyed the bridge.”
“Oh how much did it cost.”
“About 2 million”
“Well we got 2 million lets rebuild it”
“Sorry, but thats gonna cost 200 Million”

And Lebanon recovered by 2008. Look at their GDP.

Sigh. Gross domestic Product is the value of all final produced goods and service in a country. Thats naturally going to go up during a rebuilding process. So much destroyed stuff to replace and paid for either through debt or foreign Aid. Its like being a Hotel owner who´s hotel was making 20k $ before the war, who looks at his income sheet and says yay i made 100k this year. Ignoring the fact that those 100k were foreign aid/debt and that he had to spend those 100k on a new hotel because he lost the old one.

Please, no more stupid analogies.

Their not stupid just wasted if you don´t know sports/soccer. I tried using different and more simple ones above.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:

Israel lost almost every battle in the war, made zero accomplishments but they weren’t defeated? Makes no sense.

Because your forgetting the economical, infrastructural and political damage done to Lebanon. Before the War Lebanon was on its way to becoming one of the top 2nd Worldword countries, with prospects of even making the jump to 1st World Nation in the next decade or two. That was a dangerous situation for Israel in itself because having a prosperous and stable multi-ethnic democratic Country with a working civil Law Code as a Neighbour would undermine Israels propaganda that they are the only country like that in the area.
Thats where the 20 points to 1 come from. 20 billion economic damage against about 1 billion (it gets even worse if you figure in GDP).

And your sports analogy is ridiculous, and it implies that Israel was close to reaching their goals. This is far from the truth, Hezbollah’s rockets continued to fall, their invasion was defeated and they didn’t get their 2 soldiers back until 2008. So it’s more like saying the first place club was defeated by the last place(very unfair btw) because they they made 0 points (one if you count damage to civilian infrastructure) to whichever amount of points the last place club got, it has to be less than zero for your stupid analogy to work.

I don´t see that at being Close. In Most sports games is a very big differnce between having the opponent score 0 or 1 point. Likewise getting more points becomes harder after each one since a match has limited time. But too make the analogy better i will refer to a soccer match where the 1st placed Club stated the Goal of beating the last Place 11 goals to 0 and only played 7:1, with the 1st place Clubd making terrible mistakes all the time and having even the individual bench players(those that did not even get to play) earning more than the other clubs total Assets are worth.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why american soldiers should not be allowed in ukraine?

Originally posted by Winnabago:
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I agree, they VOTED to be annexed!

Its like how Texas became an independent country after they VOTED to leave the US!

discuss

Are you referring to when Texas left the United States to join the CSA? Because the war against the CSA was only justified in the sense that slavery was an institution that violated human rights. What other reason besides slavery makes CSA secession seem morally wrong, if we are to assume that people have a right to self-determination?

Because self-determination has to necessarily be limited by practical considerations. Otherwise self-determination will be totally annihilated by the consequences. Its the reason why larger communities above the family level were created in the first place. Numbers provide security and prosperity.

A better comparison: Puerto Rico has a significant pro-independence movement today. If they wished to leave the USA and form their own constitutional democracy, shouldn’t they be allowed to?

Whats the difference between Puerto Rico and any single landowner just claiming independence and making his own country on his land?