Universe Sandbox

General Category => Everything Else => Topic started by: Bla on April 02, 2011, 08:29:02 AM

Title: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 02, 2011, 08:29:02 AM
This topic was split from the Solar System Creator Wiki topic (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,607.840.html), as the discussion got off topic.
Discuss politics here. :)

I mean about this (http://yoursolarsystem.wikia.com/wiki/Union_of_Socialist_Laktran_States_%28Ixra_c%29).
Aha, I didn't even know about that.

I might've asked this a long time ago, but what's so bad about communism? It's where everyone is equal right?
There's nothing bad about Communism, I'd say. It's the most beautiful idea ever. However, many people think that Communism doesn't work, and that it's the reason why so many self-declared "Communist" countries have failed. There's nothing wrong with Communism, there's something wrong with humans. We may simply be too greedy by nature for it to work. Or most of us might have been brought up to be greedy, as a part of living in Capitalist countries.

There are a lot of Communists in Europe, I think... So far three of my teachers have been Communists, two of them were social studies teachers. :P And I'm also a Communist (depending on your definition of it). :P I don't think the goal is to create a stateless society though.
Title: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on April 02, 2011, 06:07:21 PM
I might've asked this a long time ago, but what's so bad about communism? It's where everyone is equal right?
It's a bad thing as everyone gets the same amount of money no matter how hard and long they work.

Bla, you just got brainwashed into liking Communism. I hate it.
Title: Politics
Post by: Naru523 on April 02, 2011, 07:13:29 PM
That's because Capitalists hate Communism.
Title: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on April 02, 2011, 07:42:35 PM
That's because Capitalists hate Communism.
Whatever. ::)
I don't hate it just because I am a Capitalist, but it is just not fair.
Title: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 03, 2011, 12:43:34 AM
That's an awesome map. :)

It's a bad thing as everyone gets the same amount of money no matter how hard and long they work.
But why should the quality of your life be based on how much you work? I think everyone deserve equally good lives. And I really don't think ANYONE's work is worth millions of dollars, nobody can work that much more than the rest of us earning far less. I don't think the goal of society should be to make people work as much as possible, instead, it should be to produce what is needed to make everyone have as good lives as possible.

Bla, you just got brainwashed into liking Communism. I hate it.
I certainly didn't. If anything I got brainwashed into being afraid of Communism. I began to think out my own political opinions, which I called Blaism, but I came to many of the same conclusions as Communism. :)

I have to say communism isn't fair. Really, you aren't allowed to say "I don't like this new law", or say specific things in things. w/e
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with Capitalism or Communism. You can have a Capitalist society in which there's no freedom of speech. You could also have a democratic Communist country in which there is freedom of speech.
Title: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 03, 2011, 09:07:48 AM
Communism is automatically made out to have dictators, no freedom of speech, constant war, etc.
Title: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 03, 2011, 09:27:35 AM
Communism is automatically made out to have dictators, no freedom of speech, constant war, etc.
No it isn't. Why should it be any less possible to have a democratic, peaceful Communist country with freedom of speech?
And I don't think any American Capitalist should critizise Communists for constant war... I don't think there's a single country on Earth which has started as many wars as USA. I don't know what it looks like from within. The solution to Capitalist problems, like crises, seem to always be the expansion of Capitalism. The colonization and exploitation of Africa, Asia and America was to begin with militant Capitalist countries which wanted more resources and did not care about the workers.
Communism is all about letting everyone work according to their ability and receive resources (word used in a broad sense) according to their need.
Dictators... Communist countries could have that, just like any Capitalist country. But a Communist country could also be democratic, as long as the majority want it to be Communist. Same about freedom of speech.

And let me ask you to consider this: How democratic is it that all the rightist political parties receive massive fundings from corporations, because the corporations benefit from low taxes, so they can get massive coverage in the media, advertise and spread their opinions everywhere, while leftist parties receive none? That is a built-in automatically self-biasing element in Capitalist societies.

This discussion is going off topic... Should I move it into a seperate topic for politics? :P
Title: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 03, 2011, 09:29:40 AM
No I meant capitalists do.
Title: Politics
Post by: Naru523 on April 03, 2011, 09:32:09 AM
I don't think there's a single country on Earth which has started as many wars as USA. Spain, Britain, France, and some other countries that still existed around 1400.

This discussion is going off topic... Should I move it into a seperate topic for politics? :P Yes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: space guy1 on April 04, 2011, 08:07:14 PM
Bla: Your right, communism can be a very good system if it is done right.  The main problem with it is that it tends not to allow individuality.  You have to fit in with the status quo or thew system tends to fall apart.  But everybody is different.  There may be a way around this, but i dont know what it is.

 And america has been involved in so many wars becauyse we cant not stick our nose into other peoples business.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Flashstar on April 04, 2011, 08:28:43 PM
obama's guna kill us all :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 04, 2011, 08:41:53 PM
No no no he's not
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 04, 2011, 10:02:56 PM
Bla: Your right, communism can be a very good system if it is done right.  The main problem with it is that it tends not to allow individuality.  You have to fit in with the status quo or thew system tends to fall apart.  But everybody is different.  There may be a way around this, but i dont know what it is.

 And america has been involved in so many wars becauyse we cant not stick our nose into other peoples business.
I think Communism exactly allows for people to be different. In Capitalism, everyone are expected to work, and if they can't (for whatever reason, even the market economy itself being unable to provide work for everyone), you're just unlucky and can go sleep on the street and starve to death.
Of course, that usually results in crime, which is one reason why there is so much crime in Capitalist systems. Communism accepts that everyone are different, and helps those who need it to live a good life.
What I hear from the right wing, especially the Conservative part, is exactly the expectation that everyone fit into their understanding of what the country's culture is, everyone fit into their definition of how one man and one woman should live together etc. This is what does not allow people to be different.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 04, 2011, 10:06:42 PM
Not when we're humans Bla. Put anyone in the governments position (well not ANYONE) and you get a poorly handled situation with a power hungry dictator. Or something like that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 04, 2011, 10:07:44 PM
Not when we're humans Bla. Put anyone in the governments position (well not ANYONE) and you get a poorly handled situation with a power hungry dictator. Or something like that.
So we can't have governments? :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 04, 2011, 10:08:38 PM
Right.  :D :D :D

I'm saying communist government.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 04, 2011, 10:11:30 PM
Right.  :D :D :D
I was applying this to all countries. Why should a Capitalist country be able to have a good government, but not a Communist one?
And what if the power is distributed among several people? I think the law and the situation in the country is the biggest factor in whether the government will form a dictatorship or not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Naru523 on April 05, 2011, 04:40:32 PM
I kinda hate Communist countries. Why? It's because l have a grudge against the Chinese allies because they transformed my mother's country (in this case, Laos) into a communist nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War), therefore killing off and kicking us Hmongs. Although, there seems to be an never ending war... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_in_Laos_involving_the_Hmong)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 05, 2011, 04:49:33 PM
HHHMMMOOONNNGGG
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Naru523 on April 05, 2011, 04:59:41 PM
HHHMMMOOONNNGGG
You understand me completely, dwarf! :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 05, 2011, 05:03:02 PM
Darv is a O V star? Heh. sucks for him.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 05, 2011, 09:07:11 PM
This is an interesting discussion.

Bla, what are your thoughts on socialism vs. communism?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 05, 2011, 10:25:10 PM
This is an interesting discussion.

Bla, what are your thoughts on socialism vs. communism?
Socialism is the transition from Capitalism to a stateless Communist society, I think that's the definition. In Europe/Denmark we often view Socialism as "a mild form of Communism" where the country may have a market economy, with a very large public sector etc., and everyone aren't really equal. I don't like that, because I think a planned economy is much more efficient.

I'm not sure about the statelessness. I don't see any reason to abolish the state, but if it isn't needed, why not... I certainly don't think it could be done as long as the population is focusing on competition, the planned economy would be needed in this case because it should make everyone cooperate instead, which could hopefully continue without the state.
I've always thought of Anarchism as an ultimate form of Capitalism, but I've realized it could be both ways. It could be a society with complete freedom, where no one or small fractions work together and destroy everything, or where everyone manage to cooperate on a large scale.

I think Socialism is certainly better than pure Capitalism, if it keeps the market economy, but I still think the market economy is very harmful to especially peoples' way of thinking, the environment and the long term strategy of managing a society.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 18, 2011, 03:46:39 PM
You like science right? And you're assigned a job to work... as... a... toy factory worker for the rest of your life.

How would you like that?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 18, 2011, 03:52:16 PM
You like science right? And you're assigned a job to work... as... a... toy factory worker for the rest of your life.

How would you like that?
I wouldn't, and I think I see where you're getting the argument from.

Basically, it is that in a Communist system, the government would mindlessly give you a job without considering what you want or even what you're good at, right?

It doesn't have to be that way. In the education system, the state finds out what you're good at, and tries to assign people to work with what they're best at. What you become good at should also reflect what you're interested in, and interests are formed by the environment people live in, so the state can affect peoples' interests indirectly by making the education system focus on different things which will cause the right diversity of workers needed in the future.

And the Scientific output in capitalist countries is far too low in my opinion. Corporations all closing their Science so opponents don't get their ideas, instead of all scientists cooperating. Science and education is so often cut, while we waste more resources on stupid tobacco, alcohol, candy and other useless things.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 09, 2011, 12:02:05 PM
Very interesting. American propaganda infected Danish state media a lot in the 1950's, and in the 1960's American culture spread to Denmark.
Recently, it has been discussed a lot whether Danish media was very leftist in the 1970's, but interestingly, no foreign state ever got any material sent, in contrast to USA.
Sources:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Kultur/2011/05/09/141640.htm
http://www.dr.dk/P1/Alletidershistorie/Udsendelser/2011/05/06143028.htm
They're in Danish though, so you'll have to use Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/#) if you're interested.

I'd wish we could get rid of this liquified crap (AKA Coca Cola) and all this fat-in-disguise (AKA McDonald's, Burger King etc.) (Disclaimer: I don't claim that it's the actual contents, so don't bother suing me if you find out, corporations, like all those stupid libel cases to protect corp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5su8am0b58)orations from free speech and science in Great Britain! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5su8am0b58)). :P Not only is it harming the health of people who consumes it while actually gaining money from it, but they, including houndreds of other multinational corporations, have not paid any (significant) taxes for years, by using transfer pricing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing), greedily leeching the health and money out of our society. Our current liberal-conservative government is not determined to do anything about it at all, for some reason. But of course our Communist party was the first to investigate this and point it out while everybody else is sleeping. :P

I can't help but think about a society changed from our current state in Western Europe into a planned economy, where we started spending the resources from coke, candy, tobacco, alcohol and fast food on healthcare, started spending the resources from ads to actual information services trying to inform people rather than convincing them (saving both people and society from wasting resources on stuff people actually don't find useful but are just convinced to buy) and all these other things we take for granted in our society...
Even the Soviet Union achieved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Life_expectancy_and_infant_mortality) a longer lifespan than USA during a period, going from a life expectancy of 44.4 years in 1926 to 68.6 years in 1959. Despite their alcohol.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 09, 2011, 03:18:06 PM
It's kinda natural selection.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 09, 2011, 09:55:09 PM
It's kinda natural selection.
What is? I do know two political systems in which natural selection exists, but I think we're going to pick different ones.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 10, 2011, 07:25:49 AM
Just don't give those big fast food corporations your money that often, and you'll be fine.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 10, 2011, 07:26:55 AM
What are you talking writing about? :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 10, 2011, 07:38:05 AM
The fast food people and stuff you were ranting about.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on May 10, 2011, 07:46:07 AM
no fast f00d f0r y0u
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 10, 2011, 07:52:07 AM
First of all, what did you mean by natural selection?

About the fast food: Many people like to look at everything from a completely detached, individual viewpoint. But we live on a planet where we cannot just ignore each other. This is why we have traffic laws. We don't just say "stay away from the road and you'll be fine", we try to make a good, efficient, working system with rules.
Tobacco, alcohol, fast food, drugs, etc. is harmful to society. It's harmful to people because it's unhealthy, and when a lot of people are unhealthy, everyone else have to pay more taxes because they work less because of their health, and the healthcare system becomes more expensive too because people are using it more.

Another point about the fast food (etc.). We want our society to be as good as possible for everyone to live in. Having a poor health is not good. The people who start smoking, doing drugs, eating candy etc. hardly understand the consequences, which is why laws forbid drugs. But corporations are too busy making money of people's health, so sadly we're still wasting Earth's resources on producing all the other crap. I also care about Earth's resources, because they're finite and should be put to the best possible use. The best use is not clogging people's arteries or destroying their lungs, giving them cancer and killing them.

Now, the third point is more about the corporations. They don't even pay taxes, but they sell a lot of useless stuff harming our society. They use transfer pricing. In my opinion, these greedy people can kindly ... off.

Do you understand why I don't just ignore them now? :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 10, 2011, 04:14:51 PM
When they kill themselves, and we run out of resources, we can be the few people who live past the fossil fuel age. We'll have our own windfarm or solar power plant.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 10, 2011, 10:16:29 PM
Who are they and we?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 10, 2011, 10:29:03 PM
People who really don't care what they do to themselves (fast food/alchohol/drugs) or the Earth (uhhh wasting resources)...

We is all the smart people who realise what we're (or if some aren't then realize what "they") actually are doing to themselves/Earth.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 10, 2011, 10:47:27 PM
The strategy could work if people who care about themselves and the Earth people are naturally selected, but I doubt it. I don't know what group gets more children in general. It also requires that these things are genetic and not memetic/cultural. I think much of this is largely cultural, and I think that culture should be changed.

Also, pollution and cigarette smoke doesn't only kill those who make it, but pollution is a global problem affecting everyone and smoke affects other people nearby too.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 11, 2011, 07:48:21 AM
People use fossil fuels > fossil fuels run out > they switch or have to survive without energy

Simple.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 11, 2011, 08:22:08 AM
Or

People use fossil fuels -> Greater carbondioxide emmisions -> Global warming -> Ocean levels rise -> All major cities at coasts are destroyed.
People use fossil fuels -> Greater carbondioxide emmisions -> Global warming -> More natural disasters -> Our economies are ruined.
The last implications in both of these are obviously worse case scenarios.

Have you considered "they switch or have to survive without energy"? How do you think switching to other energy sources will affect our economies AFTER we have run our of fossil fuels?
I don't think this is a good strategy. Instead, we should start planning our economy for the future, stop wasting work force and resources on harmful and useless stuff and start producing more windmills. We even have peope who could work not working, currently, many of them because of the crises. With a planned economy, we could make unemployment non-existant.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on May 11, 2011, 09:14:24 AM
Do you remember me not believing in Global Warming? I believe it now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 11, 2011, 09:25:31 AM
Do you remember me not believing in Global Warming? I believe it now.
It is good to see that you're open minded enough to realize being wrong. There are so many people who aren't. What convinced you?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on May 11, 2011, 10:10:33 AM
My mom. Well, I was convinced in 2010.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 11, 2011, 10:38:44 AM
Okay. What did she say which convinced you?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on May 11, 2011, 10:43:09 AM
Okay. What did she say which convinced you?
I don't remember exactly.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 11, 2011, 04:16:01 PM
Have you considered "they switch or have to survive without energy"? How do you think switching to other energy sources will affect our economies AFTER we have run our of fossil fuels?
I don't think this is a good strategy. Instead, we should start planning our economy for the future, stop wasting work force and resources on harmful and useless stuff and start producing more windmills. We even have peope who could work not working, currently, many of them because of the crises. With a planned economy, we could make unemployment non-existant.
Remember WE do switch soon, THEY will fail if they don't.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 11, 2011, 09:08:28 PM
The government is using light pollution to dumb us down and not have children ponder questions about the universe and nature and grow up to be boring bland people, who are brainwashed. :P :P :P lol that's what some conspiracy theorist would say...

lolol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on May 11, 2011, 09:31:44 PM
Obama should be impeached. Do you agree?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 11, 2011, 10:00:12 PM
Is this sarcasm?

If not, no, I do not think so.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 11, 2011, 10:07:27 PM
Why do you think he should be impeached?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on May 11, 2011, 10:32:04 PM
He is not doing anything about the border and other things. He says he will do something, and he doesn't do it.

And I am not joking at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 11, 2011, 10:47:59 PM
While I don't really support Obama, I think the alternative is much worse. I think American politics is so boring when there are only two major parties.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on May 12, 2011, 07:06:44 AM
Somalia is a lawless anarchy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Naru523 on May 12, 2011, 07:12:07 AM
imo Obama is doing good, i.e. support Libyan rebels against Libya, would've be much worse if he would actually support the government.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 12, 2011, 07:43:49 AM
I think some time in the future, people are gonna stop switching parties because they get tired of their ideals and what they're doing, and they're gonna vote for the Independents or one of the small parties with a presidential candidate.

Bla stop trolling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 12, 2011, 07:47:34 AM
Well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA), hopefully. (http://cpusa.org/) :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 31, 2011, 07:58:56 AM
KOL. Our prime minister selectively removes critical comments on his Facebook page! (If he's the only one managing it).
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/2011/Valg/2011/08/31/122917.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/2011/Valg/2011/08/31/122917.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/A8491FE5-D5FD-4CF6-B0A6-00719932135D/3066482/larsloekkefbsideudensletbeskaaret2.jpg (http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/A8491FE5-D5FD-4CF6-B0A6-00719932135D/3066482/larsloekkefbsideudensletbeskaaret2.jpg)

Also, the government has a campaign website filled with errors about the oppositions' proposals. 13 out of 38 examples are factually wrong.
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/2011/Valg/2011/08/30/223354.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/2011/Valg/2011/08/30/223354.htm)

Also, the next election in Denmark will be on September 15. I'd wish I could vote. :P

In other news, more than 6% said they would vote for the Unity List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-Green_Alliance_(Denmark)) in the latest opinion poll. Ofc it's nothing near certain that they reflect the election results... But very interesting. They're also having a membership boom. If it's true, they'll get thrice as many votes as last election.

Oh, and lol, here's the reply about the removal of comments:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/2011/Valg/2011/08/31/171116.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/2011/Valg/2011/08/31/171116.htm)
I like how they say "Det er vigtigt at have et kodeks, som sikrer en fornuftig diskussion." - "It is important to have a set of rules which ensure a reasonable discussion." Their rules rather seem to ensure no discussion, but only comments agreeing with them. Example of a "comment which didn't ensure a reasonable discussion":

"Hvorfor fjerner I alle de faktuelle ting, som der bliver bragt på banen? Er sandheden ilde hørt?" - "Why do you remove all the factual statements which are addressed? Don't you want the truth?"

How much more ironic can it get when you remove such a comment. Of course, they didn't want to comment on specific comments. I hope this will stupidity will flip right back into their own face, and I guess it will. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: karakris on September 01, 2011, 11:08:19 AM
I am - hahahha

A "Child of the Sixties".
At School I was a Marxist-Pacifist.
At College I was a Marxist-Anarchist.

Later I was an Anarchist

When the Revolution collapsed in the mid-late 1960's -
Yes, some of us knew it was happening.
Then I started to change.

When my Dreams collapsed - which would have led to the
founding of "The New Philsophy", a combination of Marxist Society
and profitable Business Empire, which was planned to operatie
with in the U.K. and later further afield.

Then - I GAVE UP.

Since then - I Gave Up on Politics, I Gave Up on this World -
I see NO better Future, Ever.

The ideal Society would be based on Local Units, not much bigger
than large Villages - run on Democratic Marxist principles -
with NO Bigger Businesses allowed.

It will NEVER Happen - So - I have GIVEN UP on this whole World.

Fortunately I will not live much more than another 20 years -
so I will not have to watch this World going TOTALLY TO HELL
for very much longer. 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 01, 2011, 11:53:15 AM
Marxist-Anarchism? I assume that contains the idea of the state withering away? Why did you think that it would happen (if you did)?
Or wouldn't Anarchists use the state at all (even Marxist-Anarchists)?

I think, if humans don't destroy themselves by greedily leeching Earth from all its resources and destroying themselves in the process first, we will in the end achieve Communism, no matter how long it'll take. In the end, machines, robots and computers would replace the human work force. Or, at least they could, but it depends on whether we will allow it or not - our progress in technology since the industrial revolution has hardly led us to work any less yet. The global capitalism also works against technology here, by letting lowly-paid workers in developing countries do work which highly efficient, but in some cases more expensive machines could do.
Considering it, even a fully mechanical work force wouldn't ensure full equality, since capitalists could still continue the biggest computer game on Earth (also known as the stock exchange), and simply own all those things to accumulate bigger mountains of (ever more virtual) gold with no interest in actually serving the people. I'd wish we could just cut the HDMI cable connecting the stock exchanges to the real world, then people should be welcome to play it.

6.4% for the Unity List now, according to opinion polls, this is really exciting. And more people want it in the government with Socialist People's Party and the Social Democrats than they want the Radical Left (who should really just go away economically, they're even in favor of our government's "tax stop").
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: karakris on September 01, 2011, 02:34:21 PM
People like me - who "came of age" in the 1960's

Well - we believed a lot of things.

Yes - Some of us, we thought that the State would cease to exist.
We used to go around saying things like "down with bureacracy".

We saw the State being replaced by very local units,
which would be fully representative -
There would be NO Politicians, as the people who helped
run things would be your Friends and Neighbours.
Something like a network of Communes or Kibutses.

Marx wrote that things started to go wrong when the Guilds
ceased to control Trades.
I do not entirely agree - but he said that under the Guild System,
a Master could only Employ a limited number of Apprentices and
Journeymen, and he must do some of the Work himself.
That would not allow Big Companies to exist, employing Labour
as loads of Workers - and profiting from their work.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 10, 2011, 01:24:12 PM
Our old minister of integration was also the best comedian in Denmark. Sadly, she was fired by our prime minister, after he had spent days begging her to leave by herself.

When asked by an interviewer, she doesn't answer. She doesn't say "no comments", she doesn't go away. She just stands, looking at the interviewer, smiling creepily for 45 seconds.

TV 2 Nyhederne - Stumme Birthe Rønn Hornbech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCZAf4A6fYE#ws)

And according to our old minister of education, 15 + 16 is 33.

Tina Nedergaard: 15 + 16 giver 33 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBiSKm5XVrk#ws)

And our minister of food is busy convincing people how much he likes apples, and how interested he is in them... But apparently they also make him throw up.

Natholdet præsenterer sagen om fødevareministeren, der er svært glad for æbler - del 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M99ZdNL4Gbg#ws)

But well... Our government is a joke. :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 16, 2011, 11:54:38 AM
We're getting a new government. ;D
In the election from yesterday, the Unity List/Red-Green Alliance (my favorite party) has tripled the number of votes it got, to 237,001 votes (6.7%) (In Copenhagen, it got 16.6%, in one district of the city even 27.6%!). The Conservative People's Party has lost half its votes. The Danish People's Party (probably the worst party) is losing votes for the first time in an election. The Christian Democrats got less than 2% and are no longer in the Danish parliament.
Well, those were the awesome things. :)

I like how the Unity List is now bigger than our conservative party. >:D

Red bloc (50.2%):
Unity List: 6.7%
Socialist People's Party: 9.2%
Social Democrats: 24.8%
Radical Left: 9.5% (:P)

Blue bloc (49.4%):
Christian Democrats: 0.8%
Left: 26.7%
Conservative People's Party: 4.9%
Liberal Alliance: 5%
Danish People's Party: 12.3%

Also, I see the Danish LGBT organization has asked (http://www.lgbt.dk/111/?tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2011&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=09&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3421&cHash=ed4e3d7aa9) lots of politicians lots of questions and made loooong documents with their voting history on LGBT equality. I like how people from the Unity List perfectly answer "Do you think the religious communities should be able to decide by themselves whether they want to marry people of the same gender?" (Currently, the law forbids it)
- "Yes - State and religion don't belong together, and just as religion has nothing to say in the parliament, the parliament shouldn't interfere with the religions' traditions and rituals."
- "Yes - We should seperate state and church, and in my opinion, we thus can't make laws about who the religious communities must marry or not. As an atheist, it's hard for me to understand why you would want to be a part of a religious community, which doesn't accept you as the one you are..."
- "Yes - But you could of course imagine the opposite situation, that the parliament says yes and the religious communities say no. Should the parliament not interefere with the religious communities' affairs in that case?"
- "It is completely stupid to have a club, where the homosexuals are kept out. If they can't manage not discriminating, maybe they should just stop marrying people completely."
- "No - I'd actually rather abolish the religious communities' authority to marry people, but as long as they have that authority, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate."
- "Yes - Yes, I think so, but notice the reason: Church and state should, in my opinion, be seperated completely, which implies that the church no longer ought to carry out the tasks of the authorities. This implies again, that marriages, in legal sense, should be carried out by the authorities (in the city halls). And afterwards, it must also, without interference from the state, be the decisions of the religious communities themselves to regulate their internal matters. Then, they can choose to do it in ways I would find sympathetic or unpleasent - but it must be their own decisions.

I like how deeply hypocritical the Christian Democrats are on that matter. From their almost actually sympathetic-sounding words about minorities in general, I'd think they'd know better. I also like how often people in Denmark say "Christian extremism is no problem on this side of the Atlantic..."... But...

- "No - I'm a Christian. And the Bible is the best guidance for life. God is love. But marriage between two of the same gender is an abomination and rebellion against God. - Marriages in the church or blessings of homophiles etc. are frauds towards the homophiles etc."
- "If you force this on the established church, it will cease to exist, because people will be pouring out of it. So even if you forced the established church to do it, it would only be temporary, because the established church would cease to exist - but then there would be resemblance in the words, if you assume the free church doesn't simply take over....."
SO LET IT HAPPEN SO WE CAN GET RID OF THIS ... Kol. ;D
- "Yes - I ought to have written "NO", but I guess it will be misunderstood in the schedule. It is not up to the religious community to decide on God the Lord's ways who God should bless. The Bible contains many examples of humans who want to "bless", where God doesn't! Only a fool doesn't fear God's wrath!"

Wow... I'm actually surprised such fossilized people exist in Denmark. Even I would almost think the Christian Democrats were just a bunch of liberal, peaceful Christians who no longer cared about The Bible were better at interpreting The Bible in more peaceful and tolerant ways... But no. I'm glad that they're out of the parliament for now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 16, 2011, 11:59:05 AM
large wall of text intimidates meh
i did read the bold parts
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 16, 2011, 12:00:41 PM
The start is most "important". The last two parts are just my comparation of clever and stupid politicians. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 16, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
my comparison of smart and stupid politicians

ok people!
the smart ones are smart

all the other ones are stupid

tada!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on September 17, 2011, 05:45:55 AM
A form for the electoral register came today, and it made me wonder: If voting is a right, does having to be added to a register make voting a privilege?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 17, 2011, 09:51:15 AM
A form for the electoral register came today, and it made me wonder: If voting is a right, does having to be added to a register make voting a privilege?
If the definition of privilege is "the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities", then...
If the register is easily available to everyone, no.

But since you already have to be older than probably 18 to vote, it's already a privilege in any case. (I'm not saying that's a bad idea, just pointing it out.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 12, 2011, 06:02:22 PM
"Republicans seem to think everyone starts life at level 1 with a leather tunic and a shortsword."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: m435 on October 12, 2011, 06:22:17 PM
I kind of hate being in a republic.  If we lost the revolutionary war war we would be like Australia. Free but still be under the crown of England.  Australia was a settlement for British convicts, Scottish & Irish rebels & troublemakers,the usa was settled by social misfits & rejects with the exception of Virginia.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 12, 2011, 06:25:41 PM
I think the United States will become Socialist, and/or we'll fall apart, with states seceding, maybe if #Occupy fails.

Actually, I think we should just kill Obama or the senator of my state. :-\
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 12, 2011, 06:38:00 PM
hay! hay! death threats result in baddd things! so STFU!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 12, 2011, 06:42:43 PM
Not when Obama is screwing our country over... :-\

We don't care if you are the first African-American in office, do your damn job!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 12, 2011, 06:45:44 PM
*insert your mom joke here*

but still, i've read/heard that secret service actually keep track of the millions of death threats to presidents. They access them according to whether they are a threat or not. Good thing you're not :)

screwing your mawm (in your skirt)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 12, 2011, 06:48:41 PM
... They can go to hell... we have Free Speech, so we have to be allowed to say it... :-\

And, we have free press, therefore we can print whatever we want in the newspapers, type whatever we want on the internet, and that sort of stuff.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 12, 2011, 06:54:50 PM
ummm
sorry but no

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287353,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287353,00.html)

http://www.maconnews.com/news/1056-man-sentenced-to-20-years-for-threatening-to-kill-president-bush-first-lady-and-others (http://www.maconnews.com/news/1056-man-sentenced-to-20-years-for-threatening-to-kill-president-bush-first-lady-and-others)

oh and they threatened on the internet too. probably some random forum like this.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 12, 2011, 06:57:22 PM
also i don't get the hate for presidents.
When bush was elected everyone hated him
and then he got re-elected
and people hated him more
So obama became president
and everyone hates him too
ic a trend
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 12, 2011, 06:58:50 PM
You want to know why? Our economy is still dying, they cut the important stuff like health care to save money, and we are just angry about that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 12, 2011, 07:02:48 PM
He won't listen mudkipz, don't bother, he's too stubborn.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 12, 2011, 07:09:30 PM
the temptation...
arg... *half-strangles self*
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/Reber/feed_troll.jpg)

Alot to be angry about, that is. Rage all the time if you expect near-perfection, you must do.
Much anger in you, there is.  Hmmmmmm.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 12, 2011, 08:33:23 PM
Yoda much?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on October 12, 2011, 10:13:47 PM
Suddenly I thought of Hindu != Hindhu
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 13, 2011, 11:57:59 AM
yeah i put it into some yoda-translator

whats hinduism got to do with this
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 14, 2011, 08:51:14 AM
@ Deoxy:

I think you will find a big amount of Socialists in the Occupy Wall Street event... It's very typical of them us to fight elitism, where a few rich people own mountains of money while many people are starving and facing economic problems, and Wall Street is home to many of those excessively rich people.

As for USA "falling to Socialism", Europe has been far more Socialist for a long time, and has not fallen yet. If anything, USA (and maybe the rest of the world) will fall to Capitalism - depletion of important resources like oil because of mindless corporations continuing to own the vast majority of the economic power on the planet, which mindlessly do whatever gives them profit in the short term and ignoring what is important for our planet and the people.

Obama gave some good promises compared to the other stupid people in the white house, which were closer to Socialism than the very inactive stance he might have begun to take on things. I think because USA only has two major parties, so he tries to defend (and move towards) the center, because he knows the rest which is left of it is secured.
As for cutting health-care to save money, that's the exact OPPOSITE of Socialism. In Socialism, you would raise taxes to get enough money for the healthcare. So blaming your country's problems on Socialism is empty words.

Actually the whole "country falling to Socialism" rests on a premise I don't agree with, that Socialism is something you "fall into", which is bad. Socialism is good. :)

I think a big part of the economic problems of the world could be solved if we could stop corporations from just moving around freely and exploiting whereever they can get the lowest tax rate. The big corporations have way too much power and the economy of entire states rest on what those undemocratic institutions decide. Capitalism is undemocratic - the politics may be democratic, but the ownership of the means of production are not, and the politics are deeply influences by and tied to the production!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 14, 2011, 09:25:09 AM
It will just become socialist is what I meant.

Actually, I'm a Capitalist-Socialist. ;D

Just do this America: Become a Satsunic nation. It's not my idea, it's Nue's.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 14, 2011, 09:36:16 AM
A Social liberalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) or a Social democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) maybe?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 14, 2011, 10:31:26 AM
Ugh, I hate these terms in Politics. Hell, I even hate my own country's party names. Republican and Democrat? Really America? Aren't we already a Democratic Republic? 8)

I probably actually hope my country becomes Socialist. Just once! Because the rich and the poor will be balanced and the classes would not exist, and the poor would get money and the rich would lose money (in your face!).

Another problem? The rich aren't taxed accordingly in our country. If they were taxed a lot, then we'd be out of a recession most likely.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 14, 2011, 02:53:14 PM
Left social authoritarian here! :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 15, 2011, 03:00:19 AM
Kolyes. It's important that you just don't get attached to the ideologies/terms, but put yourself into the categories based on your opinions.
I generally don't like categories. Especially not in art or essays. The way we're told to fit our works into those categories in school seems ridiculous. I don't even think the real artists do that. We should make something, and have it put into the categories afterwards, if anything.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 15, 2011, 12:02:17 PM
Too difficult.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 25, 2011, 11:01:09 PM
Why even have governments, when God can just fix everything?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 26, 2011, 06:16:44 AM
tf is this ****

Sorry I didn't have anything constructive to say to what he said.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 26, 2011, 09:26:58 AM
I've seen you complain about Obama, which is fair, but really, the Republicans are at least 10 times worse.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 26, 2011, 09:45:37 AM
tf is this ****

Sorry I didn't have anything constructive to say to what he said.
Sorry? Why are you sorry? I don't have anything constructive either, but does anyone have anything constructive to say about that? :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 26, 2011, 10:26:38 AM
Sorry? Why are you sorry? I don't have anything constructive either, but does anyone have anything constructive to say about that? :P
Keep your imaginary friend(s) out of politics.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 26, 2011, 10:56:18 AM
Huh? You make no sense. Forget it, I shall never post here again.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 26, 2011, 11:11:38 AM
It was constructive critique to Rick Perry.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on October 26, 2011, 11:14:46 AM
Oh, I'm sorry about that. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 26, 2011, 02:53:39 PM
It was constructive critique to Rick Perry.
I get it now, you confused me there for a second as well.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 29, 2011, 07:46:21 AM
LOL you HAVE to see this clip from The Daily Show with Noelle Nikpour, a Republican politician who is against science.
http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/10/idiot-of-week-noelle-nikpour.html (http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/10/idiot-of-week-noelle-nikpour.html)

The interviewer is so obviously joking and being sarcastic when interviewing her, but she just agrees with what he says, even though it is ridiculously stupid and hilarious. It is as if she can't even see that the interviewer is joking.

Just one example:

Her: "Scientists are the only people qualified to comment on scientific theories. This is what raises doubt, with not only Republicans, but Americans."
Him: "It's like why are surgeons the only ones allowed to perform surgeries, and other surgeons being the only who get to say whether the surgery is neccesary or not, right?"
Her: "Absolutely."
Him: "It doesn't make any sense."
Her: "It never makes any sense."
Him: "And the only people who can check if they're not manipulating..."
Her: "...Are other scientists!"
Him: "...They're very smart, these scientists."
Her: "That's what I'm saying."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 29, 2011, 12:19:27 PM
It is as if she can't even see that the interviewer is joking.
And that proves her closed-mindedness. I think she is hearing what she wants to hear so the tone no longer matters to her, she instantly goes "nope not being sarcastic, what are you talking about brain?"

Although this is hilarious to outside viewers, I think they should have done something more... interrogative?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 30, 2011, 12:06:08 PM
Kol Notch.

MinichanIRC: @notch you're why socialism fails

Notch: @MinichanIRC that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard! The reason I don't need to work is CAPITALISM, not socialism. ;)

Source (http://twitter.com/#!/notch/statuses/130711012683952129)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on October 30, 2011, 01:17:19 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '46028'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 10, 2011, 11:19:42 AM
KOL, finally Rick Perry shows bla tantly how mindless, dumb and ignorant he is so even the most stupid people can see it.
Rick Perry Forgets His Own Plan (GOP Debate) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv9LBUG4KsE#)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 10, 2011, 03:16:09 PM
Wow... Epic fail.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on November 10, 2011, 03:29:08 PM
Yea, first thing out of his mouth, the section of goverment I want to eliminate is education, then tries to correct to commerce I guess and blah blah blah. It was on a debate thing that I didn't watch, so I don't know the full context of it.

I tend pretty much democrat and generally vote democrat, but I'm registered as independent.

As for Herman Cain, the accusation by the first one to go public got a O.o reaction from me, literally. I didn't get what the others accusations of the others were.

Anyways, even though Obama has a hard time holding onto his cabinet members/secretaries, I still see him as better than the other choices. Anybody know which president had the highest cabinet turnover rate? His is the highest that I know of, in recent history....

TBH though, it would be nice if we had a democratic alternative candidate
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 10, 2011, 04:11:14 PM
Yeah, but if I was old enough to vote, I would probably go Obama.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 11, 2011, 04:33:05 AM
But remember the cluster bombs!
http://www.avaaz.org/en/cluster_bombs_ii_b/?cl=1381945550&v=11085 (http://www.avaaz.org/en/cluster_bombs_ii_b/?cl=1381945550&v=11085)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 05, 2011, 11:21:30 AM
Report from OECD: Inequality is growing. :(

http://www.oecd.org/document/40/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_49166760_1_1_1_1,00.html (http://www.oecd.org/document/40/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_49166760_1_1_1_1,00.html)
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/12/49170449.pdf (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/12/49170449.pdf)

Numbers in the coefficient on the graph:
1 = one person earns everything
0 = everyone earns the same.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 05, 2011, 11:38:37 AM
Strange, inequality went down in Greece (only European country on there to do so), yet they're the ones having economic problems.

To be fair though, just about all of Europe is having problems. The problems can probably be traced back to WWII, maybe as far back as WWI.

As far as the US goes, yea, war on the middle class, which might actually be worldwide and not just the US.

Anyways, what does anybody think of the current republican contenders so far (I tend to vote democrat and my views tend towards them, just saying)?

Romney: Dunno, major flip flopper though and not sure economically and stuff.

Perry: No, too close to a Bush clone, and not just because he is also from Texas.

Santorum: Don't know much about him.

Huntsman: Not sure really.

Bachmann: She definetly has the spirit, but flubs up WAY too much.

Gingrich: Double edged sword here really, has experience, but is a major washington insider.

Paul: If he were democrat, I might consider voting for him. I agree that we do need to focus more domestically, but I really don't like his isolationist stance. We tried isolationism before and it didn't work and in todays world, the last thing we need to do is retract into a turtle shell. While he is from Texas, being from Texas does not make one a Bush clone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 05, 2011, 11:53:10 AM
Strange, inequality went down in Greece (only European country on there to do so), yet they're the ones having economic problems.
Before people get quick to blame their economic problems on that, notice that ALL countries with more equality than Greece, are doing better than Greece economically (I'm not sure about the Czech Republic, but the rest are).
The problems in Greece have a lot to do with the Euro. The countries which have adopted the Euro are very different economies, and I don't think they were ready to use the same currency. I think it will force them to make their retirement ages, job market politics and so on very similar or the same. And I bet the liberals will get their way when it is the European Union dictating the politics of its member states. I also think that a big problem in Greece is that the authorities are very bad at controlling whether people pay taxes or not, but I'm not sure about that.
It is Southern Europe which is in trouble, and which is dragging the rest of Europe with it, mostly because of the Euro.

To be fair though, just about all of Europe is having problems. The problems can probably be traced back to WWII, maybe as far back as WWI.
I doubt it. But if that's the case for Western Europe, just think what must apply to Eastern Europe after the world wars.

Anyways, what does anybody think of the current republican contenders so far (I tend to vote democrat and my views tend towards them, just saying)?
This says everything.
Rick Perry Forgets His Own Plan (GOP Debate) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv9LBUG4KsE#)
They live in an alternate reality.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on December 05, 2011, 11:58:50 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '48478'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 05, 2011, 12:05:33 PM
Well yea, the economic problems are much more complex than just the inequality and have to do with the Euro. As far as the problems going back to WWII, I don't mean all of them do and I'm not treating it as 100% fact, it was just a thought.

Plus Greece has all those austerity stuff, which did drag it down.

As far as the republicans living in their own reality, I agree with you there. Just look at Congress, pfft.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 06, 2011, 09:32:15 AM
Avaaz campaign to save/strengthen the Kyoto Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) and to ensure we make a new international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 2015.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_planet_is_dying_c?cl=1433450879&v=11426 (http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_planet_is_dying_c?cl=1433450879&v=11426)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 09, 2011, 02:20:17 PM
Response to this post (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1751.msg48878.html#msg48878):

As for democracy, a system without capitalism is the only system which can be truly democratic and independent of economic corruption. You could see companies, some of them have more money than entire states on this planet, as small dictatorships floating around wherever it is easiest for them to exploit. Capitalism is what lets them do this. They could be replaced with democratic workers' councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_council), or they could be managed by people assigned by an elected government. There are probably other options as well.

Companies hold a huge portion of the economic power on this planet, but for some reason, people in our societies only think of our government budget as something which should be decided democratically (and in this case, representative democracy, where people have significantly less influence than direct democracy).

Oh, and then there are the political campaigns, which, in USA, cost millions of US$. How democratic is it that only the rich get to advertise their politics, and only the ones which want to improve the conditions for the companies and banks get their financial support to run their campaigns?

I think, the biggest reason why we call our societies democratic is because we've heard our parents say it, we've watched them say it in the news, we've read it in the newspapers, we've heard it at school and from everyone around us.
Democracy isn't a yes or no option, but a gradual scale. While most countries are doing worse, our societies certainly aren't doing impressively on that scale. In my opinion, at least.

But no, socialist revolutions so far have not formed democratic governments, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on December 09, 2011, 02:45:09 PM
In my history/english class we're going to simulate the roman government. Me and some of my friends are plotting to implement communism. I don't know if we could possibly even do that...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 09, 2011, 02:46:17 PM
Interesting. How are you going to simulate it?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 09, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
@Bla: It's not neccesarily that the candidates are rich, there is A LOT of fundraising involved.

Of course though, it doesn't help that the damn republicans keep gridlocking congress and the partianship that is going on.

Our government system is broken and we know it :P No idea what it will take to achieve major government reform so that it works properly.

Anybody think the 2012 apocalypse that the Mayans (and other cultures, according to some people) 'predicted' is really going to be an economic apocalypse/economic meltdown? And no I don't believe in all the 2012 apocalypse BS.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on December 09, 2011, 03:10:08 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '48896'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on December 09, 2011, 03:10:35 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '48897'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 09, 2011, 03:13:53 PM
Why did you quote that last bit?

Anyways, not all of the general population are idiots, but the non-idiots and those paying attention know that it's broken. Most people already think congress is broken anyway, look at their ratings....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on December 09, 2011, 03:20:03 PM
Also, I hate the Electoral College, because you aren't voting directly (a true democracy makes you vote directly) for a president, and the electors can also just vote for what they want, and you can win with only 25% of the votes from people. So abolish it now. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on December 09, 2011, 03:22:05 PM
Interesting. How are you going to simulate it?
No idea.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 09, 2011, 03:25:41 PM
@Bla: It's not neccesarily that the candidates are rich, there is A LOT of fundraising involved.
But what if they can't raise funds? Then they've already been sorted out before the election.

It is very typical that the rightists get a lot of funds from corporations because they want to give benefits to the corporations, the known ones in form of tax cuts, and then there is the lobbyism... An election involving fundraising is biased, although it is true you don't need to be rich.

Does anyone know what specific corporations supported the last George Bush's election campaign (with source pl0x)?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 09, 2011, 03:35:24 PM
Does anyone know what specific corporations supported the last George Bush's election campaign (with source pl0x)?

Oil companies I'm sure.....

Yes our system isn't perfect and it doesn't help that the Republican party is unravelling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 09, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
I once heard that it was an oil company and a weapons factory, but I don't know if it is actually true. If it were, that makes the Iraq war... An interesting incident...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 09, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
Given that he is from Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few oil company supporters.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on December 09, 2011, 03:47:15 PM
Also, I hate the Electoral College, because you aren't voting directly (a true democracy makes you vote directly) for a president, and the electors can also just vote for what they want, and you can win with only 25% of the votes from people. So abolish it now. :P
In case you couldn't see it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 10, 2011, 08:41:16 AM
United Russia (the conservative government) has apparently cheated in the Russian election. Despite them cheating, they go back from 64.4% to 49.5%.
I read that tens of thousands of people are going to demonstrate in major cities today,  30,000 in Mowscow alone, and that the government has sent 50,000 soldiers to ensure that the demonstrations are peaceful in Moscow. The protestors want a new, fair election. What do you think will happen?
The Communists went up from 11.5% to 19% of the votes, despite the cheating. I wonder what they would had gotten if the election was fair...

Here's an article I just read on our national news channel:
The election is a failure for Putin
5th December 2011 09:43
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and the ruling party United Russia suffered a major defeat in Sunday's parliamentary elections.

Putin had said before the election that he hoped to get 60 percent, and now it seems that the party gets just below 50 percent of the votes. The party, however, retains a slim majority in parliament.

The whole party which Vladimir Putin is heading is in decline and disintegrates quietly, says DR News Russia employee Matilde Kimer from Moscow.

United Russia is the most unpopular party, although it has received almost half of the votes.

Corruption scandals and abuse of power
- Among people, the party is described as a place for thieves and bandits. It has become muddy in corruption scandals and cases of abuse of power. People are afraid to talk about the party, and you can not find anyone who will say something nice, says Matilde Mimer.

Several thousand cases of electoral fraud have been reported. There are the very traditional ones, where employers associated with Putin's party ask or force their employees to vote for United Russia.

More colorful cases have also been reported. A voter has documented on YouTube that they used invisible ink in the ballot box. He has filmed his ballot where you can see his mark disappear after 30 seconds.

- In the Republic of Chechnya in southern Russia, 97 percent of voters officially cast their vote. It is unrealistic, and furthermore, they all voted for United Russia, said Matilde Kimer.

Source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2011/12/05/094329.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2011/12/05/094329.htm)

I personally think that the Communists will eventually benefit from it. When the government has first made the people their enemy at this level, I think it will be hard for them to make a comeback.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on December 10, 2011, 12:04:26 PM
I am disgusted at what is happening in the world. :-\
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 10, 2011, 12:16:56 PM
Theres also the fact that Putin is a former KGB man and it looks like old habits die hard over there in Russia. They've been thumping their chests pretty hard over the defense thing that Europe is setting up. Still, their concerns are legit, even if its something they don't actually have to worry about.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 03, 2012, 12:57:33 PM
So inspired by this interesting document
http://www.cepr.net/documents/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdf (http://www.cepr.net/documents/social_exclusion_2006_08.pdf)
I thought I'd make a small scatter plot of (almost) ALL the world's countries:
GDP pr. capita versus gini coefficient
Real GDP growth (2010) versus gini coefficient

Gini coefficients are from several recent years, and so are GDP pr. capita. And economic growth averaged out over a few recent years would certainly make the statistics better.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on January 03, 2012, 01:07:30 PM
You probably should name some countries from different regions (such as sub-saharan Africa, SE Asia, the Middle East, etc) as well as naming the major players to make the scatterplots easier to understand and give reference points.

Also, who is the lone dot all the way to the right on the first one, US I think?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 03, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Good idea, although my intention was to learn more about exactly how the equality affected the economy without taking natural ressources and other things into account.

The dot on the far right is Luxembourg. I'll try to name a few.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on January 03, 2012, 01:18:49 PM
I wonder why they are shown to have such a high GDP on that chart. The reason for doing the scatterplot is fine, but having a scatterplot without points of reference or labels for various points is like making a pie chart without a key or labels.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 03, 2012, 01:23:24 PM
An idea might be labeling major countries, some of the extreme countries, and then coloring every point by the continent the corresponding country is on.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 03, 2012, 01:26:11 PM
Steel and industry, and banking like Switzerland, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Luxembourg)

I don't think pie charts are good for showing trends. I tried some trend lines to show a trend, but their coefficients of determination were all pathetic, like I expected. Ofc countries will group together, like most of mainland western Europe in bottom right, sub-Sahara Africa on the far left, etc.

My point wasn't to compare and show to you how wealthy and how equal the individual countries were.

I'll put a more labeled first chart up soon.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on January 03, 2012, 01:31:11 PM
I was just using pie charts as an example of what I was talking about as far as the lack of information to understand the scatterplot.

Also, there is an awesome site, which I forget the name of, that has world maps shown in poportion to various data and they have scatterplots as well as progression lines. They have maps for all kinds of data and there is even an app onsite which allows you to view graphs and create your own based on the data
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 03, 2012, 01:36:54 PM
I just think, for my intention at least, the axes were enough to understand the chart. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 03, 2012, 01:40:55 PM
so this graph shows that in poor countries, rich people are very rich in comparison to relatively poor people and in rich countries, rich people aren't as rich in comparison to relatively poor people. Therefore, the solution to the everything is to make everyone rich. Tada.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 03, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
wtf Namibia...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on January 03, 2012, 06:05:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambia)

They have LOTS of problems, it's not any one single cause, but the AIDS epidemic definetly doesn't help. Basically they are just in a really bad situation.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on January 03, 2012, 07:48:26 PM
so this graph shows that in poor countries, rich people are very rich in comparison to relatively poor people and in rich countries, rich people aren't as rich in comparison to relatively poor people. Therefore, the solution to the everything is to make everyone rich. Tada.
Or to make everyone poor. That's why socialism works!

However, in socialism, you don't make everyone rich or poor, you make them... the same.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on January 03, 2012, 08:45:47 PM
so this graph shows that in poor countries, rich people are very rich in comparison to relatively poor people and in rich countries, rich people aren't as rich in comparison to relatively poor people. Therefore, the solution to the everything is to make everyone rich. Tada.
Or to make everyone poor. That's why socialism works!

However, in socialism, you don't make everyone rich or poor, you make them... the same.

How exactly would you do that though? Make all wages the same?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on January 03, 2012, 10:15:39 PM
Yes. And tax everyone the same. Basically give and take the same money from everyone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 03, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
so this graph shows that in poor countries, rich people are very rich in comparison to relatively poor people and in rich countries, rich people aren't as rich in comparison to relatively poor people. Therefore, the solution to the everything is to make everyone rich. Tada.
They show that there is no correlation between wealth and income equality or economic growth and income equality.

So how do you make everyone rich? Economic growth is what makes a country rich.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on January 19, 2012, 07:19:50 AM
Well, well, well, looks like Rick Perry is dropping out of the race, and right on the day of the CNN debate. He's had poor support anyways....

I would have posted on that thread about the rick perry ads, but I thought here would be more appropriate, *shrugs*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on January 25, 2012, 05:48:05 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '55699'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 30, 2012, 12:57:25 PM
Albert Einstein on socialism. Very interesting. :)

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism (http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 31, 2012, 01:37:05 PM
Nawt amused. :-\
It feels creepy already to see advertisements for Unity pop up all over the internet from the day after you download the free version.

Companies will now have access to your personal information
"Unfortunately we can not sell you a flatscreen on hire. You live in the Northwest Quarter and suffer from progressive arthritis, so our credit rating agency believes that it is too risky to lend you money."

The message is now illegal to get if you're shopping in Fona. But the EU Commission's proposal for a new personal data regulation will make it possible, says associate professor at Aalborg University, Charlotte Bagger Tranberg, who have written doctoral dissertation on privacy, and EU law:

- It will mean that people who actually can pay are left out because they live in the wrong area.

Today, it is Personal Data Protection Act which sets limits on what information about customers' comings and doings companies can keep and make use of. Before companies are allowed to bring customer databases in use, they must first report it to the Data Protection Agency.

Must protect the business from expenses
But it costs too much in administration. So believes the European Commission, who last week presented proposals for a new privacy regulation to save EU businesses for approx. 2.3 billion euros a year.

The Commission's Reform of the rules for personal data must also ensure that they are more uniformly enforced in all EU member states.

- The reform will make life easier and less costly for businesses. A strong, clear and consistent legal framework at EU level will help to harness the potential of the digital single market and promote economic growth, innovation and jobs, says EU justice commissioner, Viviane Reding.

Denmark can not stand outside
But the price for harmonization of data protection rules throughout the EU is, according to Charlotte Bagger Tranberg, that the Danish privacy legislation becomes inoperative. And thus a part of the protection of personal information that it currently provides, she explains:

- If the regulation is adopted, then the Personal Data Protection Act repealed. And so it is simply the text of the regulation which is directly applicable Danish law.

Notwithstanding the legal reservations, Denmark can not stand outside the EU Commission's privacy regulation, if adopted by a majority of EU countries. The regulation must be adopted by a new provision on personal data, which Denmark ratified the Lisbon Treaty."

Source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2012/01/31/161516_1_1.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2012/01/31/161516_1_1.htm)
(Translated a bit fast, so sorry if it's not that good)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on January 31, 2012, 06:01:27 PM
What the heck does living in the northwest quarter (actually, northwest quarter of what? Dennmark? the EU?) have to do with anything? Still, I don't understand how living in the wrong region would affect somthing like your example. Insurance stuff, sure, but flatscreens?

Maybe that isn't the best example for them to use, although I get the point.

As for the ads for unity, you've probably got a tracking cookie, and I've had the unity player for a long time and have had no issues with ads for unity.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 01, 2012, 08:08:42 AM
Northwest quarter: I'm pretty sure it refers to the northwestern part of Copenhagen (Denmark capital), like Nørrebro, which are somewhat poor areas compared to other parts.
Living in that area could affect you like in this example because if people in that area are poorer or more often unable to pay for the flatscreen they buy on hire, the businesses might not make (as much or any) profit from serving people in that area, and so they could choose not to serve people from that area. Which would be very discriminating. And the same about the disease. Geographical areas, personal problems, all sorts of things can show up on graphs as being more profitable or less profitable, and why even bother with the less profitable districts/groups of people/whatever...

As for the ads for Unity, yes, it probably does. I just think it's a bit creepy the way businesses handle CRM. The way they collect all sorts of information about people, put the people in a box, make advertisements for those stereotypes. But it's not like I think it threatens me in any way.

In general, let's just get rid of stupid corporate propaganda advertisements! They only encourage people to spend more money on things they don't need. If they actually needed them, they would not need an advertisement to convince them. Replace them with information databases, like on the internet, where you can find anything you need, written in an objective and informative way, with pros and cons for the item (and not just some ultra-exaggerated pros spiced up with music and other capitalist tricks), so people are not encouraged to waste Earth's resources and our work which could had been spare time. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on February 01, 2012, 09:11:57 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '57353'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 05, 2012, 08:53:21 AM
Putin won the Russian election.

Not surprisingly. Kol.

Стирающаяся ручка на участке №2739 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezEFUGcdShE#)

Жесткий вброс бюллетеней (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qPraoPXevM#ws)

http://observers.france24.com/content/20111206-russia-election-fraud-caught-video-ballot-stuffing-erasable-ink-putin-protests (http://observers.france24.com/content/20111206-russia-election-fraud-caught-video-ballot-stuffing-erasable-ink-putin-protests)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on March 05, 2012, 03:12:54 PM
Kol? This is outrageous.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on March 05, 2012, 03:35:37 PM
I just realized... Some of the most stupid people on earth are competing for the most powerful position on this planet.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/10/smart-president/ (http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/10/smart-president/)
not really
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 25, 2012, 04:43:20 AM
Speaking of corruption, meanwhile in UK's conservative party...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17503116 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17503116)

"Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned after secretly filmed footage showed him apparently offering access to the prime minister for a donation of £250,000 a year.

He made the claim to Sunday Times reporters posing as potential donors.

He said £250,000 gave "premier league" access, including dinner with David Cameron and possibly the chance to influence government policy."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 07, 2012, 12:11:09 PM
And finally gay marriage has been legalized in Denmark, 85 voting for, 24 voting against, 2 neither for or against, and 68 not being there to vote.

Everyone from the Unity List, Socialist People's Party, Social Democrats and Radical Left who were there voted for. From who were present from the opposition, everyone from Liberal Alliance voted for, 62% of Left voted for and 7% neither for/against, 67% of Conservative People's Party voted for, and everyone from Danish People's Party voted against.

Source: http://www.ft.dk/samling/20111/lovforslag/l106/93/310/afstemning.htm?samling/20111/lovforslag/l106/93/310/afstemning.htm&sortColumn=vote&sortOrder=asc&pageNr=1&pageSize=1 (http://www.ft.dk/samling/20111/lovforslag/l106/93/310/afstemning.htm?samling/20111/lovforslag/l106/93/310/afstemning.htm&sortColumn=vote&sortOrder=asc&pageNr=1&pageSize=1)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on June 07, 2012, 12:20:27 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '72207'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on June 10, 2012, 11:40:32 PM
http://vinegarwilliams.tumblr.com/post/24487060841/peterfeld-mittromney-video-despite-what (http://vinegarwilliams.tumblr.com/post/24487060841/peterfeld-mittromney-video-despite-what)

I don't even know what he thinks he's going to accomplish.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 11, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Disgusting US fascism.....

http://web.archive.org/web/20051030122336/http://www.nsulaw.nova.edu/iachr/background.cfm (http://web.archive.org/web/20051030122336/http://www.nsulaw.nova.edu/iachr/background.cfm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on June 12, 2012, 04:07:02 PM
sounds political
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 13, 2012, 08:40:10 AM
sounds political
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 16, 2012, 12:38:12 PM
I'd throw a bucketful of things out here and reply to you, but since this forum is mainly communistic I'd get bashed and bashed and a thousand soviet parades.
The forum being mainly communistic wouldn't mean they automatically bash you, I don't see when we've ever done that or flooded you with soviet parades (except for that one time where I posted one on IRC because you sort of asked for it).

In a communist country everybody would get the same benefit whether they worked their hardest or slacked off.Which means many people would slack off because they realize they don't have to work very hard to get anything,
I don't know how many here are actually communist and not just socialist, but I don't myself think that communism will exist before all (or almost all) human work has been replaced by robots and computers. Communism is achieved through the intermediate stage of socialism. Here people who work would all be rewarded equally and the government would ensure that there is work for everyone, as opposed to the market, where there is constantly a smaller or bigger excess portion of the population with no work in order to keep a pressure on the wages. However, working is also a duty, and those who don't work will be forced to work, at least according to my socialism. You said we could "trust you that people would still slack off" even if we have people who inspect the work people do. I simply don't think so, I think it is possible to make a system where people inspect different production facilities independently, gather information like statistics. If a factory simply isn't providing the parts it was meant to or predicted to deliver to the other sectors, they will obviously find out and investigate what's wrong with the factory.

whereas a country with a free market policy would motivate workers to work because they could get better rewards and live a better life.
Sounds good in theory... Reality is, the rich elite will remain in control of the production system and try to keep their wages up and the wages of the vast majority down. You only need to look at the income equality in USA to see how this works. Also, there are many other things which can motivate people. Personally I am much more motivated by the idea that I help society and everybody else than by the fact that I get more money from working. Other people are motivated to work by their interests. I don't want to become a scientist because I want to be rich, then everyone would probably want to own Microsoft... I want to be a scientist because I like science, it's interesting and amazing.
In fact, the incomes in capitalism makes very little sense from a motivational or rewarding standpoint... Do the people who run the corporations and earn, say, just a million dollars every year, does anyone actually think that those people work 20 times harder than a school teacher who earns 50,000 dollars a year? Well, I don't.

Which means most people in a free market economy would tend to work harder than communistic ones, and get more work done and have a much larger economy.
Hmm, reality doesn't entirely agree with that... If you look at the Soviet Union, their economy had very high growth rates for a long period of time.
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/economics/statistics/growth-rates.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/economics/statistics/growth-rates.htm)
In fact, higher growth rates than USA. Despite the devastation of World War 2 being much harsher in Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe and the Marshall help Western Europe got from USA (which lost pretty much no infrastructure or civillians in the war), the GDP of USSR had grown from 20% of USA's GDP when Lenin established it, to 30% of USA's GDP when it collapsed.
Why? Because capitalism also has its downsides compared to socialism...
First of all, capitalism is chaotic and doesn't really look into the future. People just do whatever profits them now, profit does not automatically equal what is in the interest of people or what is good in the future. Take for example the fossil fuels, which have been most efficient for many years, only very recently wind turbines have become more efficient than fossil fuels for electric production in USA... The corporations had little incentive to invest in those for a long time. Instead, in a planned economy, the government can take this look into the future and see that fossil fuels will deplete and cause environmental troubles, so it can focus on developing the clean energy sources instead of going into this blind alley.
Some other cases when profits doesn't equate to the interests of people, take advertisements. This is pure capitalist propaganda and only serves to convince people to buy more items they don't need. I would be in favor of an information database where people could look up products which have been judged objectively, if anything.
http://www.wpp.com/wpp/press/press/default.htm?guid={23ebd8df-51a5-4a1d-b139-576d711e77ac} (http://www.wpp.com/wpp/press/press/default.htm?guid={23ebd8df-51a5-4a1d-b139-576d711e77ac})
It is estimated that globally, we spend 467 billion USD on advertising... How is this really improving the life of anybody or solving any problems? It is a complete waste, and so is the production of candy, alcohol, guns and tobacco. Those who work to produce this are only harming society, because of profits.

In a communist economy, no matter how hard you work, you never get more than the guy who worked very little.
So I assume I already responded to this?

If people were not greedy, then communism would be the way to go, but not all of us want to work for the good of the nation, and so this is where a free market also gets better points as you can work for yourself and benefit the economy. Maybe in the future a system similar to communism may be the way, but for the present and near future, a free market economy is the way to go.
(This is repeting what you said earlier, I think)

While I admit a free market economy has its problems, it promotes advances, discoveries, efficiency, innovation, and a hard working population.
Those are some very broad and nice words, efficiency - definitely not if human wellbeing is what you want your economy centered around. Hard-working - yes, you can hardly promote working hard more than you can by letting people starve to death if they don't, but socialism can do this too, not just capitalism, and in many cases, capitalism fails to do this because it doesn't provide the jobs. In most cases, however, people don't slack off even if they have the option, though, this is simply a myth...
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2012/05/23/094051.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2012/05/23/094051.htm)
151,000 people in Denmark earn less than 340 USD more than they could get from the public, in some cases even less than they could get from the public. But only 14,000 out of those are unemployed.

Yes some people are poor, but hey if they won't work then let them live there, or if they can't find a job then they should keep looking and find a way to climb out of the hole.
What is the real problem is the lack of jobs. Some libertarians like to yell "go get a job" at all the poor, unemployed people, but that's pretty hard if there isn't any...

In short, I don't think a free market economy (or communism) is the best economic system possible, I think it is the best as of now and the near future.
And in short, I don't. :P

And this isn't an attempt to bash you, I'm only interested in discussing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 02, 2012, 01:45:54 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7tf9ieUgC1rsb09ko6_1280.jpg)

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7tf9ieUgC1rsb09ko3_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 24, 2012, 01:23:16 PM
This is interesting, very sad and deeply wrong.

http://monthlyreview.org/2012/07/01/the-gdp-illusion (http://monthlyreview.org/2012/07/01/the-gdp-illusion)

"Most of the world’s coffee is grown on small family farms, providing employment worldwide to 25 million coffee-farmers and their families, while two U.S. and two European firms (Sara Lee, Kraft, Nestlé, and Procter & Gamble) dominate the global coffee trade. Those who cultivate and harvest the coffee receive less than 2 percent of its final retail price."

"In common with other global commodities, the portion of the price of a cup of coffee that is counted as value added within the coffee-drinking countries has steadily risen over time—in the United Kingdom, to take the most spectacular example, between 1975 and 1989 coffee’s import price averaged 43 percent of the retail price; between 2000 and 2009 the average was just 14 percent."

"A study published by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in 2010 reported on Apple’s latest product, revealing an even more spectacular mark up. “iPhones were introduced to the U.S. market in 2007 to large fanfare, selling an estimated 3 million units in the United States in 2007, 5.3 million in 2008, and 11.3 million in 2009.” The total manufacturing cost of each iPhone was $178.96 and sold for $500, yielding a gross profit of 64 percent to be shared between entities such as Apple, its distributors, and the U.S. government, all of which appears as “value added” generated within the United States."

"Despite ranking as, size-for-size, the world’s most productive nation, virtually the only productive activity taking place in Bermuda is the production of cocktails in beach bars and the provision of other high-end tourist services.31 Meanwhile, 1,600 kilometers south-by-southwest of Bermuda lies another island nation, the Dominican Republic, where 154,000 workers toil for a pittance in fifty-seven export processing zones, producing shoes and clothing mainly for the North American market.32 Its GDP, on a per capita basis, is just 8 percent of Bermuda’s when measured in PPP (purchasing power parity) dollars, or 3 percent at market exchange rates; in 2007 it languished ninety-seven places below Bermuda in the CIA World Factbook’s global league table of per capita GDP. Yet which country, Bermuda or the Dominican Republic, makes a greater contribution to global wealth?"



The article doesn't just point out how overrated GDP is, it also reveals ridiculous examples from the capitalist system. Monopolization killing competition, wage sizes having not a shread of relation to actual work, and how stupid it is that gigantic economic organizations, whose leaders have never been democratically elected or taken the slightest step to be influenced by the people they enslave, have huge amounts of power to exploit and oppress workers all over the planet...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 24, 2012, 03:44:44 PM
wtf
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 25, 2012, 10:09:36 AM
Kol this

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-17-2012/colbert-super-pac---not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-17-2012/colbert-super-pac---not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert)

President Obama says Citizens United will "open the floodgates" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bR_9wmNnD4#ws)

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2012/08/24/081145.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2012/08/24/081145.htm)

kolruption.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on August 25, 2012, 01:07:02 PM
Yeah, the whole Super-PAC thing is favoring rich contributors and theres the problem of transparency.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 08, 2012, 07:34:10 AM
Uhh, how is yelling the loudest "voting", and how the pony did they detemine that 2/3 were in favor of this.

Democrats have to Vote three times to recognize God and Jerusalem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGCDsSceEVQ#)

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/09/democratic-party-inserts-god-language.html (http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/09/democratic-party-inserts-god-language.html)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 08, 2012, 07:37:24 AM
^
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on September 08, 2012, 07:40:32 AM
^
^
Even the CNN commentators said it seemed more like half and half.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 06, 2012, 09:40:00 AM
Kol.

No bourgeois supports Romney
05th November 2012 23:38 Politics

There is no support from the Danish right wing to the American right wing in the U.S. presidential election.

Not one of the right-wing parties in Denmark openly supports the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, Politiken writes on Tuesday.

- I simply think that Barack Obama has done an incomprehensibly bad job as president, but I'm not sure that Romney is the alternative, Søren Pind, foreign affairs spokesman for Venstre, tells Politiken. His own chairman, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has declared his support for the current president.

DF is indifferent
Despite an official party contact with the Republicans, the Conservative People's Party will not openly support Mitt Romney.

- There are things that Republicans do not stand for that we stand for, environmental and climate policy for example. There we conservatives will agree with the Democrats, foreign affairs spokesman Per Stig Møller told Politiken.

Danish People's Party is indifferent to the outcome of the elections, says foreign affairs spokesman Søren Espersen.

- My main issue as a Danish politician is: Does it have any significance for Denmark or NATO, which of the two is sitting in the White House? The answer is no. Therefore, I am literally completely indifferent.

Neither or ...
Liberal Alliance, which, like the Republicans, speaks for lower tax rates, has no totally partisan position either. Foreign relations spokesperson Mette Bock declines both Mitt Romney's "deeply conservative values" and the significant debt that Barack Obama is responsible for.

The very low bourgeous enthusiasm for Mitt Romney is close to the general attitudes, Politiken writes.

In a Megafon opinion poll, 84 percent of Danes said that they would vote for President Obama if they could. Only 4 percent support the Massachusetts governor.

Source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2012/11/05/232701.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2012/11/05/232701.htm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on November 06, 2012, 10:08:20 AM
I thank our Danish friends for supporting Obama. Good to see that your right wing at least has some sense.

Anyways, already went and voted myself.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 06, 2012, 04:16:14 PM
kol danishmend
anyway my schl conducted some mock election thing today (knew dick r/money would win the second i saw the thing)
45 r/money
8 obama
7 gary johnson
1 jill stein
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on November 06, 2012, 04:17:34 PM
inb4 you voted for jill stein
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 06, 2012, 04:24:27 PM
inafter i voted for jill stein
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on November 06, 2012, 04:48:48 PM
jill has a stain.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 06, 2012, 05:08:48 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '88285'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on November 06, 2012, 06:05:16 PM
wuts the difference between electoral votes and votes?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 06, 2012, 06:32:55 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '88293'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on November 06, 2012, 06:35:33 PM
electoral votes are the votes that count; votes are the popular votes and stuff.

It's really the popular vote that should count, but its the way the system works.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on November 06, 2012, 06:36:03 PM
smjjames already told me, but thx.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 06, 2012, 06:37:19 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '88296'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 06, 2012, 09:30:17 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md1jzuIdiL1qg9eupo1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on November 06, 2012, 09:42:24 PM
Lol!
Obama won! Woooooooooot!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 06, 2012, 10:27:22 PM
like, 3 states just passed laws allowing same-sex marriage

(which is all which had votable laws on that)

maryland
maine
washington

minnesota stopped a law to ban same-sex marriage
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 06, 2012, 10:52:26 PM
wow that's adorable
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 07, 2012, 04:54:04 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '88320'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 07, 2012, 06:30:26 AM
http://townhall.com/election/2012/az/summary (http://townhall.com/election/2012/az/summary)

According to this Arizona may have a majority DEMOCRAT House. wow Just needs better numbers because the 50/50 one is uncute.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: karakris on November 07, 2012, 08:59:46 AM
If we are discussing Political Viewpoints in General - rather than Politicians in one Country ( U.S.A. ) -

Then I would wish to contribute to the Discussion.  I have given up on Politicians.

NO Politicians will actually do what the People want -
They don't say "What Do You Want Me To Do".
Instead they say "This is What I Will Do"
"What my opponent will do is [ some ridiculous or frightenting alternative ]"
"So you must Vote for me, otherwise He will do these terrible things".

I believe in True Democracy - but that would actually be something like Socialism, Communism or even Bla-ism.

When I was a Teenager - too long ago - I was a Marxist-Anarchist.  Not so now - I have no real Political Agenda - not one which will actually ever be used.

We COULD have a System of True Democracy - like I created for Attica Dominion in my Sci Fi Game.

The President is Elected by on-line Voting, with lots of safeguards to prevent False Voters from Cheating.

At any time - ANYONE can Propose a Policy Change OR a Vote of "No Confidence" in The President - this is fielded On-line.

If more than 5% of the Total Electorate approve that - it becomes an Official Plebiscite, and it is Published.
Everyone can Vote on that one - if more than 55% of the Total Electorate agree it, it MUST be acted upon.
If the President has a 55% or more Vote of "No Confidence" - he must Resign and face a New Election, in competition with other Candidates.

If There is an issue which only a Minority care about - it cannot get a 55% Vote, so it won't happen.

The President may propose Ammendments to the Voted Policy - but he must also get 55% of the Electorate to agree, otherwise the original Policy MUST be applied.
The President may START a new Policy,  in the same way - but this must be approved by 55% of the Voters.

The President HAS TO keep the Majority of the Voters happy, on every issue.
He CANNOT  govern under a "blanket policy" which includes some things people want, and some which they do not - each Policy Issue has to be agreed - and is always subject to the Support of the People, which may change.  

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on November 07, 2012, 12:59:47 PM
http://www.hark.com/clips/byqzjkgqpp-todd-akin-on-rape-and-abortion (http://www.hark.com/clips/byqzjkgqpp-todd-akin-on-rape-and-abortion)
KOL 'the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down'
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on November 07, 2012, 01:00:41 PM
also this http://xkcd.com/1131/ (http://xkcd.com/1131/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on November 07, 2012, 01:50:38 PM
frum the xkcd what-if it's interesting.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/probdecisive2.pdf (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/probdecisive2.pdf)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 07, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
wow kakakris that is cute. does that include the means of production in the democracy?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 07, 2012, 09:43:16 PM
"If the conservative movement and the conservative media and the republican party is stuck in a vacuum-sealed, door-locked, spin cycle of telling what makes them feel good, and denying the actual lived truth of the world, we are all deprived, as a nation, of the very debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.

Last night the republicans got shellacked, and they had NO idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time - in real, humiliating time - not believe it even as it was happening to them. And unless they want to secede, they will need to pop the fictional bubble they have been so happily living inside, if they do not want to get shellacked again.

And that will be a painful process for them, I’m sure, but it will be good for the whole country, left, right, and center.

You guys, we’re counting on you. Wake up!

There’s real problems in the world. There are real knowable facts in the world. Let’s accept those, and talk about how we might approach our problems differently. Let’s move on from there. If the republican party, and the conservative movement, and the conservative media were forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night, we will all be better off as a nation.

And in that spirit, congratulations EVERYBODY."

- Rachel Maddow

aaaaaaand

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2956379/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2956379/posts)

"The Republican Party died last night.

Somewhere in the suburbs of Cleveland, on the shore of Lake Erie, in the decisions of some suburban voters, the Republican Party stopped being a nationally viable political organization.

Oh, it will continue to exist.

But it will likely never again truly contest for the presidency. The nation has changed, the values have been replaced, the demographics are different.

The demographics are insurmountable.

Last night was a tipping point, a dance on a razor’s edge, and it went the other way. What was undoable last night will become increasingly impossible with each passing year. The margins will grow, the base will shrink, the tide will turn and the day will pass.

The Republican Party died last night.

Oh, it will continue to exist.

There will be the name and the elephants, but nationally, conservatism is playing against an impossibly stacked deck.

The nation had a clear choice. Each party ran candidates who were true to type. The Republicans ran conservatives and the Democrats ran liberals and it was a rout. Nothing changed except that Republicans got rebuffed across the board.

America wants Democrat.

More specifically, America wants liberal. It wants an activist, empowered government, imposing fairness and supporting entitlement.

That’s what America wants.

At least half of it wants that. Half and a tiny bit more.

And the inexorably shifting demographics of the nation ensure that that tiny bit more will grow steadily, cementing the liberal majority and creating an electoral impossibility of replacing it.

Last night was the last chance.

It was the last chance to gain a last national electoral victory over the Democratic coalition – Latinos, blacks, gays, feminists, trade unionists, government employees and welfare beneficiaries. The last chance to let a Republican president advocate the conservative, constitutional principles upon which American society was built.

But America said, “No, thanks.”

The majority preferred more of the last four years to anything Mitt Romney and the Republicans were offering.

The constituent communities of that majority are only going to grow in size and prominence in American society. They are going to increasingly dominate our society and politics.

Four years from now, more of the older conservative voters will be dead, and more of the younger liberal voters will be registered to vote. The Latino community, essentially co-opted by the Democrats into an aggrieved permanent minority status, will, like black voters, be larger and more Democrat. Four years from now, the cultural shift away from traditional values will be more advanced, thanks to more brainwashing by school teachers and sitcoms.

Those members of our society who typically identify with the Democratic Party are increasing. Those members of our society who typically identify with the Republican Party are shrinking.

You do the math.

Certain, Republicans will keep running. And some of them, no doubt, will win. But they will be a different sort of Republican.

They will not be conservative. Certainly not socially or morally conservative.

They will bend over backwards to avoid the principles of moral conservatism, so as to not disrespect a social norm.

They will be Democrat-lite.

Or they will not win.

Last night was our best chance.

And America chose the other team.

Almost $3 billion was spent on the presidential campaign. Untold tens of millions of dollars were spent on congressional campaigns across the country. And nothing changed.

Obama is still in the White House. The Democrats still control the Senate. Republicans still control the House of Representatives. The pundits say America voted to break the grid lock, that it voted to demand team work. It did no such thing. It voted to maintain the status quo.

So we have gone on a long, painful and expensive national journey, and it has left us exactly where we started.

A couple of House seats this way, a couple of Senate seats that way, and Obama on top of the whole thing.

That isn’t change, that is business as usual.

Conservatism has become a regional philosophy, the Republican Party a regional party. It will win governorships, it will win seats in the House or Senate, but it will essentially be a phenomenon of the South and Midwest.

Where traditional values endure and dwindle, the Republican Party will still be relevant.

But those places will shrink and shrivel. And each year, the gap between those who support conservatism and the number needed to win a national victory will grow.

Last night was conservatism’s last stand.

And it lost.

The Republican Party died last night."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 07, 2012, 10:12:19 PM
no it didn't
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on November 07, 2012, 10:18:59 PM
kol nice

that was such a long post i thought it was bla's
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 07, 2012, 10:24:14 PM
kol mudkipz
anyway i found out that i was leftist before pretty much everyone else at the forums except bla by looking at the early part of the thread
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: karakris on November 08, 2012, 04:29:08 AM
wow kakakris that is cute. does that include the means of production in the democracy?

The State / Goverment provides Free Education, Free Healthacare, Free Social Security.
As we AT WAR - there is almost No Unemployment - but people who CANNOT work will get Full Social Security.

All of these Policies which are still subject to intervention by the Electorate - who can get things changed, if 55% of the Voters want them changed.

All Industry and Businesses are partly State Owned.

The "State" owns between 70% and 80% of each of the Maunfacturers, etc.
Private Investors own the rest.

Managers are appointed - and left to Run the Operations, with a little general guidance from the Government.
If they make a mess of it - they are cautioned, and if they continue to get it wrong, the are replaced.

Normally Taxes will be around some 5% maximum - because the Govenment makes a lot of money from Manufacture, etc.
As we are AT WAR - Taxes are around 10% for everyone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 08, 2012, 10:50:28 AM
ok so it's like some Keynesian thing
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: karakris on November 11, 2012, 06:20:29 AM
Not sure if I EVER understoof Kenysianism - Hmmm

What we have is pretty much Socialism - in Attica Dominion.

All of the other Dominions are demiocratic - none are Dictatorial.

The President and Minister of the Confederation are Elected by the Dominions.
The Confederation is also pretty "Green" in a general sense.
Respecting the Rights and Survival of All First Nations or First Peoples - Native Intelligent Peoples
But also - Respecting the Rights and Survival of All Native Life-Forms, everywhere.

You can Hunt, Fish, Harvest, Kill Animals - for Food.
But No Species may be exploited for any other purpose.
The rights of all Species to survival in a Natural Habitat must be assured -
and no Species may be Hunted, Fished or Harvested to the point where it risks their continuing Survival -
OR if it risks the Balances of the Eco-System, or "Food Chains".

The Human ( or other ) Populations of Intelligent Speces may NOT expand in an uncontrolled manner ,
until their Habitation or Food Production poses risks to the Habitats and Environments of ANY Native Species.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 24, 2012, 01:33:26 AM
http://www.alternet.org/economy/ten-numbers-rich-would-fudged?paging=off (http://www.alternet.org/economy/ten-numbers-rich-would-fudged?paging=off) not sure if bullshit
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 10, 2013, 11:09:40 PM
i can't even http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/tax-avoidance_n_2426754.html?utm_hp_ref=business (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/tax-avoidance_n_2426754.html?utm_hp_ref=business)

THREE TRILLION  ARE MISSING.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 22, 2013, 11:37:56 PM
i don't even know what to say
http://www.businessinsider.com/north-koreas-and-marijuana-2013-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/north-koreas-and-marijuana-2013-1)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on January 23, 2013, 02:06:57 AM
" all you groups of dreadlocked California hippies and Burning Man festival survivors" not stereotyping or anything.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on January 23, 2013, 05:34:29 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '97311'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 23, 2013, 03:47:05 PM
(http://i.snag.gy/FJpkW.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 16, 2013, 03:50:44 AM
Interesting, it seems likely that Enhedslisten will be significantly strengthened in the cities in the next municipal election.
Opinion polls:
Copenhagen: Social democrats: 28%,  Enhedslisten: 27%
(The social democrats have governed Copenhagen for more than 100 years)
Århus: Enhedslisten: 14% (3x last election)
Odense: Enhedslisten: 14% (3x last election)

Socialist People's Party is losing a lot of votes to Enhedslisten though, and in Odense they went from 20.5% votes in the last election to 7% now. People are moving to Enhedslisten and to the right from the governing parties because they aren't doing very well and definitely aren't anywhere as "red" as promised or expected.

The conservatives also seem to be facing a disaster in all opinion polls. In Odense they are expected to go from 24.2% to 6% in the next election. But most of those votes seem to be moving to the liberals (Venstre), which is being strengthened. Danish People's Party is also being strengthened in parlamentary level, but has never done well in municipal elections it seems.

On parlamentary level Enhedslisten would get about 12.5% of votes, so it is also improving here. It just won't have a lot of things to use the votes for if the governing parties lose power to the right anyway - which they are going to do if they keep acting this stupid and blue.

Sources:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2013/03/16/0316062448.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2013/03/16/0316062448.htm)
http://www.b.dk/politiko/de-store-byer-ser-roedt-0 (http://www.b.dk/politiko/de-store-byer-ser-roedt-0)
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/meningsmaalinger (http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/meningsmaalinger)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on March 16, 2013, 10:29:47 AM
inb4 denmark becomes socialist by 2020
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on March 16, 2013, 10:59:55 AM
inb4 denmark becomes socialist by 2020
YESSSSSSS
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 16, 2013, 11:07:20 AM
inb4 denmark becomes socialist by 2020
Well the plan is August or September. Germany may be liberated about mid-December, the southern parts shortly after New Year 2014. Paris should be red by February, we will then attend KOMMUNIST KOLKON 2014 in Stockholm to discuss the strategy from there.

(In other news, I don't think so, unless EU really collapses economically, then again, that would also mean fascism would rise as well like in Greece, which would make the situation very unpleasant - but if it happened I still think it would turn to socialism rather than fascism)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on March 16, 2013, 11:45:55 AM
inb4 kolkon becomes a thing
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on March 16, 2013, 12:35:04 PM
inb4 denmark becomes socialist by 2020
Well the plan is August or September. Germany may be liberated about mid-December, the southern parts shortly after New Year 2014. Paris should be red by February, we will then attend KOMMUNIST KOLKON 2014 in Stockholm to discuss the strategy from there.
Free Brazil from kapitalismus!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on June 25, 2013, 12:38:33 PM
lol http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590966/texas-senator-wendy-davis-filibusters-against-abortion-bill/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590966/texas-senator-wendy-davis-filibusters-against-abortion-bill/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 26, 2013, 06:47:43 AM
Kol it succeded.

I found this today while inspecting the local environment. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on June 26, 2013, 07:00:18 AM
Oh my God.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 26, 2013, 08:28:19 AM
til tuto is christian and anti-communist
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on June 26, 2013, 08:59:11 AM
til tuto is christian and anti-communist
Don't even say that I'm Christian. I am Atheist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 27, 2013, 01:08:16 PM
Many people here care a lot about the environment it seems. Do you do anything in your everyday lives to live up to those ideas yourself?

Such as turning off the computer when you sleep/don't use it (and other things like lights and TV).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on June 27, 2013, 01:16:32 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '107263'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 27, 2013, 01:22:56 PM
Sadly yes, I have the impression most people don't do it actually. Some people seem to use the excuse that their computer is slow at starting up. An understandable excuse in some cases like if you're away for a short while, but if you go to sleep, I think it's a really bad excuse.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on June 27, 2013, 01:35:12 PM
i often run computations while i sleep so i can do productive stuff like minecraft during the day so my computer is on a lot of the time. i don't turn it off until windows update forces it, but it goes to sleep/standby when i sleep which doesn't use much power if any and only takes a few seconds to load from
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on June 27, 2013, 01:48:42 PM
Many people here care a lot about the environment it seems. Do you do anything in your everyday lives to live up to those ideas yourself?

Such as turning off the computer when you sleep/don't use it (and other things like lights and TV).
I actually try to conserve energy. I always turn off the sink when my mother leaves it on, I turn off the faucet while brushing my teeth, and I turn off my computer when I go to sleep.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on June 27, 2013, 01:50:05 PM
protip: shut off your house's electricity and water for best effect
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on June 27, 2013, 01:53:14 PM
protip: shut off your house's electricity and water for best effect
Good idea. I won't do that obviously : P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 27, 2013, 01:56:06 PM
protip: shut off your city's electricity and water for best effect
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on June 27, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
protip: i like first world living standards
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on June 27, 2013, 06:37:37 PM
protip: switch all light bulbs to energy efficent
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 27, 2013, 06:45:16 PM
that only reduces hte total by like 3%
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on June 27, 2013, 06:46:14 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '107288'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 27, 2013, 06:47:51 PM
solar powered lightbulbs = windows
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on June 27, 2013, 07:04:07 PM
i use the light-from-the-torches-in-blacraft-coming-out-of-my-monitor lighting system
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 27, 2013, 07:08:26 PM
kol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on June 28, 2013, 11:15:45 AM
. . . There are people who don't turn off their computer when doing things like hanging out with friends or going shopping/sleeping. . .? :O
I actually do not go shopping or hang out with friends, but when I'm not using my pc, I turn off it =p


protip: i like first world living standards
I would like to have them too :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 28, 2013, 11:42:19 AM
Protip: The point of trying to minimize our impact on the environment by doing things like this is so that more people can actually have something like first world living standards and/or have first world living standards for a longer period of time.

Anyway if you use your com productively while sleeping I don't see any problem with it. I just see a problem with those who are too lazy to turn it off etc.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on June 28, 2013, 12:49:00 PM
is sleeping it oaky
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 10, 2013, 12:49:31 AM
http://sturmtruppen.tumblr.com/post/57863653758/idanceitarotiart-afunnyfeminist-box-girl (http://sturmtruppen.tumblr.com/post/57863653758/idanceitarotiart-afunnyfeminist-box-girl)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on August 12, 2013, 10:15:01 AM
Something on imgur that detailed what groups of homophobes are doing in Russia.
http://imgur.com/gallery/c4Iq9 (http://imgur.com/gallery/c4Iq9)
This is really sad, and apparently because of this several bars in the UK and US are beginning to boycott vodka imported from Russia by no longer stocking it. The idea is to cause some kind of economic backlash.
Russia's pretty fucked in the head with all these laws coming in hgjhdg get your shit together
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 12, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
I'm against violence in most ways, save some ppl that indeed deserve it. Feel sorry for this fellah that has to endure this humiliation just because his lil tush is itching. WTF... so what? Alexander of Macedonia was gay, Cicero, the orator mega master of Rome was gay, and so many others. This is crappy humans using sexuality to justify their hateful and controlling desires.

Ok aside from this... this whole Russian bashing trend is purely politics. Is the western trying to undermine the not so compliant russian counterparts and trying to mechanically change the populace view of the Russian nation. Fifteen yrs or so ago, when russia was in the hands of a boze filled puppet russia was just lovely, now that the hard liners took over and stopped the empire from sacking the country, russia is back to be just horrific, monstrous and dishonest.

Propaganda? YES! Then.. NO THANK YOU! Else.. fck off with manipulative propaganda !
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 12, 2013, 10:56:28 AM
Many people here care a lot about the environment it seems. Do you do anything in your everyday lives to live up to those ideas yourself?

Such as turning off the computer when you sleep/don't use it (and other things like lights and TV).

Nail it! Right on! I have many socialite customers. I hate them all. Woman that are mega futile. They love to brag about their minuscule contributions to the "green".

I love to some day say to one of them: Hey lady, having 7 cars, 5 houses of 10 bedroom each, IS NO FCK GREEN. Buying into Mr. Gore's carbon credits DOES NOT HELP! It's a scam!

Want to help the green? Stop your non-sense buying spree, stop washing your dog with hot water, don't swap the pool's water every 30 days, biatch!

Ppl are so lost...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 12, 2013, 01:06:49 PM
Ok aside from this... this whole Russian bashing trend is purely politics. Is the western trying to undermine the not so compliant russian counterparts and trying to mechanically change the populace view of the Russian nation.
You just distanced yourself from the antigay happenings in there - do you want those attitudes to change or not? Is it a legitimate excuse if they happened to be a part of a "Russian national identity/culture" for some?

With that said I do think the west is being very stupid on some points, especially about Snowden, and it is sometimes very embarrassing to see the west trying to defend LGBT rights. Some of what the west does is terrible and sadly this makes some people distance themselves to LGBT equality because the west sometimes likes to promote it.

But I don't like when people say "Russia is fucked up in the head" etc., it's too generalizing, everyone in there isn't like that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 12, 2013, 02:41:09 PM
I want to change that indeed, as it is morally wrong. But I'm not going to feed/create/join a movement that indiscriminately  punishes Russian business/nation and tries to manipulate what I like and manipulate how I think. Which is this! Manipulators use valid social causes, not invalid ones.

The anti-antigay movement is a valid one, but it's been used. Just like those chicks back a few months showing their private parts in public. Don't get me wrong... I love tits, but if a women show hers in front of my kids, I'll probably slap some sense in her, literally.

If it is cultural, WE MUST RESPECT! It is part of those peoples history, whether we like it, or not! I find hateful taliban's way to treat woman, I reprehend that, but is their ways, I have no right to try to change a milenar custom.

So if you are a women, and you like to wear pants... I DO NOT RECOMMEND  to live in a taliban ruled area! Move! Same goes to any other nation.

My overhal explanation: If for any reason I find someone hijacking and/or boosting a movement with some hidden agenda behind.. I'll not condone or participate! Period!!!  I'll even go against it. If the cause deserves our respect we should do the right thing about it, but not using the framework of the pretender/abuser/manipulator. Usually the benefits of using a pretender's framework are immensely outweighed by the evil that hides behind. Same goes to this green maniacs. So when Agenda 21 falls upon all of us, only then they'll understand, but by then they will be labeled of horrible things and persecuted under laws they themselves helped to forge.


Like I said, I see the world with very very different eyes from most.


------

Just editing this to be more specific on the issue at hand...

Like I said, if it is cultural, we must respect. This is in NO WAY cultural. It is a new trend, and sure, worth of heavily reprehension. Russians have no cultural background of anti gay agenda. Cultural in my view is something forged over centuries... not decades. The taliban I mentioned above is... it is a milenar custom of that area. The jewish kosher thing also, a cultural thing, and a smart one as probably the main aim was to help people to save themselves from food poisoning thru their kashrut.

I think like every rule, mine also has it's pitfalls. So if I find some indians in the middle of the amazon killing people and eating them for cultural purposes, fck it, I'll drawn my 9mm and blast him before he can say "yummy in my tummy". So there are limits for everything. The gay issue in Russia, in my view is well inside those limits.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 13, 2013, 09:45:28 AM
If it is cultural, WE MUST RESPECT! It is part of those peoples history, whether we like it, or not! I find hateful taliban's way to treat woman, I reprehend that, but is their ways, I have no right to try to change a milenar custom.
I disagree 100%, I don't think something being historical/cultural has one bit of relevance to whether something should be respected, ignored, opposed or not.

So if you are a women, and you like to wear pants... I DO NOT RECOMMEND  to live in a taliban ruled area! Move! Same goes to any other nation.
If Taliban treats women as sub-humans, you tell the women to move? I'd say Taliban should move, either to Mars or an unpopulated desert where their crazy and repressive ideas won't repress other people than themselves.

Now that we're at the subject, Taliban used to enforce death penalty against gays by buring people alive. So if you're gay you should simply move away from this repression because the repression is "cultural" or "historical"? I disagree.

To make it easy to see how wrong this idea is in my opinion, would you also ask jews/gays/etc. to move out of Nazi Germany simply IF its ideology had had historical or cultural roots?................ Again I think the answer should clearly be no.

It simply doesn't matter. It's the terrible effects the ideas have on peoples lives that matter. If the effects are bad and repressive, they should be opposed and fought no matter what.

My overhal explanation: If for any reason I find someone hijacking and/or boosting a movement with some hidden agenda behind.. I'll not condone or participate! Period!!!  I'll even go against it. If the cause deserves our respect we should do the right thing about it, but not using the framework of the pretender/abuser/manipulator. Usually the benefits of using a pretender's framework are immensely outweighed by the evil that hides behind. Same goes to this green maniacs. So when Agenda 21 falls upon all of us, only then they'll understand, but by then they will be labeled of horrible things and persecuted under laws they themselves helped to forge.
If I've understood this correctly, you think there's a hidden agenda behind the unofficial minority of the anti-antigay movement which boycots the events in Russia by not importing things from Russia etc.? I don't think there's a hidden agenda behind it. I also get the point that it will only have a small effect and on many people who aren't participating in the antigay activities. It's hard to find effective ways to fight them. But I think the economic effect will be close to unnoticeable and that it's more for visibility for the cause.

Like I said, if it is cultural, we must respect. This is in NO WAY cultural. It is a new trend, and sure, worth of heavily reprehension. Russians have no cultural background of anti gay agenda.
I simply don't see the reasoning for why it matters whether it's cultural. Let us say it was cultural. Is everything we just talked about now no longer a problem to you and deserving of respect?

I think like every rule, mine also has it's pitfalls. So if I find some indians in the middle of the amazon killing people and eating them for cultural purposes, fck it, I'll drawn my 9mm and blast him before he can say "yummy in my tummy". So there are limits for everything. The gay issue in Russia, in my view is well inside those limits.
Ok, I'm glad you admitted that, but if you don't think something being cultural is an excuse for eating children in the Amazon, then why do you think something being cultural is an excuse for any of the things Taliban is doing to women?

Also I think your wording might be a bit misleading, you seemed to stress the words "must" very much in your language. At least it gave me the impression that there weren't exceptions to the rules.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 13, 2013, 03:02:38 PM
in brazil there is much more multiculturalism (like 99% of the natives didn't die) that's probably why he believes that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on August 13, 2013, 04:09:11 PM
in brazil there is much more multiculturalism (like 99% of the natives didn't die) that's probably why he believes that.
kol lies
a very "good" parcel of the natives were killed
you dont even know
hue
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 13, 2013, 04:18:33 PM
A lot of them were probably raped as well.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on August 13, 2013, 04:40:33 PM
A lot of them were probably raped as well.
(http://www.adiumxtras.com/images/pictures/something_awful_2_6634_2842_image_3468.gif)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 13, 2013, 05:09:10 PM
Quote from: Bla
If Taliban treats women as sub-humans, you tell the women to move? I'd say Taliban should move, either to Mars or an unpopulated desert where their crazy and repressive ideas won't repress other people than themselves.

Now that we're at the subject, Taliban used to enforce death penalty against gays by buring people alive. So if you're gay you should simply move away from this repression because the repression is "cultural" or "historical"? I disagree.

hahahaha you made me laugh a lot now... mars lol.. yeah send them to mars! Put obama and brzezinski in the trunk b4 it goes. sorry SORRY! :D Not funny! :| srly now...


Quote from: Bla
To make it easy to see how wrong this idea is in my opinion, would you also ask jews/gays/etc. to move out of Nazi Germany simply IF its ideology had had historical or cultural roots?................ Again I think the answer should clearly be no.

It simply doesn't matter. It's the terrible effects the ideas have on peoples lives that matter. If the effects are bad and repressive, they should be opposed and fought no matter what.

Yes, I mean NO! See u got me wrong. We need to understand what are the roots of what. Nazism is merely a eugenic system of cleansing, design to clean an area of a target people. It is not cultural in ANY way. That's all it was. See the angle thing in play here?! Everybody bashes the Nazis, but no one stop filling gas at a Texaco gas station. See the correlation? You got read read read read read, it's what makes you wise.

You know, there are limits to the wisdom one can acquire only by relying on life experiences. We must read. And most importantly, we must not forget. The world is a complex place, and it was forged over thousands of years, not in some decades. I usually tell people that WE are the very very same people as the peoples that lived in Moses times. The only thing that changed from then to now are the toys we use. People do not change, only the toys do.

About the taliban, things like these can and will seam bizarre to us, but not to them that live their entire lives under those social rules. Example. When I was very young, bout 15 or so, I saw on tv a doc about some custom of peoples of an area of the mideast. Was about cutting the girls clitoris, at very young ages. That horrified me. What barbarians I tough at the time. I keep the classification, what barbarians indeed. But I see it now with other eyes. I remember that the girl was surrounded by older ladies, all very exited and smiling, because this was their custom for a girl to become a woman. They liked! Why? Cuz is part of their culture. Same with jews and their obnoxious religious ways of cutting the foreskin of their penises. The kid with the penis on the table might not like it a bit, but it will come an age where he will understand the ways and accept, and do the same to his kids. It's a cultural thing, and as I see it, we must respect.

We can't make this the perfect world you envision, we also can't put all the peoples under one "roof". You mentioned the jews for instance, they too do that! Once a friend of mine that is jewish went to the promised land to spend some time with his relatives, for the first time may I add, they almost lynch him and his gf, why? Simply because she was walking in front of him on the street. It is their ways. These are among the most old people walking on this earth, aside from the male dominance thing,which btw I believe it is, must be another practical reason for that. These taliban people are mega moralists, it's what they are. Absolute NO tolerance for anything out of their "common" morals. Steal? Die. Homosexual? Die. Woman on pants? Beaten. Taking drugs? Beaten. Selling Drugs? Die. It's like Hammurabi of the late eon. I'll not get involved in it, unless these people are prisoners of their land, like Cubans are, like the peoples of the Gaza strip are, like N. Korean peoples are. If you imprison someone in a land, and force your rule over them, that's it. Game over and I'll voice against it. If you keep the right to come n go, and if it is a cultural thing, I'll not put my finger on it.

I agree, it is mega radical, and I'm not ready for it. I would NEVER live under such harsh laws. If I had the power or chance to change it, or move to another area. I'd move. I have no right to dispute something that is at least 1000 yrs older (maybe more) then myself and is accepted as standards by the vast majority of peoples of that area. Horrible? yes! Have I the right to put my finger on it? No.


Quote from: Bla
If I've understood this correctly, you think there's a hidden agenda behind the unofficial minority of the anti-antigay movement which boycots the events in Russia by not importing things from Russia etc.? I don't think there's a hidden agenda behind it. I also get the point that it will only have a small effect and on many people who aren't participating in the antigay activities. It's hard to find effective ways to fight them. But I think the economic effect will be close to unnoticeable and that it's more for visibility for the cause.

No you got it wrong. What I meant is, the are a scourge of people that hijack movements, like the tea party one for instance. Once that trend arises, they hijack it and use for their own purposes, and very usually that purpose is not beneficial for the cause that was hijacked. I have absolutely  nothing against gays, specially male ones, as they seem more fine tunned to everything than their female counterparts. They are extremely creative, have a mega quick wip, probably the development of this thick skin is because of the on going social recrimination. Usually, they are in many  many ways better than the average macho man closed minded.

Learn this, people that are in control, and that's usually ppl from the bank houses, don't enjoy popular movements of ANY sort outside of their control. They always hijack it to take something out of it. Always. I can enumerate hundreds of  examples to you (pls don't make me, I beg of u :P)


Quote from: Bla
I simply don't see the reasoning for why it matters whether it's cultural. Let us say it was cultural. Is everything we just talked about now no longer a problem to you and deserving of respect?

No! Me too I don't see it. But MUST BE A REASON. I'm 40, how bout you? 25? Even if we were 110. These cultural  ideas are as organic as they come, and developed over thousands of years. Must be a reason!

For many many years, before we met knowledge, I bet many jews ask themselves why pork meat is not good. Or why one should never eat a bread that was not baked that same day. And that was the LAW! Just because we don't see the implications of some actions, don't mean they are not there. I differentiated cultural things because they most of the time are organic and carry hundreds if not thousand of years of tryouts. This above is just a silly example. Another one, the taliban/woman thing. There must be a reason for that. A real one, and just because we can't see it, it really doesn't mean is not there. One must go there, live there, under those laws to try to grasp what up with it. And even after that is not guarantee that we will.

Quote from: Bla
Also I think your wording might be a bit misleading, you seemed to stress the words "must" very much in your language. At least it gave me the impression that there weren't exceptions to the rules.

Aside from the fact that my english is rusty and crappy, as many know, I'm radical in my ideas. I over think most of the stuff that people usually agree or disagree over the top of their heads. I like to think about stuff and try to see it from all the angles I can. So, when you over think something you usually have way stronger opinions than the others. Thus.. I must use must. Yes, there are! That's usually where common sense comes in.

Have you ever played COD? If so... WE ARE BEING DOMINATED! TAKE THOSE POSITIONS! People need to stop dividing  themselves. Back, white, homo, macho, jew, muslin etc. None of it matters right now. NONE! It matters, but not NOW. What it matters now is this: do you own a bank? Ok... divide those based on the answer. That matters! It is THE  ONLY thing right now that does. People keep fighting themselves over these pitiful ideals, and silly things (dont put words in my piehole, I'm talking about other meaningless things that are here, now)  Do not! Respect the customs of the land you are over, and mind with the question I've presented.

After that is dealt with, ok now as equals, we can deal with those issues. We will NEVER EVER find any common ground in any issue while we are being dominated and manipulated by the blue blooded creatures. \

Fuck social darwinism. Thats against evolution of the race itself. Woves do it because they can't think. We can. We don't need this social darwinism that was presented to us as the only way.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 13, 2013, 05:31:22 PM
in brazil there is much more multiculturalism (like 99% of the natives didn't die) that's probably why he believes that.
Are you calling me an indian in a pejorative way? hmmm

Despite you being wrong about this... 99% of them did die, yes, as the us, we are a continental country, but differently from the us, we did not see all our land conquered and occupied. The english went from east to the pacific, radically changing the landscape of the land. Here, I think the thick jungles of the northwest and the harsh deserts of the north provided some "security" to local customs. So our nation is way less homogenic than the us is. We all speak one language, aside from some small amount of people of the very south of the country, close to Uruguay, that speak one of the two native langs, but the areas of Brazil have radical different customs. The north being way more "talibanic" in its ways, and the south being more european.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 13, 2013, 08:20:06 PM
A lot of them were probably raped as well.
(http://www.adiumxtras.com/images/pictures/something_awful_2_6634_2842_image_3468.gif)
just facts ???????
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 13, 2013, 08:25:41 PM
I thought like in latin america there was much more rape than in northern america therefore boom mestizo???
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 13, 2013, 10:14:10 PM
we are talking about latin america yes
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 14, 2013, 01:23:04 AM
Quote from: Bla
To make it easy to see how wrong this idea is in my opinion, would you also ask jews/gays/etc. to move out of Nazi Germany simply IF its ideology had had historical or cultural roots?................ Again I think the answer should clearly be no.

It simply doesn't matter. It's the terrible effects the ideas have on peoples lives that matter. If the effects are bad and repressive, they should be opposed and fought no matter what.

Yes, I mean NO! See u got me wrong. We need to understand what are the roots of what. Nazism is merely a eugenic system of cleansing, design to clean an area of a target people. It is not cultural in ANY way. That's all it was. See the angle thing in play here?!
No, I don't see the point. Now you're saying, because Nazism isn't a cultural thing, so it doesn't deserve respect. If cutting parts of your limbs can be a cultural thing why can't exterminating certain groups of people be a cultural thing? The only difference is that cutting people up is worse than cutting parts of their limbs off without their permission.

Then you go on to say
These taliban people are mega moralists, it's what they are. Absolute NO tolerance for anything out of their "common" morals. Steal? Die. Homosexual? Die. Woman on pants? Beaten. Taking drugs? Beaten. Selling Drugs? Die. It's like Hammurabi of the late eon. I'll not get involved in it, unless these people are prisoners of their land, like Cubans are, like the peoples of the Gaza strip are, like N. Korean peoples are. If you imprison someone in a land, and force your rule over them, that's it. Game over and I'll voice against it. If you keep the right to come n go, and if it is a cultural thing, I'll not put my finger on it.
Sorry, but isn't that very incoherent? Taliban kills gays, but because the gays can just move and it's a cultural thing, you don't put a finger on it. Nazis kill gays, but because it's not a cultural thing, you don't accept it. What kind of reasoning is that? Gays always have some possibilities of moving if they just hide who they are, but who wants to move away from everyone they know and have to flee from everything they own to live a non-repressed life? To me, the answer is obviously to destroy the repression, not to flee from it. Nobody has the right to negatively affect your life simply because you are gay, nowhere, for no reason.

If your culture is antigay, the only acceptable option is to keep it to yourself. Repress yourself if you want to, but not others. Moving isn't a sensible solution to this. Not everyone can just travel in an airplane to whatever country they like and settle there. Most people rely on their parents/family until a certain age and to them it's no option to move either. I'm 19 and have lived in Denmark all my life, and while many people call Denmark one of the most tolerant places on Earth, what I have seen here I would call a disgrace and I definitely have not enjoyed the past several years of my life living in this shitty place. But in all those years I haven't been able to move and there's probably no really better place to move to anyway other than a big city, and I also plan to do that. But if Taliban had ruled Denmark, should I be forced to repress the fact that I'm gay until I can move, and then maybe have to give up my education, abandon where I live and maybe items I can't transport, give up a possible job, all friends I might have had, etc., just to respect their culture? No, their "culture" simply has no place in this world.

Everybody bashes the Nazis, but no one stop filling gas at a Texaco gas station. See the correlation?
I don't think I see your point here.

About the taliban, things like these can and will seam bizarre to us, but not to them that live their entire lives under those social rules. Example. When I was very young, bout 15 or so, I saw on tv a doc about some custom of peoples of an area of the mideast. Was about cutting the girls clitoris, at very young ages. That horrified me. What barbarians I tough at the time. I keep the classification, what barbarians indeed. But I see it now with other eyes. I remember that the girl was surrounded by older ladies, all very exited and smiling, because this was their custom for a girl to become a woman. They liked! Why? Cuz is part of their culture. Same with jews and their obnoxious religious ways of cutting the foreskin of their penises. The kid with the penis on the table might not like it a bit, but it will come an age where he will understand the ways and accept, and do the same to his kids. It's a cultural thing, and as I see it, we must respect.
How do you know he will understand it and accept it one day? What if he doesn't want to be a part of the culture? He will never be able to grow the skin back, not even by moving away. Will all the gays living in Afghanistan also one day come to realize that the best thing is to allow Taliban to execute them?

We can't make this the perfect world you envision,
We can make the world completely as we like, if enough people want a better world of course we can make a better world.

we also can't put all the peoples under one "roof". You mentioned the jews for instance, they too do that! Once a friend of mine that is jewish went to the promised land to spend some time with his relatives, for the first time may I add, they almost lynch him and his gf, why? Simply because she was walking in front of him on the street.
I mentioned the jews because I don't think it's ok to exterminate them. That doesn't mean I think all jewish cultures are perfect. I can be both against a nazi wanting to exterminate jews and against allowing people to circumcise people against their will.

These are among the most old people walking on this earth, aside from the male dominance thing,which btw I believe it is, must be another practical reason for that.
Yes, let's look at the practical reasons of culture. Then we can judge whether they are good or bad. Does the well-being of people benefit from a culture or is it harmed by the culture. If it benefits from it, the culture is useful, if not, let's get rid of the culture. It's really simple.

I agree, it is mega radical, and I'm not ready for it. I would NEVER live under such harsh laws.
But what if you were born in there and had no money, car, airplane service etc.? Or you maybe had some of it, but you also had good friends or liked your family? Or you were in the middle of an education? Or you were a child/teen and you couldn't move? You make it sound like moving away is just something you do overnight and then all your problems disappear. For many it's not impossible, but I'd say it would be much better to liberate them from the oppression rather than fleeing from it.

If I had the power or chance to change it, or move to another area. I'd move. I have no right to dispute something that is at least 1000 yrs older (maybe more) then myself and is accepted as standards by the vast majority of peoples of that area. Horrible? yes! Have I the right to put my finger on it? No.
Culture does't have to be old. Many music cultures are only a few decades old or less for example. Those cultures also clearly show that the culture may not necessarily be dominant among people. There are some religious sects, like Jehova's witnesses, in Denmark, whose families are so attached to this tiny community that they stop all communication with family members who want to exit the sect. That is a culture which the vast majority of people don't accept as standards, but which still affects some people.
You simply state as a fact that you don't have the right to dispute a culture, how do you arrive at that conclusion? It is simply beyond me. You still give absolutely no reason why it being a culture or it being old is a valid reason to respect it. I already gave examples which I would think makes it clear why it's not a valid reason, but your only response to them seems to be either - "it's not a culture, therefore it doesn't deserve respect" or "it's a culture, so you must respect it, even though it sounds horrible and I have nothing against gays etc. etc. etc". You actually seem to understand that elements of culture can be very horrible, but simply ignore this fact and respect it anyway without supporting it with any form of reasoning.

Learn this, people that are in control, and that's usually ppl from the bank houses, don't enjoy popular movements of ANY sort outside of their control. They always hijack it to take something out of it. Always. I can enumerate hundreds of  examples to you (pls don't make me, I beg of u :P)
I just don't see what banks hijacking movements has to do with this.

No! Me too I don't see it. But MUST BE A REASON.
I don't really know what to reply to this. You see no reason, but say there must be one. How do you know that? We will get nowhere in our discussion if you don't use reasons to justify what you think. You say you like to view everything from different angles, ok, but doesn't that completely contradict accepting that culture must be respected as an unquestionable dogma which requires no reason?

I'm 40, how bout you? 25? Even if we were 110. These cultural  ideas are as organic as they come, and developed over thousands of years. Must be a reason!
I'm 19, the rest I already replied to above.

For many many years, before we met knowledge, I bet many jews ask themselves why pork meat is not good. Or why one should never eat a bread that was not baked that same day. And that was the LAW! Just because we don't see the implications of some actions, don't mean they are not there.
But the reason why you shouldn't eat old bread is because dangerous bacteria or sponges may grow on it. Not because "culture says so" or "the law says so". If the law/culture tells you to jump off a cliff, you shouldn't do it, because it'll kill you, and you don't want that. Culture is irrelevant in all of your examples.

I differentiated cultural things because they most of the time are organic and carry hundreds if not thousand of years of tryouts. This above is just a silly example. Another one, the taliban/woman thing. There must be a reason for that. A real one, and just because we can't see it, it really doesn't mean is not there.
*Sigh* ok please listen. No matter how many times you repeat it, it will never be justified simply because it's culture or old.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
The basic problem is that you judge where the ideas/laws come from, not what they [/b]are[/b].
If someone believed the Earth was flat 3000 years ago and the ideas spread to cover all of humanity up until today, the person is still just as wrong as if it were the only person to ever get that idea. It simply does not matter where the ideas come from, how long they've been around, etc.

One must go there, live there, under those laws to try to grasp what up with it. And even after that is not guarantee that we will.
I can grasp what it is like having to repress your feelings every day and to see everyone around you fear and distance themselves from your feelings constantly. In practice I would've obeyed many of the religious ideas I oppose, and I oppose them so much exactly because I can see how much they can ruin your life.
There is a good reason why you may never grap the reason to live under them - because there is simply no good reason to live by them.

Quote from: Bla
Also I think your wording might be a bit misleading, you seemed to stress the words "must" very much in your language. At least it gave me the impression that there weren't exceptions to the rules.
Aside from the fact that my english is rusty and crappy, as many know, I'm radical in my ideas. I over think most of the stuff that people usually agree or disagree over the top of their heads. I like to think about stuff and try to see it from all the angles I can. So, when you over think something you usually have way stronger opinions than the others. Thus.. I must use must. Yes, there are! That's usually where common sense comes in.
I'm also radical and disagree on many issues with most people, but I see no need to use the word "must" when I don't mean it. If you don't mean "must" I don't think you should use it. I have the impression that your English is fine and I think you understood the meaning of the word before you used it. Anyway whatever.

Have you ever played COD? If so... WE ARE BEING DOMINATED! TAKE THOSE POSITIONS! People need to stop dividing  themselves. Back, white, homo, macho, jew, muslin etc. None of it matters right now. NONE! It matters, but not NOW. What it matters now is this: do you own a bank? Ok... divide those based on the answer. That matters! It is THE  ONLY thing right now that does. People keep fighting themselves over these pitiful ideals, and silly things (dont put words in my piehole, I'm talking about other meaningless things that are here, now)  Do not! Respect the customs of the land you are over, and mind with the question I've presented.
Never respect the customs of the land if the land's customs don't respect you. If the land's customs tells you to die if you're gay, then tell the land's customs to die.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Feldruam on August 14, 2013, 04:01:51 AM
Paradise or Oblivion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphWsnhZ4Ag#ws)

The Venus Project-Resource Based Economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo#ws)

The Money Masters ~ Full Movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw#)

Zeitgeist Addendum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg#ws)

ZEITGEIST 3 - MOVING FORWARD (FULL - 2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlPs10GSJjQ#ws)

We need to acknowledge that there's a problem but focus on a solution.
 
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."-Albert Einstein

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on August 14, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
A lot of them were probably raped as well.
(http://www.adiumxtras.com/images/pictures/something_awful_2_6634_2842_image_3468.gif)
just facts ???????
No i know it was just a bit sudden
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 09:33:52 AM
Well, I guess we never gonna see eye to eye on this, or make sense one to another.

Quote from: Bla
Sorry, but isn't that very incoherent? Taliban kills gays, but because the gays can just move and it's a cultural thing, you don't put a finger on it. Nazis kill gays, but because it's not a cultural thing, you don't accept it. What kind of reasoning is that?

Nazism is after your end. Tabibalism is after their ancient pursuit of a "clean" and "sober" society. As weird as that may seem to us.

Quote from: Bla
I don't think I see your point here.

Communism AND nazism AND fascism, AND all the little tyrants of the South America... all of these were financed and mechanically created by the City of London mainly thru Wall Street. Since Wall Street is Rockefeller owned as Standard Oil was, and subsequently it's child companies, It fair to assume that whomever financed those regims, is also pocketing from Texaco, Exxon, BP, Amoco, Chevron, and so on. People like their gas, but not their regims. That's the correlation.

Quote from: Bla
We can make the world completely as we like, if enough people want a better world of course we can make a better world.

No we can't. And only tyrants got close enough of shaping their world to their see fit. Even like that, Alexander tried, they kill him for it. Cesar tried, they kill him for it, Ramesses2 tried, and geographical difficulties stopped him. Constantine tried, he did not got even close to it, later his "child" the church tried, and also failed.

Now some bankers are trying, they are succeeding so far, mainly because they use the sword as last resort, and as it goes.. you are free. Or that is what one is expected to believe. You are 19, and I feel sorry for you, just as I feel sorry for my young kids. I probably won't see it, but you youngsters will. And I sincerely hope I'm wrong about it, for you all sakes.

Quote from: Bla
I mentioned the jews because I don't think it's ok to exterminate them. That doesn't mean I think all jewish cultures are perfect. I can be both against a nazi wanting to exterminate jews and against allowing people to circumcise people against their will.

You are right! I just mentioned because I saw it as a pertinent thing to mention, as a cultural thing. There is no such thing as this or that. There is this, that, that over there, this on the left, that on the right... and many many more ways. This or that is a dominance technique. You are right...

Quote from: Bla
Yes, let's look at the practical reasons of culture. Then we can judge whether they are good or bad. Does the well-being of people benefit from a culture or is it harmed by the culture. If it benefits from it, the culture is useful, if not, let's get rid of the culture. It's really simple.

Then you can stop bashing talibans. As you don't know IF there is a good cultural reason. As I say, we must live the situation to know. We don't live there, so we can know for sure whats up with that. I know it's crude, but nevertheless, true.

Quote from: Bla
But what if you were born in there and had no money, car, airplane service etc.? Or you maybe had some of it, but you also had good friends or liked your family? Or you were in the middle of an education?

Sorry mate, these are less than 2 centuries commodities. Do as your forefather did. WALK! If I lived under anything that I see fit as oppression.. I'll walk my way out of it. With 0 cent in my pockets. Imagine if Israel "wake" tomorrow and say: "All gaza strip inhabitant are free to go, as long as they go walking", they will. And as fast as one can. I went to live in the US, I was 18, no english knowledge at all, no money, well I got 50 bucks in my pockets, but I wanted to know that place... I went! Will is all it takes. If will moves mountains, why not your legs? I have the barrel of my gun in the back of your head. And I'll give you an ultimate: walk 300 miles, or I'll cut your penis out! Choose! I'm so sure someday you'll have kids.... you'll walk 1000 if it is what it takes.


Quote from: Bla
Culture does't have to be old. Many music cultures are only a few decades old or less for example.


No one will cut ur johnson out because you like Metallica. I think we're talking about sociallly rooted cultures. Like the ones we are discussing.  Anyway, I'm gonna cut this short here, from the root of the argument. I say ancient cultures deserve the proper attention because they carry logically more wisdom. As it was developed thru the eons, they had enough time to try. Most new trends in my view are merely the will of a few, were ancient ones are the will of many many generations. That baggage cannot be underestimated.

Quote from: Bla
You simply state as a fact that you don't have the right to dispute a culture, how do you arrive at that conclusion? It is simply beyond me.


The above I wrote is one thing. Now how can I dispute quantum mechanics, if I see no reasoning in it (and I dont). But I bet you, if I study that to it's bones, I probably will. You cant recognize a cage if you only see the door of it. After you see all 4 angles you'll say, "ahhh ha! it is a cage!"

Cultural is different from say presidential executive order or trendy mechanical movements, because people won't tolerate injustice for long. If it last THAT long, must be a valid reason behind. Either that or the people under it are totally fucktard cowards. That's why culture is different from non-organic ideals.

Quote from: Bla
I just don't see what banks hijacking movements has to do with this.

I see the world today as politics always were: ABSOLUTELY nothing happens by chance. If it does happen, it was planned that way. As the banks own politicians these days, as well as in the older days to a lesser extent, if is allowed to flourish, that was the way it was planned. You can recognize an agenda somewhat easily, as it ALWAYS comes back. Might come back with a different flavor, or name, or masked ideals, but does come back.

Quote from: Bla
I don't really know what to reply to this. You see no reason, but say there must be one. How do you know that?


I don't. So I don't blindly bash it, as I don't know all the angles, causes, history behind that. I'm right over the line here. Not for or against. I too think is horrible and not just. But these are the thoughts of a lay man in the subject. I'll study this to the extent I can!!! Maybe in the future I can give you the reason you seek, or simply tell you I was wrong. Thank you for showing me my ignorance in this particular subject. I won't be ignorant to this for long tho.

Quote from: Bla
But the reason why you shouldn't eat old bread is because dangerous bacteria or sponges may grow on it. Not because "culture says so" or "the law says so".

You do know that now after robert hooke inspired it's understandings. But before, was the will of God. I'd say 100% cultural and religious thing, and to reach those that weren't religious, they made it a law.

Quote from: Bla
I can grasp ...

I don't think you cant. No one can, without studying these things deeply AND I dare say living on their skin. Let me make a religious analogy, and let's pretend all that happened.

Why is the Devil so bad? Alter all, all he apparently wanted is to give man knowledge of himself and his surroundings. How I gaining knowledge can be bad?! Well, apparently he used some valid excuse to avenge his failed relation with his father.

The lesson here is: not all good looking things are good. The oposite being as true as this too.

Take the liberation of woman of the early 20th century as an example. It apear as a good thing, right? The right thing to do. But was not. I explain:

I see men and women as different beings. WE ARE DIFFERENT. Period! We think differently, we ACT differently, we have different hormone driven actions. I can carry rocks weighting about 170 pounds, they can't. They can feed a newborn their God given milk, I can't. WE A-R-E DIFFERENT!

Thus generally speaking we should exert different roles. But, Rockefeller's non-profit orgs (haha)
fiercely sponsored that feminist uprising. Of course, it look like the right thing to do. Honorable, just.

But was not. As I see it, woman have a very very important role in our race. They (generally speaking) should be at home! Making sure the offspring grows  right and just. Don't judge me before you study this please! Cuz I have profoundly. And by "staying" at home I mean, they should be the ones molding the offspring. They woman ARE the glue of the just societies, they are IMAGINABLY more important than men. DO NOT underestimate the "stay at home" frase. It is MUCH more important than going out to make a living. Much more... They woman are the master ring holding a family in place. Men are just an accessory to the family. Woman are the master key of it! They OWN the family. They create the family.

So continuing, they promoved that, woman got out of the house, to work, and may I add to pay taxes, the kids are being educated by the TV, or some school. Don't you think people in the beginning of the last century were better at morals we are today? I do. I think todays people are trash when compared to before. And if you go to these conservative rural areas were the ancestors model is still at play, you'll find that people there are much better than the city people that were risen by something else than mom.

Soon (australia already does that to an extent) the state will OWN your kids. Soon your kids will choose the state over the family.  I;m sorry, but I'm pro family. Family is our race's backbone. Remove it and give welcome to a Equilibrium like society, which is btw what Hitler wanted to accomplish, and he did, with his maniac youth.

Conclusion: The cause was valid, uber valid. Looked just. But in the end, what motivated that liberalism was not, was merely these factions trying to destroy the family's bound and morals (they did), and also trying to tax the other half of the population. They also did.


Again:


WE ARE BEING DOMINATED!!
TAKE THOSE POSITIONS!!!!!!!!




About the "movie" posts:

Zeitgeist is CRAP, Jacque Fresco's ideas are crap too. Now, what Bill said over there, that's real and solid! Of course this is my personal view...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 14, 2013, 12:38:01 PM
Well, I guess we never gonna see eye to eye on this, or make sense one to another.
Quote from: Bla
Sorry, but isn't that very incoherent? Taliban kills gays, but because the gays can just move and it's a cultural thing, you don't put a finger on it. Nazis kill gays, but because it's not a cultural thing, you don't accept it. What kind of reasoning is that?
Nazism is after your end. Tabibalism is after their ancient pursuit of a "clean" and "sober" society. As weird as that may seem to us.
But Taliban's pursuit of that society involves being after my end. And the reactionary far-right typically seeks a "clean" and "sober" society as well like in "the good old days". The ideologies are similar in that point.
...But what does it even matter when the issue is that they do the exact same thing - kill gays?

Quote from: Bla
We can make the world completely as we like, if enough people want a better world of course we can make a better world.
No we can't. And only tyrants got close enough of shaping their world to their see fit. Even like that, Alexander tried, they kill him for it. Cesar tried, they kill him for it, Ramesses2 tried, and geographical difficulties stopped him. Constantine tried, he did not got even close to it, later his "child" the church tried, and also failed.
I'll state it differently, because we obviously can't make the world completely as we like. We can't magically turn a desert into a rainforest. But if enough people want to change something, it is possible, the French and Russian revolutions are some examples. Even in this issue, the Stonewall riots are another example and the LGBT rights movement are another example and because of this the west on average has much less negative attitudes towards LGBT people than 50 years ago, proving that the world can be changed.
That is the sort of change I want to see happen globally. Many western countries had death penalty laws towards gays hundreds of years ago. This changed. Change is possible.

Then you can stop bashing talibans. As you don't know IF there is a good cultural reason. As I say, we must live the situation to know. We don't live there, so we can know for sure whats up with that. I know it's crude, but nevertheless, true.
Assuming Talibans goal is actually to increase the well-being of humans, they must be claiming that killing gays somehow does that. The burden is on them to come with reason or evidence to support this. Until then, their claim can be dismissed just as you would dismiss someone claiming that they had a garden filled with magic tooth fairies.
At the same time there's nothing that makes it impossible for us to know it just because we don't live like they want us to. We could ask the people who are forced to live like that. We could imagine what it would be like. Imagine what it feels like to be buried alive. How do you imagine it feels? I don't think it feels good, so even though I haven't tried it, I think I can say with very high certainty that it's a very bad way to make people happy.

Sorry mate, these are less than 2 centuries commodities. Do as your forefather did. WALK! If I lived under anything that I see fit as oppression.. I'll walk my way out of it. With 0 cent in my pockets. Imagine if Israel "wake" tomorrow and say: "All gaza strip inhabitant are free to go, as long as they go walking", they will. And as fast as one can. I went to live in the US, I was 18, no english knowledge at all, no money, well I got 50 bucks in my pockets, but I wanted to know that place... I went! Will is all it takes. If will moves mountains, why not your legs?
Family, money, friends, education etc. are 2 centuries commodities... you realize how many of those fleeing Northern Africa for example who end up drowning or in camps which are in semi-prison conditions in Greece or forced to return later.

Also, I didn't intend to say that I live under oppression, I don't. I'm not satisfied with how things are, but I wouldn't call it oppression. But try considering the options. You can stay and ignore how bad things are and accept it even as you state you can't see any reason whatsoever for why things should be that way. You can flee and give up maybe a lot of things, depending on your situation, which could include friends, education etc. You don't have to be in a life-threatening situation to be unsatisfied with how things are, and you have other choices than fleeing or ignoring your problems. I'm trying to say that it will pay off much better for all of us in the future if you choose to deal with the problems and eliminate them so humanity can move on. If some people think gays/jews/etc. should be killed, asking the affected people to respect that or go away is a, sorry to say it, very crazy and strange idea in my opinion. You keep saying we have no right to question their traditions, again, why the... do their traditions then have the right to decide whether innocent people should live or die or flee?...

No one will cut ur johnson out because you like Metallica. I think we're talking about sociallly rooted cultures. Like the ones we are discussing.  Anyway, I'm gonna cut this short here, from the root of the argument. I say ancient cultures deserve the proper attention because they carry logically more wisdom. As it was developed thru the eons, they had enough time to try. Most new trends in my view are merely the will of a few, were ancient ones are the will of many many generations. That baggage cannot be underestimated.
Again you are making the fallacy of considering where something comes from and not its content.
I will again state the example that, at a time most people believed the Earth was flat. It wasn't! Their view was old and traditional and all that but it was plain wrong! It had no good bagage from the generations it had to spread. The same goes for all the superstituion which led to witch hunts (still happens in some places in Africa today), people believing in miracles or gods and rejecting medicine causing people to die, no matter how many generations these stupid ideas are passed on, they will never get one step closer to becoming correct.
Taliban's view on gays is just as morally unacceptable as the flat Earth idea is factually wrong, because threatening and marginalizing gays will negatively affect their lives a lot, for obvious reasons. Are you completely blind to this?

The above I wrote is one thing. Now how can I dispute quantum mechanics, if I see no reasoning in it (and I dont). But I bet you, if I study that to it's bones, I probably will. You cant recognize a cage if you only see the door of it. After you see all 4 angles you'll say, "ahhh ha! it is a cage!"
I have studied Taliban to a degree where I know that they systematically try to discriminate against women by not allowing them to have education and where I know they try to force all people to repress the feelings they may have for people of their own sex for their entire lifetime and where if they don't, they will try to bury them alive. Based on this I conclude that Taliban's ideology is horrible, oppressive, and that the world would be a better place if people were not forced to live by it.

My opinions on Taliban are based on what I know about Taliban, unlike your example dispute on quantum mechanics. There is actual reasoning behind quantum mechanics and experiments like the double-slit experiment supports it. As you say, you can study the subject you dispute. But earlier you said you have to LIVE the way Taliban forces you to in order to question it. Now you are moving the target. You can study and know about things without living under them. Let me use your own example about quantum mechanics, your idea is like saying you can't dispute quantum mechanics without doing all the experiments it's based on first-hand. But that's simply not true, you can study what other people who have done the experiments have experienced and whether there is a logical connection to the claims of quantum mechanics. You can read their papers and maybe you find simple factual errors in their calculations etc. The same way, you can read about Taliban's ideology and consider whether its elements are good or bad, and oppose the bad elements without experiencing them first-hand.

Cultural is different from say presidential executive order or trendy mechanical movements, because people won't tolerate injustice for long. If it last THAT long, must be a valid reason behind. Either that or the people under it are totally fucktard cowards. That's why culture is different from non-organic ideals.
Or the people in control are very much in control or have support from a lot of people who accept oppression (for example if it only affects a minority of the population). Let's see whether North Korea exists in a millennium then you can come back to me and tell me if it wasn't oppressive or people were just being cowards.

If gays are a small minority of the population and get marginalized from early on and indoctrinated into thinking there is something wrong with them which they should be ashamed of, at the same time as those who uphold those ideas patrol every street with swords, don't expect them to organize and raise a revolution in christian dark age Europe, Nazi-Germany or Taliban-Afghanistan. You're not a coward because you don't willingly run into suicide and don't accomplish anything. The exact same thing goes for the European colonial powers' treatment of the natives in Africa, Asia and America. Those were not cowards for the decades or centuries it lasted. While it happened, they just weren't able to stop it, and depending on the size of the oppressed people compared to others and how much they are controlled and indoctrinated into thinking they're wrong, there's no reason why that couldn't possibly last for many more centuries.

Witch-hunts, racial/sexist/antigay discrimination etc. has happened for a long time in many places, in some places people have even managed to overthrow it and get rid of it and in other places it has managed to live on. Europe is one place where we actually got rid of much of the antigay discrimination, people lived under it realized that it was terrible and pointless and managed to get rid of it in the end. This just hasn't happened where Taliban rules - this doesn't automatically mean their oppression is ok, just like it would not be true that the Earth were flat if they had believed in that for centuries while other parts of the world moved on in their thinking, simply because they had lived with those false beliefs for so many centuries. Again you must judge by the contents and not where it comes from!

I don't. So I don't blindly bash it, as I don't know all the angles, causes, history behind that. I'm right over the line here. Not for or against. I too think is horrible and not just. But these are the thoughts of a lay man in the subject. I'll study this to the extent I can!!! Maybe in the future I can give you the reason you seek.
So you imply that I'm blindly bashing it. I would say I know enough to determine that those of Taliban's ideas negatively affect innocent people. And the fact that you fail to see how marginalizing and killing people by burying them alive for following feelings which hurt nobody is actually negatively affecting people is making you seem very blind and amoral to me.

Also, look back at what you wrote - you said there must be a reason, now when I ask you how you know, you say you don't. You contradict yourself. Please make up your mind.

You do know that now after robert hooke inspired it's understandings. But before, was the will of God. I'd say 100% cultural and religious thing.
The thing is just that it's not the valid reason to avoid eating old bread and that eating old bread always carried an increased risk of getting sick, which is the rational reason to avoid it that people have always had access to. You said "just because we don't see the implications of some actions, it doesn't mean they are not there". But we have always had access to the possible implications of eating old bread and based of those we can judge whether eating it might or might not be a good idea. "Because it's an old culture" still isn't the reason here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 01:49:01 PM
aarrrrrrrg you are right. Damn site and this cookie short time expiration.

your ARE right. Weeee. I wont write again...

Dammit! $#%@@#$%
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 14, 2013, 01:51:56 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '109747'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 01:58:13 PM
What pisses me off is that this cookies stays for ages when Im browsing the site... I have to click logoff always to clear it.

To post... the damn thing expires in 15 or so minutes... ahhhhhhhhhhhh
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 02:12:51 PM
Im going to hell for this...


The reality to me is, you all are biased, because is your layer of the society being targeted. It was cool in the 80's no one care... everybody was financially ok (compared to today). How about the suffering of those drug addicts that pay the price so money can be injected in the scam called NYSE? Come on... I don't want to win this discussion, in fact I'd  glad to be proven wrong in many of my statements, what I wished is for you guys to think out of the box!

I see no one defending subhuman condition that the miners of 3rd world countries endure. Or defending the little girls that are kidnaped all over the world to become prostitutes, or even the countries that suffered dearly so americans can have 5 bedroom houses. Why do you think america has the financial uphand over all the other nations? "Maybe" that is because it syphoning riches from all places and concatenating them inside the empire.

Sorry guys, but you have a much narrow view of things.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on August 14, 2013, 02:55:18 PM
Uhh.. Bla isnt american, in any meaning of the word. Try Denmark.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 14, 2013, 02:57:46 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '109757'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 14, 2013, 02:58:41 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '109758'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 03:03:05 PM
It does not matter, what I say stands. Also, his country has one of the worse globalists that there is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 04:10:30 PM
I recommend this to all humans: Ethics of Aristotle (https://zg6swa.blu.livefilestore.com/y2pecs1MiphidEmeImjZGMcqq0DLSQXkM8GZMGdNu8n-SlWNyYI1jBC9X02awNSrKfYDxaibw2sUdSX-Jj4Min5ECABc2AFhl8tXw414sLUSLw/The%20Philosophy%20of%20Common%20Sense.mp3?download&psid=1)

You can get it here (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=408).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 14, 2013, 04:12:44 PM
I would respond to bla but I'd just get pummeled in soviet anthems and nothing would get done... :|
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on August 14, 2013, 04:20:32 PM
Uhh.. Bla isnt american, in any meaning of the word. Try Denmark.

But that doesn't make him unbiased. Because I'm Japanese am I only half-biased?
YESSSSSSSSSSSSS
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on August 14, 2013, 04:36:03 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/HD8j6ID.jpg?1)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 14, 2013, 04:39:09 PM
false. H fusing into He is what makes stars shine.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 14, 2013, 04:43:11 PM
Helium also fuses into all elements heavier than it.

I would respond to bla but I'd just get pummeled in soviet anthems and nothing would get done... :|
respond to him but i don't really see anything wrong with anything he's done/said and he's not being all like 'USSR USSR USSR SOVJET DA DA DA' I mean idk, he's presenting legitimate points and refuting the arguments properly????

Or defending the little girls that are kidnaped all over the world to become prostitutes
can I just say how silly this is like do people kidnap girls and make them their slave and then sell their body for money and take it from them like I don't think that happens

I mean like some do it on their own decision because it's a way to make money that they need to live. I don't know the whole world but I've had history classes, they are forced to by society not by a specific person.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 05:06:35 PM
Or defending the little girls that are kidnaped all over the world to become prostitutes


Quote from: atomic7732
can I just say how silly this is like do people kidnap girls and make them their slave and then sell their body for money and take it from them like I don't think that happens


If you ever see a TRUE REAL video of a sex slave in the beginnings of their careers, I BET YOU,
you won't find it silly. You won't find it silly see that 13 yrs old heroin drudged, with vague eyes, drooping tears as she is abused from every possible orifice she has on her anatomy.

After 5 yrs of this... net porn is what you get. Beautiful flowers, twisted  from their roots.

And porn today yields  no money, but to the people that does it.

Of course some are the plain old pros, but judging by the amount of children -specially girls - that goes missing, judging by the FACT that authorities always downplay numbers, and the humongous amounts of prostitutes these days, one may only conclude the inevitable. That that is something very wrong happening. 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 14, 2013, 05:08:29 PM
That's not the same thing you described, then.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 05:13:51 PM
What you mean? I synthesized the whole thing into 3 or four words. But the content is the same.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 14, 2013, 09:16:11 PM
Well, I guess this is it. Looks like is the end of this discussion.

I enjoyed to discuss this with Bla, was the best Bla,Bla,Bla in years! ;-) It is always a healthy thing to the mind, and I advise all to set aside a few hrs of your time to know where and how you live, and why not why as well, and to discuss such subjects with your friends and family. Things like this are more important than most of the things that we do. So, it is extremely important to your own, and mine, freedoms and well being.

I'm suggesting this as a friend, and why not as a father, as I do the same to my own kids. These important subjects tend to fall deep in into our souls, and help us forge who we are.

Bla, I'm sorry to you if I offended you in our talks. I was trying to make a point, that's all. I've played the devils advocate and defended some ideals that I don't agree with, just to boost this and force people to read, well it worked. Controversy is like a social magnet. Better to be pullen by these things, than what team is best, or what actor is on, or the usual useless trivia.

Everybody jumped in and dropped a bit or two. I liked it! Next time, when this surfaces, the only thing you you got say is: "this is not the freedom God gave us". Since all humans are born with this God given right, that alone should demolish any argument someone could present to you.

I admire the ways of ancient peoples, like the taliban, or the orientals that hold tight to their roots. But many are excesses and well beyond reason and hurt what God gave it to us. So, again I'm sorry for the deceiving.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 16, 2013, 07:14:29 AM
Bla, I'm sorry to you if I offended you in our talks. I was trying to make a point, that's all. I've played the devils advocate and defended some ideals that I don't agree with, just to boost this and force people to read, well it worked. Controversy is like a social magnet. Better to be pullen by these things, than what team is best, or what actor is on, or the usual useless trivia.
No problem, and I wasn't offended by what you wrote. I didn't have the impression that you actually were anti-gay. Anyway it is good to see that you're so open-minded that you can recognize being wrong, that's not something I see very often on the internet.

Next time, when this surfaces, the only thing you you got say is: "this is not the freedom God gave us". Since all humans are born with this God given right, that alone should demolish any argument someone could present to you.
I disagree, I don't believe any gods exist, and since there's no evidence or any good reason to believe in gods I don't think that would be a very good argument, when you would then additionally would also have to prove that the god somehow gives humans rights.
Anyway... :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 16, 2013, 02:01:42 PM
I do when I am. Really. But is not the case, I was playing the opposition, the devil's advocate. If you said white I would say black, if you said up, I would say down, and so on.

I do believe in many things I've said, but I dont think ppl should be harshly punished for their sexual apetites, unless they infringe upon the physical or mental well being of others, and by proxy the rights of others.

About God, if you don't believe, then you are a minority thru out the centuries. Most ppl do, and is  that majority that paved our ways, our laws etc.  They believed that is a right given by Him.

Vide for ex. the magna carta, which without it the world would be a very very different place.

So you may not believe in God, but you are definitely living in a world under His influence, or if you prefer under the influence of those that do believe, making the frase "God given right" acceptable in any circle, weather ppl believe it or not.

So, using my above example, we have these rights, because of God, or because someone believed in Him. If he is there or not, don't matter. You were given the right because of Him.

I dont know if I making any sense to you on this.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 17, 2013, 02:33:16 AM
About God, if you don't believe, then you are a minority thru out the centuries. Most ppl do, and is  that majority that paved our ways, our laws etc.  They believed that is a right given by Him.
But again you're making the fallacy of judging by where something comes from and not by its content. If no god exists, saying you have a god-given right is not a valid argument, because its premise doesn't exist.

Consider if I said you had a tooth-fairy-given right and said most people throughout history believed in that. But no tooth fairy exists. Then my argument is invalid whether most people believes in it or not, because its premise is wrong.

Like with believing the world was flat, which a majority of people did at some points in time, the majority believing in gods could be just as wrong. Additionally, people have had very different views on the properties of their god, so all people who believe in gods themselves may be a majority in believing in a god, but are still globally a minority in the properties they claim their god(s) have/has. Most people throughout history I don't actually think would agree that LGBT people should be equal to others. That should be evident by the centuries which the christians in Europe spent trying to exterminate them and by the attitudes in many religious countries even today, where anti-gay laws exist in more than 70 countries, and those exist in pretty much all cases because of religious superstition.

Vide for ex. the magna carta, which without it the world would be a very very different place.

So you may not believe in God, but you are definitely living in a world under His influence, or if you prefer under the influence of those that do believe, making the frase "God given right" acceptable in any circle, weather ppl believe it or not.
The fact that people made a piece of legislation which could be based on a belief does not make the belief true, so you cannot say that I live under a god's influence because of that.

As before, if "god-given right" should be considered a valid argument, you must always
a) prove the existence of a god
b) prove that the god grants people the right
Otherwise, some people may accept what you say, just like people may accept you claiming the Earth is flat, but there is still no rational reason to believe what you said is true.

So, using my above example, we have these rights, because of God, or because someone believed in Him. If he is there or not, don't matter. You were given the right because of Him.
I think LGBT rights today exist because LGBT people fought for them for the reason that treating LGBT people as equals increases the well-being of humans.

The main opposition to those rights has historically been religious conservatives who used their beliefs as an excuse to discriminate and oppress LGBT people. While some religious people have doubtlessly contributed to promoting LGBT rights and some of them claim to do so because of their religion, I ultimately think LGBT rights would be much more widely accepted if especially Christianity and Islam did not exist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 17, 2013, 05:52:18 PM
Then get ready to give up all your rights, including the one that spawn the question here, as all those come from laws passed that "exploited" the idea of it.

The fact that you are allowed to express those rights means that the idea behind the law was accepted, and we DO have them because of it, it really has no dependency of what we believe about that idea, not even the possibility that the idea has no real truthful fundament behind it, of course this is valid as long as we keep those  rights.

You are failing to see, for example, that we were given those rights by the same "God" that said that elites have His divine right to rule. It really does not matter if God exists. or if He does, if He did really gave this people His divine permission. Nevertheless we were ruled over n over for countless centuries based on that.

So, "your God given right to be free", is a strong argument as any among the few best ones. Even on the possibility of His non existence we can express those rights.


Oh and LGBT exists today because all other rights exist today, why is that? lol It was a God or if you prefer a god given right. You are "looking" at the cherry on top of the cake while I'm looking at the base of the cake. "30yr" rights are dependent on 1000 yrs ones. And if you keep forgetting why you have the right to request the rights of LGBT you might damage that already fragile power and system structure.

"We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written"

Believe it or not... you are under it!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 17, 2013, 06:18:39 PM
30 year rights are dependent upon centuries of "God-given" oppression. Indeed they are.

Rights are not an idea a scripture had to make up. If a God didn't write/tell that to some human scribe to write, then a human made it up and that means someone else could have come up with it any time down the line as well.

There's not only one chance for every idea ever.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 17, 2013, 07:03:19 PM
Quote
Rights are not an idea a scripture had to make up

Yes they are. Unless you want to live in utopia land, or in the jungle. In utopia you need not to worry about a bit, and in the jungle you can do WHATEVER you want, as long as you can.

In a society you rely on laws. I'm expressing the "good" God given rights, not the "Bad" ones. I just mentioned elites because the source for the rule relies not only on their strength but as on their divine right.

Atheists tend to associate God with only bad things, and that is not without truthful cause in general cases. But is true that some good came out of the idea of it, and if one analyze UNBIASED the whole early existence of men and the late organization of the species societies one might conclude that indeed something good came out of it.

The irony resides in the fact that elites don't make use of that divine right that often and we only rely on it, ie. all the laws derived from common law. This only can mean that... we ARE BEING OWNED!

You cant solve a problem without weeding out it's causes. The oppression you mentioned was not done by me, nor by anyone here. So blaming the church is like blaming the government. No.. you need to blame in the 3rd person. Right now? Your enemies are Obama, the Bushes, Kissinger, brzezinski, ted tuner, people like michael hayden, and of course the CIA, the NSA, etc, the power that control Wall Street, etc, etc, etc.

Want to fix everything? Buy that fight!

------

Or wait for it's conclusion, but you might come out of it with a short straw, in which case will mean that you under estimated your assistance value.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 17, 2013, 07:12:07 PM
Atomic's referring to holy text, not scripture in general. Although, up until very recently, religion was a good force in the world that helped along the development of society. For example, what unl0cker was saying about the taliban was true in the entire Middle East and it was perceived as normal instead of as an extremist group until Islam came around and stated things like that women are humans, not property or fancy, living toys.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 17, 2013, 07:24:48 PM
They did? omg... what a bunch of animals. See this is what I mean!

We go from stage to stage as a species. First we were in the trees, then dang let's go to the floor and walk.
Then we formed little tribes, then came the big ones, and along with it came mass scale tyrants. A concatenation  of power. Then some group said, enough is enough. Then some simple full of loopholes freedom laws were forged, and so on, until (for the us) in 1776 some guys came and say "enough is enough" and gave even more rights to the common man, now with less loopholes.
 
But make no mistake, this 1776 piece of important paper was possible because of that full of loopholes first paper, that in turn was created to give a class of people rights that came from.. yeah you guessed correctly, God, or god, or some liar saying his god, or that he saw god.

It doesn't matter if God or god, or john pepperwood gave the right, I have it now, and I WONT BE GIVING IT BACK! Plus, I'll continue saying GOD GAVE IT TO ME! Because the background of my right is based on that. And if I say that God does not exists, some one might come along and say, you have no rights, this means nothing.


Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 17, 2013, 07:30:09 PM
Religion served its purpose thousands of years ago when survival was priority. A societal structure could have easily developed itself without it. Humans are bright creatures.

It doesn't matter if God or god, or john pepperwood gave the right, I have it now, and I WONT BE GIVING IT BACK! Plus, I'll continue saying GOD GAVE IT TO ME! Because the background of my right is based on that.
So, since it doesn't matter, you will continue to claim that it does.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 17, 2013, 07:47:57 PM
Quote
So, since it doesn't matter, you will continue to claim that it does.

So we gonna play semantics now? hehe you sure of this? :=)

Anyway, it does not matter if he did or did not gave, but the substance of it is, or at least was dependent on the idea he did. Because of that I will.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 17, 2013, 08:10:22 PM
All we have are laws/governments/treaties to give us rights. We can't determine them ourselves, and no god can determine them for us. They are only relevant in the eyes of who has the power.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 17, 2013, 10:21:53 PM
Now you are contradicting yourself. What are  laws/governments/treaties but scriptures?

You are making a blind eye to the fact that those three are dependent on ancient common laws to exist as they do.
And this common law is in turn "dependent" on a God, as was written. So If I say there is no God, the other one may say then this common law is void. If this common law giver of freedoms for 1000 yrs and harborer other child laws is void, you can forget about equality. We are back to feudal system "laws". Maybe a Cesar? How bout a pharaoh? This is the actual aim of the 0,01% that own your labor. And yes... your labor is owned too!

Yes atomic, you have freedoms based on the concept God gave it to man. Or at least was the excused used, nevertheless, was used and accepted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 17, 2013, 10:31:13 PM
But of course this is all only for show and excuse.

There is no law, but the law of the fittest. Everybody knows, everybody acts upon it, and everybody is hypocrite about it.

Social  darwinism is a reality since men walks on two legs with someone at his side, right?! In fact we do have laws just because of this, otherwise we won't need them.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 18, 2013, 04:32:57 AM
Then get ready to give up all your rights, including the one that spawn the question here, as all those come from laws passed that "exploited" the idea of it.
Let me quote myself:

I disagree, I don't believe any gods exist, and since there's no evidence or any good reason to believe in gods I don't think that would be a very good argument, when you would then additionally would also have to prove that the god somehow gives humans rights.

You fail to see that the reason why the rights exist as a concept people agree with is not what I'm considering here, what I'm considering is the validity of the rights.
If your god said the world was round, I still would not confront someone claiming the world was flat by saying "but my god tell me the world is round". I would point to the evidence that the Earth is in fact round. If most people had historically believed the Earth was round based on what your god said, that's irrelevant to me, because it's not a rational reason to do so.

So no, I do not have to give up all my rights. I think the best way to decide which rights should be granted and which shouldn't is to discuss and consider them, whether they will improve our lives, rather than basing them on a religious text.

The fact that you are allowed to express those rights means that the idea behind the law was accepted, and we DO have them because of it, it really has no dependency of what we believe about that idea, not even the possibility that the idea has no real truthful fundament behind it, of course this is valid as long as we keep those  rights.

You are failing to see, for example, that we were given those rights by the same "God" that said that elites have His divine right to rule. It really does not matter if God exists. or if He does, if He did really gave this people His divine permission. Nevertheless we were ruled over n over for countless centuries based on that.

So, "your God given right to be free", is a strong argument as any among the few best ones. Even on the possibility of His non existence we can express those rights.
If you say you have a right because the tooth fairy gave it to you, your argument collapses if the tooth fairy does not exist. The fact that most other people believe in the tooth fairy or base laws on their delusions makes no difference to this fact. Again because I am trying to convince people of the validity of the right I claim people have, and not of its origin. Just like in our previous discussion, the origin of an idea is still irrelevant to whether it's true or not.

Also, your argument is additionally based on the fact that I agree with the laws based on the god beliefs.
Most of the centuries you speak of, there actually existed "sodomy laws" based on verses such as Leviticus 20:13, and there was death penalty for gays just like what some of the christians from USA are trying to implement in Uganda today, and which already exists in a few countries. Now here's a law I no longer agree with. If someone comes to me and says it exists because it's their god's will, you should be able to see why I can't take that as a serious argument. For the exact same reason why I wouldn't take it as a serious argument if you found a law I agreed with. The god-part simply does not make the law reasonable, no matter how many people share the false belief it's based on.

Oh and LGBT exists today because all other rights exist today, why is that?
This statement makes no sense to me, please explain.

lol It was a God or if you prefer a god given right. You are "looking" at the cherry on top of the cake while I'm looking at the base of the cake.
If the right is the cake, I am discussing whether the cake is delicious, and you are confusing whether it's delicious for why it exists.
You tell me Santa Claus dropped the recipe for the cake down the chimney 2000 years ago is the reason I should use for it being delicious, the problem is, the recipe of the cake could be invented by anybody, there's no evidence Santa Claus existed, and saying he made the cake does not make the cake delicious, as evident in all the disgusting food that millions of people have been intoxicated, killed and harmed by all over the christian world ever since he dropped the Leviticus 20:13 recipe.

"30yr" rights are dependent on 1000 yrs ones. And if you keep forgetting why you have the right to request the rights of LGBT you might damage that already fragile power and system structure.
Again nonsense, the validity of LGBT rights depends on whether LGBT rights improve our lives, the right to ask for them depends on whether it improves our lives to allow free discussion, not on whether people decided to grant any specific rights 1000 years ago, whether those rights may improve our lives as well or not. (It will make the discussion easier if you specify which rights you mean, because human rights have had an extremely turbulent history over the past 1000 years and had been very different in different parts of the world, and I would say the state of human rights in the christian-dominated world has been disasterous for the vast majority of its history - an certainly to a degree because the christian ideology dominated their thinking so much when writing the laws)

Quote
Rights are not an idea a scripture had to make up
Yes they are. Unless you want to live in utopia land, or in the jungle. In utopia you need not to worry about a bit, and in the jungle you can do WHATEVER you want, as long as you can.
No, and the reason becomes clear when you realize the religious texts aren't true. If they aren't true, the people who made them were simply mortal humans like everybody else, with the same capabilities of reasoning as everybody else. If they could come up with the laws they wrote, there is no rational reason why anybody else couldn't make them as well. And this means rights can be discussed, and when we can discuss rights, we can improve them further, which is the reason why human rights have actually advanced over the past 2000 years and haven't been stuck in a religious stone-age mentality forever.

Atheists tend to associate God with only bad things, and that is not without truthful cause in general cases. But is true that some good came out of the idea of it, and if one analyze UNBIASED the whole early existence of men and the late organization of the species societies one might conclude that indeed something good came out of it.
The problem is that the good things are based on a lie, so let's just take away the lie and keep doing the good things and abandon the bad things we do because of the lie.

You cant solve a problem without weeding out it's causes. The oppression you mentioned was not done by me, nor by anyone here. So blaming the church is like blaming the government.
The oppression existed because of religious texts such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus... Had they not existed or if they weren't taken serious by people, you would need to find entirely different reasons to oppress people. Of course you can make up other reasons, but this doesn't have to happen, in Ancient Greece or the majority of other societies in fact those oppressive (of gay people) ideas based on the Bible did not emerge. Blaming christianity and the church for the oppression should be as straightforward as blaming nazism for the attempted extermination of jews and gays in the last century, you can invent reasons outside nazism, but without nazism (and christianity which nazism was highly inspired by), it probably would not have happened.

But that is obviously not the same as blaming you or anybody else here, since you had no power to change what happened before your existence. All I'm hoping now is just to convince people to avoid those ideas in the future, so these horrible things won't happen again.

It doesn't matter if God or god, or john pepperwood gave the right, I have it now, and I WONT BE GIVING IT BACK! Plus, I'll continue saying GOD GAVE IT TO ME! Because the background of my right is based on that. And if I say that God does not exists, some one might come along and say, you have no rights, this means nothing.
Why are you afraid they might question your rights? Why not just tell them why the rights you claim to have are actully a good thing instead of using that flimsy reason that they were invented by a god? What would you respond if someone told you a smurf had given you all your rights and therefore you shouldn't question them?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 18, 2013, 08:15:55 AM
fuck this stupid cookie system. If you want to discuss this further we can do it by email or over the irc.

3rd time this fcking site empty my reply. FACK! faaaaaaaaaaaack! I'm mad now.

Let me know and I'll send ya my email. Or you can chk the profile as you are admin here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 18, 2013, 08:51:29 AM
Since ur logged in and you did not reply to the above, nor my pvtmsg, I guess not.

Then I conclude that what you want to merely to disprove God's existence and to validade your right to be sexual the way you want.

But in the end, im right, ur wrong. ;) How about that for a short answer  cookie sack of crap!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 18, 2013, 09:54:41 AM
fuck this stupid cookie system. If you want to discuss this further we can do it by email or over the irc.

3rd time this fcking site empty my reply. FACK! faaaaaaaaaaaack! I'm mad now.

Let me know and I'll send ya my email. Or you can chk the profile as you are admin here.
Since ur logged in and you did not reply to the above, nor my pvtmsg, I guess not.

Then I conclude that what you want to merely to disprove God's existence and to validade your right to be sexual the way you want.

But in the end, im right, ur wrong. ;) How about that for a short answer  cookie sack of crap!
I'm often online on this forum while doing other things, I was playing Minecraft so I didn't see your message.

So if your conclusion is based on that it should be answered already.

You suggested that I used an argument which has a premise I don't accept, and say I should use it anyway. That is what I'm arguing against here.
As for disproving your god's existence, that would be like trying to disprove the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster - impossible, until you start defining in a way so that it has an effect on reality (created universe 6,000 years ago, hates shrimps/mixed clothes, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, burns magic patterns in toast, etc.). However the burden of proof lies on you to prove such a thing exists if you claim it does. But, you say that even if I disproved your god, the argument you wrote would apply anyway, so that issue doesn't even matter here.
As for discussing LGBT rights, this discussion actully started because you told me to use an argument for that which I said was invalid. So it's not really the issue here.

I think discussions are boring when nobody else can see them, so if you want to discuss over email, I'll do it if you let me post the further discussion in this thread. :b
If you want to avoid the cookie problems I would suggest simply copying the entire message before pressing preview or post, or typing it in a document you can save.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 18, 2013, 10:23:59 AM
I keep forgetting it! and is REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALY annoying to lose 70 lines of ideas.

No problem then. Ill email it to you, and you post in full.

Expect the reply to your latest post today then. But later... I just had lunch, I feel like taking a long nap now. :P

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on August 22, 2013, 04:26:41 AM
http://www.prlog.org/12197263-gay-to-straight-program-to-be-used-in-all-arizona-public-school-curriculums-beginning-november-1st.html (http://www.prlog.org/12197263-gay-to-straight-program-to-be-used-in-all-arizona-public-school-curriculums-beginning-november-1st.html)

what the Christ
read what the sherrif says; he links homosexuality to child abduction claiming that gays are responsible for about 80% of abductions.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 22, 2013, 09:01:46 PM
"The requested press release was not found. It might have been removed or just temporarily unavailable."

either lawsuit or fake story
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 23, 2013, 05:53:10 PM
I have not heard anything about it so...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: deoxy99 on August 23, 2013, 07:31:20 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/gaytostraight.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/gaytostraight.asp) ...

Inb4 'snopes is inaccurate.' :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on August 24, 2013, 08:43:04 AM
sorry im stupid
It did look like something a state would actually try to pull of though
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 24, 2013, 10:58:55 AM
You have Arizonans here to help you!!! :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 26, 2013, 10:50:07 PM
Ok, so today Darvince posted this link (http://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1l3hcm/what_the_us_economy_is_missing_jobs_in_the_middle/cbvvguj) to IRC

<Darvince> kolkute
<Kalassak> yes
<Kalassak> that actually makes sense
<Kalassak> it's bla's concept basically
<Kalassak> people work on science (i add on or whatever their passion is) and the robots do all the automated work
<Kalassak> if we can get this into people's heads
<Kalassak> we can like
<Kalassak> yeah
<Darvince> zarazahw to sum up that: as societal automation increases, the necessity of having a paying job becomes sillier and sillier
<Zarazahw> oh ok
<Kalassak> as i summed it up to my mom:
<Kalassak> technology is improving faster than society is willing to change it's views
<Kalassak> a technological component is replacing a once human responsibility and society is saying everyone is getting "lazier and lazier" when in reality, they are expecting humans to continue to preside in the space technology has already and will continue to take over
<Kalassak> but there's no room
<Kalassak> and there doesn't need to be

<Zarazahw> well said
<Darvince> imgur.com/a/oezZm how is this going to work
<Darvince> oops
<Darvince> http://imgur.com/a/oezZm (http://imgur.com/a/oezZm) how is this going to work
<Kalassak> it won't
<Kalassak> i love the fact that the main functions of our society are about ready to break down and people aren't ready to face the issues
<Kalassak> ah but we will
<Kalassak> honestly now that i think about it i have a more positive view
<Darvince> kol
<Kalassak> when there's work to be done
<Kalassak> it will get done
<Kalassak> no matter what
<Kalassak> this does not apply to school work
<Darvince> lol

it's not an economic issue it's a societal acceptance issue
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yqt1001 on August 26, 2013, 11:56:19 PM
Technology creates jobs at about the same rate as automation would replace them. 200 years ago there were a lot more basketweavers then programmers. We found a way to efficiently automate basketweaving, just like we will eventually automate programming. The huge information industry is really young and has replaced a lot of the jobs we have automated, 30 years ago I doubt most people would be thinking about what smartphone apps they were going to play. Now smartphone app developing is huge.

There is no point in saying "oh we will automate things and no one will have jobs", because as technology advances the more jobs that are available. Burgeoning new fields like nanotech or space or whatever, we have no idea when they will take off and represent huge segments of our economies, but they will. With them will be millions of jobs to replace the ones we are automating.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 27, 2013, 05:57:11 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '110189'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 27, 2013, 06:12:17 AM
There is no point in saying "oh we will automate things and no one will have jobs", because as technology advances the more jobs that are available. Burgeoning new fields like nanotech or space or whatever, we have no idea when they will take off and represent huge segments of our economies, but they will. With them will be millions of jobs to replace the ones we are automating.
Sounds like people will be forced into high skill jobs they aren't interested in, as opposed to low skill.

I honestly don't think you can say "some jobs are created and some are destroyed" as if there's some conservation of job quantity. The skills required will change and the amount of jobs needed will more than likely decrease, and you can't trust that the "job creators" will be there to create jobs willy-nilly for people who need them to live. Society needs to change it's view on that jobs aren't actually mandatory to keep you alive and just deal with it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yqt1001 on August 27, 2013, 07:21:42 AM
Sounds like people will be forced into high skill jobs they aren't interested in, as opposed to low skill.

I honestly don't think you can say "some jobs are created and some are destroyed" as if there's some conservation of job quantity. The skills required will change and the amount of jobs needed will more than likely decrease, and you can't trust that the "job creators" will be there to create jobs willy-nilly for people who need them to live. Society needs to change it's view on that jobs aren't actually mandatory to keep you alive and just deal with it.

You'll still need the grunt labourers, even if it is as simple as the space industries version of ramp workers and TSA members. However, it's true that there can be a concern about automation replacing everyone's jobs, but at the same time it would be a very gradual process to automate every position of massive job positions (service industry ones, remaining manufacturing ones etc) and I think we would be able to evolve over time. It won't be a switch "oh we have no jobs for everyone, whoops", I think we'll have the time to react and evolve before we hit that point.



Side point, any opinions on Syrian intervention? Personally I hate it and it makes no sense and will simply send another country into a century of civil war and poverty. No one in governments seem to care though, whatever.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 27, 2013, 08:23:10 AM
Instead of looking at whether technologies creates/replaces jobs, look at the human functions they replace. Technology may be creating as many new jobs as it is making obsolete, but there's no reason why this should continue to happen forever. Because at the same time, technology is replacing more and more human functions, machines can lift things better than humans etc. If this progress continues, one day all human productive functions will become obsolete because of more efficient robots, AIs and computers.

I don't see any reason to think we would then simply be granted eternal spare time at that point under capitalism though, jobs in capitalism are not rationally planned, but are created by chaotic market forces which have little connection to what improves our lives the most. Actually I think the opposite is likely to happen: If technology becomes able to replace every human function, humans will be forced to compete with the machines in all jobs, and in the end the only factor they can compete in will be "wages". If human labor is too expensive, people will lose their jobs, the price on human labor will then fall, until they become cheaper than the alternative machines again. And if machines become more and more efficient and cheaper all the time, human labor will have to do the same.

But as wages fall, demand on the goods people buy fall as well, which would make production fall, resulting in even less workers being needed, and thus even more losing their jobs, continuing the bad circle. So if this is how the future would be, it most likely result in an economic crisis, if Earth is still capitalist by then.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 27, 2013, 03:20:06 PM
which would result in revolutions and voilà no more dirty money grubbing rich assholes
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on August 27, 2013, 03:57:47 PM
Instead of looking at whether technologies creates/replaces jobs, look at the human functions they replace. Technology may be creating as many new jobs as it is making obsolete, but there's no reason why this should continue to happen forever. Because at the same time, technology is replacing more and more human functions, machines can lift things better than humans etc. If this progress continues, one day all human productive functions will become obsolete because of more efficient robots, AIs and computers.

I don't see any reason to think we would then simply be granted eternal spare time at that point under capitalism though, jobs in capitalism are not rationally planned, but are created by chaotic market forces which have little connection to what improves our lives the most. Actually I think the opposite is likely to happen: If technology becomes able to replace every human function, humans will be forced to compete with the machines in all jobs, and in the end the only factor they can compete in will be "wages". If human labor is too expensive, people will lose their jobs, the price on human labor will then fall, until they become cheaper than the alternative machines again. And if machines become more and more efficient and cheaper all the time, human labor will have to do the same.

But as wages fall, demand on the goods people buy fall as well, which would make production fall, resulting in even less workers being needed, and thus even more losing their jobs, continuing the bad circle. So if this is how the future would be, it most likely result in an economic crisis, if Earth is still capitalist by then.
By the time that happens I think most of the common economic systems will be as outdated as feudalism is today. Honestly I think that people will look back and say "ha silly people...capitalism and communism are so stupid and ________ is a lot better for everyone." I don't see only technology getting better, I see all areas of life and politics improving as well.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 27, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
Side point, any opinions on Syrian intervention? Personally I hate it and it makes no sense and will simply send another country into a century of civil war and poverty. No one in governments seem to care though, whatever.

 I rarely jump into discussions of any sort, so I am going to actually try to be interested in sharing my opinions. (I hate the bad things that go on around the world; too much to fucking worry about. I am sorry but I don't have any interest in any news involving people.)
 If the U.S. is in Syria to stop the fucking chemical warfare that is going on, by all means stop them. Though, a part of me says "This is a conflict between the people of Syria and their leader. Let THEM deal with it. So, at this point, I have mixed feelings. I just feel that no one should intervene in their conflicts unless if someone requests any help. That is how I feel.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 27, 2013, 07:52:39 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '110212'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 27, 2013, 08:04:28 PM
I feel that we should conquer Syria and then let Israel annex it in order to form the new holy Christian order
wtf no
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 27, 2013, 08:05:23 PM
You have spent a year on a highly sarcastic forum; how are you unable to detect it yet?!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 27, 2013, 08:11:37 PM
this is the politics thread
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 27, 2013, 08:19:40 PM
this is the politics thread
Yeah, it was a bit confusing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 28, 2013, 12:06:52 AM
By the time that happens I think most of the common economic systems will be as outdated as feudalism is today. Honestly I think that people will look back and say "ha silly people...capitalism and communism are so stupid and ________ is a lot better for everyone." I don't see only technology getting better, I see all areas of life and politics improving as well.
I don't see how that would make communism outdated. Communism is exactly a future vision of the perfect society. If all areas of life are going to improve, I think that would exactly involve a society where distribution is based on need.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on August 28, 2013, 07:16:22 AM
You know after all this I dont know what communism is
Don't tell me I'm on Wikipedia
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on August 28, 2013, 07:22:49 AM
Scratch that give me a totally understandably explanation Wikipedia to complicated
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yqt1001 on August 28, 2013, 08:03:00 AM
By the time that happens I think most of the common economic systems will be as outdated as feudalism is today. Honestly I think that people will look back and say "ha silly people...capitalism and communism are so stupid and ________ is a lot better for everyone." I don't see only technology getting better, I see all areas of life and politics improving as well.
I don't see how that would make communism outdated. Communism is exactly a future vision of the perfect society. If all areas of life are going to improve, I think that would exactly involve a society where distribution is based on need.

TMC has a pretty good point about how our economies could change to some pretty crazy ways as time goes on and all the current economic systems just fading away and becoming part of the crazy path of human history.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 28, 2013, 03:05:40 PM
By the time that happens I think most of the common economic systems will be as outdated as feudalism is today. Honestly I think that people will look back and say "ha silly people...capitalism and communism are so stupid and ________ is a lot better for everyone." I don't see only technology getting better, I see all areas of life and politics improving as well.
I don't see how that would make communism outdated. Communism is exactly a future vision of the perfect society. If all areas of life are going to improve, I think that would exactly involve a society where distribution is based on need.
You're communist I get it, but not every country will probably want to become communist now, and in the future. Look at Murica for example.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on August 28, 2013, 03:17:21 PM
By the time that happens I think most of the common economic systems will be as outdated as feudalism is today. Honestly I think that people will look back and say "ha silly people...capitalism and communism are so stupid and ________ is a lot better for everyone." I don't see only technology getting better, I see all areas of life and politics improving as well.
I don't see how that would make communism outdated. Communism is exactly a future vision of the perfect society. If all areas of life are going to improve, I think that would exactly involve a society where distribution is based on need.

To be quite honest there is a flaw with everything. I'm not saying that the new economic system would be completely different. Communism ain't perfect-it is a hell of a lot better than a lot of people give it credit for- but it isn't perfect by a long shot. There are always areas that can be improved.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 28, 2013, 03:24:35 PM
You're communist I get it, but not every country will probably want to become communist now, and in the future. Look at Murica for example.
does any country honestly

There should be some international group that regulates the ideologies of countries and sections off nationless plots of land rather than letting everyone decide this crap themselves (or lack thereof)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 28, 2013, 05:59:39 PM
I've promised myself I would not post in this topic again, as apparently it leads to no substancial evolution of one being.

But... I;m gonna break that...

Quote
Communism ain't perfect-it is a hell of a lot better than a lot of people give it credit for- but it isn't perfect by a long shot.

Are you mad? A lot better? hahahahaha

Communism under:

Mao: 70+ million dead

The 3 devils (trotsky stalin lenin) 50+ million dead, mostly under the victorious stalin.

Cuba same...

Romania same..

Bulgaria the same...

Czech Republic guess? same!

Hungary same...

Poland same..

Romania that was fun... same

Slovakia even funnier, same...

Albania looks mild but was not, same...

Bosnia and Herzegovina wow here was a party... same

Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Mozambique same same same ... SAME!


Yeah, communism is GREAT to depopulate the planet. Oh and to aggregate power and riches  under one or maybe two heads.


!!!People Do Not Read!!!

And that was it for it. Bailing out. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 28, 2013, 06:09:58 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '110246'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 28, 2013, 06:17:18 PM
Ohhh, sorry then!!!  I just read that one quote. So he's talking about utopia?

Well we discussed that, I mean, me and Bla.

Marx and Engels as in Adam's garden... all nice cozy and warm.

There is no utopia   -> .

If I have to render myself useless politically, I rather do that to Plato's philosopher king.



Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on August 28, 2013, 06:37:29 PM
In utopia, communism is the BEST
Like even wih the dents there's at leat 500 amries per urn
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on August 28, 2013, 08:37:15 PM
I've promised myself I would not post in this topic again, as apparently it leads to no substancial evolution of one being.

But... I;m gonna break that...

Quote
Communism ain't perfect-it is a hell of a lot better than a lot of people give it credit for- but it isn't perfect by a long shot.

Are you mad? A lot better? hahahahaha

Communism under:

Mao: 70+ million dead

The 3 devils (trotsky stalin lenin) 50+ million dead, mostly under the victorious stalin.

Cuba same...

Romania same..

Bulgaria the same...

Czech Republic guess? same!

Hungary same...

Poland same..

Romania that was fun... same

Slovakia even funnier, same...

Albania looks mild but was not, same...

Bosnia and Herzegovina wow here was a party... same

Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Mozambique same same same ... SAME!


Yeah, communism is GREAT to depopulate the planet. Oh and to aggregate power and riches  under one or maybe two heads.


!!!People Do Not Read!!!

And that was it for it. Bailing out. :P

That's hardly fair. You can point fingers at any system in anytime and be like "hey a crapload of people died." Most if not all of those deaths was not the fault of communism but rather the fault of the people in charge. Many wouldn't even consider those to be true communistic examples-they were not executed as they should have been. Communism seems to be this thing that everyone is so sure is worse than the devil while in reality it is not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on August 28, 2013, 08:38:54 PM
Ohhh, sorry then!!!  I just read that one quote. So he's talking about utopia?

Well we discussed that, I mean, me and Bla.

Marx and Engels as in Adam's garden... all nice cozy and warm.

There is no utopia   -> .
The only "communism" that has ever been instituted was dictatorial or oligarchic, most were the former and just an excuse to rally the masses and get into power. Communism is a stateless ideology, there is no government, so rather we shall phrase and understand the next sentence differently. Socialism has as of yet to be tried in a democratic or a republican forum, and both would fit so much better with the whole premise anyway.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 29, 2013, 10:26:42 AM
I understand that. Perfectly in fact as I've read the manifesto a few times over the years.

Nevertheless is a dream, an utopia, that will never flourish as long as human beings are human beings.

So, we are back at it. Socialism, Communism, are nothing but masked excuse for Fascism, which is the union of the Plutocratic "masses" with the government, and ALWAYS leads to the suffering of all, but a few chosen ones.

Which is in fact the (very old) trend of telling one exactly the oposite of what one purpose is. Like:

- United Nations focus on ending Nations... not uniting them,
- Dept. of Defense aims at making ostensive war, not defending one'S nation,
- Federal Reserve aims at removing all reserves from the federal government, and therefore from the masses.
- Dept of Homeland Security aims not at security, but at controlling and oppressing those that are suposed to be secure.
- Charities aims not at giving, but at "receiving".
- Augustus loved, in fact WANTED to be called princeps (first citizen), when in fact he was a tyrant.

These are a few of many many more "insane" examples.

History - Repeats - Itself

Why? Because people's deepest nature do not change, what does change are the toys we use.

Karl Marx was at best a dreamer, the owner of an impossible idea. And people hijacked his (good) idea and are using to oppress and control nations all over. Don't get me wrong, if you presented me with a magic button where it reads "Press to Socialize the World as it was meant to be" I would press it like 50 times, just to be sure. It is a wonderful idea, but a impossible one. That's for SURE!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 29, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
You're communist I get it, but not every country will probably want to become communist now, and in the future. Look at Murica for example.
A country could want to send 80% of its population to jail and torture them, and gather 90% of the wealth among 1% of the people. But it would not make no difference to whether communism would become an outdated vision in the future or not.

Anyway I think it was wrong of me to say communism is a vision of a perfect society. I think it is the best vision of a future society we have and that the "perfect" society would certainly be similar to communism, in that it would be classless and moneyless, and certainly nothing like capitalism.

I've promised myself I would not post in this topic again, as apparently it leads to no substancial evolution of one being.
You told me 11 days ago you expected to reply to my argument in an email the same day, I still haven't received any reply. Anyway if you want to start another argument, let's go.

Quote
Communism ain't perfect-it is a hell of a lot better than a lot of people give it credit for- but it isn't perfect by a long shot.

Are you mad? A lot better? hahahahaha

Communism under:

Mao: 70+ million dead

The 3 devils (trotsky stalin lenin) 50+ million dead, mostly under the victorious stalin.

Cuba same...

Romania same..

Bulgaria the same...

Czech Republic guess? same!

Hungary same...

Poland same..

Romania that was fun... same

Slovakia even funnier, same...

Albania looks mild but was not, same...

Bosnia and Herzegovina wow here was a party... same

Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Mozambique same same same ... SAME!

Yeah, communism is GREAT to depopulate the planet. Oh and to aggregate power and riches  under one or maybe two heads.
None of those countries ever achieved communism, most of them were socialist, ruled by a communist party.

So if anything the death count would be related to the economic system of socialism and not communism.
But it turns out that the millions of people killed in most of those cases have been victims of political repression and targeted for other reasons which are not a result of the economic system. Some have also died from famine, which you could consider whether are socialism's fault. But all the countries were in a poor state to begin with - most of them devastated by World War 2 for example, their history explains many of the troubles they've had, and some socialist economies managed to thrive and grow at times despite the constant arms race and sometimes armed interventions from capitalist countries which have always been much richer.

And speaking of depopulating the planet, you might want to take a look at the millions of people who have starved to death after the counterrevolution in USSR.
(http://i.imgdiode.com/GtUsF5.png)

At last, you should really include sources for the things you claim. I'm not saying all your figures are incorrect, but you make a lot of claims that you do not back up with any evidence.

but that was arguably stalin's strange corrupt version of communism, the communism bla is talking about has not ever been tried I think
See above. It is not the issue here whether he was a communist or not, or whether I think his ideas were corrupted - what matters is the society he was in charge of and that wasn't communist.

Ohhh, sorry then!!!  I just read that one quote. So he's talking about utopia?

Well we discussed that, I mean, me and Bla.

Marx and Engels as in Adam's garden... all nice cozy and warm.

There is no utopia   -> .
Communism is a utopia in the sense that it has very desirable qualities, yes - I can agree with that.
So your argument is essentially that an utopia, such as the vision of communism, does not exist. I can agree.
...But that doesn't mean it can't exist - such as in the future, which was what we were discussing, when technology gives us new possibilities. I can understand why many people do not think communism is possible on a large scale today.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 29, 2013, 11:49:36 AM
Quote
You told me 11 days ago you expected to reply to my argument in an email the same day, I still haven't received any reply. Anyway if you want to start another argument, let's go.

Our discussion was getting nowhere, as you failed to recognize you were wrong when you were wrong! Sorry but there is no point in discussing with a "wall". If you find a loophole in my "expressions" like I did with yours, I'll accept and try to argument over that. But to say an elephant is a dog, when I just prove that it's weight is outside of the dogs weight boundaries, is a no no, it's what is called useless discussion. So I lost my apetite for the topic and kinda gave up...

The "problem" with gay people and their hate for God and religion is in my opinion based on the fact these stupid religions prosecuted their layer of society to the maximum possible extent. Therefore "if the pope, mohammed, and God hate me, I'll hate them back." That's what's going on. Is the same with "African Americas". African Americans? GTFOH stupid dumb f%$#. Do you see caucasian people calling themselves European Americans? Or Italians calling themselves Greek Italians? Idiotic! Divide and conquer! YOU ARE ALL AMERICANS!

Same division of waters with the gay fellas. And the media hypes that. And ppl buy.

And when you people talk about 1%... wtf can't you guys do math? It is WAY less than that. 1% of 6Bi is 60 Millions. No... 90% of the wealth is held by at **most** 50k ppl. That makes 90% of the wealth on the hand of 0,00001%. And that is the reality... and people fight over what? Who's the enemy? Wake the hell up guys!

Quote
None of those countries ever achieved communism, most of them were socialist, ruled by a communist party.

None will ever... it is an UTOPIA. By the time we get to the state of mind/being/elevation required to archive what the manifesto states, I rather go with another utopian system. One in which bright intelligent for practical matters minds lead, and the rest follows, which is what Plato suggested as perfect system (also an utopia).


Quote
So if anything the death count would be related to the economic system of socialism and not communism.

ERRRRR Wrong. Bullets to the back of the head, gulag atrocities, ethical cleansing ARE not economical problems. These are the product of totalitarian systems.

Charts are, as Al Gore knows, as precise as the data AND the presentation they have. Showing me  population grown charts doesn't wipe anything from my head other than shrinking of population numbers.

You GOTTA understand that, ALL socialist communist fascist regims were backed financially by  western nations, including the US. Hell, England practically MADE russia. What does this tell you? No need to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to see what's going on here.

About the evidence, showing me a chart is not evidence. I won't back anything up for you! No you won't get that easy. Go research and you'll find it. Just like I did. IT IS IMPERATIVE YOU DO!

If you ask for evidence, having the means of getting it yourself, then it is just like TV: This or that?! Now if you go find for yourself, you'll end up wondering about this, that, those, here, up, down, big, small, that too, and this too, and maybe that one too. Makes the synapse in your brain go wild, the way it should be!

Or, you might choose between this or that and start to jumping so that 0,00001% can sleep.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 29, 2013, 12:06:58 PM
I get lost in your long replies.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 29, 2013, 12:16:20 PM
Hey Tut's,

Considering is not sarcasm, where exactly did you got lost?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 29, 2013, 12:20:40 PM
Hey Tut's,

Considering is not sarcasm, where exactly did you got lost?
Hi.
Generally I get bored (No offense) after the first paragraph, so I don't really know where I get lost.
I also skim read.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 29, 2013, 12:38:20 PM
Perfectly normal and understandable Tuto.

After all, you are just a kid. You ARE 100 times better than me when I was your age. Do not underestimate yourself.

I'd say that if you are skim reading and at the same time getting bored after the first paragraph, then is right there were you are getting lost. :P

In a few, I said that communism is impossible because it relies on everyone to be at their very best morals. If a little group in this impossibly good society becomes "rogue" the whole system is doomed to fail. Considering today's world, and yesterdays too, this is impossible. Even for a small society of say a few thousand people.

Communism is a regim that could work IF everyone was morally Jesus like. No one I know is not even close to that. (doesn't matter if he Jesus was real or not, I'm using the idea of the morals he suposed to have as a framework)

So, this is what I said.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 29, 2013, 12:47:20 PM
Perfectly normal and understandable Tuto.

After all, you are just a kid. You ARE 100 times better than me when I was your age. Do not underestimate yourself.

I'd say that if you are skim reading and at the same time getting bored after the first paragraph, then is right there were you are getting lost. :P

In a few, I said that communism is impossible because it relies on everyone to be at their very best morals. If a little group in this impossibly good society becomes "rogue" the whole system is doomed to fail. Considering today's world, and yesterdays too, this is impossible. Even for a small society of say a few thousand people.

Communism is a regim that could work IF everyone was morally Jesus like. No one I know is not even close to that. (doesn't matter if he Jesus was real or not, I'm using the idea of the morals he suposed to have as a framework)

So, this is what I said.
:D Thanks.
So, what makes communism impossible to achieve with that group of demoralized people?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on August 29, 2013, 01:01:01 PM
Because at it's core a communist regim tries to "balance" classes. More like an abolition of classes if you will. Now tell me if this is possible.

And I'll edit this because I just had an epiphany about it.

I'd say... I'd say communism is an utopia because to archive it, a nation must first have  a tyrant to implement it, then, after all pieces are in place and working, the tyrant must step down and join the "uniclass".

Well, they always forget about this last phase uh?! And the whole "uniclass" thing goes down the drain.

Want to reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaly create a communism regim? Abolish all sorts of money first. No need for it in this regim. Right?!

Is there any money in it? Not communism as the book prays then, just tyrants at their "best".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 30, 2013, 09:13:37 AM
Quote
You told me 11 days ago you expected to reply to my argument in an email the same day, I still haven't received any reply. Anyway if you want to start another argument, let's go.
Our discussion was getting nowhere, as you failed to recognize you were wrong when you were wrong!
Then why did you write this below?
Ill email it to you, and you post in full.
Anyway lol, I could say the same. You failed to recognize you were wrong, even though I explained how you were wrong.

If you find a loophole in my "expressions" like I did with yours, I'll accept and try to argument over that.
Your loophole is to claim that it is rational to take an argument serious which has a false premise.

But to say an elephant is a dog, when I just prove that it's weight is outside of the dogs weight boundaries, is a no no, it's what is called useless discussion. So I lost my apetite for the topic and kinda gave up...
That is extremely vague, please explain the symbolic language.

The "problem" with gay people and their hate for God and religion is in my opinion based on the fact these stupid religions prosecuted their layer of society to the maximum possible extent.
I agree, except I don't consider it a problem, although I think you are sadly generalizing too much. But evil religions have done enough harm. They should disappear from the surface of Earth now, we do not need more of this pollution.

And when you people talk about 1%... wtf can't you guys do math? It is WAY less than that. 1% of 6Bi is 60 Millions. No... 90% of the wealth is held by at **most** 50k ppl. That makes 90% of the wealth on the hand of 0,00001%. And that is the reality... and people fight over what? Who's the enemy? Wake the hell up guys!
I find it funny that you say that as an anti-communist. What is your solution to the wealth distribution problem even?
Anyway multiple problems can exist at once, the fact that you can find new problems doesn't mean we should ignore all other problems.

Quote
None of those countries ever achieved communism, most of them were socialist, ruled by a communist party.
None will ever...
Communism under:
[...]
You were the one who said it did.

it is an UTOPIA. By the time we get to the state of mind/being/elevation required to archive what the manifesto states, I rather go with another utopian system. One in which bright intelligent for practical matters minds lead, and the rest follows, which is what Plato suggested as perfect system (also an utopia).
Utopia is a pretty useless concept, because it simply means a very desireable society and is mostly used because of its negative connotations as in, if you call something an utopia, you think per definition that it is impossible to achieve. I wrote that I agreed that communism is an utopia in the sense that it is desireable. Ok, let's move on and stop the name-calling. Formulate some arguments instead of shouting "utopia".

Quote
So if anything the death count would be related to the economic system of socialism and not communism.
ERRRRR Wrong. Bullets to the back of the head, gulag atrocities, ethical cleansing ARE not economical problems. These are the product of totalitarian systems.
My point was that you should put your blame on a socialist economic system and not a communist one if you wanted to blame either for the deaths. I did not claim either. I agree with you that those examples are not economic problems but rather results of bad choices taken by some leaders who had too much power. So I don't put my blame on socialism.

Charts are, as Al Gore knows, as precise as the data AND the presentation they have. Showing me  population grown charts doesn't wipe anything from my head other than shrinking of population numbers.
I'm just giving you an example of where the introduction of capitalism has resulted in millions of deaths. If you want to ignore it, that's completely up to you.

You GOTTA understand that, ALL socialist communist fascist regims were backed financially by  western nations, including the US. Hell, England practically MADE russia. What does this tell you? No need to be the sharpest knife in the drawer to see what's going on here.
This is starting to become so hilarious I'm not even sure where to start. Ok, I'll ask you to show the sources backing up your statements. Specifically showing that all socialist countries, including USSR, were backed by western nations.

About the evidence, showing me a chart is not evidence. I won't back anything up for you! No you won't get that easy. Go research and you'll find it. Just like I did. IT IS IMPERATIVE YOU DO!

If you ask for evidence, having the means of getting it yourself, then it is just like TV: This or that?! Now if you go find for yourself, you'll end up wondering about this, that, those, here, up, down, big, small, that too, and this too, and maybe that one too. Makes the synapse in your brain go wild, the way it should be!
I made the chart based on the source shown at the bottom of it. It links to an Excel spreadsheet which lists all the sources of the data in the first sheet.
Anyway, if you don't take my chart serious, then why do you expect me to take your claims serious when you did nothing but shout some numbers? What if I say 30 million people were killed because of capitalism in USA, 40 million in Canada, 5 million in France, 3 million in Germany? What are you going to do? Go research and find out? You're welcome to, but you simply fail to understand that if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove what you say is correct, nobody else. So when you say those numbers, it's you who has to link to the evidence that shows you are correct. I thought we were discussing at a level above 5th grade elementary school.

I'd say... I'd say communism is an utopia because to archive it, a nation must first have  a tyrant to implement it, then, after all pieces are in place and working, the tyrant must step down and join the "uniclass".
But why should communism require a tyrant to be implemented?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on August 31, 2013, 04:40:09 PM


The "problem" with gay people and their hate for God and religion is in my opinion based on the fact these stupid religions prosecuted their layer of society to the maximum possible extent.
I agree, except I don't consider it a problem, although I think you are sadly generalizing too much. But evil religions have done enough harm. They should disappear from the surface of Earth now, we do not need more of this pollution.


I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on August 31, 2013, 05:12:40 PM
I have always respected anyone that had beliefs that contradicted mine, but there are religious people that are fucked up. Ever heard of the Westboro Church?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on August 31, 2013, 08:41:03 PM
yes, but with all thins you have to take the good with the bad.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 01, 2013, 01:50:59 AM
I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.
I know most religious people aren't evil, I didn't mean to say that. My point is just that some religious ideologies are evil, such as christianity with the deuteronomy and leviticus laws. People who believe in for example Leviticus 20:13, which states gays should be killed, in my opinion do not deserve any respect. A religion which gives no respect can't expect to get any in return. Most people I know don't take Leviticus 20:13 seriously anymore, but the verse will always exist in the Bible, and there is always a threat that people will take it seriously again, like they've done for thousands of years in the past, and which many people still do in non-western, christian countries. I want this threat to disappear, the sooner the better.

As for hope, I don't see anything wrong in risking taking that away. If some people find hope in something which is untrue, that shouldn't hold me back from pointing out that they're wrong. It's their own problem if they find hope in false beliefs - now move on and find hope in the real world. :) Or whatever. I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that. I think it would be sad for people to live an entire life where their only hope is to get a good afterlife, I think they could live a much better life on Earth if they would focus on their life on Earth instead of an afterlife which doesn't exist. But in the end I would never want to treat people differently simply because they believed in an afterlife. I just don't hold myself back from discussing the ideas.
But if their ideas involve not considering me as an equal human being for the way I am, then they can absolutely say goodbye to all respect from me.

Instead of taking the good with the bad, I think you should consider whether the good outweighs the bad. I don't think it does that in the case of christianity at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on September 02, 2013, 10:38:24 AM
I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.
I know most religious people aren't evil, I didn't mean to say that. My point is just that some religious ideologies are evil, such as christianity with the deuteronomy and leviticus laws. People who believe in for example Leviticus 20:13, which states gays should be killed, in my opinion do not deserve any respect. A religion which gives no respect can't expect to get any in return. Most people I know don't take Leviticus 20:13 seriously anymore, but the verse will always exist in the Bible, and there is always a threat that people will take it seriously again, like they've done for thousands of years in the past, and which many people still do in non-western, christian countries. I want this threat to disappear, the sooner the better.

As for hope, I don't see anything wrong in risking taking that away. If some people find hope in something which is untrue, that shouldn't hold me back from pointing out that they're wrong. It's their own problem if they find hope in false beliefs - now move on and find hope in the real world. :) Or whatever. I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that. I think it would be sad for people to live an entire life where their only hope is to get a good afterlife, I think they could live a much better life on Earth if they would focus on their life on Earth instead of an afterlife which doesn't exist. But in the end I would never want to treat people differently simply because they believed in an afterlife. I just don't hold myself back from discussing the ideas.
But if their ideas involve not considering me as an equal human being for the way I am, then they can absolutely say goodbye to all respect from me.

Instead of taking the good with the bad, I think you should consider whether the good outweighs the bad. I don't think it does that in the case of christianity at all.

WAIT A MINUTE...Santa isn't real? :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on September 02, 2013, 10:48:02 AM
I think you are generalizing too much as well. I agree with much of what you say, but for me not on this topic. Religion gives people hope, especially if their lives are not too great. They can at least have the hope of maybe an afterlife. Don't get me wrong-I am an atheist. I don't buy into any of that religious bullcrap but I have learned to respect those who do. 90% of people who are religious are fine-those 10% are the ones creating the problems. But I am getting sidetracked-we can't just take away the hope that religion can supply.
I know most religious people aren't evil, I didn't mean to say that. My point is just that some religious ideologies are evil, such as christianity with the deuteronomy and leviticus laws. People who believe in for example Leviticus 20:13, which states gays should be killed, in my opinion do not deserve any respect. A religion which gives no respect can't expect to get any in return. Most people I know don't take Leviticus 20:13 seriously anymore, but the verse will always exist in the Bible, and there is always a threat that people will take it seriously again, like they've done for thousands of years in the past, and which many people still do in non-western, christian countries. I want this threat to disappear, the sooner the better.

As for hope, I don't see anything wrong in risking taking that away. If some people find hope in something which is untrue, that shouldn't hold me back from pointing out that they're wrong. It's their own problem if they find hope in false beliefs - now move on and find hope in the real world. :) Or whatever. I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that. I think it would be sad for people to live an entire life where their only hope is to get a good afterlife, I think they could live a much better life on Earth if they would focus on their life on Earth instead of an afterlife which doesn't exist. But in the end I would never want to treat people differently simply because they believed in an afterlife. I just don't hold myself back from discussing the ideas.
But if their ideas involve not considering me as an equal human being for the way I am, then they can absolutely say goodbye to all respect from me.

Instead of taking the good with the bad, I think you should consider whether the good outweighs the bad. I don't think it does that in the case of christianity at all.
You bombed it perfectly! That is how I feel for everything about religion. XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 03, 2013, 02:04:44 PM
Quote
I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that.

This is the way my wife thinks, and she spoiled my kids fun. Entire life? I think the first 8 and more joyful years of our life's does not classify as "entire life".

Despise the MEGA unchristian and corporative core rituals of Christmas and Easter, I strongly believe kids must be kids, and we should let their fantasies and imagination run as wild as possible.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on September 03, 2013, 05:44:37 PM
Quote
I think it's similar to children who believe in Santa Claus or the easter bunny. I think it's better to reveal the truth to them than letting them live an entire life where they believe in superstition like that.

This is the way my wife thinks, and she spoiled my kids fun. Entire life? I think the first 8 and more joyful years of our life's does not classify as "entire life".

Despise the MEGA unchristian and corporative core rituals of Christmas and Easter, I strongly believe kids must be kids, and we should let their fantasies and imagination run as wild as possible.

But don't we let them do that already?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 03, 2013, 09:35:09 PM
This is the way my wife thinks, and she spoiled my kids fun. Entire life? I think the first 8 and more joyful years of our life's does not classify as "entire life".

Despise the MEGA unchristian and corporative core rituals of Christmas and Easter, I strongly believe kids must be kids, and we should let their fantasies and imagination run as wild as possible.
But we're talking about adults here who believe things like that, not just kids. It would be similar to if children believed in Santa Claus and the easter bunny for their entire lives. I think it's healthy for adults to have a connection to reality.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 03, 2013, 11:07:50 PM
On the converse, I think it's healthy for adults to have a connection to their imaginations, as a god figure does not clearly sever all connection they have to reality. For example, my mother is very religious, especially recently, but she doesn't constantly talk about how she is going to go to heaven or something like that; she feels she should try to do good for the world while she is alive.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 03, 2013, 11:16:58 PM
Yes, but their imagination is perceived as a reality to them. Generally imagination has a distinction from the real world unless you're like... insane or you're a young child while the brain is still developing. It might be good for some people, but definitely not others. In my opinion I can understand something more like deism. Deism was more like what my mom and I believed than any established religious sect, but it had an influence on our perception of the real world (for example, we didn't believe in evolution, though we were not exactly 7000 year old Earth creationists). But the problem with that is, when you've gone that far with it and it's so detached now, what is even the point anymore? You might as well not even believe.

(also isn't this delving a bit more into religion than politics, guys?)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Naru523 on September 03, 2013, 11:22:02 PM
Unrelated to the general discussion that's going on right now, but this is interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23954514 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23954514)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 05, 2013, 07:46:59 AM
Oh no! Entire lives NO!

This is for kids to help develop their little brains. Are there any adults that still believe in Santa? I find that hard to believe, kinda uber weird.

When we grow up, thats is a different "game". Grown ups must know what these are there for, and what is the real meaning behind these rituals.

Grown ups waiting for Satan Claus? No, that's social lobotomy. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on September 05, 2013, 07:51:25 AM
i think you meant "story" not "game"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 05, 2013, 08:59:10 AM
petition obama for gun surgery

this is an urgent matter

http://www.reddit.com/r/shittyaskscience/comments/1kvbjl/if_guns_are_better_than_knives_then_why_dont/cbsyzmq (http://www.reddit.com/r/shittyaskscience/comments/1kvbjl/if_guns_are_better_than_knives_then_why_dont/cbsyzmq)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 05, 2013, 07:16:15 PM
Abortion

at first glance this seems to be a relatively simple question

Is the baby/fetus sentient? If yes, then it has the right to live and cannot be aborted. If no, then the sentient mother can decide.

However, it gets more complicated.

A man declares that he wishes to be revived and return to sentience before falling into a coma. Ten years later, technology has advanced enough that he can be saved.

Now we have a man who is not sentient, and can either be killed or brought into sentience, and a baby who is not sentient, and can either be killed or brought into sentience.

It is reasonable that the man should be brought back to life, it would be unethical not to, in my opinion. Thus, so should the baby be kept alive, even against the wishes of its mother.

However, there is a difference between the man and the baby. The man was alive beforehand, and the baby was not. The man declared that he wanted to be revived, but the baby could not. After pondering over the matter, i've personally concluded that as long as the majority of humans would rather be alive than never have been born (which i think is true), then there is a good chance that the baby, when brought into sentience, would have wanted it, and there is no reason that the man should be brought into sentience while the baby should not.

Thus it seems that, in my opinion, the baby should be brought into existence even if it is still not sentient.

This creates several dilemmas though:

What about a brick? why should the baby be brought into sentience but the brick not? Two obvious answers are: the baby is alive, and we do not have the technology to bring the brick into sentience. However, there is reason why something not alive should not be brought into sentience. Life can reproduce, metastatize, and a bunch of other things, but by no means does this make it special or exclusively deserving of sentience. There is no reason why the brick being not alive should exclude it. If we do not have the technology to bring the brick into sentience, we should be working on it: logically, we have as much responsibility for bringing the brick into sentience as the baby. Although this technology is far away, i believe current attempts at modeling the brain and simulating artificial intelligence do count. So we should make bricks sentient

Why stop at a brick though? Why not make everything sentient. Is the ethical goal of humanity to make as many conscious beings in the universe sentient as possible? This seems a bit strange, but is the conclusion i've come upon: babies should not be aborted, everything must become sentient.

However, what if you say that the man in a coma shouldn't be brought back? Maybe a vegetative person, with no sentience, does not need to be revived in order to be ethically correct. This also leads to some problems. While you're sleeping, brain activity is still going on. However, you are not conscious. You can't think, therefore, arguably, you aren't. Is there any difference between killing the man in the coma and you during a sleep? I don't see why.

So, what do you think?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 05, 2013, 09:58:50 PM
The man in a coma and the fetus differ in one other fundamental way too: the fetus has a sentient carrier, its mother. Do you value a single current sentient being or a future with two sentient beings more?

There is also a difference between the man in a coma and you asleep: when you are asleep, not all your sensory inputs are off, just your vision. Since your vision is the best one, you lose that strong connection to reality and fall into unconsciousness. Meanwhile, many more sensory inputs are off in the man in a coma, such as hearing, smelling, hunger, thermoception, and others such as need to pee. This means that something, such as someone stabbing you, or a person walking into your room, might wake you up as those cause you to receive a large amount of sensory input.

On a similar note, what is consciousness? Is it only the ability to think? Or does it include a variety of sensory inputs, making it impossible to observe or see?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 05, 2013, 11:04:51 PM
It is reasonable that the man should be brought back to life, it would be unethical not to, in my opinion. Thus, so should the baby be kept alive, even against the wishes of its mother.
The major problem here is you are completely ignoring the mother, who is already alive, as Darvince pointed out. If the child wasn't wanted, it could be neglected, or the mother was irresponsible in the first place, or doesn't have the capability to, why should we assume that the child will even have a good life until it's an adult, or it can actually discuss things with the mother. Why should we assume that it would like to be brought up this way?

The man declared that he wanted to be revived, but the baby could not.
I think it's just as simple as this. The fetus cannot have ever thought about it, therefore its non-existent opinions/wants are invalid (they don't even exist!).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 06:49:14 AM
Quote
I think it's just as simple as this. The fetus cannot have ever thought about it, therefore its non-existent opinions/wants are invalid (they don't even exist!).

Then if someone is being fooled, this someone then has no rights? Consider you are being controlled financially and socially. Have you no rights then because you not aware of the situation? Or because you are not mature enough to do so? I don't think so.

This (to me) is a no brainer. It is a life. If you as a woman don't want to be pregnant, today there are  n number of ways to avoid that pregnancy. If you ARE pregnant, you have a LIFE inside of you, and despise you being the mother of that life, you have no right to end it.

 If we fail to see this, what can be next? Imagine a new born then. All babies are basically empty shells, so can I kill my freshly new born, because is not aware of nothing around? After all it does not have awareness of any social political or any situations whatsoever.

I think this is WRONG... I mean abortion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 06, 2013, 08:20:12 AM
I think this is WRONG... I mean abortion.
Do you think it is wrong if the woman is raped?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 06, 2013, 10:31:42 AM
How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on September 06, 2013, 12:03:39 PM
very confusing because i don't know what sentient means
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on September 06, 2013, 12:31:40 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '110542'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 06, 2013, 12:35:26 PM
The man in a coma and the fetus differ in one other fundamental way too: the fetus has a sentient carrier, its mother. Do you value a single current sentient being or a future with two sentient beings more?

There is also a difference between the man in a coma and you asleep: when you are asleep, not all your sensory inputs are off, just your vision. Since your vision is the best one, you lose that strong connection to reality and fall into unconsciousness. Meanwhile, many more sensory inputs are off in the man in a coma, such as hearing, smelling, hunger, thermoception, and others such as need to pee. This means that something, such as someone stabbing you, or a person walking into your room, might wake you up as those cause you to receive a large amount of sensory input.

On a similar note, what is consciousness? Is it only the ability to think? Or does it include a variety of sensory inputs, making it impossible to observe or see?
first paragraph: two sentient beings of course. However, i don't see where this fits in. What does the mother have to do with anything? edit: ok atomic elaborated better on it so see that section of the reply if you're interested

second paragraph: sensory input doesn't change anything. pretend being in a coma turns all your cells the color green, and when a machine fixes the green affliction, you wake up. the same machine can't wake up a person sleeping because their cells were not green in the first place. there i've just reverse the situation. the conclusion is that whether sensory input or anything else can turn you into a concious/sentient being makes no difference so the coma and the sleeper are equal

third paragraph: i define conciousness as self-awareness, the ability to percieve. thinking is not part of conciousness - a computer can think.

It is reasonable that the man should be brought back to life, it would be unethical not to, in my opinion. Thus, so should the baby be kept alive, even against the wishes of its mother.
The major problem here is you are completely ignoring the mother, who is already alive, as Darvince pointed out. If the child wasn't wanted, it could be neglected, or the mother was irresponsible in the first place, or doesn't have the capability to, why should we assume that the child will even have a good life until it's an adult, or it can actually discuss things with the mother. Why should we assume that it would like to be brought up this way?

The man declared that he wanted to be revived, but the baby could not.
I think it's just as simple as this. The fetus cannot have ever thought about it, therefore its non-existent opinions/wants are invalid (they don't even exist!).

paragraph one: i am operating on the assumption and the opinion that any life is better than no life. so even being raised poorly is better than having been never born.

if you believe this is not the case, then a fetus should be aborted only when there is a more than half chance that being dead will be better than it's life. however, this gives incentive for potential mothers who want an abortion to act horribly.

paragraph two: there are two men. before going to bed, one man thinks that he would not like to be killed. the other just falls asleep. During the night, criminals raid the house, shoot the man who didn't bother saying he didn't want to be killed. Just like the baby, the man never thought about it, thus his want was invalid.

Now the above argument doesn't make sense to me, thus i don't think yours does either.

How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.

Maybe it isn't life. However, as i explained with the brick, i don't think it matters whether it's life or not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 12:57:41 PM
Quote
Do you think it is wrong if the woman is raped?

Got sarcasm?! Yes of course not!! But this is BS excuse. The VAST majority of abortions are NOT based on this horrible crime. Is simply because the woman was not careful enough and got pregnant.

Exceptions DO exists. Does not justify the crime of killing an unborn life for personal or professional reasons.

If abortions are legal, then I think mother should be allowed to end the life of her infant from 0 to 1 yr old at her own choosing. After all, there ins't much of a difference between a 6 month old unborn child, and a 6 months old child. A 6 month unborn child it is almost COMPLETE, at least the part that make the child a human, the brain. Still in the "oven" just to grow a bit more.

Bill gates loves abortions... His "charity" is actually directed towards this. How about forceful/not willing vasectomy? That can be good as well. After all, all these african negros won't stop having kids man. Is hateful! How dare they... The world is already overpopulated, and these low life peoples are putting more and more on it. Right?!

We're living in such "gomorrean" times. I mean, let's think this thru.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 01:05:22 PM
I see no one here is a father. When I found out my wife was pregnant and I saw for the first time my kid, sucking his lil tumb (at 5 1/2 months old) wow that was something.

IT
IS
A
LIFE  
.


Don't want kids? Use a condom. Don't want kids EVER? Neuter yourself. Got pregnant? Now you have responsibilities...

Don't kill no one because you have a weak character that values a job or your own entertainment more than your own offspring and the continuation of your lineage.

Once I've read: Kids are *your* future. It is the *only* way to live "forever". You'll live thru your offspring.

So true.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on September 06, 2013, 02:30:56 PM
How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.
Darvince, a fetus is would be a living thing. Does it not have cells? Does it not have DNA? It's simple, a fetus is fucking life.
Quote
Do you think it is wrong if the woman is raped?

Got sarcasm?! Yes of course not!! But this is BS excuse. The VAST majority of abortions are NOT based on this horrible crime. Is simply because the woman was not careful enough and got pregnant.

Exceptions DO exists. Does not justify the crime of killing an unborn life for personal or professional reasons.

If abortions are legal, then I think mother should be allowed to end the life of her infant from 0 to 1 yr old at her own choosing. After all, there ins't much of a difference between a 6 month old unborn child, and a 6 months old child. A 6 month unborn child it is almost COMPLETE, at least the part that make the child a human, the brain. Still in the "oven" just to grow a bit more.

Bill gates loves abortions... His "charity" is actually directed towards this. How about forceful/not willing vasectomy? That can be good as well. After all, all these african negros won't stop having kids man. Is hateful! How dare they... The world is already overpopulated, and these low life peoples are putting more and more on it. Right?!

We're living in such "gomorrean" times. I mean, let's think this thru.


About the rape thing, in a situation where a woman gets raped and ends up being pregnant, I would find it acceptable for the woman to get an abortion, Actually, would there even be a way for the fetus to be terminate beforehand?

Anyway, I approve abortion. It's kind of, well, sad that a fetus has to die because of their mother's decision to do abortion, but I just think that if the woman really does not want to have a baby, well I guess go for it. But what I really stress more is safe sex, and that sort of thing. I am not saying that abortion should be done because some teens were not responsible enough to use birth control methods. Abortion should just be for in case something wrong happens. (Condoms don't work 100 percent of the time)

About how African nations having really high birth rates, think about this:
I don't know much, but I do know that one of the reasons birth rates are so high in Africa is because of the developing nations. I would guess that things like, education, would be poor. So sex ed classes may be limited or not available at all. There are other things that may associate with the high birth rates, so you can do some more research.

You guys have a right to disagree with me, but please don't inflict anything on me. I don't like mean people. :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 02:37:44 PM
Quote
How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.

How then exactly this is different from a 3 yrs old infant?

"did not experience anything yet AND still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving"

Fit's the bill. Unless we are now going a step further on the agenda, it is not a valid argument.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 03:03:58 PM
Quote from: tuto99
About the rape thing, in a situation where a woman gets raped and ends up being pregnant, I would find it acceptable for the woman to get an abortion, Actually, would there even be a way for the fetus to be terminate beforehand?

Sadly, I would too.

Quote from: tuto99
About how African nations having really high birth rates, think about this:
I don't know much, but I do know that one of the reasons birth rates are so high in Africa is because of the developing nations. I would guess that things like, education, would be poor. So sex ed classes may be limited or not available at all. There are other things that may associate with the high birth rates, so you can do some more research.

You guys have a right to disagree with me, but please don't inflict anything on me. I don't like mean people. :(

The media is a whore. Biased, as much of their income comes from companies that profit from the current situation in that area, as in all areas. The information then can't be trusted. These channels are polluted.

Development. You got that right. I don't know the numbers, but I'll guess africa must have a high birth rate right now. Development, and not people having kids like rabbits going all nuts in a "Baccarian" festival. More development means more energy, more energy means IMMEDIATELY more people. Check the population growth of the last 200  or so years. There we were, 300 yrs ago, then came coal, that boom in population was huge. Then came oil, mega boom in population growth, really fast this time. The graph for this is "funny".

The problem is, these rich elite maggots want to inherit the earth, and are against ANY kind of industrialization whatsoever. The "law" now is deindustrialization, green nut job ideas to create control, and population reduction thru disease, wars, capping of resources and... abortions. This is what you see in the last 40 or so years, and was heavily accentuated in the last 20 years after Gangstah Clinton came along.

Check this graph extracted from This Awesome Piece of Text (http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-04-20/peak-people-interrelationship-between-population-growth-and-energy-resources)

(http://www.resilience.org/files/images/image001.jpg)


Whatever these people in their core are for, I'm against it! That's the truth for me.

For abortions? I'm against it!
For wars?  I'm against it!
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!
For junk foods and frankenfoods?  I'm against it!
For monopolies?  I'm against it!
For Union of nations thru financial systems?  I'm against it!

And so on..
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on September 06, 2013, 03:09:04 PM
Wars are bad. Junk food: addicting but bad. Abortions you already know. Monopolies? I just don't find it fair. The other stuff I don't know about.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 03:17:38 PM
Monopolies aren't just "unfair". It is enslavement.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on September 06, 2013, 03:42:41 PM
Monopolies aren't just "unfair". It is enslavement.
Yeah I would figure.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 03:54:30 PM
Read this nice paper:

http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8636 (http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8636)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 06, 2013, 03:57:57 PM
paragraph two: there are two men. before going to bed, one man thinks that he would not like to be killed. the other just falls asleep. During the night, criminals raid the house, shoot the man who didn't bother saying he didn't want to be killed. Just like the baby, the man never thought about it, thus his want was invalid.

Now the above argument doesn't make sense to me, thus i don't think yours does either.
The point was not that the opinion or thought was formed, but rather the ability to be able to form it.

I see no one here is a father. When I found out my wife was pregnant and I saw for the first time my kid, sucking his lil tumb (at 5 1/2 months old) wow that was something.

IT
IS
A
LIFE  
.


Don't want kids? Use a condom. Don't want kids EVER? Neuter yourself. Got pregnant? Now you have responsibilities...

Don't kill no one because you have a weak character that values a job or your own entertainment more than your own offspring and the continuation of your lineage.

Once I've read: Kids are *your* future. It is the *only* way to live "forever". You'll live thru your offspring.

So true.
So you would rather not bother to offer a choice, and instead force your opinions upon people who don't even know you?

How then exactly this is different from a 3 yrs old infant?

"did not experience anything yet AND still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving"

Fit's the bill. Unless we are now going a step further on the agenda, it is not a valid argument.
Wrong. I knew how to read when i was 3 years old. I don't know about anyone else, but 3 year olds may or may not know a lot depending upon how good of parents they had. They might be dependent upon them to you know, survive like, be fed, but they are not incapacitated vegetables.

And finally...

For abortions?  I'm against it!
For wars?  I'm against it!
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!
For junk foods and frankenfoods?  I'm against it!
For monopolies?  I'm against it!
For Union of nations thru financial systems?  I'm against it! (Not so sure about this one... ?)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on September 06, 2013, 04:04:13 PM
Yeah, I can kind of sense infliction in your argument, unl0cker.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
Quote
i don't think it matters whether it's life or not.

I think is ALL it matters.

I don't mind to tear down a wall to make you more successful. I'm sorry to dump this on you all, I really really am. I always try to shield myself from violence and horrendoous pictures and videos. Like dead people, plane crashes, shot people, etc. I find looking at this bad for myself, I know how it is and I really don't need to see ot have any morbid curiosity about it.

But if you have the stomach, see these: http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm (http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm)

That my friend, IS life.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 06, 2013, 04:30:47 PM
Quote
Wrong. I knew how to read when i was 3 years old. I don't know about anyone else, but 3 year olds may or may not know a lot depending upon how good of parents they had. They might be dependent upon them to you know, survive like, be fed, but they are not incapacitated vegetables.

Maybe so. 3? Really? Fack.. It took me almost 10. lo.0l

I'm lost in this particular discussion. I don't know if you are for, against, or else. But anyway, smart and/or aware or not, this is life. Why won't someone grant that life the chance they themselves had? Pretty egoistical and/or narcissistic uh?!

If you kill, you go to jail. So you have the RESPONSIBILITY not to let yourself kill someone. If you get pregnant, you should have the same social responsibility to not only give life, but to cherish, feed, teach, and make that life the most it can be.

I'm know to generalize things (bad bad), and I'll be crucified for this, but abortion these days are mainly for sluts gangbangers that like to have sex like there is no tomorrow and free themselves from the "burden" of having to "make" another human being, from head to toe, from birth to graduation. Whata burden that must be uh?! :(  Aside from high risk pregnancies, rapes, and some other to think small cases, abortions should be aborted.


Quote
So you would rather not bother to offer a choice, and instead force your opinions upon people who don't even know you?

I'm not forcing nothing on you or anybody else. This is MY way of think, which by the way not only might not reflect what other people think but also does not affect any law or lawmaker, thus have no real effect on anybody other than myself.

If I was to be Cesar, that is the way it would go down. ;=)


Oh...

Quote
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!


Wtpf... Hey, can I have a loan? I have this really really good idea. (shhhh he's a banker. :P)

ehhehehe

Let me be honest and edit this:

For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!

Ok must be some, control. but not like it is.. the maggots it get all taxfree, and John McLaborworker gets scraps at high prices.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 06, 2013, 05:58:10 PM
I'm lost in this particular discussion. I don't know if you are for, against, or else.
I outlined my beliefs at the end of my previous post. Which you seemed to understand at the end of your post, so I'm not sure how you're lost.

this is life. Why won't someone grant that life the chance they themselves had?
You know what else is life? Bacteria. You know that disinfectant you use? Don't. Because it's killing what life there could be in all those splitting bacteria.

Ok must be some, control. but not like it is.. the maggots it get all taxfree, and John McLaborworker gets scraps at high prices.
I don't see how you can't be for state control, when you complain about all the big wig money makers. Resources (the acquiring, and use of) would be managed by the government, not private companies.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 06, 2013, 06:37:57 PM
paragraph two: there are two men. before going to bed, one man thinks that he would not like to be killed. the other just falls asleep. During the night, criminals raid the house, shoot the man who didn't bother saying he didn't want to be killed. Just like the baby, the man never thought about it, thus his want was invalid.

Now the above argument doesn't make sense to me, thus i don't think yours does either.
The point was not that the opinion or thought was formed, but rather the ability to be able to form it.


what if the other man did not say he didn't want to be killed because he was mentally retarded and couldn't? or ignoring the analogy completely, why does the ability to form thoughts give one object the right to become sentient over another object?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 06, 2013, 07:40:42 PM
How then exactly this is different from a 3 yrs old infant?

"did not experience anything yet AND still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving"

Fit's the bill. Unless we are now going a step further on the agenda, it is not a valid argument.
No, it doesn't. Three year olds may not yet have the capacity to form concrete long term memories, but they can move, experience, see, hear, taste, smell, they can thirst, hunger, they can sense temperature and limb location, and all other senses that adult humans have. From this, I can conclude that they are life as they fit all criteria for life:
1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA.
2. All life forms have a method by which they extract energy from their surroundings and convert it into energy that sustains them.
3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.
4. All life forms reproduce.
Fetuses begin to have the third characteristic when they are around 20 weeks old, with sexual organs developing around 10 weeks. Also, they develop the first two immediately, when they are still a fertilized egg and not an embryo. You seem to mostly be against late term abortions, after the 20th week, when all four criteria of life are in place. Do you feel that when they still do not have all four characteristics of life, that it is immoral to end a non-life? While three year olds cannot do the last one yet, they definitely have the organs in place to do so later in life, and from this, I can conclude that they are life.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yqt1001 on September 06, 2013, 07:57:27 PM
I know this is completely off topic, but this is a really interesting blog post about the LGBT debate in Russia that I found.

http://www.escinsight.com/2013/09/04/from-russia-with-love-boycotts-lgbt-rights-and-eurovision/ (http://www.escinsight.com/2013/09/04/from-russia-with-love-boycotts-lgbt-rights-and-eurovision/)

Although it's mostly about Eurovision, it does bring some interesting ideas. Things like Boycotting the Sochi Olympics in 6 months would be bad for LGBT rights among other things. Uses examples like the human right disaster that was Baku 2012 Eurovision as a sort of source, and many citations from people there (seems to ignore the winner, Loreen, her parade against Azerbaijan after she won, but whatever).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 06, 2013, 09:00:47 PM
Quote from: tuto99
About how African nations having really high birth rates, think about this:
I don't know much, but I do know that one of the reasons birth rates are so high in Africa is because of the developing nations. I would guess that things like, education, would be poor. So sex ed classes may be limited or not available at all. There are other things that may associate with the high birth rates, so you can do some more research.

You guys have a right to disagree with me, but please don't inflict anything on me. I don't like mean people. :(

The media is a whore. Biased, as much of their income comes from companies that profit from the current situation in that area, as in all areas. The information then can't be trusted. These channels are polluted.
The media is only as biased as their profit is, so if it will gain them more profit, they will say it, and repeat it until people believe it as true. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, agricultural corporations started pushing for people to think of healthy as eating lots of fruits, vegetables, and grains, as that is what they mostly produce for human consumption. They pushed this, and now parents all over the developed world encourage their children to eat vegetables, and if they can't get them to do that, then they push for fruit. Brazilian media, since it is a capitalist country, is only concerned about their profit margin.

Development. You got that right. I don't know the numbers, but I'll guess africa must have a high birth rate right now. Development, and not people having kids like rabbits going all nuts in a "Baccarian" festival. More development means more energy, more energy means IMMEDIATELY more people. Check the population growth of the last 200  or so years. There we were, 300 yrs ago, then came coal, that boom in population was huge. Then came oil, mega boom in population growth, really fast this time. The graph for this is "funny".
Africa's current average birth rate sits at around 4 children per woman, or 2 children per person. It is rapidly declining. For example, in 2001, the fertility rate of Angola was 6.75, fast forward ten years, the birth rate is now only 5.31. That is a drop of 1.4 children in 10 years. Meanwhile in Zambia, a nation affected by AIDS, its fertility rate increased from 6.12 to 6.28 during this period. Other nations that were affected with AIDS also dropped, unlike Zambia, such as Zimbabwe: 3.80 to 3.22.
The history of the population of the world is not based on energy, but rather on available calories per person and proper medical care: when the second agricultural revolution came along, which happened to be very closely tied to the early industrial revolution, population began to increase, but not by the great amount that advances in medicine brought, which began to cause death rates to drop. This lead to a natural rise in population, as families continue to produce 5 children or more. While before, usually about 3 of those 5 would die in their early months, this no longer happened. Eventually, women began to realize that they only needed 2 children, and this trend made the birth rates fall. Now, the reason that the population is currently increasing so much is not due to the discovery of oil, as that was discovered about 100 years ago, but instead it is due to that proper medicine spread throughout the world.

The problem is, these rich elite maggots want to inherit the earth, and are against ANY kind of industrialization whatsoever. The "law" now is deindustrialization, green nut job ideas to create control, and population reduction thru disease, wars, capping of resources and... abortions. This is what you see in the last 40 or so years, and was heavily accentuated in the last 20 years after Gangstah Clinton came along.
These people are against complete industrialization, but they want a little bit so that they can have cheap jobs and other such goodies. Look at what is happening to IT jobs in America. They are all moving to India, as the pay over there is less for the equivalent job. I don't know what world you are living in, but the non-radical green ideas, such as alternative forms of energy, are there to decrease our massive footprint on the planet that would be inevitable if we continued to use non-renewable sources of energy to power ourselves such as coal or natural gas. While we could begin creating coal and burning that, what good would that do? It is a polluting source of energy that causes the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase as one of its byproducts is unstable CO, which immediately snags oxygen from the atmosphere around it.
If you believe that wars are a major source of keeping populations down, you would be wrong. At least for India and China, respectively, their main source of trying to keep populations down is sterilization of women and the draconian one-child policy. Resource caps simply do not exist, other than the entire universe. Humanity can continue to expand as long as it desires, as long as it develops technologies that can do things such as extract minerals from asteroids, fuse hydrogen for massive amounts of energy, and create new habitable land for humans to settle. Abortions are a very minor part of the decreasing population of many developed countries, and the commonness of abortions is going downwards, against what many media sources in America want to tell you.

Check this graph extracted from This Awesome Piece of Text (http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-04-20/peak-people-interrelationship-between-population-growth-and-energy-resources)

(http://www.resilience.org/files/images/image001.jpg)
While this is mostly accurate, it does not take into account that in developed nations, many women are single or do not decide to have children with a husband. This means that the population will not forever increase, and that in hundreds of years, people will be stretched to do more unless people begin to have slightly more than the "replacement" fertility of 2.1. I also noticed that later in the article, there is a pessimistic chart "explaining" that industrial civilization will collapse within 5 years of that article. It is currently sitting at 2013 and I have seen no horrible things happen which that article predicts.


Whatever these people in their core are for, I'm against it! That's the truth for me.

For abortions? I'm against it!
For wars?  I'm against it!
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!
For junk foods and frankenfoods?  I'm against it!
For monopolies?  I'm against it!
For Union of nations thru financial systems?  I'm against it!

And so on..
Based on this, I will form an if-then statement: If the media believes something, then unl0cker believes the opposite. I can quickly and easily prove that this is not the case. Do you like Hitler? No. Does the vast majority of media like Hitler? No. Therefore, you are not against everything they believe.

I can also prove this: the media is for the continuation of capitalism, as it is the only way for their sources of profit to continue. If socialism, or some, as Bla would say, "more utopian" economic system was put into play where private corporations did not exist, then the media would no longer have motivation for profit, and they would become more truthful and less biased. For example, America has the news network PBS, which stands for Public Broadcasting Service. They are funded by the people, and then by the government. Their news is impressively unbiased, even if one side is clearly moronic.

Protip: I wrote this in Notepad, only copypasted it back into USForum to post it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on September 07, 2013, 04:36:49 AM
good idea, so if the internet broke you wouldn't have wasted a lot of time
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 09:08:21 AM
Quote
You know what else is life? Bacteria. You know that disinfectant you use? Don't. Because it's killing what life there could be in all those splitting bacteria.

OMG! U'r smart and I'm sure you can do 1000 times better than this one. Comparing a human with his or her 6x trillion cells to a single cell organism is absolutely fail. This was fail Atomic. After all we are talking about our race, not dogs, cats, monkeys or amoebas. Just to be clear, if it is not already, a guy working at a slaughter house MUST have some "difficulties" in slicing a babies throat, but not a cows one, or no difficulties when using deodorant for that matter.

Quote
I don't see how you can't be for state control, when you complain about all the big wig money makers. Resources (the acquiring, and use of) would be managed by the government, not private companies.

You are misled here, I believe is because you have the wrong belief that governments are there to help the populace. This is not the case. Governments are the rich, organizing their control of the wealth and resources. Why is that your parents probably pay more taxes than Ted Tuner, that labeled us as "useless eaters"?! I'll leave you with that.

Quote
1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA.
2. All life forms have a method by which they extract energy from their surroundings and convert it into energy that sustains them.
3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.
4. All life forms reproduce.

Fetus, aka baby, aka unborn, aka human LIFE:
1 - Check
2 - Check
3 - Check
4 - Check

Making my case sir?!

A coldly call fetus, or unborn LIFE, has the acids, extract energy from it's surroundings (as good as 3 yrs old would do, no arguing with that), they respond INSIDE their mothers to stress, sound, touch, etc, and they ARE able to reproduce, even tho just like with 3 yrs olds, they yet don't posses the proper knowledge to do that.

Nothing changed from our last exchange.

"I can conclude that they are life."  Yes you indeed ARE! Making my case that is.. Thank you.

Quote
... in the late 1970s and early 1980s, agricultural corporations started pushing for people to think of healthy as eating lots of fruits, vegetables, and grains ...

True. And then along came Monsanto. Monopolies are just unfair tuto? Check this company out then. They OWN you. Almost everybody in some sense is Monsanto's slave. If they so decide, they can halt food production and create a caos the world has never seen. Billions of people would die. I see that as live given nutritional enslavement. And nutritional is a joke when thrown in together with the frankenfoods they do produce.

Quote
The history of the population of the world is not based on energy, but rather on available calories per person and proper medical care
Fail. No it is not. Available calories ARE DEPENDENT on ENERGY. No machines to pump water? No calories. No tractors to work the land? No calories. No Trucks to carry the huge loads? No calories. No energy to run hospitals? No medical system. No Oil? No tractors, no water, no transport. No life. 6 billion people in the planet own their lives to oil. This is simple math. Think this through.

Please stage for me a 6 billion people world that has no oil to move the machinery necessary to make all that food. The only answer some will probably come down to is manna. Manna or non existence. Oil gives you life. Oil, "makes" nutrients necessary to have huge farms as was never seen in the ancient world. Oil is OUR society.

"but instead it is due to that proper medicine spread throughout the world" Media jokes. :-) AIDS in africa. Another bad taste joke. Did you know for example that Bayer intentionally spread this virus in Europe and Asia, and probably Africa as well?!

Please please read more about medical industry and it's insanities. Please, I urge you! I'm on YOUR side, not theirs. I'm with YOU, not them. YOU are my brother.. not them. I want YOUR well being, not theirs.

Quote
These people are against complete industrialization, but they want a little bit so that they can have cheap jobs and other such goodies.

What I'll tell you is all me,I did not read this anywhere, but I came to this conclusion. I in part agree with you. What I believe the plan is, is to make everybody dependent. If you depend you are in check, controlled, enslaved. So if all major industries are concatenated in one place, all other places will be dependent in that industrialized area to go on. I think, at it's core, money is means to an end. But many think money is the end, so they devote their entire lives at meanings to this end, which in fact, is meaning to and end. Control that is.

If I try to make you knee by force, some day some one will step up and fight me. But if I convince you you own me money, you'll voluntarily put your head down to me, and fall to your knees. Think a lot about this. This is why I hate money! With my knowhow I surely could make at least 20 times more than I currently do, but I refuse that. I hate money and what it means, I use it as was supposed to be used, as a means to exchanged goods necessary to nourish my journey. That's it. I don't need to be a Bill Gates with his 100 Billion dollars. That's only means for controlling, and I need not or have the right to control no one.

Quote
It is a polluting source of energy that causes the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere

Darvi, get out of that box before you suffocate. No IT IS NOT! For this, I present you... the majestic, the megalith, the all powerful mighty SUN. Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 SUCCEEDS heating. More sun energy, more heat, more heat, more co2. This isn't me talking, this is the most renowned and intelligent climatologists speaking. Exactly the ones that had their names put in some wacko list and as much as they ask not to be mentioned, they nevertheless are.  This is why I mentioned Al Gore before, how he manipulated peoples minds using a little trick of sequencial events. CO2 concentrations SUCCEED higher earthly temperatures. So as they say, Sun goes nuts and powerful, that makes oceans and earth heat, that in turn releases co2 present in the oceans. co2 is a product of heat, not the other way around. At least not in our water rich planet.

Quote
It is currently sitting at 2013 and I have seen no horrible things happen which that article predicts.

You're young. Rush not these things... they will happen. It is a chess game, and the checkmate is soon to come. They predict that based on oil supply, but fear not, and worry a lot, the end of oil will be the end of all these humongous  amounts of people. I dare you to steer 20 days of your life away from ALL things that made use oil to exist, including food. You simply can't. But try nevertheless, after all, it will only be 20 days of your hopefully thousands to come, and will give you a wider perspective of the world you live in.

Quote
If the media believes something, then unl0cker believes the opposite

No. Not what I said. You are mixing subjects for your own "cause". You are manipulating my words, just like All Gore manipulated the scientific community words to create "his" heinous agenda 21 control grid.  

The globalists are FOR Hitler. They CREATED Hitler. They financed him. But to make people like yourself oblivion to the truth, their media plays political correctness. After all, and bringing our last political discussion to the surface, no one likes a amoral person, institution, government, rule, etc.

Media IS a whore, it really doesn't mean a whore can sometimes make love instead of sex, if you know what I mean.

I'm gonna tell you how a few can control many. How can 200 "people" dictate the day by day of billions? They don't need to control them all directly. Take Henry Ford for example. He was the only car maker in the beginning. People wanted colorful cars, and he stated "cars can be any color, as long as they are black." Workers in that factory followed their "master's" orders to build black cars, and in turn huge populations had only black cars, despise their wishes to have a colorful one. One person then dictated thru his "system" aka factory the what you gonna get.  

Same goes with governments. It is a pyramidal system, a thousands and thousands of years old pyramidal system of control. Control the head, you'll control the body. Really simple. If this was not true, all coups would fail, as the revolutioners never match the numbers of the peoples they are trying to get control over. Control the head...

The things coming out of the media are mostly garbage, and have the intent to steer you toward the desired direction. But doesn't mean you can't use this garbage, to identify the "gold". If you have a freed mind, the lies will eventually lead you to the truth.

Please, read David Rockefeller memoirs. To the freed eye, it is there, black on white, a literal confession.

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

This was enough for me to incite a huge curiosity around this family. To go and try to unveil the truth about what is behind all this.

Quote
the media is for the continuation of capitalism, as it is the only way for their sources of profit to continue.

Read you own words. How can you trust ME as a sales man, when all I want is to sale at any cost?! The media is there to "TEACH" you HOW to think, WHAT to think, and WHEN you think. Now if you could for a few weeks think the way they don't want you to, you'll rapidly find out that not only you are not thinking enough, but you are thinking about the wrong things.

We are becoming all autistic in a sense. We are smart enough to send men to orbit around the globe, but we are not capable of discerning really simple social situations. That to me is what autism is.

PBS indeed has some good pieces, but is part of the pyramidal system I mentioned, so watch with critical eyes, and not in REM state.

Quote
Protip: I wrote this in Notepad, only copypasted it back into USForum to post it.
Amen brother! Fck the cookies and it's monsters. I've learn now. ;-)

Quote
good idea, so if the internet broke you wouldn't have wasted a lot of time

I see the idea behind net as a censor mechanism. Nothing more. It is here and there is nothing you can do about it. So let's try to use it for OUR means, like we are doing here right now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 07, 2013, 11:17:25 AM
Quote
Fetus, aka baby, aka unborn, aka human LIFE:
1 - Check
2 - Check
3 - Check
4 - Check

I don't really see why we're arguing over whether it's life, it's obviously alive, and it's made out of cells. That's not the point though. I'm pretty sure any unborn animal or anything is life.

Quote
Please stage for me a 6 billion people world that has no oil to move the machinery necessary to make all that food.
idk wait about 50 years and then we'll see?

Quote
Please please read more about medical industry and it's insanities. Please, I urge you! I'm on YOUR side, not theirs. I'm with YOU, not them. YOU are my brother.. not them. I want YOUR well being, not theirs.
You don't have to disagree with them on every little detail for them to be your enemy.

Quote
What I believe the plan is, is to make everybody dependent. If you depend you are in check, controlled, enslaved.
I believe we're already there, to a point. No one really cares to change anything either.

Quote
Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere.
Says no one qualified to speak on such topics ever. In fact, carbonic acid is now in much higher concentration in the oceans. Carbonic acid is created by water and CO2 interacting, it can do this at room temperature. To give a bit of scale, it's not like CO2 touches water and all of a sudden it's carbonic acid. It probably happens at more the rate water evaporates. It also breaks up and becomes water and CO2. Carbonic acid exists in a state of equilibrium. With this established, it can be deduced with logic, simply that, more CO2 in the atmosphere = more carbonic acid in the oceans at any one time. If CO2 is being released from the oceans by solar energy (which it basically does, causing the equilibrium, but is then quickly replaced, so we're talking about about a net release, more goes out than comes in), then carbonic acid should be less prevalent, but what would stop this released CO2 from entering the ocean again as carbonic acid? Nothing. So in fact, it should stay the same.

CO2 + H2O is in equilibrium with H2CO3

The reality is, the quantity of carbonic acid in the oceans (and thus CO2 in the atmosphere as well) is rising. This should lead one to believe that CO2 is being released elsewhere, not the oceans.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 07, 2013, 11:34:36 AM
Okay, that post was insanely long, even longer than my post, so I'll only respond to some points.
Fetus, aka baby, aka unborn, aka human LIFE:
1 - Check
2 - Check
3 - Check
4 - Check

Making my case sir?!

A coldly call fetus, or unborn LIFE, has the acids, extract energy from it's surroundings (as good as 3 yrs old would do, no arguing with that), they respond INSIDE their mothers to stress, sound, touch, etc, and they ARE able to reproduce, even tho just like with 3 yrs olds, they yet don't posses the proper knowledge to do that.

Nothing changed from our last exchange.

"I can conclude that they are life."  Yes you indeed ARE! Making my case that is.. Thank you.
Young fetuses (under, say, 15 weeks old) do not fit the third criterion yet as they don't have ANY sensory inforation yet, they just sit inside the mother growing and developing. The difference between how I see it and how you see it is that you see fetuses as immediately being able to feel, see, hear, sense touch, etc. However, they begin as a SINGLE CELL, and bacteria definitely doesn't sense anything in the traditional way we think about it. Well fetuses, as they're animals, don't sense anything until those systems begin to develop, like sight, hearing, smell, touch.

Fail. No it is not. Available calories ARE DEPENDENT on ENERGY. No machines to pump water? No calories. No tractors to work the land? No calories. No Trucks to carry the huge loads? No calories. No energy to run hospitals? No medical system. No Oil? No tractors, no water, no transport. No life. 6 billion people in the planet own their lives to oil. This is simple math. Think this through.
I have thought this through, and I have come to the conclusion that humanity will advance past oil SOON and we will be able to continue our development and improve agricultural output. And yes, the increase of available energy does mark an increase in the ability to add calories per person. We couldn't have done what we are currently doing today 400 years ago when the first steam engine didn't even exist yet to be able to create automation.

Please stage for me a 6 billion people world that has no oil to move the machinery necessary to make all that food. The only answer some will probably come down to is manna. Manna or non existence. Oil gives you life. Oil, "makes" nutrients necessary to have huge farms as was never seen in the ancient world. Oil is OUR society.
While yes, if oil were to run out today, we would be royally fucked, that won't be the case in say, 2030, when other fuels (not ethanol, that stuff eats up corn crops like there's no tomorrow) become the main sources to power cars. I mean, look at current development in different fuels from cars other than gasoline, diesel. They exist, they are just still very expensive and impractical methods, but with some more efficiency, their cost could drop and become available for the average person looking to buy a car. This could be extended to other machinery too, like tractors and pumps. We might not even need to fuel them directly (electric cars), just continue developing non-oil non-coal fuels like solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, fission, and eventually fusion.

"but instead it is due to that proper medicine spread throughout the world" Media jokes. :-) AIDS in africa. Another bad taste joke. Did you know for example that Bayer intentionally spread this virus in Europe and Asia, and probably Africa as well?!

Please please read more about medical industry and it's insanities. Please, I urge you! I'm on YOUR side, not theirs. I'm with YOU, not them. YOU are my brother.. not them. I want YOUR well being, not theirs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian_immunodeficiency_virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian_immunodeficiency_virus)
If Bayer had anything to do with it, then I'm pretty confident that at the very least Wikipedia would have a mention of intentional spreading, although you might think that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, they are a non-profit, encyclopedic source. You also seem to not assume that, like life, viruses can evolve? Also can you please refer me to a source that isn't a .net site with 20 fonts?

What I believe the plan is, is to make everybody dependent. If you depend you are in check, controlled, enslaved. So if all major industries are concatenated in one place, all other places will be dependent in that industrialized area to go on.
If the world became like that, which it is getting closer to due to China manufacturing everything, then other areas would definitely develop industrialization, such as Nigeria, whose prospects for the next 100 years are probably brighter than any other nation in the world.

Darv, get out of that box before you suffocate. No IT IS NOT! For this, I present you... the majestic, the megalith, the all powerful mighty SUN. Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 SUCCEEDS heating. More sun energy, more heat, more heat, more co2. This isn't me talking, this is the most renowned and intelligent climatologists speaking. Exactly the ones that had their names put in some wacko list and as much as they ask not to be mentioned, they nevertheless are.  This is why I mentioned Al Gore before, how he manipulated peoples minds using a little trick of sequencial events. CO2 concentrations SUCCEED higher earthly temperatures. So as they say, Sun goes nuts and powerful, that makes oceans and earth heat, that in turn releases co2 present in the oceans. co2 is a product of heat, not the other way around. At least not in our water rich planet.
So you're denying chemical reactions that take place when CO is present in an area? 2 CO + O2 become 2 CO2 rather quickly, which is why you are only worried about CO when you are standing near cars, near factories, in them, where the carbon monoxide didn't react with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2. You can't deny applied chemistry, but you can deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as there is no substantial evidence for that.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 07, 2013, 12:00:23 PM
@above paragraph

where did unlocket imply that chemical reactions take place that co is present in an area?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 07, 2013, 12:10:51 PM
unlocker is saying that the only source of co2 is evaporation in oceans
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on September 07, 2013, 12:24:56 PM
the first person to post a debate post with over 2000 chars wins
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 01:20:02 PM
Quote
Well fetuses, as they're animals, don't sense anything until those systems begin to develop, like sight, hearing, smell, touch.

I was just waiting for this point to emerge. And it did. There is a fundamental difference between an ameba and a 2 cell "fetus". Altho I expressed the sensory abilities of unborn life, it is not that sensory capabilities that make me defend it, but the fact that is human, human life. That being said,  aborting a 2 cell human organism and aborting a 6 trillion cells one in the end have the same outcome: the termination of human life. And a path for those that racionalize this as quantitative elements or sensorial abilities on a  dangerous road. Is this maybe why God loves the Jewish "race" above all others? Or this is the road to the dehumanization of one's own self?

Quote
I have thought this through

Apparently not.

Quote
and I have come to the conclusion that humanity will advance past oil SOON

This is speculation, my speculation. But I'd say that "we" ARE there already. But the end of oil will  and must serve it's purpose.

You talk about engines agreeing with me, but how about fertilizers? WE NEED THEM to grow these foods. Do they exist in the necessary amounts without oil?

I'll make short and won't quote, but you talk about other ways to produce energy. None of which are viable. None! Solar is unpractical because it would require HUGE fields of panels, and even if build, these panel fields would require heavy and unpractical maintenance. And again, even doing so, the output does not go near the requirement.  Not to mention everybody would have to concatenate themselves in areas of high solar input, tropical areas, high latitude areas would have to be abandoned.

I'll cover what you proposed. But read at the end the conclusion.

Wind is even worse than solar, it requires farms of high tech gear to output small amounts of energy. These wind turbines have proven to be a failure because the maintenance difficulties that are required.

Hydroelectric is one actual only one  that can "look" eye to eye to oil. But these are limited to geographical areas where water runs abundant and in large quantities. Very few places around the globe have such conditions.  

Geothermal are pure fiction so far. It is a valid idea, but I don't think no one is crazy to tap into this without knowing for certain what the outcome of drilling huge holes into the earths crust will be.

Fission is another good candidate. But you know what that means.

And finally fusion. Well fusion, meat Einstein. Fusion Einstein, Einstein fusion. By the time we abandon Einsteins ideas and "rules", well I guess we would be ready to live wherever we want, including a spaceship in some distant galaxy.

The problem of our current world and oil is this. Oil means more than just gasoline and diesel. The following products would not be possible without oil:

- Fertilizers
- Plastics
- Solvents
- Cortisone
- Vitamin Capsules
- Rubber
- Most Oils
- Movie films
- Glycerin
- Epoxies
- Aspirin
- Antihistamines
- Food Preservatives
- Nylon
- Many cleaning products
- Electronics
- Refrigerants
- Antiseptics
- Antifreeze
- Ammonia
- CONDOMS!
- Candles

And the list goes on and on and on to the oblivion of our minds. WE ARE A OIL WORLD.

Everything is basically oil made, or dependent on it to be made. So you see, the fight for oil, is not merely a fight for the energy market, but a fight for a huge chunk of our todays world.

You know the medical advances you mentioned earlier? Wouldn't be possible without oil. So, oil is all to our way of life as it is.

IT IS in fact the major player of population growth. No oil? Much caos, and much death.

Quote
If Bayer had anything to do with it, then I'm pretty confident that at the very least Wikipedia would have a mention of intentional spreading, although you might think that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, they are a non-profit, encyclopedic source. You also seem to not assume that, like life, viruses can evolve? Also can you please refer me to a source that isn't a .net site with 20 fonts?

Please, READ CAREFULLY what I wrote, and try not to fill the blanks. If I left a blank is probably because I do not know the answer to that. ===>>> Also refrain from using wikipedia, as the info provided is junked.  <<<===

Use scientific papers and the works of people that have studied what you are looking for. And even with that, BE CRITICAL about it. Just because someone is intelligent  does not mean they can't also be biased. Measure, think about what you read. Just like the way you are doing with me now. Do the same with ALL info you acquire.

I did not said bayer CREATED the virus. I have my doubts tho, I really do. After all, people always fornicated with all kinds animals, and nothing of this sorts ever occurred. And soon after we learn what a DNA is, a lot of shit starts to happening. Pretty "weird" if you ask me, but I have no grounds to stand on to that.

Now, you are simply replying from the top of your head. Do your homework. If Bayer says they are guilt on this, who's gonna say they are not? Why are they paying money to people that got infected then?

Research this and the TRUTH WILL MOSTLY AND CERTAINLY SET YOU FREE. Free from bullshit. Free from dominance. Free from manipulation. You are your own master, don't ever let other rule you thru lies, deceit or any other means.


Quote
.. then other areas would definitely develop industrialization

No man, they won't. You know why? And this happens now, here in Brazil. I mean, stop, and think of BRAZIL. WTF. This nation sits in the most powerful place in the world man. Here.

We have it ALL. Gold? Yes a lot. Wood? Yes a lot! Farm land? Yes more almost all. All kinds of minerals? YESSSS. Oil? Oh yeah baby. Ethanol? Oh we do too! Everything. We do have Everything. Brazil is one of few nations that can be totally independent.

And where we are? Nowhere! Why? Because the government taxes people to Pluto. They tax us heavily on EVERY aspect of our lives. Which btw is the purpose of taxes, to take from the people, to keep them in check.

No one will develop anymore. This - will - not - happening.  You mentioned 2030. When I was young, 20 or even 10 yrs for me was like eternity. Now I see differently. 20 yrs is a nap. 2030 is right there around the corner. Nothing will change that much in so little time, unless something magical happens. Like the magic of oil before.

Quote
Says no one qualified to speak on such topics ever.
Hmmm not entirely. Not I'm a chemistry guy. In fact never was, I've find these to be boring. So I trust the experts. The scientists. Which btw doesn't mean I can't start now, and became a very smart chemically speaking guy in bout 5 yrs or so.

Please watch this piece:

The great global warming swindle - Full version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ#ws)

And don't forget to read the titles each of these persons have, as well as their names, so you can go deeper into their own papers on the subject.

Wanna know what I think my karma is (considering that does exists)? I can smell bullshit from miles and miles away. That's  like a curse to me. :/ But if I had to choose peace or bliss, I'd take truth Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday, AND Sunday too.

Quote
idk wait about 50 years and then we'll see?

I sadly won't be here to help, but you probably will. Try to do your best to help people if this comes true.

Whata mess I did in this reply... mixing peoples quotes and the sequence of things. I hope you guys don't mind I leaving this text like this. After all you'all are smarter than me, and I don't say this out of sarcasm. Like I said before, at your ages, I barely could pronounce the world weather, let alone mean what it is.

To finish this:

Quote
So you're denying chemical reactions that take place when CO is present in an area

No I'm not. What I'm saying is CO2 is NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. This is what I'm saying.
I also I'M NOT SAYING CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. BUT I DO SAY NOW, that water vapor for example, heats more the globe than CO2 does. I also say now that man made CO2 is not affecting the planet's weather. Watch the video above and take your own conclusions. Or even go above and beyond and research these peoples papers, thing I did not, mainly because I smelled crap in this pseudoscience called global warming. Knowing it was crap was enough for me. I did not wanted to understand the "engines" behind the story.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
the first person to post a debate post with over 2000 chars wins

No one wins...

A twitter mind will make you dumb. :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 01:21:48 PM
Quote
unlocker is saying that the only source of co2 is evaporation in oceans

No.. no no no no. No... nooooooooooooo.  NOT WHAT I SAID!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 07, 2013, 01:37:54 PM
you can deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as there is no substantial evidence for that.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html)
(Nice source)

Anyway, not only is there clear evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, there is actually very solid evidence that CO2 is also a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. The evidence is extremely simple: Its absorbtion spectrum.

On this chart, the red line is the radiation of the Sun, which enters the atmosphere. The red area is the radiation which passes through the atmosphere to ground level. There it is reflected (or absorbed), and the blue graph is the radiation which goes back up through the atmosphere. The blue area is the radiation which actually exits the atmosphere.

The major components graphs show which wavelengths of radiation the different gases absorb. You can see that CO2 is responsible for a part of this absorbtion. When the radiation is absorbed, it results in increased temperature. The total amount of radiation absorbed divided by the total amount of incoming radiation is Earth's albedo, the higher albedo, the higher the temperature will be, and CO2 is responsible for inreasing the albedo.

(http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/595px-atmospheric_transmission.png)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 01:56:55 PM
This goes way beyond any of our knewlodge. No one here is qualified to talk about this. So, I wouldn't exchange the word of these people (that after stating these facts are getting no financing whatsoever:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center

John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report

Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen

Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.

Patrick Michaels – Research Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Patrick Moore – Co-founder, Greenpeace

Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Roy Spencer – Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Carl Wunsch – Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T.

Bert Bolin - He was professor of meteorology at Stockholm University for 30 years

for the word of (that are having money pumped into their pieces by the tens of millions:

Seth Bornstein, BBC Weather, University of Maryland News Desk, Hadley Centre for Climate change, and others unknown cheaters.


This is politicians playing politics on people. This is what I see.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 07, 2013, 01:58:10 PM
@Bla

Science!

Quote
And the list goes on and on and on to the oblivion of our minds. WE ARE A OIL WORLD.
So maybe if we stopped using it as a fuel and wasting it...

Why exactly would a movement saying CO2 causes global warming be made by the people who make money off of being able to use it to excess?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 01:59:28 PM
I give up... did I mentioned some of them... scientists?

I'm done with abortion and global warming. Back when another topic arises.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 02:01:21 PM
You know why I dont reply to u anymore right? Because you can't make heads or tails of your ideas.  You really should change your nick to Blind.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 07, 2013, 02:11:28 PM
You know why I dont reply to u anymore right? Because you can't make heads or tails of your ideas.  You really should change your nick to Blind.
Who was this a reply to?

Since you had just triple-posted before I posted, I assumed your next post would be a response to my post.

This goes way beyond any of our knewlodge. No one here is qualified to talk about this. So, I wouldn't exchange the word of these people (that after stating these facts are getting no financing whatsoever:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center

John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report

Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen

Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.

Patrick Michaels – Research Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Patrick Moore – Co-founder, Greenpeace

Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Roy Spencer – Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Carl Wunsch – Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T.

Bert Bolin - He was professor of meteorology at Stockholm University for 30 years

for the word of (that are having money pumped into their pieces by the tens of millions:

Seth Bornstein, BBC Weather, University of Maryland News Desk, Hadley Centre for Climate change, and others unknown cheaters.


This is politicians playing politics on people. This is what I see.
Anyway, I will restate the posts I deleted: It is really just ignorance in a nutshell. It is just like those creationists who shout 100 or so scientists they claim are against evolution.

It is an argument to authority, nothing else.

Also, even if you can find scientists who support your cause, the majority of scientists still agree that global warming exists and is caused by humans. So if simply the number of scientists is all that matters to you, you should try putting your numbers in perspective.

However, if you say you don't understand the issue of global warming [i.e. none of us are qualified to speak on the subject], I wouldn't suggest that you continue the discussion either. But that doesn't mean people can't understand the evidence other scientists have discovered. And if you really want to understand a subject, you need to understand the evidence, counting the number of people who says x who seem qualified doesn't work.

You know why I dont reply to u anymore right? Because you can't make heads or tails of your ideas.  You really should change your nick to Blind.

Calling me blind is simply name calling, but I'd like to see what you base it on, to explain how I can't make heads or tails of my ideas. I'm Danish and I may not understand all of the metaphors you use.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 07, 2013, 02:30:06 PM
"You just did" duhh Come on, how infantile can your replies be. You are quoting me around, and I am avoid your replies. And you of course did notice that. Have I to explain to you everything like you are 5 yrs old despise you not being one?

I'm not replying to you anymore... "you just did" duhhhh hehehe

- You are ugly
- no you are.
- no you are
- nono you ARE.

Let's not be kids. Let kids be kids.


Going back now! AND replaying to your spectrum argument, and mad because you pulled me back into the discussion I don't want to be in anymore....

If you call the "popes" of weather research, ignorance in a nutshell, then I don't know what else. That there was a personal attack! And deserved my mocking of a probable nickname. OR you think these people know nothing of what they are saying.

Have you ever see Al Gore do anything in your benefit? Do you even know who he is? Have you consider Agenda 21? Have you ever consider what a smart meter will do to you and yours?

Things you must think about before analyzing the data and studies that are presented to us, layman. You ARE a layman in this subject. So am I, and everybody here. What I am not a layman in is in politics. That subject I own and understand.

And I gotta tell you, if Al Gore is in, man... is a scam. BE SURE OF IT! Carbon credits? Please...

Going back to the science behind all this, as I understand, IF CO2 was having any heating impact in the weather, the temp should be rising from the top of the atmosphere (close to the equator line) , down. When the oposite is what is happening.

Please, know when you were defeated, and live to fight another day. Or put your head in the sand and risk your arse being eaten by a lion.
Do you still consider this your reply to my new post, or do you want to edit based on the changes I may have made?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 07, 2013, 02:30:33 PM
i don't even know what just happened other than unl0cker trying to shame us all for not being 40 and conservative
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 07, 2013, 02:31:43 PM
Going back to the science behind all this, as I understand, IF CO2 was having any heating impact in the weather, the temp should be rising from the top of the atmosphere (close to the equator line) , down. When the oposite is what is happening.
What evidence supports this as being what "should" happen?

Don't just say "go search for yourself". Believe me, if I could, I would spend all my time just absorbing knowledge and debating how to make Earth perfect. But I can't, so actually provide your own sources supporting your arguments. Haven't you learned to cite your sources when you were in school?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: unl0cker on September 07, 2013, 02:48:38 PM
i don't even know what just happened other than unl0cker trying to shame us all for not being 40 and conservative

No, not shame! Don't be ashamed of not knowing something. As we discussed , we all are born with no knowledge. It is human not to know, but also human to want to know. BE ASHAMED of not going after the answers.  What I want is for you to think for yourself not to be a damn robot.

I'm not conservative. I like to think. A LOT! Probably is what happens with one when they put their TV sets on the trash can as I did years ago.

But you know what guys. I really don't know why I came back. Indeed I have no friends here, almost no one here sees eye to eye, and the ones that do like vh, rather keep to themselves. I don't even play US2 or 3 anymore, even tho I have access to it all.

So... why did I? I'm grateful for this app tho, as it showed me a passion I had and I did not even knew I had, which is 3D imagery.

So, to conclude. I'm all wrong here. I;m the discord maker, the disagreer, the black light of this forum. So why?

Nothing come to mind other than helping yourselves. Apparently that help is not wanted. So this is it for us. I hope you guys have a wonderful life, full of cherishing moments and happiness. Be good, and goodbye.

PS: I removed my personal attack post as you wished. I'll be glad if you as a admin of this forum deactivate my username. Thank you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 07, 2013, 03:02:07 PM
But you know what guys. I really don't know why I came back. Indeed I have no friends here, almost no one here sees eye to eye, and the ones that do like vh, rather keep to themselves. I don't even play US2 or 3 anymore, even tho I have access to it all.

So... why did I? I'm grateful for this app tho, as it showed me a passion I had and I did not even knew I had, which is 3D imagery.

So, to conclude. I'm all wrong here. I;m the discord maker, the disagreer, the black light of this forum. So why?

Nothing come to mind other than helping yourselves. Apparently that help is not wanted. So this is it for us. I hope you guys have a wonderful life, full of cherishing moments and happiness. Be good, and goodbye.

PS: I removed my personal attack post as you wished. I'll be glad if you as a admin of this forum deactivate my username. Thank you.
I don't see you as a black light of the forum. You've clearly done many good things in the Universe Sandbox 2 forum, which is helpful. However, some of the things you post don't seem rational to me, I like to point it out when I see that. Your tone towards some us has seemed pointlessly harsh at times, such as saying I'm like talking to a wall or calling me blind etc, your discussion with Darvince and Atomic also seemed a bit mocking in style. I've also written a bit harsly recently in my discussions, I know.
It makes discussions boring.

I don't care about the personal attack. I didn't want you to remove it, just to explain why you think what you did, that I couldn't make head or tails in my ideas.

Also, I don't have the power to deactivate your username.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on September 07, 2013, 03:53:08 PM
he's a Glowbal Moderator not an admin
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on September 09, 2013, 09:21:49 AM
Interesting.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QWH8TFT (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QWH8TFT)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on September 09, 2013, 03:30:15 PM
OMG WHAT
"I don't play us 2 or 3 even though I have access to it all"
WAT BETA CAME OUT???????
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 11, 2013, 03:51:11 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/1m6pn2/we_must_do_away_with_this_absolutely_specious/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/1m6pn2/we_must_do_away_with_this_absolutely_specious/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on September 11, 2013, 05:29:35 PM
-snip-
damn this sucks
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yqt1001 on September 30, 2013, 04:34:52 PM
I heard an interesting comparison in history class today.

In Medieval Europe a lot of the wealth was with the king, under feudalism the peasants would pay their king for protection and the king was in charge of basically everything in order for the peasants to be safe.

Then came the Turks stopping land trade with Asia and the prices for spices increasing drastically, which at that time was probably equal in importance to Medieval Europeans as is Chinese goods today. This lead to the age of exploration and Europeans developing the ships to do sea based trade. This was a lot safer, faster and considerably cheaper. Combined with the influx of cheaper spices, North American goods also began to take off in Europe, sugar and tobacco primarily. We like to think furs was important because for centuries that's all our economy was, but no not really. :P

This influx of cheap, exotic and foreign goods made European products really uncompetitive at the time. Unemployment was huge as there were simply no more jobs, it is said that it was at this time that Western culture shifted towards the "women in the kitchen only" idea as men needed jobs. Before this women were just as important in society. The slaved based labour overseas was incredibly competitive, creating a massive wealth gap. This made merchants who traded overseas many times richer than kings.

This shift happened around the 1600s, about 200 years before the industrial revolution. In the industrial revolution, the unemployment rate dropped incredibly quickly as economies began trading goods their own goods again. The infrastructure to make the globalized economy we have today simply wasn't there 200 years ago and the best option was local industries.

Then came the current globalized economy we have today. Although the richest people in the world aren't merchants, as part of the globalized economy we have basically all money traded is overseas just as it was when foreign goods were incredibly competitive against the European goods in Europe in the 1600s.

I wonder what kind of revolution will more than likely bring all these jobs back. There will likely be something within our lifetimes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 30, 2013, 07:13:55 PM
Were there jobs everywhere before the first capitalist society?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on October 01, 2013, 10:36:48 AM
The US government has started it's lockdown and the value of the dollar is falling. One dollar is about half the value of one pound sterling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on October 01, 2013, 10:50:10 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '111289'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 01, 2013, 11:34:12 AM
Meanwhile in Denmark... Today is the annual opening of the parlament day. I borrowed a Unity List party flag and joined the demonstration outside the parlament after college.

(http://i.imgdiode.com/kA7bPl.jpg)

There were speeches and music on the stage. The protest was against the many rightist economic policies that the current government has been following, such as reducing the corporate taxes from 25% to 22% and limiting the support for those who have lost their jobs because of the crisis, while refusing to take any serious steps to provide jobs for them.

It is hard for me to see why a coalition of Socialist People's Party, Social Democrats and Radical Left is doing this - Radical Left is somewhat economically monetarist, but some of these policies are so clearly are against the things they wrote in their plans before the election.

Anyway here are the rest of the pictures from the demonstration.

People enter the parlament square from the four smaller demonstrations around the city during the day:

(http://i.imgdiode.com/5GqFAA.jpg)

(http://i.imgdiode.com/rVutqg.jpg)

The demonstration:

(http://i.imgdiode.com/zpDVnM.jpg)

(http://i.imgdiode.com/uN9n5z.jpg)

(http://i.imgdiode.com/4NiF7j.jpg)

(http://i.imgdiode.com/WAjRrX.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on October 01, 2013, 12:07:44 PM
i feel so illiterate
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 01, 2013, 12:26:30 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/LO4yypb.png)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 08, 2013, 10:18:50 PM
A few photos from yesterday's antifascist sticker action, where we removed stickers from ugly organizations like "Denmarks National Front" where we found them and put up some better ones in southern Copenhagen.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 08, 2013, 10:20:18 PM
Etc.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on October 08, 2013, 10:23:05 PM
is that a blue traffic signal light in 2.jpg
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 08, 2013, 10:48:48 PM
sounds like vandalism but ok

idk how that works though
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on October 08, 2013, 11:04:57 PM
bla is literally a rebel now he's not just spamming forums with his communist ideology and affecting all the forum's constituents
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 08, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
til being part of a political party is being a rebel
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 09, 2013, 03:38:36 AM
The traffic light is green I think, well, Paint says 141 red, 254 green and 252 blue kol. It's Darvince-colored.

Putting up the stickers is entirely legal. We agreed before the action not to put them in places where they would block sight through windows or stuff like that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on October 09, 2013, 03:46:04 AM
wow there's bicycle routes and people routes for crossing
guess danish people like bikes
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 09, 2013, 05:13:47 AM
wow there's bicycle routes and people routes for crossing
guess danish people like bikes
Bikes are a much less pollutive, more healthy, cheaper and more space-efficient alternative to cars.

(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1234299_10151921390808674_2089864887_n.jpg)
Campaign stickers from Unity List/Red-Green Alliance in Copenhagen for this municipal election in November:
"Green for bikes. Red for cars."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on October 09, 2013, 05:26:30 AM
inb4 cars are outlawed by 2016
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 09, 2013, 06:10:01 AM
We have bike paths around here but they are only in like the canal things. The nearest one to me is like two miles away.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yqt1001 on October 09, 2013, 07:47:04 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24396390 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24396390)

Always neat to see how history from 500 years ago can still have a big impact on life today.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on October 09, 2013, 08:38:37 AM
So the Congo is in a state of eternal war?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Unreal2004 on October 09, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
Bikes are a much less pollutive, more healthy, cheaper and more space-efficient alternative to cars.

While that may be true not every country/state/city/county/whatever is small enough to justify the use of only bikes, public transportation is also severely lacking and honestly disgusting.  I would rather keep my car and drive into town than ride a bike.........also you cant go shopping with a bike and take your stuff home, what do you do if you buy a TV?  Plop it on the seat next to you on the bus that doesnt go to your house?

That being said we DO need to find alternatives to vehicles and I do think Tesla has the right idea, once you can charge it at your own home with very little grid energy this will be the best way to go.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 09, 2013, 11:44:45 AM
inb4 cars are outlawed by 2016
As far as I know it's not Unity List policy to outlaw cars. However, the right and the social democrats have agreed on a really stupid project - plans to build "harbor car tunnels" for almost 30 billion DKK to connect north and south of Copenhagen through east. The plans can be seen here.
http://www.trm.dk/~/media/Files/Publication/2012/strategiske%20analyser/Statuskonference%20november%202012/Jakob%20Karlsh%C3%B8j%20startegiske%20analyser%20261112.pdf (http://www.trm.dk/~/media/Files/Publication/2012/strategiske%20analyser/Statuskonference%20november%202012/Jakob%20Karlsh%C3%B8j%20startegiske%20analyser%20261112.pdf)

For 26.8 billion DKK, Unity List instead proposes:
4 new light rails
40% lower bus ticket prices for 4 years
A park
Network of "super bike-paths" in Copenhagen - 500 km of 2.5 to 4 meters wide bike paths (I don't think the 1.5 billion allocated to this will finance all of the 500 km, however, my guess would be around 100 km)
100 km of additional bike paths in Copenhagen
Fully automatic trains every 5 minutes (they're currently manual and 10 minutes apart)
Bike parking at central stations
Covering the remaining 4 billion DKK of the construction costs of the metro to Sydhavnen (a new line in southwestern Copenhagen).

And additionally road-pricing based on GPS-measurements, which could finance even more projects
Source:
http://kbh.enhedslisten.dk/nyhed/bilerne-bagerst-trafikudspil-fra-enhedslisten (http://kbh.enhedslisten.dk/nyhed/bilerne-bagerst-trafikudspil-fra-enhedslisten)
http://www.kbh.enhedslisten.dk/sites/default/files/Trafikpolitisk%20udspil%202013_0.pdf (http://www.kbh.enhedslisten.dk/sites/default/files/Trafikpolitisk%20udspil%202013_0.pdf)

I personally really hope this will happen instead of car tunnels, but it seems unlikely.

While that may be true not every country/state/city/county/whatever is small enough to justify the use of only bikes, public transportation is also severely lacking and honestly disgusting.  I would rather keep my car and drive into town than ride a bike.........also you cant go shopping with a bike and take your stuff home, what do you do if you buy a TV?  Plop it on the seat next to you on the bus that doesnt go to your house?

That being said we DO need to find alternatives to vehicles and I do think Tesla has the right idea, once you can charge it at your own home with very little grid energy this will be the best way to go.
I agree that public transport also should be promoted and improved to make up for the cars. Of course you can't simply take away cars without leaving any alternatives. I wouldn't want to immediately ban cars.

I personally plan to live a completely car-free life. To transport large items I plan to buy a trailer to put on my bike, so far I've managed to move my things without it though. If I have to move, I don't need a car for that, there are companies with cars specifically made for that which I can borrow.

But yes, if we spent less resources on cars, those resources could go to public transport, and then the situation would look very different for most people. Buses and especially trains are much more efficient in terms of the energy they use compared to cars, so replacing cars with them would mean much less pollution.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on October 09, 2013, 11:48:53 AM
i like how eveything was "by 2012" but then it passed and then everything is "by 2016"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 11, 2013, 08:58:57 AM
Kol, the previous prime minister and current leader of the party Left/Venstre has spent 770,000 DKK (around 150,000 USD) on 15 travels - as chairman of the climate organization GGGI. What a hypocrite.

In response 46% of people have responded that this negatively influences their view of him. 45% replied it didn't affect their view of him. 7% replied they didn't know. And 2% replied it positively affected their view of him.
What?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on October 11, 2013, 09:01:48 AM
soon 770K DKK will be 770K USD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 05, 2013, 01:32:11 PM
Kol this post

http://rokokoposten.dk/2013/11/05/antifascister-overfalder-sig-selv/ (http://rokokoposten.dk/2013/11/05/antifascister-overfalder-sig-selv/)

"Antifascists assault themselves

In an attempt to eradicate the antidemocratic tendencies in the municipal election campaign, a small group of militant antifascists assaulted each other.

It is a bruised but happy Jesper Jensen from the movement Antifascist Action, who RokokoPosten speaks with Monday afternoon.

Because the 23-year old antifascist from Odense is physically affected by yesterday's meeting, where the members gave both themselves and each other a beating with both fists and various weapons. However, it is not a fight based on internal disagreements or enmnity, but the result of a throughout analysis of polical extremism in the municipal election campaign, Jesper Jensen says.

A blow against the extremism
"After a 7 hour long basisdemocratic marathon debate we decided that there actually aren't any nazis just around the corner, so we began to consider whether there were other obscure movements, which pose a threat against democracy. Then we became aware of ourselves," he says.

"It's not just that we openly support violence against political enemies. We also exercise systematic vandalism against election posters and sabotage election meetings, where there are people we don't like," he says.

"And then some of us are also quite fanatic communists, who completely seriously believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat", he adds.

Cobblestone for democracy
Practically it happened by some sitting opposed to others and then beating with bottles and table legs, while others decided to maltreat themselves in the fight against the enemies of democracy. Jesper tells he was one of those, who literally had taken violence in his own hands.

"I hit myself repeatedly in my head with a cobblestone, while shouting "hurray for democracy, death to ourselves," he tells.

"Naturally it hurt, but I could feel, that democracy felt better and better, the more I was bleeding," he excitedly tells.

This afternoon the members will meet for another meeting, where they're going to discuss whether it's ok to burn the cars of political opponents and then collectively run forehead against a wall.

Kol their self-irony. :b
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 05, 2013, 03:46:32 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '112502'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 05, 2013, 10:46:54 PM
I haven't red it much before, just got the link from Project Antifa's Facebook page, but yes, I think it's a satirical thing. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 06, 2013, 08:36:16 AM
I thought it was Ødense but ok
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 06, 2013, 10:42:42 AM
pronunciation: [ˈoðˀn̩sə] what the heckie danish

i have danishfolk from odense
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 06, 2013, 10:56:19 AM
Løl Ødense

Inb4 you all pronounce it "oh dense".

Kol, election video from Enhedslisten Copenhagen. Cool.

Valgfilm Enhedslisten-København 2013 (fuld længde) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Waux-uiFNe4#)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 06, 2013, 04:56:45 PM
does danish even use c
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 07, 2013, 03:05:45 AM
Yes, circus, citron, center, etc.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 08, 2013, 10:50:08 AM
Matty and other leftists inside EU should consider supporting/signing and sharing (maybe even donating?) this:

https://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/REQ-ECI-2012-000028/public/

The goal is to get 1 million within EU to sign it before January 14, 2014.

They claim that the donations will be used to start a campaign online and offline to get more people to sign it so there's a chance of reaching 1 million signatures. Idk if there's any actual counter showing how many have signed it. Anyway I signed it.

Edit: Oh yes, there is
https://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/REQ-ECI-2012-000028/public/map.do
It's at 125,004 signatures as of now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 20, 2013, 12:30:28 PM
Municipal and regional elections in Denmark are over. A very good result for Enhedslisten, especially in Copenhagen - they got 19.5% of the votes there, second only to the Social Democrats who got 27.8%.
On country level Enhedslisten got 6.9% of the votes.

From email:
"Until the elections yesterday we were represented in 10 city councils. Now we sit in 79 municipalities with no less than 119 candidates. [...] It is without comparison the best municipal and regional elections that Enhedslisten has ever had."

"In Copenhagen we have no less than 11 mandates and the important seat as mayor of the environment and technology."

Map of results with clickable municipalities and regions for details
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/kv13/resultater (http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/kv13/resultater)

Overall the Social Democrats got the most votes as usual, especially in the cities.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on November 20, 2013, 12:46:49 PM
Quote
Elections are easy. First think of the person you wanna vote for, Denmark the ballot paper.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 20, 2013, 01:19:47 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '113032'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 25, 2013, 03:44:08 PM
So the government is currently working on the budget law, which it either needs Enhedslisten's or the right wing's support for (if it can't get that, it will mean a new government has to be elected). Enhedslisten is currently trying to pressure the government to make it a right for elderly to get two baths per week and cleaning every second week. The government currently refuses to make it a right and instead wants to increase spending on elderly by 1 billion DKK instead.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on November 25, 2013, 05:21:11 PM
....


that is a curious right to have
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on November 25, 2013, 06:08:52 PM
(if it can't get that, it will mean a new government has to be elected)

If only this was an option for the US, IF only. Then again it would be pretty impractical given the size of the country, but hey, if congress doesn't do its job and do a budget (which they haven't for years, I think they've forgotten how to do a budget(, then MAYBE they should lose their jobs.

Of course though, a complete reshuffling would just make it more chaotic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 26, 2013, 04:45:56 AM
....


that is a curious right to have
Why? If you were incapable of taking a bath or cleaning your room on your own, how would you feel if you sat week after week and didn't get a bath? How would you feel if someone, say your family or a friend came over to visit you and you haven't been to bath for a week? I would definitely feel embarassed and avoid other people if I hadn't taken a bath for weeks and smelled. If that would be how I would feel for most of my remaining life I would feel uncomfortable. I don't think it's acceptable for such a rich society as Denmark to neglect people like that, I wouldn't support such a right in a poor/developing country though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 26, 2013, 05:24:15 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '113335'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 26, 2013, 08:29:08 AM
Yes, those who can't take a bath on their own. Those who can just take a bath on their own wouldn't really need or have much use of the right.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on November 26, 2013, 11:51:55 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '113344'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 26, 2013, 12:30:00 PM
Interestingly, in 2007, our prime minister herself argued that elderly should have the right to have a bath "every day if they want to".

"Socialdemokraterne vil sikre alle ældre ret til pleje på et rimeligt niveau. Er det virkelig for meget forlangt, at vores ældre skal have ret til et bad hver dag, hvis de ønsker det, eller til at komme ud i frisk luft?"

"The social democrats want to secure all elderly the right of care at a fair level. Is it really too much to demand that our elderly should have the right to have a bath every day, if they want it, or to get out in fresh air?"

(Source: Video in Danish)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMxBsnmq1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMxBsnmq1Q)

But their response to Enhedslisten's demands? Now they're discussing with the right wing instead. What a bunch of hypocritical fools!

As for the right sounding strange, I see your point, but I don't see whether it "sounds strange" having any actual relation to whether the right should be granted or not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 01, 2013, 02:09:27 PM
Interesting (this is just a short summary of the most important things from the article, I don't have time to translate it all):

Report: 22 billions USD never arrived in the world's poorest countries

One fifth of the world's bilateral development aid never leaves the donor countries.

The money are instead spent on contracts with western corporations and organizations, which deliver everything from food to equipment to services such as consulents and employees.

Sometimes the aid is used to bring down the country's debt. That happened to The Democratic Republic of Congo two years ago. Pretty much none of the 4.9 billion USD that the country received in OECD's spreadsheet found its way to the war-torn country. The vast majority was used to delete debt.

Some countries:
Italy: 86% of aid stayed within Italy
Austria: More than 50%
France: 30%
Sweden: 25%
Denmark: Less than 13%

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2013/11/29/093235.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2013/11/29/093235.htm)
which refers to research from Development Initiatives on OECD statistics from 2011
http://devinit.org/report/investments-to-end-poverty/ (http://devinit.org/report/investments-to-end-poverty/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 12, 2013, 07:44:44 AM
The new chairman of the tax ministry receives a fishing net, so that he can catch all the tax cheaters.

(http://asset.dr.dk/imagescaler/?file=%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F7FC12964-8044-4D12-95D5-F86E70FF5542%2F5672388%2F664630e564f64acc9cb5375919320420_OVERDRAGELSE_SKAT.jpeg&w=620&h=349&scaleAfter=crop)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on December 12, 2013, 08:34:16 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '114622'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on December 13, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
I've been playing Democracy 3 as the new prime minister
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/888365/politikz.png)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 23, 2013, 06:08:37 AM
An idiot from Danish People's Party has asked 1224 questions to the parlament after the government proposed ending the public travel health insurance.
30 of the questions are identical  for 39 countries in Europe, for example "how many public and private hospitals are there in the Vatican" "how many public and private hpstipals are ther in the Norway" "haw mnay pobluc and prvate hsoitals are their in the Gurmoney" and "how much does a knee operation cost in the Canal Islands between UK and France" "how mush dos a knee operation cawst in the Spain"

Wtf.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on December 23, 2013, 06:18:11 AM
public travel heatl insraucen

is that like health insurance for travelers
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 23, 2013, 06:20:20 AM
Yes, as in Denmark state pays if your knee breaks in Spain and a hospital in Spain repairs it, the proposal is that you pay it yourself instead.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on December 23, 2013, 12:48:50 PM
An idiot from Danish People's Party has asked 1224 questions to the parlament after the government proposed ending the public travel health insurance.
30 of the questions are identical  for 39 countries in Europe, for example "how many public and private hospitals are there in the Vatican" "how many public and private hpstipals are ther in the Norway" "haw mnay pobluc and prvate hsoitals are their in the Gurmoney" and "how much does a knee operation cost in the Canal Islands between UK and France" "how mush dos a knee operation cawst in the Spain"

Wtf.
Source? Are all those misspellings what they actually asked or are they you exaggerating to make the "fascist" party seem even worse than it is?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 23, 2013, 03:08:51 PM
Source?
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2013/12/23/070434.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2013/12/23/070434.htm)

Are all those misspellings what they actually asked or are they you exaggerating to make the "fascist" party seem even worse than it is?
I didn't quote the person's actual questions. It occured in the Danish parlament, so it was in Danish, thus obviously the spelling mistakes don't apply. I only wrote the content, I don't see how the spelling mistakes is "exaggerating" it, it was simply to make it look quickly written based on the fact that more than 1200 questions had been written in a few days, meaning that much attention or consideration when writing them probably wasn't given to most of them. And nowhere in my post did I call the party fascist, although I'd like to see it to disappear from the surface of the Earth, the sooner the better, as all it's doing is polluting it with hate towards LGBT people and immigrants and spread religious stupidity. And now spamming the parlament with stupid questions anyone can find the answer to from a quick Google search.

A minority of them are actual fascists, most of them don't identify as it, but hold ideas that point in that direction. Ideologically they're similar to the republicans in their social conservatism, nationalism, religious ideology and ignorance towards science (denial of climate change), economically they're somewhat different and similar to the social democrats.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on December 24, 2013, 07:58:15 AM
You guys have more than two parties though, we have to deal with what we've got. Well okay, the US is capable of having a multiparty system (there are lots of smaller ones), it's just that we have two that dominate everything.

Even if I wanted to have the Republican Party disappear, I don't want a single party system either. Though in theory it would be one big party and lots of smaller ones until one or more filled the vacuum.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 05, 2014, 12:26:23 AM
(https://24.media.tumblr.com/3c978753517d55f86553de1da7c2a754/tumblr_mgd2xyH7B61rthtrko1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 05, 2014, 05:40:45 AM
Well written.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 07, 2014, 01:56:08 PM
Kol at the pro-car-ist reactions to Enhedslisten's Morten Kabell becoming the mayor of technology and environment after the municipal election. They're simply hilarious (but in Danish) (the thing about 90% of them have in common is their warning of impending apocarlypse - especially for cars and car drivers)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/KV13/Artikler/Hele_landet/2013/11/20/100645.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/KV13/Artikler/Hele_landet/2013/11/20/100645.htm)

The mayor himself has said no thanks to getting a mayor car
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/07/bilskeptisk-borgmester-noejes-med-cyklen.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/07/bilskeptisk-borgmester-noejes-med-cyklen.htm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 08, 2014, 05:00:23 PM
Private messages between Governor’s Christie’s deputy chief of staff and two of his top executives at the Port Authority reveal a vindictive effort to create “traffic problems in Fort Lee” by shutting lanes to the George Washington Bridge and apparent pleasure at the resulting gridlock.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/christie_kelly_bridge_lane_closures_emails.html (http://www.northjersey.com/news/christie_kelly_bridge_lane_closures_emails.html)

"Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."
"Is it wrong that I’m smiling"
"No"
"I feel badly about the kids I guess."
"They are the children of Buono voters"
"Bottom line is that he didn't say safely"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 14, 2014, 03:44:32 AM
Some good news for once. In 2013, 33.8% of Denmark's power supply came from wind power, which is the first time a country reaches above 1/3, and 57.4% of the power used in December came from wind power, which is also a world record. On December 21, the wind turbines produced more than 100% of the power used.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/14/104657.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/14/104657.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Regionale/MidtVest/2014/01/13/173345.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Regionale/MidtVest/2014/01/13/173345.htm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 14, 2014, 04:26:33 AM
i read this somewhere: good news is bad news for that means that good is now unusual and bad the norm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 14, 2014, 05:01:35 AM
But that's not the news' fault :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 14, 2014, 07:00:05 AM
That's because good things aren't usually events, or aren't events that would interest the masses. For example if there was a news report on how the number of malnourished people has declined from 1.2 billion to 600 million in the past 20 years, it would not be one with a scene so it would at most get a sentence or two during a newscast.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on January 14, 2014, 01:05:22 PM

I certainly didn't. If anything I got brainwashed into being afraid of Communism. I began to think out my own political opinions, which I called Blaism, but I came to many of the same conclusions as Communism. :)


bla what was different
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on January 14, 2014, 01:41:07 PM
That's because good things aren't usually events, or aren't events that would interest the masses. For example if there was a news report on how the number of malnourished people has declined from 1.2 billion to 600 million in the past 20 years, it would not be one with a scene so it would at most get a sentence or two during a newscast.
That's sad...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 14, 2014, 02:01:12 PM
bla what was different
I haven't read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifestor or Marx's works (other than small parts) so as such I'm not a "traditional Marxist". I don't claim to support all his economic ideas as such. I've had a greater interest in the economic system that many socialist countries have had, the planned economy, which is mainly what drew me to communism.

Anyway, the most important difference I have is probably my thoughts on the statelessness of communism, Marx wrote that in communism, the state would no longer exist. I haven't read up on his reasoning for a classless society being stateless - a Marxist might tell me that a society with a state is necessarily one with classes. But in my future vision, I think of a classless society with a state.

My future vision might be more similar to Marxist socialism, but I don't think I understand Marx's vision well enough to compare it to my own, because I haven't read his books. So there are probably going to be some differencies in our future visions.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 23, 2014, 12:31:58 PM
Some interesting facts about pig meat production in Denmark. It's rather sad that we as a society have decided that there's simply nothing to do about the fact that people eat much more meat than they need. Producing 1 kg of meat takes several times that amount of plant, meaning much more people could get food if we produced less meat. And less animals would have to suffer in the production system.

- In 2012, almost 20 million pigs were slaughtered in Denmark.

- Every fourth conventional/third ecological pig dies before it's slaughtered, equal to 25,000 every day.

- At least 95% of conventional pigs have parts of their tail cut off without anaesthesia to prevent other pigs from biting in the tail. This works because it makes the tail much more sensitive, so pigs are more likely to move if other pigs bite in their cut tail. The reason pigs bite each other's tails in the first place is because of the stress, which exists because of the conditions they live in, one of the major reasons for this is that they have nothing to do.
According to a scientist, their needs for straw per day is 400g per pig, and they currently typically get 10 g per day, where they get any.
The law has forbidden cutting their tails since 2004, except when other measures have been attempted - and so this "exception" is used as excuse for 95% of the pigs.
It is completely forbidden to cut the tails of ecologic pigs.
Additionally, many pigs are also castrated without anaesthesia.

- Conventional pigs are moved to the slaughterhouses when they have a mass of about 105 kg, at this time they're usually between 5 and 6 months old.

- A conventional pig must have at least 0.65 square meters of space within a stable.

- Every third slaughtered pig suffers from gastric ulcers.

- Between 2008 and 2012, the export of young pigs has increased from 5.3 million to 9.2 million per year.

- 90% of the pig meat is exported to other countries. Germany receives the majority.

- 4,500 Mg (uhappy now, Atomic :P) of pig meat is produced per day in Denmark. For comparison, the world's biggest producer, China, produces 140,000 Mg per day.

- People in Denmark consume on average 22 kg of meat per year, of which 9 kg is pig meat. People above 60 years consume 16 kg pig meat per year on average.

- Danish Crown, which is the company behind the majority of the pig meat production, is outsourcing jobs from the country. In 2012, it had 8,000 employed in Denmark and 15,000 employed in other countries. In 2004, it was the other way around.

- Pigs are fixed the weeks around when they give birth, "to prevent them from lying on their offspring".
(http://asset.dr.dk/imagescaler/?file=%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2FD9816E7F-37A4-4EA8-A46F-41E70013EB0B%2F5740434%2Fe6dd514afbdd4c5291bc8994993b3ee7_svin11.jpeg&w=620&h=349&scaleAfter=crop)

(http://asset.dr.dk/imagescaler/?file=%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2FC390E3DC-7377-4BB3-B1CD-B21B53F15BE6%2F5740336%2Fab2bb38778f94b36bccaa8d2e5c8a3d5_svin14.jpeg&w=620&h=349&scaleAfter=crop)

Sources:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/21/095921.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/21/095921.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/22/172458.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/22/172458.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/21/121534.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/21/121534.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/18/230141.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/18/230141.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/23/164131.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/23/164131.htm)

Is this production system a disgrace? What do you think? What do you think should be done about it?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 23, 2014, 01:44:26 PM
What the Christ.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on January 23, 2014, 03:05:11 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '116502'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 27, 2014, 08:18:56 AM
Kol this

(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/451/399/b94.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 11:01:10 AM
are pigs capable of conciousness? it appears not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_test

therefore, i don't think how the pigs are treated is important from an ethical standpoint much as there aren't any robot cruelty laws at present. the only consideration is whether this form of production is reasonably efficient.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 27, 2014, 12:17:50 PM
bla sadly that is $100% true
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 27, 2014, 12:22:16 PM
new headcanon that all numbers in murica are preceded by $
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 27, 2014, 01:26:32 PM
are pigs capable of conciousness? it appears not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_test

therefore, i don't think how the pigs are treated is important from an ethical standpoint much as there aren't any robot cruelty laws at present. the only consideration is whether this form of production is reasonably efficient.
That is a sick and morbid statement. Because what matters is not just whether they're conscious - it matters whether they can feel suffering, and they clearly can. Being able to understand your mirror-image is irrelevant to this fact, so I do not see why you would divide animals into two categories based on that test.

As for efficiency, producing meat in conventional farms can never be efficient, because the production of meat takes up more than ten times the mass in grain, which means had you simply been producing grain instead in the first place, you could've fed more than 10 times as many hungry people on this planet. The vast majority of the energy and nutrients in the crops is lost when it's grown into meat, no matter how horrible you want to make the living conditions for the pigs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 01:32:16 PM
are pigs capable of conciousness? it appears not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_test

therefore, i don't think how the pigs are treated is important from an ethical standpoint much as there aren't any robot cruelty laws at present. the only consideration is whether this form of production is reasonably efficient.
That is a sick and morbid statement. Because what matters is not just whether they're conscious - it matters whether they can feel suffering, and they clearly can.

As for efficiency, producing meat in conventional farms can never be efficient, because the production of meat takes up more than ten times the mass in grain, which means had you simply been producing grain instead in the first place, you could've fed more than 10 times as many hungry people on this planet. The vast majority of the energy and nutrients in the crops is lost when it's grown into meat, no matter how horrible you want to make the living conditions for the pigs.

but what if a robot has a touch sensor that, when given enough pressure, sets
pain += sensor.pressure
then would we need to treat that robot in a gentle way? or what if cleverbot sets sadness to True whenever someone disconnects in the middle of a conversation?
Both the pig, cleverbot ,and the robot are in the same classification of objects that can feel pain but are not conscious so i think they should be treated about the same.

i understand about the meat and vegetation efficiency. but if it is going to happen, then it should attempt to use as little resources as possible to save more for the hungry people.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 27, 2014, 01:41:15 PM
but what if a robot has a touch sensor that, when given enough pressure, sets
pain += sensor.pressure
then would we need to treat that robot in a gentle way?
Pigs have a nervous system and brain that is very similar to that of humans and animals that can do your mirror test, we can see how they react to pain and stress in similar ways to humans. So clearly pigs can and do feel suffering in a way that is very similar to ourselves.
There is no evidence that this is happening to robots. If we had good reasons to believe that robots are capable of suffering, if constructed in such a way, then yes, I think we should limit the suffering as much as possible.

or what if cleverbot sets sadness to True whenever someone disconnects in the middle of a conversation?
Again I don't see any rational reason to how this can be compared to the situation of the pigs any more than that of humans.

Both the pig, cleverbot ,and the robot are in the same classification of objects that can feel pain but are not conscious so i think they should be treated about the same.
Both humans, cleverbot, pigs and the robots are in the same classification of objects that can appear to move and communicate, so I think they should be treated about the same.
You can invent any classification to suit your needs. The question is whether the category is relevant for the case. This case is dealing with suffering. So I think we should use a category that is based on suffering and not a mirror test.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 01:49:25 PM
cleverbot becoming sad or suffering when someone disconnects is relevant because both the bot and the pig can suffer. although cleverbot isn't programmed that way, if it is, would it be unethical to break away in the middle of a conversation?

or to have something more concrete, i could type up a script right now that, when executed, would write to a text file how sad it feels. if the terminal is exited, a very large amount of sadness is recorded. does this make it unethical to end the script?

They both can suffer too
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 27, 2014, 01:56:12 PM
cleverbot becoming sad or suffering when someone disconnects is relevant because both the bot and the pig can suffer. although cleverbot isn't programmed that way, if it is, would it be unethical to break away in the middle of a conversation?
While we know that the pig can suffer, we have no evidence or reason to tie cleverbot's messages to actual feelings. You can also sit and type a text file saying that you suffer. Does that mean you actually suffer? No. Same goes for cleverbot.

or to have something more concrete, i could type up a script right now that, when executed, would write to a text file how sad it feels. if the terminal is exited, a very large amount of sadness is recorded. does this make it unethical to end the script?

They both can suffer too
Again, writing a script that says it suffers can be compared to you writing a text file saying that you suffer. In either case we cannot conclude that any of you actually suffer.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 02:06:17 PM
is there a difference between "actually suffering" and "apparent suffering" (as in claiming suffering through a text file note)?

if there isn't, then there is no difference between me, the cleverbot scenario, and the pig

if there is, then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering? is it ok to make a pig that feels no pain or hunger (through genetic modifications) suffer?

i don't believe there is a difference between actual and apparent suffering. or at least i can't think of one at this time
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on January 27, 2014, 02:06:33 PM
Pigs have a nervous system and brain that is very similar to that of humans ... pigs can and do feel suffering in a way that is very similar to ourselves.

I completely agree with this. Elephants, horses, dogs, cats, pigs, cows, dolphins, whales, and humans are all mammals and experience a negative emotional reaction to pain.

This is also one of the main reasons I'm vegetarian.

then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering?

We know that the pig is actually suffering. There's no doubt about this.
(this could be determined objectively via brain scans, for example)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 02:16:52 PM

then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering?

We know that the pig is actually suffering. There's no doubt about this.
(this could be determined objectively via brain scans, for example)

you can examine variables in running code using the watch function in visual studio (or i imagine any number of other tools), usually to debug code, but in this case it could be used to show that a piece of code actually does increase the value of integer pain. or there could be a camera focused on my fingers typing into a text file that i'm suffering. so how can the observation differentiate between actual and apparent suffering?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 27, 2014, 02:16:58 PM
is there a difference between "actually suffering" and "apparent suffering" (as in claiming suffering through a text file note)?

if there isn't, then there is no difference between me, the cleverbot scenario, and the pig

if there is, then how do we know the pig is actually suffering and not apparently suffering? is it ok to make a pig that feels no pain or hunger (through genetic modifications) suffer?

i don't believe there is a difference between actual and apparent suffering. or at least i can't think of one at this time
Example: I write a Word document that I suffer, my foot is burning, without feeling pain in my foot.
Then my apparent suffering would say my foot is hurting, but my actual suffering would say it isn't, so clearly there is a difference.

I agree that it's hard to determine where this border goes in some cases. But the mirror test certainly is a horrible tool to determine this. We know how many similarities we share with pigs and other mammals, because of all the similarities, we know they do feel suffering that is similar to us.
As for tiny insects, I don't claim to know that, as for robots and scripts, I'm not going to say that I'm 100% sure, but I'd go with 99 point many many 9's on a script that simply outputs text files saying it's suffering. Fracturing a pig's leg certainly comes vastly closer to fracturing a human's leg than it comes to outputting suffering statements in text files.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on January 27, 2014, 02:24:42 PM
Fracturing a pig's leg certainly comes vastly closer to fracturing a human's leg than it comes to outputting suffering statements in text files.

The blurry line of what is suffering is an interesting discussion... but I feel confident in agreeing with Bla that there's no doubt about a pig's capacity for suffering.

I think is fair to generalize that birds also suffer, but perhaps less than mammals, fish less so than birds, and insects mush less than fish.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on January 27, 2014, 02:27:34 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '116693'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 02:27:38 PM
i agree that pigs are closer to humans than code, but instead of
code <<<<< pig < human
i believe it to be more like
code < pig <<<<< human

i do think the mirror test, which is an indicator of consciousness, is important.
as pointed out before, anything can appear to suffer, in the form of a number, a value, or some other format. however, a piece of silicon probably can't "actually" suffer.
neither can a bag of water and ions (the brain).
i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers. but only a human (and a few other animals) are conscious.
i don't have a proof for this, and i think consciousness is more like a numerical value than a boolean value, but i think the pig is vastly closer to the code than a human, based on the mirror test

perhaps we'll know in a few decades
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on January 27, 2014, 03:46:05 PM
If you're saying that perhaps birds suffer less than pigs, then could that also mean perhaps pigs suffer less than humans?

Yeah... I think that's fair, but I think the suffering of a pig is not much less than a human. That a human is self-aware gives them the upper hand (if I had to choose one to suffer over the other, I would pick the pig) but both are capable of immense suffering.

i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers.
perhaps we'll know in a few decades

Rip the leg off of a living pig... and you'll see it suffer (or hook up a brain scan and notice how similar the results are to that of a human). Pigs don't need to be self-aware for the pain to be emotionally devastating and terrible.

It's more like this:
code <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< pig < human

That said... given that you think consciousness is so critical, you'd agree that killing elephants, dolphins, and monkeys is abhorrent?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 04:05:03 PM

i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers.
perhaps we'll know in a few decades

Rip the leg off of a living pig... and you'll see it suffer (or hook up a brain scan and notice how similar the results are to that of a human). Pigs don't need to be self-aware for the pain to be emotionally devastating and terrible.

i'll see it, but as i said before, i can examine variables in running code using the watch feature in visual studio and see that an instance has a positive integer pain. there can even be a variable for emotional devastation. i don't see the difference between this and a pig


That said... given that you think consciousness is so critical, you'd agree that killing elephants, dolphins, and monkeys is abhorrent?

yes
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on January 27, 2014, 04:09:39 PM
i'll see it, but as i said before, i can examine variables in running code using the watch feature in visual studio and see that an instance has a positive integer pain. there can even be a variable for emotional devastation. i don't see the difference between this and a pig

So what's the difference between this computer program that can also recognize itself in a mirror and a human in pain?

Have you ever seen a pig or other non-human mammal in pain? There's a huge difference between that and watching a variable on screen.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 05:27:02 PM
I agree that there's a huge difference.

I hypothesize there's a huge difference because:

But I don't think these three effects should also change my moral views, so I abstract them out and forget about them by using examples such as robots and code
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 27, 2014, 06:02:03 PM
But I don't think these three effects should also change my moral views, so I abstract them out and forget about them by using examples such as robots and code
What do you think of a photo-sensor with a program running that lets it detect itself in a mirror, but no code for saying anything about pain? Are the well-being of these more important than that of pigs?

i'll see it, but as i said before, i can examine variables in running code using the watch feature in visual studio and see that an instance has a positive integer pain. there can even be a variable for emotional devastation. i don't see the difference between this and a pig
How about writing down pain on paper? What does this have to do with feeling pain? You typing feeling pain in a document doesn't mean you actually feel it. I don't get why you keep comparing the program to living beings. Your example of making a program outputting painful messages has already been debunked long ago by the example of writing the same messages yourself in a document. There is no reason to believe that those things have any connection to actual feelings whatsoever.

Now your biggest issue seems to be distinguishing the pig from the programs because they don't recognize themselves in a mirror. Try abstracting from this mirror and think of all the things you can find pigs have in common with, or share similarities to, with humans. Then do the same with humans and some photo-detector with a program for seeing itself in a mirror. As you'll see the pig is vastly more similar to humans still.

Also, there's 100% correlation between the human consciousness and the physical state of their body (their brain and nerval system). Pigs too have an advanced nerval system, brain, and react to stimuli the same way as humans. Even if they can't recognize themselves in a mirror, they're not that far from humans.

Also, again, I can only stress how utterly ridiculous the mirror criterium is for judging whether people are conscious or not... A blind person isn't conscious because it can't see itself in a mirror, a cleverly designed program in a computer hooked up to a photo-detector, recognizing its shape in a mirror, is... Need I really say more?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 06:23:05 PM
photosensor does not suffer, therefore even if it is conscious, its well being is not important
also, photosensor noticing itself does not make it conscious

pigs are vastly more similar to humans in many aspects. i don't think they are vastly similar to humans in the one aspect that does matter in terms of whether suffering is ethical, that is consciousness.

i'm not sure what you mean by a correlation between the human consciousness and the physical state of their body

a blind person is conscious. a clever photo-detector is not conscious.

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

the mirror test is one method used to establish whether an organism is conscious. it is not the only test, but it works well because many animals have eyes. this doesn't mean a sightless organism can't be conscious
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 27, 2014, 06:54:39 PM
photosensor does not suffer, therefore even if it is conscious, its well being is not important
also, photosensor noticing itself does not make it conscious
Good, agreed.

pigs are vastly more similar to humans in many aspects. i don't think they are vastly similar to humans in the one aspect that does matter in terms of whether suffering is ethical, that is consciousness.
Based on what do you say consciousness is what matters? Shouldn't it be the capability to feel suffering - that is, our feeling of suffering is due to our central nerval system and our brain, so wouldn't it be sensible to judge based on whether organisms have a developed central nerval system and brain centers for processing pain rather than whether you can classify them as "conscious"?

i'm not sure what you mean by a correlation between the human consciousness and the physical state of their body
This:
i think it is the consciousness that actually suffers. but only a human (and a few other animals) are conscious.
i don't have a proof for this, and i think consciousness is more like a numerical value than a boolean value, but i think the pig is vastly closer to the code than a human, based on the mirror test

perhaps we'll know in a few decades
A brain combined with a central nerval system (or any other system that could input the signals that would've come from the nerval system) can feel pain.

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."
Pigs are aware of external objects (their environment, food, other pigs, predators, knives for example). They fulfill many of those criteria to a big extent even though not as much as humans. They react to things in ways that resemble human feelings, they make noises in cases where you'd expect humans to feel fear or pain, for example. As you yourself said, consciousness isn't boolean.

the mirror test is one method used to establish whether an organism is conscious. it is not the only test, but it works well because many animals have eyes. this doesn't mean a sightless organism can't be conscious
Why would you use a boolean test to categorize animals into two types if you say consciousness isn't boolean?
In the end, you say you just believe pain is tied to the non-boolean consciousness which should be judged by a boolean test that in the end proves absolutely nothing in relation to actual pain... So I'm not sure if there is really that much more to say, other than feeling sorry for any pigs who would've been treated according to those beliefs. Asking for why you believe it I guess won't really accomplish anything, but feel free to answer.

Meanwhile from neuroscience we know how pain in humans is completely attached to the chemistry within specific parts of the brain, and we can see this happening in both pigs and humans, so I think there's plenty of reason to say pigs can feel suffering similarly to humans.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 27, 2014, 07:31:02 PM
Quote
Based on what do you say consciousness is what matters? Shouldn't it be the capability to feel suffering - that is, our feeling of suffering is due to our central nerval system and our brain, so wouldn't it be sensible to judge based on whether organisms have a developed central nerval system and brain centers for processing pain rather than whether you can classify them as "conscious"?
no i do not think this is a good classification scheme. what separates a brain and a nervous system from a silicon processor and pressure sensors? both transmits signals and manipulates information.
i say consciousness matters because it seems to be the only divider that successfully separates a robot and a human

Quote
A brain combined with a central nerval system (or any other system that could input the signals that would've come from the nerval system) can feel pain.
what does it mean to feel pain? why does a brain which processes signals feel pain but a computer not? how are the ionic pumps of the individual neurons firing to give pain signals any different from how the circuits inside memory add one to a variable (or however ram works, i'm not familiar). i don't think it is any different.

Quote
Pigs are aware of external objects (their environment, food, other pigs, predators, knives for example). They fulfill many of those criteria to a big extent even though not as much as humans. They react to things in ways that resemble human feelings, they make noises in cases where you'd expect humans to feel fear or pain, for example. As you yourself said, consciousness isn't boolean.
i don't think a pig is aware of external objects. its brain might process the data from its eyes, but it is not aware that they exist. if it was aware, then it might be able to pass the mirror test or other tests of consciousness

Quote
Why would you use a boolean test to categorize animals into two types if you say consciousness isn't boolean?
because we haven't developed a non-boolean test yet. this is the best i can do with what i have

Quote
Meanwhile from neuroscience we know how pain in humans is completely attached to the chemistry within specific parts of the brain, and we can see this happening in both pigs and humans, so I think there's plenty of reason to say pigs can feel suffering similarly to humans.
there are similarities between humans and pigs, and similarities between robots and pigs.
although a pig may seem much more similar to a human than a robot, i believe this is not the case.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 28, 2014, 08:23:23 AM
no i do not think this is a good classification scheme. what separates a brain and a nervous system from a silicon processor and pressure sensors? both transmits signals and manipulates information.
The brain has evolved and uses a completely different method than computers. Brains of animals are vastly more similar to each other in structure than they are to any computer. For this reason there is much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't.

i say consciousness matters because it seems to be the only divider that successfully separates a robot and a human
There's simply no connection in what you're writing. First you say pigs aren't conscious because they don't pass the mirror test. Then you say a blind person is conscious, a photo-detector isn't, in other words that your mirror test can't even establish whether they're conscious or not. That's a rather interesting idea, to think that dozens of millions of pigs should be treated according to a simple test that you yourself clearly don't even trust as a tool to establish whether they're conscious or not, and even more as for whether this ability to recognize itself in a mirror is really what's vital to the ability to feel suffering.

Robots and humans are separated by millions of different factors, but they depend entirely on how you build the robot. A robot may not have legs, it may not have skin, the robots we build today don't use brains like humans and animals, and I'd say that's a very important difference, because we know the link between our brain and our ability to suffer. Had we built a robot out of human cells, with a brain, from scratch, putting every atom together making it just like a human, then I'd assume it does have consciousness and the exact same properties like any other human. Had it been put together like a human brain but no body but still the same inputs, I'd say the same, just like what we've observed in humans who have lost parts of their body, eyes, etc.

Consciousness, established by the primitive mirror-test, is really just one factor that you're cherry-picking to suit your needs in this case.

what does it mean to feel pain?
That is not an easy question to answer. But what we know is that it is 100% related to parts of our brain processing stimuli from our nerval system.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Schematic_of_cortical_areas_involved_with_pain_processing_and_fMRI.jpg)
As for whether there are other ways that could be like pain, such as in robots with a completely different structure, I see no evidence for this. But the evidence says that feeling pain is parts of the brain processing signals. So I'd rather go for preventing slightly different brains from processing such signals than I'd put them into a category with robots and ignore them.

why does a brain which processes signals feel pain but a computer not?
There's simply no evidence for what any computer might feel, unlike the brain.

how are the ionic pumps of the individual neurons firing to give pain signals any different from how the circuits inside memory add one to a variable (or however ram works, i'm not familiar). i don't think it is any different.
Well making a variable is simply like writing a statement on paper. If you make a truth value and set it to true whenever a program sees the pattern "1 + 2 = 4" it doesn't mean the result is correct. There's no reason to think those variables will have any connection to what you call them. You might as well call the pain variable stupidity but give it the exact same properties as before, shouldn't make the program stupid every time it detects pressure on some pressure detector.

On the other hand we see the clear connection between what's going on in human brains and painful events, which is evidence that human brains are capable of feeling pain. Computers have a completely different structure than brains and I don't see any reason why you should be able to generalize from human brains onto computers.

Quote
Pigs are aware of external objects (their environment, food, other pigs, predators, knives for example). They fulfill many of those criteria to a big extent even though not as much as humans. They react to things in ways that resemble human feelings, they make noises in cases where you'd expect humans to feel fear or pain, for example. As you yourself said, consciousness isn't boolean.
i don't think a pig is aware of external objects. its brain might process the data from its eyes, but it is not aware that they exist. if it was aware, then it might be able to pass the mirror test or other tests of consciousness
So which other tests so you suggest, now that the mirror test did not work?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209003571 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209003571)
Consciousness is a rather nebulous subject and from all we know about it it's clearly nothing like boolean, it's very gradual. Most babies can pass the mirror test by 1.5 years, but earlier can use the mirror image for other things, pigs similarly can use the mirror for understanding where objects are without going there.
(Also, I find it a bit ironic that you're against abortion yet no fosters would pass your mirror test and yet you still find it irrelevant how pigs are treated, or maybe now it doesn't matter how you treat babies until they can pass the mirror test? :P).

because we haven't developed a non-boolean test yet. this is the best i can do with what i have
I disagree, consciousness is clearly very gradual and instead of using that one single rather bad test, we should look at the biology of animals, and see that the more they have for pain processing that is comparable to what humans have, the more we should consider their well-being important.

there are similarities between humans and pigs, and similarities between robots and pigs.
although a pig may seem much more similar to a human than a robot, i believe this is not the case.
http://sites.psu.edu/psych256fa13/2013/09/19/similarities-between-humans-and-pigs/ (http://sites.psu.edu/psych256fa13/2013/09/19/similarities-between-humans-and-pigs/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 28, 2014, 09:00:42 AM
Quote
The brain has evolved and uses a completely different method than computers. Brains of animals are vastly more similar to each other in structure than they are to any computer. For this reason there is much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't.
while this does say an animal is more likely to be capable of suffering than a computer, I don't think there is a much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't, because there's no quantitative measure to suggest that

Quote
There's simply no connection in what you're writing. First you say pigs aren't conscious because they don't pass the mirror test. Then you say a blind person is conscious, a photo-detector isn't, in other words that your mirror test can't even establish whether they're conscious or not. That's a rather interesting idea, to think that dozens of millions of pigs should be treated according to a simple test that you yourself clearly don't even trust as a tool to establish whether they're conscious or not, and even more as for whether this ability to recognize itself in a mirror is really what's vital to the ability to feel suffering.
i say pigs aren't conscious and cite the mirror test as one test of consciousness that supports this idea. that doesn't mean something must pass the mirror test to be conscious or that the mirror test is the fail-proof test of consciousness. i use the mirror test, or rather i use the results from the mirror test, because it works on organisms with sight (which the blind man doesn't. in that case there is a scent version of the mirror test i believe). the photoreceptor could imitate an conscious animal and pass the mirror test, but only if it was programmed to specifically do so. however, most other organisms aren't programmed to emulate consciousness, but rather to survive, so I have more confidence that they are really conscious and not just faking it.

Quote
Robots and humans are separated by millions of different factors, but they depend entirely on how you build the robot. A robot may not have legs, it may not have skin, the robots we build today don't use brains like humans and animals, and I'd say that's a very important difference, because we know the link between our brain and our ability to suffer. Had we built a robot out of human cells, with a brain, from scratch, putting every atom together making it just like a human, then I'd assume it does have consciousness and the exact same properties like any other human. Had it been put together like a human brain but no body but still the same inputs, I'd say the same, just like what we've observed in humans who have lost parts of their body, eyes, etc.
i think the brain is a prerequisite, but not the only requirement to be able to suffer

Quote
As for whether there are other ways that could be like pain, such as in robots with a completely different structure, I see no evidence for this. But the evidence says that feeling pain is parts of the brain processing signals. So I'd rather go for preventing slightly different brains from processing such signals than I'd put them into a category with robots and ignore them.
--
There's simply no evidence for what any computer might feel, unlike the brain.
--
Well making a variable is simply like writing a statement on paper. If you make a truth value and set it to true whenever a program sees the pattern "1 + 2 = 4" it doesn't mean the result is correct. There's no reason to think those variables will have any connection to what you call them. You might as well call the pain variable stupidity but give it the exact same properties as before, shouldn't make the program stupid every time it detects pressure on some pressure detector.

On the other hand we see the clear connection between what's going on in human brains and painful events, which is evidence that human brains are capable of feeling pain. Computers have a completely different structure than brains and I don't see any reason why you should be able to generalize from human brains onto computers.
the brainscans show areas that pain causes activity in. i'm not familiar with experimentation, but i imagine they had to inflict some pain to figure out what parts of the brain processed pain. and if this is the case, then they showed that pigs can feel pain by causing the pig pain. it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig. which seems like circular logic and doesn't convince me the pig is really in pain

Quote
So which other tests so you suggest, now that the mirror test did not work?
i don't suggest any other tests because i don't know of any other tests. any test would work i guess, as long as it doesn't have any major documented flaws which cause bias

Quote
Consciousness is a rather nebulous subject and from all we know about it it's clearly nothing like boolean, it's very gradual. Most babies can pass the mirror test by 1.5 years, but earlier can use the mirror image for other things, pigs similarly can use the mirror for understanding where objects are without going there.
i agree, pigs use the mirror to obtain information, however they haven't succeeded in recognizing themselves. since using mirrors by itself does not indicate consciousness, this doesn't say anything definite.
--
about the abortion, i would lump people under 1.5 years into the same group as pigs and robots. either they should all be treated humanely, or none of them should be subject to laws. but there's no objective measure of whether they should all be treated humanely or all be treated unhumanely, so i pick whichever side suits me in the current discussion.

Quote
I disagree, consciousness is clearly very gradual and instead of using that one single rather bad test, we should look at the biology of animals, and see that the more they have for pain processing that is comparable to what humans have, the more we should consider their well-being important.
what suggests consciousness is gradual?
the pig can process damaging pressure, and reacts accordingly, but what is suffering? the myelin sheath on the neuron can't feel pain, nor can the skin cells, nor the water molecules in the pig's brain. i don't think the pig is suffering because there is nothing to feel the pain with. a human feels pain because a human has consciousness.








Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 28, 2014, 10:13:11 AM
while this does say an animal is more likely to be capable of suffering than a computer, I don't think there is a much bigger reason to think animals are capable of suffering just like humans than there is to think they can't, because there's no quantitative measure to suggest that
There is - measuring the activity in the brain centers responsible for processing pain.

i say pigs aren't conscious and cite the mirror test as one test of consciousness that supports this idea. that doesn't mean something must pass the mirror test to be conscious

are pigs capable of conciousness? it appears not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_test)

therefore, i don't think how the pigs are treated is important from an ethical standpoint much as there aren't any robot cruelty laws at present. the only consideration is whether this form of production is reasonably efficient.
You cited the mirror test as the only test in your judgement for whether they're conscious and based on that how they should be treated. You go on to compare them to robots. You may have changed your mind now about whether they're equal to robots and whether the mirror test is all that's relevant but I can only go with what you say.

or that the mirror test is the fail-proof test of consciousness. i use the mirror test, or rather i use the results from the mirror test, because it works on organisms with sight (which the blind man doesn't. in that case there is a scent version of the mirror test i believe). the photoreceptor could imitate an conscious animal and pass the mirror test, but only if it was programmed to specifically do so. however, most other organisms aren't programmed to emulate consciousness, but rather to survive, so I have more confidence that they are really conscious and not just faking it.
Good, but then why are you so confident that your variables aren't just faking suffering equal to what you're saying about consciousness now? You could make the exact same argument that animals displaying pain evolved to survive rather than suffer. How is there any difference?

i think the brain is a prerequisite, but not the only requirement to be able to suffer
And the other requirement being consciousness, based on the mirror test... but consciousness is exactly a manifestation of the brain that is gradual, we know this from all experiments, accidents, how mind-altering drugs work... The fact that it's gradual is what makes the mirror test a bad tool to categorize animals by, because those who don't pass it aren't just robots, they are just similar to small children in some ways... They aren't born robots and then suddenly become conscious.

the brainscans show areas that pain causes activity in. i'm not familiar with experimentation, but i imagine they had to inflict some pain to figure out what parts of the brain processed pain. and if this is the case, then they showed that pigs can feel pain by causing the pig pain. it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig. which seems like circular logic and doesn't convince me the pig is really in pain
They did that on a human. If you took away the brain, or just the centers processing the pain (there are humans born without the ability to feel pain for example), there would be no pain in that case. Then we can study the pig brain and see how it compares to the human brain. Pig brains have centers that process pain similarly to humans, they have a nerval system similar to humans. Therefore it is extremely likely that pigs can feel pain like humans.

The "it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig" is a straw man, replace pig with human and you'll see it doesn't represent the experiment. The human is able to communicate that it feels pain clearly to other humans, while pigs display similar traits like screaming/noises they can't tell us in words. Therefore we make the experiment on humans, compare human and pig brains, and get an idea of what it is like for pigs.

i agree, pigs use the mirror to obtain information, however they haven't succeeded in recognizing themselves. since using mirrors by itself does not indicate consciousness, this doesn't say anything definite.
Neither does it to recognize yourself in the mirror, as showed by the self-recognizing camera. The ability of an animal, evolved for survival, to utilize a mirror indicates that it has a position on the consciousness scale that's nowhere near the bottom, although not as high up as humans.

about the abortion, i would lump people under 1.5 years into the same group as pigs and robots. either they should all be treated humanely, or none of them should be subject to laws. but there's no objective measure of whether they should all be treated humanely or all be treated unhumanely, so i pick whichever side suits me in the current discussion.
That's simply hypocrisy.
As for the reasoning I can see the reason to lump them into the group with pigs, but your reasoning to lump pigs into the group with robots based on the mirror test is plain and simply nonsensical.

what suggests consciousness is gradual?
the pig can process damaging pressure, and reacts accordingly, but what is suffering? the myelin sheath on the neuron can't feel pain, nor can the skin cells, nor the water molecules in the pig's brain. i don't think the pig is suffering because there is nothing to feel the pain with. a human feels pain because a human has consciousness.
Children develop gradually and don't turn from robots into humans for example. Mammals, even if able to recognize themselves in a mirror, still can't do things, communicate, display emotions that are as complex as what humans do. Mind-altering drugs affect your brain purely by chemistry, and you see from this how your consciousness merely is your brain and not a magical spirit inhabiting it. Similarly damaging parts of the human brain alters your ability to feel pain - some people are fully conscious, but born without the ability to feel pain, because they're born with certain areas in their brain that are different from others. Damage other parts and you may lose consciousness to an extent:

"Pain, suffering and positive emotions in patients in vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS) and minimally conscious states (MCS) pose clinical and ethical challenges. Clinically, we evaluate behavioural responses after painful stimulation and also emotionally-contingent behaviours (e.g., smiling). Using stimuli with emotional valence, neuroimaging and electrophysiology technologies can detect subclinical remnants of preserved capacities for pain which might influence decisions about treatment limitation."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9149-x (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9149-x)

This is evidence that consciousness is gradual.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 28, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
Quote
You cited the mirror test as the only test in your judgement for whether they're conscious and based on that how they should be treated. You go on to compare them to robots. You may have changed your mind now about whether they're equal to robots and whether the mirror test is all that's relevant but I can only go with what you say.
yes i only use the mirror test because that is the only test of consciousness i'm aware of
i say pigs are closer to human than robots are, yet i lump them in the same category as robots
i haven't changed my mind. i can say pluto is closer to a planet than ceres is, but that they're both still dwarf planets

Quote
Good, but then why are you so confident that your variables aren't just faking suffering equal to what you're saying about consciousness now? You could make the exact same argument that animals displaying pain evolved to survive rather than suffer. How is there any difference?

on the contrary i'm confident my variables are faking suffering.

so at once the pig is suffering and not conscious.

either suffering requires consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and conscious
-the pig is not suffering and unconscious
or suffering does not require consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and unconscious

Quote
Mind-altering drugs affect your brain purely by chemistry, and you see from this how your consciousness merely is your brain and not a magical spirit inhabiting it. Similarly damaging parts of the human brain alters your ability to feel pain - some people are fully conscious, but born without the ability to feel pain, because they're born with certain areas in their brain that are different from others. Damage other parts and you may lose consciousness to an extent:
mind altering drugs that can alter my perception based on chemicals does not show my consciousness is just my brain, and i don't think consciousness is a magical spirit. yes, damaging parts of the brain causes loss of consciousness, but damaging parts of an engine causes car failure and that doesn't mean the engine is the car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman
the swampman is the reason i don't think consciousness is just the brain. i would not think they are the same person.

Quote
They did that on a human. If you took away the brain, or just the centers processing the pain (there are humans born without the ability to feel pain for example), there would be no pain in that case. Then we can study the pig brain and see how it compares to the human brain. Pig brains have centers that process pain similarly to humans, they have a nerval system similar to humans. Therefore it is extremely likely that pigs can feel pain like humans.

The "it's arguing the pig is hurt because they hurt the pig" is a straw man, replace pig with human and you'll see it doesn't represent the experiment. The human is able to communicate that it feels pain clearly to other humans, while pigs display similar traits like screaming/noises they can't tell us in words. Therefore we make the experiment on humans, compare human and pig brains, and get an idea of what it is like for pigs.
nevermind then, i thought it was done on a pig. i agree then that pigs process pain in an identical way to humans.

---

i see how close a human and a pig are, i am still not convinced. in fact, i would not be convinced that a human could feel pain if it did not have a consciousness.

Quote
Neither does it to recognize yourself in the mirror, as showed by the self-recognizing camera. The ability of an animal, evolved for survival, to utilize a mirror indicates that it has a position on the consciousness scale that's nowhere near the bottom, although not as high up as humans.
it does mean something to recognize yourself in the mirror without being specifically designed to pretend like you recognize yourself in the mirror.
the animal using the mirror does not mean anything because that is irrelevant to the test. someone can use a car as transportation, or they can use it as a heat source, but using it as a heat source does not indicate that they can drive it any more than an organism that does not use it as a heat source.

Quote
As for the reasoning I can see the reason to lump them into the group with pigs, but your reasoning to lump pigs into the group with robots based on the mirror test is plain and simply nonsensical.
they all have no consciousness. i don't think it'd be much of a stretch to say the robot has no consciousness without using a mirror test, so either way they can be put in a group

Quote
"Pain, suffering and positive emotions in patients in vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS) and minimally conscious states (MCS) pose clinical and ethical challenges. Clinically, we evaluate behavioural responses after painful stimulation and also emotionally-contingent behaviours (e.g., smiling). Using stimuli with emotional valence, neuroimaging and electrophysiology technologies can detect subclinical remnants of preserved capacities for pain which might influence decisions about treatment limitation."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9149-x (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-011-9149-x)
they evaluate capacity for pain, which doesn't say anything about gradual consciousness. they use the term minimally conscious states, but that isn't an argument in itself.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 28, 2014, 03:12:13 PM
on the contrary i'm confident my variables are faking suffering.
Ok, that is good. But if it goes for consciousness, why not for suffering?
"however, most other organisms aren't programmed to emulate suffering, but rather to survive, so I have more confidence that they are really suffering and not just faking it."

so at once the pig is suffering and not conscious.

either suffering requires consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and conscious
-the pig is not suffering and unconscious
or suffering does not require consciousness and
-the pig is suffering and unconscious
These categorizations aren't working very well when you realize consciousness is gradual.
This experiment was done to investigate whether consciousness is gradual or boolean (and to debunk the conclusion of another experiment):
http://cnru.dk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Overgaard-et-al.-2006-Is-conscious-perception-gradual-or-dichotomous-A-.pdf (http://cnru.dk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Overgaard-et-al.-2006-Is-conscious-perception-gradual-or-dichotomous-A-.pdf)

mind altering drugs that can alter my perception based on chemicals does not show my consciousness is just my brain, and i don't think consciousness is a magical spirit. yes, damaging parts of the brain causes loss of consciousness, but damaging parts of an engine causes car failure and that doesn't mean the engine is the car.
In that case the engine isn't the car because it's a part of the car. I'm not going to argue whether consciousness is a part of your brain or all of it, that should be rather irrelevant to this as long as you accept consciousness to be material.
What do you think consciousness is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman
the swampman is the reason i don't think consciousness is just the brain. i would not think they are the same person.
So you mean it's not material I assume. Or what do you mean when you say 'the same person'? They have different origins but that should be irrelevant to how they are now. If their material composition is the exact same their experiences/consciousnesses would be the exact same and then it's just a question of how you play semantics. You could say they are different persons with identical consciousnesses.

i see how close a human and a pig are, i am still not convinced. in fact, i would not be convinced that a human could feel pain if it did not have a consciousness.
That's because you still cling to an either-or consciousness. How about this example, do you think there's any difference between the consciousness of humans and the consciousness of other animals that pass the mirror test?

Quote
Neither does it to recognize yourself in the mirror, as showed by the self-recognizing camera. The ability of an animal, evolved for survival, to utilize a mirror indicates that it has a position on the consciousness scale that's nowhere near the bottom, although not as high up as humans.
it does mean something to recognize yourself in the mirror without being specifically designed to pretend like you recognize yourself in the mirror.
the animal using the mirror does not mean anything because that is irrelevant to the test. someone can use a car as transportation, or they can use it as a heat source, but using it as a heat source does not indicate that they can drive it any more than an organism that does not use it as a heat source.
Let's try this
"it does mean something to recognize the location of food in the mirror without being specifically designed to pretend like you recognize it in the mirror."
The animal using the mirror had nothing to do with the test. It not having anything to do with your test doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything. There are other tests that can make us understand how animals are without it being the mirror test. Being able to understand locations based on a mirror image shows they're capable of thinking to a degree, although not as much as if they had been able to understand their own mirror image (even if that may depend on other factors such as facial/species recognition that may not be very relevant to consciousness).
I don't see how the car example has any relevance to the discussion, unless you meant it to supplement whether it fulfilled the mirror test. I never intended to imply that.

they all have no consciousness. i don't think it'd be much of a stretch to say the robot has no consciousness without using a mirror test, so either way they can be put in a group
Not fulfilling the mirror test isn't evidence it has no consciousness at all.

they evaluate capacity for pain, which doesn't say anything about gradual consciousness. they use the term minimally conscious states, but that isn't an argument in itself.
Minimally conscious states as phenomenons depend on the fact that consciousness is gradual and not boolean.
http://www.neurology.org/content/58/3/349.long (http://www.neurology.org/content/58/3/349.long)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 29, 2014, 03:56:53 PM
In other news, we were on the barricades today :P against the parlament which will with all probability be voting to sell of 19% of the state's stocks in DONG Energy. Demonstrations or not, it is probably too late to change this, but they deserve to see all the resistance they can get.

Video from the demonstration outside the parlament:

20140129 Dong Demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5an2IsApw#ws)

From the description of my video:

It appears that the parlament will soon vote for selling 19% of stocks in the energy company DONG Energy to Goldman Sachs. The demonstration is against this sale. Frank Aaen from the party Enhedslisten speaks in the video. Enhedslisten has since 2004 maintained its stance: It is against the sale. And as of today, more than 185,000 signatures have been gathered in one online petition to stop the sale.

The American bank Goldman Sachs has a very toxic history and one of making very complex financial products. It has offered highly risky residential loans while at the same time speculating in the collapse of the housing market. They were fined half a billion USD for misinforming customers in 2010. On top of this they make use of tax havens in the Cayman Islands.

This bank is an example of the deeply irresponsible decisions that the irrational economic system of capitalism leads people to take. It is not one that should be have the power to veto the decisions of an energy company whose duty is to serve the interests of the people. In fact, the administration of this company should not have the influence on anything. For their irresponsible and egoistic mindset they should be imprisoned at least and their property seized for the benefit of millions of people and not the few parasites in the top of their filthy administration!

Shame on our corrupt, hypocritical "socialist", "social democratic", "radical left" government!

Sources:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/28/144610.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/28/144610.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/01/28/162713.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/01/28/162713.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/22/0122072642.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/22/0122072642.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/24/155120.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/24/155120.htm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 30, 2014, 07:20:04 AM
Despite 68% of citizens being against the sale, the parlament has now voted yes.
67% of social democrats are against. 10% of them are for. 65% of Radical Left are against the sale. 74% of Socialist People's Party's voters are against.
Even within the parties Left and Conservative People's Party, 62% are against the sale. Even 51% of Liberal Alliance are against the sale. In other words there is not even one single party in the parlament whose majority of voters are not against the sale.
The biggest opposition is within Enhedslisten (87%).

Yet still 94 in the parlament voted for the sale and 30 against. That is a disgrace.

Many within the top of Socialist People's Party have left their positions recently and today it is no longer a part of the government.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/30/130050.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/30/130050.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/30/074502.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/01/30/074502.htm)
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/politik/2014-01-27-megafon-corydons-egne-v%C3%A6lgere-er-massivt-mod-dong-salg (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/politik/2014-01-27-megafon-corydons-egne-v%C3%A6lgere-er-massivt-mod-dong-salg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 30, 2014, 08:37:52 AM
democracy in action

i mean representative republics in action
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on January 30, 2014, 10:02:06 AM
kol.

meanwhile in america (skip to 0:30)

"I Will Break You In Half" Congressman Threatens Reporter For Asking A Question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxofhdmijGc#ws)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on January 30, 2014, 10:46:48 AM
Jeremy Paxman would've sorted him out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 30, 2014, 02:33:37 PM
News about the situation, now in English.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/socialists-quit-denmark-coalition-goldman-sachs-deal?CMP=twt_gu#start-of-comments (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/socialists-quit-denmark-coalition-goldman-sachs-deal?CMP=twt_gu#start-of-comments)

https://guan.dk/dong (https://guan.dk/dong)

Kol. And what can we do about it?..... This is so ridiculously stupid. Grr. Kol. My blood is filled with revolution now. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 30, 2014, 02:37:58 PM
Denmark is small, protest for democratic voting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 30, 2014, 03:11:37 PM
We already protested... and the majority of the parlament ignored us completely. :l

Tl;dr lesson is don't demonstrate, revolt :P

Edit: Oh kol, I see they've called for another demonstration for tomorrow... I really need to get to make my own proper red flag for these events, they need more banners. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 30, 2014, 03:33:11 PM
revolt for direct democracy and implementing the use of technology to achieve such goals

and purify parliament with completely new people
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 30, 2014, 03:43:01 PM
Enhedslisten isn't corrupt and morally bankrupt unlike the other parties though... They voted against it and spoke at the demonstration (my video is from one of their speeches). :P

The parlament would look neat with Enhedslisten taking up 179 of the seats. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on January 30, 2014, 09:08:57 PM
So do you agree with everything they believe? Or perhaps that was a bit of a hyperbole....becase to me any party that controls everything would not be good for denmark or any country. In some ways, it would be good because of a lack of debate but then again, sometimes one party doesn't always do the best thing for a certain for a country...it also takes away from your "democracy"...more so than it seems there is right now...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 31, 2014, 06:30:31 AM
So do you agree with everything they believe? Or perhaps that was a bit of a hyperbole....becase to me any party that controls everything would not be good for denmark or any country. In some ways, it would be good because of a lack of debate but then again, sometimes one party doesn't always do the best thing for a certain for a country...it also takes away from your "democracy"...more so than it seems there is right now...
We don't agree about everything no, but we agree about much more than I agree with the other parties, so I'd prefer them over the other parties at any time. There can be debate within the party, we don't need the other parties for debate.

Also it doesn't intend to control everything, it intends to make the economy democratically controlled which it isn't now, the parlament has little power over this country, so them filling it up doesn't mean they control everything in this country. But it could hopefully mark the beginning of an era where the parlament and people of the country actually start getting more control over the country rather than it being sold out to multinational corporations at discount prices, like yesterday.

We need to realize that capitalist "democracies" aren't very democratic at all, no matter who is president or who is in your parlament, in the end they don't have a lot of power when corporations can threaten to move out or fire workers should they take decisions they agree with.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 05, 2014, 03:58:06 AM
Kol this. In 2012, the manager salaries increased by 8 times as much as those of the employees in Denmark. 1039 people were asked whether they thought this trend should continue. 3.2% answered yes, 91.3% answered no, 5.5% didn't know.

When the newspaper Arbejderen confronted The Confederation of Danish Employers with the question, the response was:

"What kind of question is that? What a bunch of humbug! Have you considered explaining your readers, that there has been a development over a much longer period of time, and that you can't just look at a single year"

"but which previous development that made the manager salaries deserve this increase, they unfortunately did not want to spend their time explaining to the readers."
http://arbejderen.dk/fagligt/danskerne-vil-stoppe-direkt%C3%B8rl%C3%B8nningernes-himmelflugt (http://arbejderen.dk/fagligt/danskerne-vil-stoppe-direkt%C3%B8rl%C3%B8nningernes-himmelflugt)

Kol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 05, 2014, 09:16:54 AM
Sounds identical to the trend in America.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 05, 2014, 10:03:54 AM
Kol, just a week after the Dong-sale, they release their annual report. Guess what, their debt has been reduced by 6.2 billion DKK to 25.8 billion DKK and their deficit has been reduced from 4 billion DKK to a bit under 1 billion DKK. Those facts mean that it could've received significantly better ratings from the rating bureaus. In other words, selling at this time is the most ridiculous timing that you could possibly pick.

For the state, that is. Not for Goldman Sachs. But I guess it shouldn't be too hard to see which side the government is acting in the interest of. :(

Sources:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/02/05/094655.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/02/05/094655.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/02/05/141357.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/02/05/141357.htm)



In other news, here's today's exposal of capitalist propaganda:

Groupon's website advertises pants at a price of 299 DKK, which they advertise as a discount of 75%. The ones who deliver the pants, Glamouretto OY from Finland, do sell the pants at the price of 1186 DKK. However, they also operate another website, where they sell them for 350 DKK.

Another example: A bath weight from AEG costs 229 DKK, according to Groupon with a regular price of 549 DKK, but only Groupon sells it for 549 DKK, and other sides sell it at 210 DKK, including delivering costs from Germany, and 225 DKK from a Danish site including delivery.

A third example: Groupon sells travels, a spa trip to Germany costs 1935 DKK with a discount of 35%, however, picking the exact same room in the exact same period from booking.com, costs 1761 DKK. 10% cheaper than Groupon's "discount" offer.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/02/04/160737.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/02/04/160737.htm)

Why are such fraudulent people making this not in prison?
Why do we as a society sell items at discount prices in the first place, why do we encourage people to buy more than they need, when we know our resource useage is dangerously unsustainable and we have problems with pollution to fix?

Capitalism is simply hopeless.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 05, 2014, 02:08:01 PM
Big, long dongs
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on February 05, 2014, 02:23:47 PM
Long Dong Silver
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 05, 2014, 08:45:12 PM
If I ever take Dong Energy seriously it will be a cold gay.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on February 05, 2014, 09:10:50 PM
Me and atomic had an interesting talk about bias today. Actually we had it with a...person named Bob.

He defends Fox News as a reliable source because it "only has a 50% bias whereas MSNBC has a 90%". I contended (and still do) that there is no quantitative way to measure bias, and since this "study" gave a quantitative value I doubted it's truthfulness and reliability as a source.  Then came the interesting part, Bob (fake name ftw) said that they measure the stories, if they had bias then they were considered to be biased-in this case 50% of Fox's stories had bias whereas MSNBC had 90% of their stories have bias. I then asked whether it was the quantity of the stories that had bias or the amount of bias that matters. After he contradicted himself for a while I came up with an M & M scenario.

Say there were only two colors of M & M's...red and yellow. Each bag of M & M's contain 20 M & M's (red for our purposes will represent bias)
Two companies made M & M's... TMC M & M's and Bob's M&M's. Now, yellow M & M's tasted better and people wanted more bags with all yellow M & M's. 90% of TMC's bags contained 1 or 2 red M & M's. The rest contained all yellow M & M's. 50% of Bob's M & M's contained all yellow M & M's, however the bags that did contain red M & M's contained on average 15. Which company would you but M & M's from? One where you are almost guaranteed to get 1 or 2 red M & M's or the other, which would result in more red M & M's if you got unlucky.

Seems like an obivous choice to me, I would go with TMC M & M's but Bob said that TMC's M & M's were more biased because more of the bags had red M & M's. What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on February 05, 2014, 09:19:31 PM
1 or 2 averages to 1.5 m/m per bag for tmc
.9*18.5 + .1*20 = 18.65 yellow m/m on average per bag

.5*20 + .5*5 = 12.5 yellow m/m on average per bag for bob

apparently the answer is tmc

whether these numbers reflect the actual bias of various news sites is a different story though
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 05, 2014, 11:44:46 PM
As long as they have a bias towards reality I don't see the problem with them... but in Fox News case, their bias happens to be bias towards the opposite.

Saying "news source y has more bias than news source x, therefore news source x is a reliable source" is a pretty pathetic argument. Its reliability doesn't depend on the bias of other sources.



In other news, it has been revealed that the state-owned company Financial Stability, which took over many loans after banks went bankrupt during the crisis, has sold loans for 631 million DKK to a German bank, using Ireland as a tax haven to transfer them so that they can pay lower taxes than they'd have to in Denmark.
Questions have been sent to our government since December on this, but when our minister of business and growth was asked on this construction, he refused to answer.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/02/06/085347.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/02/06/085347.htm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on February 06, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
we use 2 px because 1px results in corner borders which is apparently ugly.

anyways the thinner the better because it's less confusion over what is land and what is ocean
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 06, 2014, 01:13:39 PM
Wrong thread kol.

Also, the government is planning to sell out the last 10% of its stocks in Nets to the banks. Nets is responsible for the Dankort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankort). However, you may wonder why banks would want to buy that for 16 billion DKK - if they didn't earn those money back. The expert in this video says they can't really bring down the operating costs, because it will result in Dankort failures (which happen occasionally), at the same time there aren't really going to be more people who use it, so their only way of really getting the money back would be by requiring transaction prices or other fees from the users. Until 2020, however, the law says that the shops may not increase the fees, and that all fees should be "fair". But from then and on, he says it is reasonable that the fees may double or triple, and may be required on transactions or other methods rather than the shops being required to pay.

Today, the Dankort is the cheapest paying card in the world.

Source:
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/2014-02-06-ekspert-vurdering-dankortet-bliver-tre-gange-dyrere (http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/2014-02-06-ekspert-vurdering-dankortet-bliver-tre-gange-dyrere)

Social democrats or liberals in the government, we still see the country being sold out to corporations day by day. Kol.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on February 06, 2014, 04:32:01 PM
2020: pia kjaersgaard's leg sold to barclays
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on February 06, 2014, 05:53:29 PM
1 or 2 averages to 1.5 m/m per bag for tmc
.9*18.5 + .1*20 = 18.65 yellow m/m on average per bag

.5*20 + .5*5 = 12.5 yellow m/m on average per bag for bob

apparently the answer is tmc

whether these numbers reflect the actual bias of various news sites is a different story though

Well, I understand the fact that MSNBC has bias, but the fact that the quantitative # that the "study" found was based on the number of stories rather than the amount of bias led me to question the study and came up with the problem.

Just out of curiosity, say you had to pick one of the brands of M & M's and you would be forced to eat all of the M & M's in there. Yellow M & M's were the jealousy of the universe...tasting so amazing...it was undescribable. But...red M & M's were the exact opposite. After eating one, you would throw up. let's also change the percents. 100% of TMC's M & M's have one or two red M % M's whereas 66% of Bob's had all yellows and 33% had 15 reds. Would you take the TMC M & M's  and be sure of throwing up once or twice-or the Bob's M& M's in hopes of not throwing up at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on February 06, 2014, 06:11:21 PM
As long as they have a bias towards reality I don't see the problem with them... but in Fox News case, their bias happens to be bias towards the opposite.

Saying "news source y has more bias than news source x, therefore news source x is a reliable source" is a pretty pathetic argument. Its reliability doesn't depend on the bias of other sources.



You sir...are perhaps the second most biased person I know...the other being Bob. Such different opinions as well...it would be interesting to see you two in a room together. I agree that Fox tends to have a bad bias-one that I disagree with. Something you don't seem to ever admit is that there is two sides to every argument. You seem intent (maybe I am wrong about this, I don't know your thoughts or even you really) on just enforcing your thoughts and opinions without regard to others'. Now I may not agree with Bob (or you) but I can see the reasons that you believe what you do and neither reasons are slanted more towards reality as you see-they both stem from observations and personal beliefs.

As for the reliability I completely agree with you, it doesn't matter based on the other sources. Fox claims to be unbiased but they are not. Out of curiosity which of the M & M brands would you go with Bla?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 07, 2014, 12:44:30 AM
Something you don't seem to ever admit is that there is two sides to every argument.
There is an infinite number of sides to most arguments, and usually an infinite number of incorrect sides. You can argue 2 + 2 equals 4, you can also argue it equals 3, 5, 7 or 28 for that matter, I don't admit there are many sides to every argument. Similarly, you can argue that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the temperature on the Earth and you can argue it doesn't. Of course there isn't one side to that argument. But there is one correct side to that argument and one denying reality. And Fox News tends to side with those who deny reality.

You seem intent (maybe I am wrong about this, I don't know your thoughts or even you really) on just enforcing your thoughts and opinions without regard to others'.
What do you base this on?

Now I may not agree with Bob (or you) but I can see the reasons that you believe what you do and neither reasons are slanted more towards reality as you see-they both stem from observations and personal beliefs.
Could you be more specific, maybe with an example?

As for the reliability I completely agree with you, it doesn't matter based on the other sources. Fox claims to be unbiased but they are not. Out of curiosity which of the M & M brands would you go with Bla?
With the second example I'd go with neither really, but if I had to pick, I'd pick the one that statistically would give the highest amount of good taste compared to bad taste, which should be yours.

Meanwhile in USA in a conversation with assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs from USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM#t=178 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM#t=178)

I guess NSA had a good laugh when they heard it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on February 07, 2014, 01:02:10 PM
1 or 2 averages to 1.5 m/m per bag for tmc
.9*18.5 + .1*20 = 18.65 yellow m/m on average per bag

.5*20 + .5*5 = 12.5 yellow m/m on average per bag for bob

apparently the answer is tmc

whether these numbers reflect the actual bias of various news sites is a different story though

Well, I understand the fact that MSNBC has bias, but the fact that the quantitative # that the "study" found was based on the number of stories rather than the amount of bias led me to question the study and came up with the problem.

Just out of curiosity, say you had to pick one of the brands of M & M's and you would be forced to eat all of the M & M's in there. Yellow M & M's were the jealousy of the universe...tasting so amazing...it was undescribable. But...red M & M's were the exact opposite. After eating one, you would throw up. let's also change the percents. 100% of TMC's M & M's have one or two red M % M's whereas 66% of Bob's had all yellows and 33% had 15 reds. Would you take the TMC M & M's  and be sure of throwing up once or twice-or the Bob's M& M's in hopes of not throwing up at all.

bias = bias per story * frequency of biased stories

tmc's have 1.5 reds on average
bob's have 1/3*15 = 5 reds on average
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 07, 2014, 02:43:35 PM
As for bias in my news sources:

DR is a news company owned by the Danish state and not funded by advertising. It is generally considered mostly unbiased or slightly leftist (from the perspective of people in here) and it is a reliable source of facts.
TV2 is a news company owned by the Danish state partially funded by advertising. It is also considered mostly unbiased or slightly rightist. I tend to avoid using it as a source unless what I link to shows the source, and I very rarely read their news.
Arbejderen is a communist newspaper with communist bias. Therefore I only use it as a source if its articles list its sources and I don't take its facts for granted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 11, 2014, 01:49:14 PM
This looks interesting. I haven't read anything about their methods/evidence yet though.

http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/ (http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 12, 2014, 11:41:23 AM
Kol, I found the message of this letter to be cute.

Quote
Do you watch TV or use the internet?
Then you must pay TV license.

The majority of the license goes to DR (Denmark's Radio). Maybe you don't like everything that DR makes, but there probably is something for you.

Your neighbor or your friends probably uses something else than what you do. And together, you pay for each other.

That is what the license is about - each of us give our own contribution and at the same time we are paying for everybody else.

License is something we give to each other.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 12, 2014, 12:46:01 PM
Kolmmunism.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: IrvingManiscalco on February 14, 2014, 03:30:24 AM
Quote
Fetus, aka baby, aka unborn, aka human LIFE:
1 - Check
2 - Check
3 - Check
4 - Check

I don't really see why we're arguing over whether it's life, it's obviously alive, and it's made out of cells. That's not the point though. I'm pretty sure any unborn animal or anything is life.

Quote
Please stage for me a 6 billion people world that has no oil to move the machinery necessary to make all that food.
idk wait about 50 years and then we'll see?

Quote
Please please read more about medical industry and it's insanities. Please, I urge you! I'm on YOUR side, not theirs. I'm with YOU, not them. YOU are my brother.. not them. I want YOUR well being, not theirs.
You don't have to disagree with them on every little detail for them to be your enemy.

Quote
What I believe the plan is, is to make everybody dependent. If you depend you are in check, controlled, enslaved.
I believe we're already there, to a point. No one really cares to change anything either.

Quote
Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere.
Says no one qualified to speak on such topics ever. In fact, carbonic acid is now in much higher concentration in the oceans. Carbonic acid is created by water and CO2 interacting, it can do this at room temperature. To give a bit of scale, it's not like CO2 touches water and all of a sudden it's carbonic acid. It probably happens at more the rate water evaporates. It also breaks up and becomes water and CO2. Carbonic acid exists in a state of equilibrium. With this established, it can be deduced with logic, simply that, more CO2 in the atmosphere = more carbonic acid in the oceans at any one time. If CO2 is being released from the oceans by solar panels (http://www.shinesolar.net) (which it basically does, causing the equilibrium, but is then quickly replaced, so we're talking about about a net release, more goes out than comes in), then carbonic acid should be less prevalent, but what would stop this released CO2 from entering the ocean again as carbonic acid? Nothing. So in fact, it should stay the same.

CO2 + H2O is in equilibrium with H2CO3[/u]

The reality is, the quantity of carbonic acid in the oceans (and thus CO2 in the atmosphere as well) is rising. This should lead one to believe that CO2 is being released elsewhere, not the oceans.
I am still not sure how can sun can produce co2 after hitting ocean surface..It is completely wrong..We need to control pollution nothing else.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on February 14, 2014, 10:42:54 AM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html)
i'm not sure what it is reading
edit: boo
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 14, 2014, 03:19:01 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html)
i'm not sure what it is reading
edit: boo
Aah, religion, polluting the world as usual with its evil influence, what a surprise.

I am still not sure how can sun can produce co2 after hitting ocean surface..It is completely wrong..We need to control pollution nothing else.
That doesn't happen no, you quote Atomic's post but in his post you'd see he's not claiming that it's happening at all.
Unless you're refering to
For this, I present you... the majestic, the megalith, the all powerful mighty SUN. Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 SUCCEEDS heating. More sun energy, more heat, more heat, more co2. This isn't me talking, this is the most renowned and intelligent climatologists speaking.
In that case I can agree that the above isn't true.

Anyway we also have a thread for just discussing global warming/climate change
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.0.html (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.0.html)
even though there are also many political aspects of that discussion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on February 14, 2014, 03:38:48 PM
That's a generalization, you can't just say "Evil religion did this", what happened is "conservatively religious individuals in power with an agenda did this"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 14, 2014, 04:05:32 PM
That's a generalization, you can't just say "Evil religion did this", what happened is "conservatively religious individuals in power with an agenda did this"
They did it because they followed an evil religion with an evil book that promotes the evil worldview that gays shouldn't be considered equals. Had the religion not existed, I don't doubt for one second that the law would not have come up. After all, every single line of this piece of toilet paper is really just "respect our intolerant religious ideas and let us fire you, refuse to sell you goods, refuse to marry you, refuse you services etc. if we don't like the fact you're gay because of our stupid religion"
Quote
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by
an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in
section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in:
(1) A civil claim or cause of action under st
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf)
and on and on and on... We've seen it all before.

In other news, Uganda's president has said he's ready to sign the law enacted by the parlament last month that means gays could face life imprisonment.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/02/14/221555.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/02/14/221555.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/01/17/0117112236.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/01/17/0117112236.htm)

Not all religions promote such views no, true, and not all religious individuals of that religion believe in that either, but that is what the religion in these cases (christianity) says. In my opinion, the bible and christianity offers no respect and thus deserves none.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on February 14, 2014, 04:24:48 PM
There are two different ends in this spectrum I thought about...
On one end of the spectrum, there are people who don't tolerate irreligious people (or other religions) On the other hand, there are those who don't tolerate religious people. I sit comfortably in the middle, nice and cozy.

I think we should all have what's called tolerance, an acceptance to one's beliefs. Obviously there should be a universal border where one's beliefs should NOT be accepted, because their views are harmful, discriminating, obscene, or in general just negative. What I mean by universal is that, everyone should take into consideration about one's beliefs.

This is not going to happen to everyone as you or I may already assume, but for those whose beliefs can be changed, I think this is a great way of clearing up unnecessary stress.

Moral of the story: don't fucking accuse anyone of anything until you get to know them. Please.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on February 14, 2014, 04:39:56 PM
I thought you'd say something like that Bla. :(
It's as if you think Christianity is this magic force that corrupts people from the inside out. There are bad Christians, and there are good Christians, and it all hinges on how much they individually interpret their faith.
Some believe they must relay the word of god, no matter how harsh it is, they probably even warp the faith for their own needs.
Others, though, have the faith to do as much good as they can.

If they use religion for bad and their own gains, fuck em. If they use it to help them get by, and to do good for others, then they're doing it right.

That is my view, the people make what they will of the scriptures. Lots don't even read the scriptures.

Whatever
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 14, 2014, 05:04:43 PM
No, everyone who has the slightest religious thought is obviously completely corrupted and needs to be killed immediately so that the world isn't stuck at the level of pre-human times where all protohumans were religious and constantly killed each other because they had a religious thought when they were 26 and wandering around the savanna, looking at clouds.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on February 14, 2014, 06:14:01 PM
This is hard I side with the last post I read and can't form my own conclusions XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 15, 2014, 05:16:39 AM
It's as if you think Christianity is this magic force that corrupts people from the inside out. There are bad Christians, and there are good Christians, and it all hinges on how much they individually interpret their faith.
And I do think christianity is a corruptive and evil force. But I still agree there are bad and good christians. But how they interpret their book doesn't change the fact that the book is evil, as the book states that people should be considered sub-human for biological reasons or because they don't believe the book or follow random, irrational rules.

Let me give a very different example: Person x considers itself a nazi. However it doesn't think anyone should be killed, in fact it doesn't think anyone should be discriminated against for biological reasons. Does the fact that the person's views are like that/not evil combined with the fact that the person is a nazi mean that nazism isn't an evil force? I would say no. Nazism is still the same evil, oppressive, hateful ideology. And the same applies to any other system of opinions, beliefs, etc.

Some believe they must relay the word of god, no matter how harsh it is, they probably even warp the faith for their own needs.
Others, though, have the faith to do as much good as they can.
But why do you say those who do the bad things are probably warping the faith, while those who do good things aren't warping the faith? It might as well be the other way around.

I think we should all have what's called tolerance, an acceptance to one's beliefs. Obviously there should be a universal border where one's beliefs should NOT be accepted, because their views are harmful, discriminating, obscene, or in general just negative. What I mean by universal is that, everyone should take into consideration about one's beliefs.
I agree with that, but I think many beliefs that religions like christianity promote are in fact harmful and disriminating.

That doesn't mean I think random christian people I don't know are automatically intolerant or should be treated badly. It simply means that I think christianity as a system of ideas should not be respected, because it's not respectful or rational.

No, everyone who has the slightest religious thought is obviously completely corrupted and needs to be killed immediately so that the world isn't stuck at the level of pre-human times where all protohumans were religious and constantly killed each other because they had a religious thought when they were 26 and wandering around the savanna, looking at clouds.
Sarcasm as always... Sarcasm is generally not a very good way to communicate in a friendly way or to discuss, it's a way of making fun of other's ideas while hiding your own. It can be fun when used for friendly jokes but if you want to join a discussion you should consider just showing your honest opinions and arguments instead.
In case the post was directed me I can say that I don't think people should be killed because of their religion at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on February 15, 2014, 01:16:40 PM
Let me give a very different example: Person x considers itself a nazi. However it doesn't think anyone should be killed, in fact it doesn't think anyone should be discriminated against for biological reasons. Does the fact that the person's views are like that/not evil combined with the fact that the person is a nazi mean that nazism isn't an evil force? I would say no. Nazism is still the same evil, oppressive, hateful ideology. And the same applies to any other system of opinions, beliefs, etc.
Can I just say this is a very good way of putting it? Because it is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on February 18, 2014, 07:34:26 AM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/17/218219/native-americans-vow-a-last-stand.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/17/218219/native-americans-vow-a-last-stand.html)
"Native Americans vow a last stand to block Keystone XL pipeline"

now why did i post this? only because i found the following comment on the reddit thread:

"The pipeline creators have assured us that the environmental impact will be minimal, but the Native Americans still have reservations."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 19, 2014, 03:35:13 AM
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/01/ukraine-protests-map-k.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on February 19, 2014, 05:04:11 AM
Why don't they just make a Ukrainian Republic
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on February 19, 2014, 06:51:42 AM
Grand Duchy of Kiev
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 19, 2014, 11:15:14 AM
Because they want all of the Ukraine to join the EU, and they probably won't settle for a result with two Ukraines, one influenced by Russia and one influenced by the West.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 19, 2014, 11:43:00 AM
Meanwhile in Russia, Pussy Riot is attacked by 'cossacks' (who work as extra police force in the area) as they begin to sing in front of an advertisement for Sochi.

Video:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/02/19/172506.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/02/19/172506.htm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 20, 2014, 10:29:06 AM
The police has been armed with guns in Kiev now. The riots are probably doomed.

(Warning: Video shows people getting shot.)
Shooting people in Kiev / Стральба па пратэстоўцах у Кіеве. (20.02.2014, APTN) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DxkDiAcSF8#)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on February 20, 2014, 01:24:06 PM
i hope not
warning: person on fire
(http://i.imgur.com/hdOXCpi.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 23, 2014, 02:29:39 PM
Meanwhile in Bosnia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_riots_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_riots_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 24, 2014, 07:51:40 AM
is every region of the world protesting something right now
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on February 24, 2014, 05:08:44 PM
even in bongatar
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 24, 2014, 06:07:13 PM
bongatar is your bedroom silly bong
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on February 24, 2014, 07:04:27 PM
there is protesting
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on February 24, 2014, 08:10:53 PM
are you yelling at your parents about your bedtime
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on February 25, 2014, 12:57:46 PM
yaeh
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on February 26, 2014, 01:53:43 PM
Kol, someone at college often wears a shirt with this

(http://www.behindthecuttingedge.com/storage/communist%20party.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1326185544357)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on February 26, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
is that a lampshade
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on February 26, 2014, 03:33:38 PM
such wow
http://thecontributor.com/environment/how-wind-met-all-denmark%E2%80%99s-electricity-needs-90-hours (http://thecontributor.com/environment/how-wind-met-all-denmark%E2%80%99s-electricity-needs-90-hours)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 02, 2014, 01:13:12 PM
7 years after the demolition of Ungdomshuset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungdomshuset) in Nørrebro, people still demonstrate. "Nothing forgotten, nothing forgiven."

På 7-årsdagen for Ungdomshusets rydning: Intet Glemt, Intet Tilgivet - Demonstration 1/3 2014 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmJG9IOVR7o#ws)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on March 03, 2014, 08:02:13 PM
idk if ukaine surrendered it's been like 5 minutes
edit: this of getting interesting
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russian-foreign-minister-sergey-lavrov-troops-ukraine-crimea-region-stability-reached-article-1.1708847 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russian-foreign-minister-sergey-lavrov-troops-ukraine-crimea-region-stability-reached-article-1.1708847)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 04, 2014, 07:22:28 AM
Kol "not a fair fight" that is hilarious

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1709722.1393903325!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/russia-vs-ukraine-graphic.jpg)

I'm not saying I support what Russia is doing, but wtf. I guess the west should've stayed out of Iraq too then, because it had a bigger military than Iraq. Brilliant logic.

And John Kerry:
Quote
It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country...You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.
Let's see... Iraq invaded in 2003 bases on the claim that it had weapons of mass destruction, which it turned out to have... Nope, I agree completely with him I guess, USA isn't a civilized country at all.


Some info on privatization in Denmark:

Over the past 25 years, 40 state-owned companies or stakes have been sold.

In the 90's under social democratic government: Tele Danmark sold for 31 billion DKK, GiroBank sold, Copenhagen Airport and the Data Central sold.

Under bourgeois government: Post Danmark (postal service), Scandlines (ferries), State Institution for Life Insurance, Bella Center (congress center) and The State's Car Inspection.

Telephones:
1897: The many regional telephone companies are nationalized, and from then and on, only the state could operate and building telephone lines because of their importance to society.
1990: The telephone operation is centralized in one company, Tele Danmark.
1994: The stakes are expanded and the state's stocks fall to 41% in Tele Danmark.
1996: Tele Danmark lost its monopoly on telephone lines and had to make its infrastructure available to competitors.
1997-1998: Under a social democratic government, all the remaining stakes in Tele Denmark is sold to Ameritech and thus privatization was completed.
2000: Tele Danmark changes name to TDC.
2005: TDC was re-sold to five capital funds for 97 billion DKK - 3 times the amount that the state got.
"2 months after the sale, large stock profits were paid which were 57% of the value TDC had just been bought for. It is a classic way, especially for the big capital funds, to work. You buy companies, public or private, and then extract values from them."
- Stine Brix (Enhedslisten)

Postal service:
1851: Due to common theft of money when sent in letters, the postal service made it possible to give money to one postal office, and receive them at another.
1920: The postal giro office is created, which made it easier to handle the money streams, which was an alternative to the banks' clearing system.
1988: The postal giro service is turned into a state company which was named GiroBank 3 years later.
1993: The state sold GiroBank.
1995: GiroBank fuses with another bank and becomes BG Bank.
2000: BG Bank fuses with Realkredit Danmark into RealDanmark and were then bought by Danske Bank for 27 billion DKK.

Some quotes from former ministers responsible for some of the privatizations:

"Society's values are given away. It almost physically hurts for me to see what's happening.
- Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social Democrats) about the sale of Dong Energy

"Today I would probably have kept the state ownerhip of the copper network."
- Mogens Lykketoft (Social Democrats)

"Both Copenhagen's Airports and TDC's copper cables are so vital parts of society's infrastructure that they should never have been sold to private companies. When you sit in a capital fund, you don't think about the wellbeing of the Danish state. You think about your stockholders."
- Brian Mikkelsen (Conservative People's Party)

"Enhedslisten can hardly express it better."

From an article in Rød+Grøn (magazine for members of Enhedlisten)

In the near future, following the wildly unpopular sale of Dong Energy, there are discussions of privatizing cleaning services for elderly people and public buildings etc., more railway lines, and Nets (which I wrote about earlier).

So much for a social democratic government.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 21, 2014, 08:14:15 AM
Oh dear, a study predicting the collapse of industrial civilization.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on March 21, 2014, 11:21:55 AM
Have all past civilizations thought they'd just continue to advance forever like us (us being Western civilization)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on March 21, 2014, 03:08:04 PM
Have all past civilizations thought they'd just continue to advance forever like us (us being Western civilization)
Probably.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 22, 2014, 03:51:34 PM
And Madrid joins the list of cities with riots (video in top of article) as 'left extremists' attack the police.

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/03/22/0322214325.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/03/22/0322214325.htm)

They're over now though I think.

"If the crisis in Europe continued and states are threatened with collapse, what would happen?"

What do you think would happen?

Some of my guesses are here. Spain and Greece are most threatened by collapse I think, especially Greece, and both would probably turn to socialism, although there's also a risk of fascists seizing power in Greece (even though they're a small minority compared to the left, but had support from parts of the police, however they've probably lost the opportunity now after all the troubles their party has got in).

Scandinavia and Iceland, while currently being some of the most stable states (except Iceland), might probably turn to socialism as well, here the far left is much bigger than the far right, even though the center right and left may fluctuate. The recent growth of Danish People's Party proves that in case the problems get bigger, the far right might actually grow dangerously big here.

The recent events in Serbia seem to suggest that the country might turn to socialism if the crisis grows deeper.

Nationalist and conservative movements are thriving in Poland and Ukraine, and they'll probably descend into that direction if threatened with (further in Ukraine's case) collapse. Eatern Ukraine, however, would probably resist and turn to Russia or if that's impossible, to the left. Romania quite surely also would not turn to socialism, which leaves the field open to nationalist movements.

Idk very much about Finland's situation, so it's mostly a guess that they'd turn in a nationalist direction. UK Matty might have a more qualified guess on than me, Scotland however might seize the opportunity to declare independence, however I think their main movement for independence can be described as a non-fascist, leftist 'nationalism'.

France and Portugal have thriving leftist movements that I think would be stronger than the rightist movements. Italy, Ireland and Turkey I don't know, but they all seem in unstable situations. The Netherlands and Belgium might turn to socialism, also mostly a guess.

Germany, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein are probably among the least likely to collapse so I'm not really going to bother guessing too much here. If Europe gets drawn deeply into crisis and countries do collapse, my guess for Germany would be turning left. White countries I'm not going to guess at.

While Russia's communist party is probably the strongest in all of Europe in terms of popular support, I think it's unlikely they're actually going to accomplish much that has to do with socialism at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on March 22, 2014, 04:52:51 PM
what
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 24, 2014, 04:00:35 AM
Nets has now been sold to Bain Capital, Advent International and the Danish fund ATP for 17 billion DKK. This means that now these American organizations have access to information about all the transactions that people in Denmark have made using the Dankort, and we all know how trustworthy USA is in handling personal information.

We have tried a similar thing before, when Kommunedata was sold to Advent International. They promptly fired 10% of the employees, and sold Kommunedata at a profit. Bain Capital is similarly known for buying companies, then fireing emplyees, selling the companies at a profit, and the companies then later going bankrupt, like what happened when they bought the computer company DDi.

This government is acting so stupid, it's a deep disgrace of them to call themselves even social democratic.

Edit: It appears that ATP has got the right to veto any decision to deliver personal information to USA, and that they intend to prevent that. However, the Council for Digital Safety says that the right to veto might not work, as it's questionable whether the company could be forced to follow legislation from USA or Denmark. If it is moved out of EU, there's a considerable risk that the information could be used for hacking or identity theft.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/03/24/094245.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/03/24/094245.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Vi_foelger/2014/03/24101057.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Vi_foelger/2014/03/24101057.htm)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/03/24/150657.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/03/24/150657.htm)

In other news, photos from a demonstration in Sydhavnen (southern Copenhagen) against racism, an internationally organized event that happened March 22:

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR9078.jpg?itok=njUQgwui&c=e309283dbf54ff70fcdda36c6d33169a)

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR8963.jpg?itok=BUjietwd&c=d37bab946988c0b3ad2eff6cc7881d27)

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR9123.jpg?itok=mjJXmuLW&c=f5cc2273821b40f5d7a14ab19bc33259)

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR9065.jpg?itok=Hup1JHc-&c=97b3e88c79c9ad911b0e914965d2fc84)

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR9183.jpg?itok=6SzACnc8&c=66680ca79c465de806bd9a0aced3625a)

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR8873.jpg?itok=hQsHGLpw&c=52756736d7600d58274a9d2d8bb42f08)

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR9042.jpg?itok=UKeNeASs&c=e05ab11516a31d83a8d0820e530c6ef8)

(http://arbejderen.dk/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_grid-15/public/_IVR8943.jpg?itok=z2W8EEwx&c=63c4169e8dfa1fced30ccdd2d70a255c)

Images from
http://arbejderen.dk/nyheder/sydhavnen-mod-racisme (http://arbejderen.dk/nyheder/sydhavnen-mod-racisme)

Kol the image of the police
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on March 24, 2014, 07:13:49 AM
I see punk is not dead in Denmark
Also kol on the police like "Oh damn, I think I'll stay inside"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 24, 2014, 02:13:53 PM
This is an interesting article actually, about the situation in Ukraine for the far right:

Peter Munk Jensen, senior analyzer from Danish Institute for International Studies says that right-nationalist parties currently make up 10 of 20 of the seats in Ukraine's temporary government:
- "They fill a lot in the parlamentary image. And they have everything from the right-nationalist supermarket on their shelves: Hate to immigrants, hate to jews, anti-abortion and removal of taxes on Ukrainian-produced products. It is closely related to fascist and nazi ideology and they use their symbols."

(Svoboda has 6 seats, while the even more extreme Right Sector has 2 seats, and Ukrainian National Congress also has 2.)
Svoboda got 10.5% of the votes in the 2012 election, but besides from that the right-wing parties don't have popular support that makes them worthy of half the seats.

Source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/03/12/091311.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/03/12/091311.htm)

Translated in a hurry because I need sleeep
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 25, 2014, 11:26:33 AM
Here's a 10 minute collection of vids from the demonstrations in Madrid (and riots, starting from 3:00):

http://roarmag.org/2014/03/22m-madrid-march-austerity/ (http://roarmag.org/2014/03/22m-madrid-march-austerity/)

At least 100 were injured, including 65 police people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo37nEHZX9g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo37nEHZX9g)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8yNywAOEk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8yNywAOEk)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGPoJ7XnPE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGPoJ7XnPE)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on March 25, 2014, 11:41:36 AM
https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml (https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml) the general assembly of the united nations needs more power than just being a representative body of "we are the people appointed to be in the UN and be fancy"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 26, 2014, 04:04:44 AM
A 2011 survey of 2,119 people in Denmark showed that 11.2% judged "a strong leader, who did not have to worry about the parlament or elections" to be good or very good.

20% of those voting for Danish People's Party
17% of those voting for Liberal Alliance.
16% voting for Venstre ("Left", a liberal right-wing party).
9% of Conservative People's Party
9% of Radical Left
8% of Social Democrats
8% of Socialist People's Party
6% of Enhedslisten

Source:
http://politiken.dk/indland/politik/ECE1308027/hver-niende-dansker-er-aaben-for-diktatur-i-danmark/ (http://politiken.dk/indland/politik/ECE1308027/hver-niende-dansker-er-aaben-for-diktatur-i-danmark/)
The survey by Analyse Danmark
http://a4.media.avisen.dk/Files/Docs/0000000/20110614_Hver_niende_dansker_flirter_med_dikaturtanker_2011_21.pdf (http://a4.media.avisen.dk/Files/Docs/0000000/20110614_Hver_niende_dansker_flirter_med_dikaturtanker_2011_21.pdf)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 31, 2014, 04:42:47 PM
Hm

In Denmark, 0.10% of people are homeless.
In USA, 0.19% of people are homeless.

Based on
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2014/03/31/215957.htm
http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE2042091/antallet-af-hjemloese-i-danmark-er-vokset-markant/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on March 31, 2014, 05:26:33 PM
Mozilla CEO donated money to an anti-gay cause. Outrage ensues. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10733701/Uproar-at-software-firm-Mozilla-over-new-chiefs-support-for-ban-on-gay-marriage.html)
OkCupid also bars access from Firefox in response.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkFmFONCMAAIKxK.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 02, 2014, 11:23:29 AM
"1% of the world's musicians earn 77% of their income"

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Kultur/Musik/2014/04/02/143102.htm

Kol.

The article has also described that the situation has actually only gotten worse after digitalization of music, saying that the huge amount of music available makes people stick to what they know or what they immediately see (which is usually the established music industry).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on April 02, 2014, 07:04:51 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '119483'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 02, 2014, 07:16:54 PM
plot twist 4000 dead 140000 injured
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on April 02, 2014, 08:30:27 PM
test
test
test
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 04, 2014, 05:50:23 AM
Mozilla CEO donated money to an anti-gay cause. Outrage ensues. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10733701/Uproar-at-software-firm-Mozilla-over-new-chiefs-support-for-ban-on-gay-marriage.html)
OkCupid also bars access from Firefox in response.
The pressure has worked and Erich has stepped down. Glorious.

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Viden/Tech/2014/04/04/04131857.htm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 10, 2014, 06:12:38 AM
For once, our government rejects privatization. Our minister of environment says:

"The government doesn't intend to privatize the water sector. Our groundwater is a very important common resource that we have taken care of for generations, and it should stay that way, therefore I have no intentions to let big foreign companies in and make money off our common water."

The director of Danish Water and Wastewater Association also says: "I don't think you can earn much money on Danish water, we can see that if you check the numbers in the report [a report proposing privatizing water], it doesn't get cheaper when it's privately owned."

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/04/10/142546.htm

Still, the past privatizations will not be forgotten or forgiven.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 10, 2014, 06:59:36 AM
Seems to me the only reason they aren't doing it is because they can't get money from it.

Not sure how the other ones went for them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 10, 2014, 09:59:44 AM
Yes, they got billions of DKK in cash for selling Dong Energy and now Nets too (but of course, and interestingly, only a fraction of what they tend to get sold for a few years later), at the cost of giving up political power - democratic power - over our energy supply, environmental strategy and credit cards, and the surplusses/deficits that the state could have gotten from the companies in the future.

If the state really wanted money though, it'd set a small transaction tax or something like that on the Dankort, like there is on many other payment cards. I'm not saying I'm in favor of this - but I'm pretty sure that would be a better solution, if you need money, than to sell the company once and for all, especially in the long term.

Sadly, the Danish constitution doesn't allow nationalizing companies without compensation, and there's no way the state could possibly pay compensation if it nationalized the large companies or banks. To change that, the parlament would have to approve the change - then a new one would have to be elected - and approve of the change again - and then a referendum, with at least 40% of people voting, would also have to approve it.

This has happened a few times, when women became allowed to vote and a few years ago when males and females became equally allowed to inherit the royal throne. But I don't for a second think it would be realistic that the parlament would change the constitution so companies could be nationalized without gigantic compensations in the near future.

The only thing the socialist parties can try to do while waiting for the revolution is to create new state companies and prevent privatizations. And our current 'socialist' government is hardly doing either.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 11, 2014, 06:38:53 PM
Quote
Sadly, the Danish constitution doesn't allow nationalizing companies without compensation

Sadly, the only thing that can correct a young mind full of illogical bullshit is for them to grow up, live in the real world and have a family that depends on them or have your ideal Socialist government take everything from you, including your humanity till you realize the error of your ways.  If you don't grow out of the ignorance you will remain a bitter parasite on the teat of productive society always looking for ways for your boot jack thugs to take from others to give to you.  Heaven forbid anything is taken from you, then of course it wouldn't be fair and just.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 11, 2014, 06:45:57 PM
wt

FIRST POST
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 11, 2014, 07:12:16 PM
i liek how you say that and bla is going into free* university for astrophysics
*free means that it is free to the students, and that they get a loan each month so they don't have to work their ass off in a minimum wage job while in university, but that income earners pay more

EDIT: fuck i contradicted phinehas inb4 50 page argument with 20 paragraph posts
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 11, 2014, 07:17:21 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg)
phinehas you are at level 1 congratulations you have moved up one level over 50 years
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 11, 2014, 07:23:36 PM
Darvince, don't worry, actually the university is free as in it's paid for by the state (which of course isn't free as it's supplied by other people) and I earn money (although a low amount compared to it taking the time of more than a full-time job, but with more vacation, making it equal to one, even though I personally have no problems with my economic situation), entirely given to me by the state, so I can be an evil parasite on the poor taxpayers until the education will hopefully grant me access to early retirement, which is my goal with the studies. (Sadly, there wasn't a study called early retirement, so I just went into physics instead, same thing)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 11, 2014, 07:51:25 PM
Your illogical thought process is like the Declaration of Independence, self evident.

"Sadly, the Danish constitution doesn't allow nationalizing companies without compensation"

Can easily be destroyed by changing the wording to show how wrong it is.

"Sadly, the the Danish constitution doesn't allow Bla's current and future productivity and assests to be taken without compensation."

 If you can't see it after this then there is no hope for you...Sadly.

Sometimes you really..really don't need to go very high up on your food pyramid there to show how wrong a person's thoughts are.  You are either dumb, as in you're a young kid kind of dumb, so indoctrinated like a North Korean that you have fooled yourself or simply crazy...not medical treatment crazy but irritating crazy, the kind of crazy that expects people to take care of them all their lives crazy and doesn't see what's wrong with that.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 11, 2014, 08:07:49 PM
You have so clearly explained your point there that you needed to personally attack your opponent(s).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 11, 2014, 08:46:17 PM
I have crystals in my house. Why haven't you moved to a nursing home yet? Is it because you don't want to think you're mooching off of other people?
Everyone in the history of the world has mooched off of people, except you. You are special, and you are better than everyone else. You have never taken from anyone, whether they wanted to give it to you or not. Your house was built from lumber that you chopped down, metal that you mined and smelted yourself, and your computer was built carefully with your own hands in order to get its parts as small as possible. You provide yourself with your internet connection, which you carefully crafted to go from your router that you built yourself to the local fiber optics.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 11, 2014, 09:12:45 PM
Nice to see irrationality circle the wagons.  First off, if you were born yesterday, I would still be closer to your age than I am from the point of being in a nursing home.  Does that make you a little baby?

"Everyone in the history of the world has mooched off of people, except you."

That's just not true, most people are self sustaining and don't require assistance from anyone when they become an adult.  It's also not mooching being a child under the guardianship and responsibility of parents.  Perhaps you see your own situation as mooching and in that case, you should consider what you are doing to feel that way.  I'm not special, the vast majority of civilization up until recent times did not have the luxury of demanding or expecting other citizens to work harder in order to "take care of them."

"You have never taken from anyone, whether they wanted to give it to you or not."

When somebody takes something from somebody, it's usually called stealing.  At least in rational and civilized circles.  Have I been given something in my lifetime?  Of course but receiving something voluntarily given is not the same as taking something by force.  I seriously hope you understand that concept.

"Your house was built from lumber that you chopped down, metal that you mined and smelted yourself, and your computer was built carefully with your own hands in order to get its parts as small as possible. You provide yourself with your internet connection, which you carefully crafted to go from your router that you built yourself to the local fiber optics."

Nice try Obama but that's a stupid argument.  I WORKED hard and paid somebody for the lumber, the metal, the computer I got from the kid at Best Buy who would know more about computers if they never saw one.  Paying for the internet structure, bandwidth, electricity...yup, all paid for at a price by somebody selling it.

Your strawmen have been burnt down.




 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 11, 2014, 09:22:17 PM
You have so clearly explained your point there that you needed to personally attack your opponent(s).

I guess if I was an atheist and British, it would all come across as simply telling the truth with no time to waste on pleasantries.  Sorry Junior(ette), you guys want to post all your anti-religion posts with mocking impunity but can't take a little bluntness when it comes to your anti-evolutionary, anti-science and anti-thinking political/social views.  Cry me a river.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000345585/polls_cry_me_a_river_4838_417763_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000345585/polls_cry_me_a_river_4838_417763_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg)

for some of you...

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/568916/resized_creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-you-want-to-go-skiing-you-say-cry-me-a-river-e76380.jpg (http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/568916/resized_creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-you-want-to-go-skiing-you-say-cry-me-a-river-e76380.jpg)

and yet for others...

https://www.google.com/search?q=cry+me+a+river&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=075IU4KzFa6GyQGl-4G4Bg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1158&bih=713#q=leave+britnney+alone&tbm=isch&imgdii=1KtJNWyRQviy9M%3A%3Bvl_UGRLBNrVPMM%3B1KtJNWyRQviy9M%3A (https://www.google.com/search?q=cry+me+a+river&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=075IU4KzFa6GyQGl-4G4Bg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1158&bih=713#q=leave+britnney+alone&tbm=isch&imgdii=1KtJNWyRQviy9M%3A%3Bvl_UGRLBNrVPMM%3B1KtJNWyRQviy9M%3A)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 11, 2014, 09:23:06 PM
I'm not special, the vast majority of civilization up until recent times did not have the luxury of demanding or expecting other citizens to work harder in order to "take care of them."

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the premise of socialism (evidenced by this statement and others like it which you have made above and in the past). I can't speak for others, but it comes off to me as: The goal is for everyone to work for the prosperity of everyone, where everyone gets something they lack in return for what they can give... Just not driven solely by profit and personal greed of a few who do not know how to effectively construct a system of labor that is best for society.

If you don't grow out of the ignorance you will remain a bitter parasite on the teat of productive society always looking for ways for your boot jack thugs to take from others to give to you.

Socialism doesn't apply to one person, it applies to everyone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 11, 2014, 09:30:10 PM
"The goal is for everyone to work for the prosperity of everyone, where everyone gets something they lack in return for what they can give... Just not driven solely by profit and personal greed of a few who do not know how to effectively construct a system of labor that is best for society."

PLEASE point to one instance of this happening and being successful?  You can't find it and you won't ever see it.  Why?  Because it denies reality, it's not logical and it doesn't work.  The only people that promote Socialism and it's equivalents are Tyrants, tyrant lackeys and North Korean citizens "working" and being "re-educated" inside camp 25.  EVEN the Communist Chinese and Russians had to drop the craziness and facade and utilize the Capitalistic economics to survive and not implode.

"Socialism doesn't apply to one person, it applies to everyone."

Sure, all equally miserable...except for the Comrades at the top doing all the Social planning.  Please pick up a history book, not an editorial by Mao, Hitler or Marx and see what happens when all that Social planning get's full reign.  Yup, concentration camps and mass murders followed by the interdiction from Capitalistic people to pull the unlucky masses from the grave.  If only we could leave the people behind who started it, promoted it and are in delusion by it so that they don't perpetuate the falsehood and corruption of Utopia.

Adios, I'm done for awhile...have fun counting to a million and dreaming of a world where it's all one big hippie commune that doesn't have to wake up in the morning to wash off the filth and work for a living.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 11, 2014, 09:50:01 PM
Because it denies reality, it's not logical and it doesn't work.
I would argue capitalism is the same, and to think that works is just silly. It is at odds with the common good and society in general. It is interesting to note that there are people struggling to find work when there is obviously so much work to be done, but if it can't be rapidly overturned for a profit, in the end no one will be doing it.

Adios, I'm done for awhile...have fun counting to a million and dreaming of a world where it's all one big hippie commune that doesn't have to wake up in the morning to wash off the filth and work for a living.
I have no problem working... as long as its improving society, and not just filling someone's bank account to idle, effectively removing money from the economy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 11, 2014, 10:01:08 PM
my soul when

You think Hitler was a socialist???
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 11, 2014, 10:27:24 PM
600
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 11, 2014, 10:33:49 PM
sometimes I wish there was karma on this forum
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on April 11, 2014, 10:55:35 PM
more times i wish there wasn't
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 12, 2014, 09:45:04 AM
my soul when

You think Hitler was a socialist???

Volksgemeinschaft cries for your soul then. Don't get confused with the racial homogeneity aspect, their Utopia was still Socialistic and top down government.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on April 12, 2014, 09:59:11 AM
Bundling all socialism into one bag is going to make this thread travel quickly down the road of Godwin's law.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 12, 2014, 10:26:47 AM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 12, 2014, 02:35:48 PM
Quote from: phinehas
illogical bullshit... parasites... ignorant... dumb... indoctrinated... crazy...

Hey phinehas, can you not be patronizing and demeaning toward others please?

Your tone and demeanor are not appreciated here. You're welcome to critique socialism all you want, but only without the personal attacks and slander.

[Capitalsim] is at odds with the common good and society in general.

Well said Atomic.

Look at heath care in the United States... for-profit health care means that thousands of people a year die (or go without basic care) because they lack insurance despite the fact that overall we spend almost twice per capita what other countries spend. I wish my taxes went to giving people healthcare instead of welfare and tax breaks for companies that clearly put profit before people...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 12, 2014, 03:08:56 PM
Why are people arguing... phinehas, if there is a problem, go somewhere else instead of just criticizing others. This is escalating too much.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 12, 2014, 03:34:17 PM
Agreed with Atomic, well said. The number of examples is simply endless.

The arms industry: Benefits if a lot of crime happens so people feel a need to buy arms to feel secure. Benefits from wars between nations.

The insurance industry: Benefits from people feeling insecure and from high crime rates, high risks of disease, homelessness and other tragic conditions so that people are scared to buy their insurance.

The alcohol, tobacco and candy (and drug) industry: Benefits from ruining people's health and productivity.
The pollutive industry: Benefits from promoting propaganda 'research' portraying their pollution as non-existant or trivial.

All companies engaging in capitalist competition: Benefits from keeping their advances and research secret from the public, which other branches of society could benefit from.

The advertisement-funded media: Similarly benefits from positively portraying what they advertise for, and politicians who improve conditions for such companies, in the hope of being able to make better deals.
Industries selling goods to people: Benefits from wasting Earth's limited resources on advertising, made to convince people to further waste resources on things they don't necessarily need.

The clothing industry: Benefits from selling clothes to the west while their workers in Bangladesh and other places are kept in factories under deplorable jail-like conditions.

The coffee industry: Benefits from keeping millions of people as slaves in developing nations and then ship the coffee to the west and selling them for inflated prices, harvesting several times the production costs while the workers get only a tiny fraction of it in wages. A worker's revolution to take control of these injust industries would be more than justified.

The book industry: Benefits from making random, tiny revisions to their books and have the education system make students buy their new books over and over instead of recycling their own books or putting them onto a computer.

The gambling industry: Benefits from people who have no understanding of statistics and sometimes end up as gambling addicts.

The employers and producers: Benefit from unemployment, so that wages can fall as people accept poorer working conditions, lower wages and rights in fear of becoming unemployed. Benefits from creating the capitalist dystopia where fear of losing your job easily means losing your home and basic food security.

The medical industry: Benefits from health care personnel assigning medicine to people who may not actually need the medicine and give them diagnoses simply in order to boost their sales. (In Denmark, we have several cases of health care workers with secondary jobs in the medical industry).

Private hospitals: Benefit from a generally unhealthy society, where a lot of people get sick.

And of course, the pseudo-"medical" industry: Benefits from promoting eucalyptus leaves as the cure for cancer and all those other claims we've heard from people ranging from psychics to gurus to priests, trying to exploit the well-known placebo effect to earn money while the people risk their lives if they substitute proper treatment for this.

I am happy that many of these issues, such as the insurance issues, the healthcare issues, arms industry issues and others are relatively small here in Denmark compared to, for example, USA, Bahrein and Bangladesh. I am happy I can watch news and films without being interrupted by advertising. But I also hope to see a better society, where we move beyond the fundamentally flawed system of capitalism and all people of the world unite in their common interests for peace, cooperation and progress.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 02:57:42 PM
Quote from: phinehas
illogical bullshit... parasites... ignorant... dumb... indoctrinated... crazy...

Hey phinehas, can you not be patronizing and demeaning toward others please?

Your tone and demeanor are not appreciated here. You're welcome to critique socialism all you want, but only without the personal attacks and slander.

[Capitalsim] is at odds with the common good and society in general.

Well said Atomic.

Look at heath care in the United States... for-profit health care means that thousands of people a year die (or go without basic care) because they lack insurance despite the fact that overall we spend almost twice per capita what other countries spend. I wish my taxes went to giving people healthcare instead of welfare and tax breaks for companies that clearly put profit before people...


Here is your response.
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,613.msg119910.html#msg119910

Condoning anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim rhetoric on a forum directly related to your business is foolish.  It makes customers who are Christian, Jewish and Muslim think you and by extension your company and employees are religious bigots...and perhaps they will not want to do future business with Giant Army LLC. 

http://giantarmy.com/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.

You actually think stating others are Socialist somehow refutes the original premise of Nationalsozialismus being a form of Socialism.  It doesn't.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 03:06:30 PM
Quote
[Capitalsim] is at odds with the common good and society in general.

Quote
Well said Atomic.
- Dan Dixon.

So, Dan, setting aside the dichotomy of your thinking and your own business...are you a Socialist?  A Communist?  What exactly would you want the economy of the United States of America to adopt as it abandons capitalism? Like the ex Mozilla CEO, there are probably people that would want to know your personal views on matters, not that they are not pretty clear as written by what you have said...spell it out for the record.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 03:14:43 PM
Also, I don't appreciate these types of messages being directed at me, as weird as they are by your minions.  I can't interpret it as anything but hostile.

"I'm outside your door drawing needles on the doorknob." -Xriqxa
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 13, 2014, 03:27:31 PM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.

You actually think stating others are Socialist somehow refutes the original premise of Nationalsozialismus being a form of Socialism.  It doesn't.

he's saying that to consider nazi germany socialist would be to consider usa and it's allies socialist. since the latter clearly isn't the case, the former must be false too, which does refute the premise
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 13, 2014, 03:34:30 PM
What the Christ is this topic
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on April 13, 2014, 03:35:00 PM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.

You actually think stating others are Socialist somehow refutes the original premise of Nationalsozialismus being a form of Socialism.  It doesn't.

Nazi Germany is socialist, at least in name.

But the truth, as is often the case, is much more nuanced. The Nazi war economy was a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices. The government enacted massive deficit spending, largely on arms, that dropped unemployment and fueled an economic bubble that would last into the war years.

Private companies could still exist and collect profit, but they became heavily regulated. Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. The right to quit also disappeared: Labor books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job.

Nazi Germany was much more aligned with fascist economic ideals than it ever was with real socialism.

In economics, fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements. Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes resolving economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system. Fascist economics supports the existence of private property, the existence of a market economy, and the use of the profit motive.

Socialism, on the other hand, is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively. In other words, no profit-driven companies. The state runs everything.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 13, 2014, 03:51:33 PM
I have no problem with you criticizing any idea that you want, but that's very different than calling other forum members "parasites", "ignorant", "dumb", "indoctrinated", or "crazy".

Being critical of religion is different than personally attacking people who are Christians.
Being critical of socialism is different than personally attacking people who think socialism is a good idea.

That idea is stupid. (okay)
vs
You are stupid. (not okay)

See the difference?

I'm not a huge fan of the Willy Wonka meme that Bla posted, but it's a far cry from what you directed toward him:

If you don't grow out of the ignorance you will remain a bitter parasite on the teat of productive society always looking for ways for your boot jack thugs to take from others to give to you...

You are either dumb, as in you're a young kid kind of dumb, so indoctrinated like a North Korean that you have fooled yourself or simply crazy...not medical treatment crazy but irritating crazy, the kind of crazy that expects people to take care of them all their lives crazy and doesn't see what's wrong with that.

Perhaps instead of pointing to the actions of others you should take personal responsibility for your own statements? (which doesn't mean that you can't criticize socialism)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 03:58:21 PM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.

You actually think stating others are Socialist somehow refutes the original premise of Nationalsozialismus being a form of Socialism.  It doesn't.

he's saying that to consider nazi germany socialist would be to consider usa and it's allies socialist. since the latter clearly isn't the case, the former must be false too, which does refute the premise

Incorrect.  Darvince is stating that the USA and "allies" are Socialist...the allies are clearly Socialist, including the majority of the populace and the USA has a Marxist president and majority control of the government is Marxist.  They are all promoters of top down government planning of society through numerous means of control and force.  The only thing preventing America from going to the next steps as the Allies, is the fact that the majority of Americans think Capitalism is still the best system to increase the prosperity of ALL.  That only Capitalism allows for people to pursue happiness, that it has no artificial ceiling that hinders a person's dreams.  In America a person can use their God given talents along with their personal determination to make a life for themselves that is free.  One can make a software program about God's creation and make a living off of it...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 13, 2014, 04:02:19 PM
I disagree with Darvince that the USA is socialist. It's far more like an oligarchy or plutocracy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

... the USA has a Marxist president...

Really? Obama's policies are pretty centrist and more like a Republican from the 1980s than anything resembling Marxism.

So, Dan, setting aside the dichotomy of your thinking and your own business...are you a Socialist?

I identify with Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist. He's one of the few national American politicians who's looking out for the people and the future of our planet (it helps that he's not owned by corporations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

You're welcome to not buy my product because I believe:
- our planet is warming because of human activity
- the drug war is racist
- the Iraq war was justified on the basis of lies
- gay people should be free to get married
- what America calls enhanced interrogation is torture and it's abhorrent
- many Wall Street executives should be in jail for fraud
- our universe is a result of natural processes, there's no evidence that metaphysics is true or required
- Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are both heroes for exposing crimes committed by our government
- we should give health care and food to poor people for free
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 13, 2014, 04:03:44 PM
I'm saying that if phinehas thinks that Nazi Germany was socialist, then almost all major corporations (>99%) are also socialist because of their extreme top-down structure where the top is a set of people that changes slightly over time and the low ranks are constantly changing drones.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:06:00 PM
I have no problem with you criticizing any idea that you want, but that's very different than calling other forum members "parasites", "ignorant", "dumb", "indoctrinated", or "crazy".

Being critical of religion is different than personally attacking people who are Christians.
Being critical of socialism is different than personally attacking people who think socialism is a good idea.

That idea is stupid. (okay)
vs
You are stupid. (not okay)

See the difference?

I'm not a huge fan of the Willy Wonka meme that Bla posted, but it's a far cry from what you directed toward him:

If you don't grow out of the ignorance you will remain a bitter parasite on the teat of productive society always looking for ways for your boot jack thugs to take from others to give to you...

You are either dumb, as in you're a young kid kind of dumb, so indoctrinated like a North Korean that you have fooled yourself or simply crazy...not medical treatment crazy but irritating crazy, the kind of crazy that expects people to take care of them all their lives crazy and doesn't see what's wrong with that.

Perhaps instead of pointing to the actions of others you should take personal responsibility for your own statements? (which doesn't mean that you can't criticize socialism)

Dan, again, your silence and condoning of religious bigotry on your business website is failure to take responsibility.  Have you not read the comments or watched the videos that have been posted that patronize and demean a large group of people, that indeed call them stupid, crazy and delusional.

So, you either think you can safely allow this to occur on your business website, as a means of projecting your own personal beliefs through proxy or what?  What's the alternative conclusion?  Your commercial customers who happen to be religious want to know.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:11:38 PM
I disagree with Darvince that the USA is socialist. It's far more like an oligarchy or plutocracy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

... the USA has a Marxist president...

Really? Obama's policies are pretty centrist and more like a Republican from the 1980s than anything resembling Marxism.

So, Dan, setting aside the dichotomy of your thinking and your own business...are you a Socialist?

I identify with Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist. He's one of the few national American politicians who's looking out for the people and the future of our planet (it helps that he's not owned by corporations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

You're welcome to not buy my product because I believe:
- our planet is warming because of human activity
- the drug war is racist
- the Iraq war was justified on the basis of lies
- gay people should be free to get married
- what America calls enhanced interrogation is torture and it's abhorrent
- many Wall Street executives should be in jail for fraud
- our universe is a result of natural processes, there's no evidence that metaphysics is required
- Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are both heroes for exposing crimes committed by our government
- we should give health care and food to poor people for free

Nice list there, how about we add that you are a religious bigot?  Is that true?  Do you allow anti-religious posts on your business forum because you are in fact anti-religious or what?  Please explain to the commercial customers why you don't intervene in anti-religious posts but do so in pro-homosexuality posts, if not that you are anti-religious and think religious people are stupid, crazy and delusional.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:13:14 PM
I'm saying that if phinehas thinks that Nazi Germany was socialist, then almost all major corporations (>99%) are also socialist because of their extreme top-down structure where the top is a set of people that changes slightly over time and the low ranks are constantly changing drones.

Top down organization is not the only aspect of Socialism.  Corporations are capitalistic entities.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 13, 2014, 04:16:08 PM
Phinehas why do you come here only to argue with people? Please just leave already.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 13, 2014, 04:17:07 PM
You're free to do and think whatever you want... no one is forcing you to use or buy Universe Sandbox or the upcoming sequel which will have a strong focus on climate simulation (in order to provide education about human caused climate change).

I do not condone religious bigotry, but have no problem with the open discussion and critique of ideas. There's a difference between attacking someone who is a Christian and criticizing the claims of Christianity.

(Just like there's a difference between attacking someone who is a Socialist and criticizing the claims of Socialism.)

And please point out where on the forum members are attacking people personally (and not ideas).

Either way... I please ask that you not personally attack members of the forum.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 13, 2014, 04:18:09 PM
I'm saying that if phinehas thinks that Nazi Germany was socialist, then almost all major corporations (>99%) are also socialist because of their extreme top-down structure where the top is a set of people that changes slightly over time and the low ranks are constantly changing drones.

Top down organization is not the only aspect of Socialism.  Corporations are capitalistic entities.

but darvince is saying that corporations are top-down structures, which has nothing do with aspects of socialism. corporations don't have to be capitalistic entities
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:19:51 PM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.

You actually think stating others are Socialist somehow refutes the original premise of Nationalsozialismus being a form of Socialism.  It doesn't.

Nazi Germany is socialist, at least in name.

But the truth, as is often the case, is much more nuanced. The Nazi war economy was a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices. The government enacted massive deficit spending, largely on arms, that dropped unemployment and fueled an economic bubble that would last into the war years.

Private companies could still exist and collect profit, but they became heavily regulated. Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. The right to quit also disappeared: Labor books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job.

Nazi Germany was much more aligned with fascist economic ideals than it ever was with real socialism.

In economics, fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements. Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes resolving economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system. Fascist economics supports the existence of private property, the existence of a market economy, and the use of the profit motive.

Socialism, on the other hand, is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively. In other words, no profit-driven companies. The state runs everything.

LOL, go figure, You ahve posted twice, your last post was in 2013 and all of a sudden you appear to post in this thread.  Nice try but even a fake consensus with bogus usernames means little.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 13, 2014, 04:22:58 PM
well he is a cow i guess he was eating grass
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMooCows on April 13, 2014, 04:24:44 PM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.

You actually think stating others are Socialist somehow refutes the original premise of Nationalsozialismus being a form of Socialism.  It doesn't.

Nazi Germany is socialist, at least in name.

But the truth, as is often the case, is much more nuanced. The Nazi war economy was a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices. The government enacted massive deficit spending, largely on arms, that dropped unemployment and fueled an economic bubble that would last into the war years.

Private companies could still exist and collect profit, but they became heavily regulated. Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. The right to quit also disappeared: Labor books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job.

Nazi Germany was much more aligned with fascist economic ideals than it ever was with real socialism.

In economics, fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements. Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes resolving economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system. Fascist economics supports the existence of private property, the existence of a market economy, and the use of the profit motive.

Socialism, on the other hand, is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively. In other words, no profit-driven companies. The state runs everything.

LOL, go figure, You ahve posted twice, your last post was in 2013 and all of a sudden you appear to post in this thread.  Nice try but even a fake consensus with bogus usernames means little.

um...I post in everything else which doesn't count to post total...Also good job attacking me and not my facts. Thanks.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 13, 2014, 04:27:39 PM
Yeah... TheMooCows is a real person and not a carefully crafted conspiracy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:30:27 PM
You're free to do and think whatever you want... no one is forcing you to use or buy Universe Sandbox or the upcoming sequel which will have a strong focus on climate simulation (in order to provide education about human caused climate change).

I do not condone religious bigotry, but have no problem with the open discussion and critique of ideas. There's a difference between criticizing someone who is a Christian and criticizing the claims of Christianity.

And please point out where on the forum members are attacking people personally (and not ideas).

Either way... I please ask that you not personally attack member of the forum.

I see, so you think you can hide behind a wall that you are simply attacking ideas, not a group of people that hold to those ideas. You think that is intellectually sound?  I don't think it will hold up, it hasn't anywhere else.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 13, 2014, 04:32:35 PM
isn't that the only way to do things?

aren't all the preprints on arxiv about ideas and not people? it's holding up pretty well.

in terms of intellectual soundness, ideas are more intellectual than people, so attacking ideas is more intellectual than attacking people, and more intellectually sound
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:33:28 PM
Yeah... TheMooCows is a real person and not a carefully crafted conspiracy.

I never implied it wasn't a real person Dan..that's silly.  I simply pointed out the unlikelihood of a person that has only posted once before in 2013 is motivated to post now in this thread during this juncture.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 13, 2014, 04:34:29 PM
he's on irc, so i guess he heard all about it :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 13, 2014, 04:35:18 PM
Phinehas is becoming extremely obnoxious.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 13, 2014, 04:35:43 PM
congratulations phinehas you've descended to argument level 0, which is name-calling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:36:37 PM
well if you think nazi germany was socialist then I have news for you: USA and all its ally friends are socialist too. mostly the corporations though, like mcdonalds or walmart.

You actually think stating others are Socialist somehow refutes the original premise of Nationalsozialismus being a form of Socialism.  It doesn't.

Nazi Germany is socialist, at least in name.

But the truth, as is often the case, is much more nuanced. The Nazi war economy was a mixed economy of free-market and central-planning practices. The government enacted massive deficit spending, largely on arms, that dropped unemployment and fueled an economic bubble that would last into the war years.

Private companies could still exist and collect profit, but they became heavily regulated. Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. The right to quit also disappeared: Labor books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job.

Nazi Germany was much more aligned with fascist economic ideals than it ever was with real socialism.

In economics, fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements. Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes resolving economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system. Fascist economics supports the existence of private property, the existence of a market economy, and the use of the profit motive.

Socialism, on the other hand, is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively. In other words, no profit-driven companies. The state runs everything.

LOL, go figure, You ahve posted twice, your last post was in 2013 and all of a sudden you appear to post in this thread.  Nice try but even a fake consensus with bogus usernames means little.

um...I post in everything else which doesn't count to post total...Also good job attacking me and not my facts. Thanks.

I stand corrected.  I only saw that you posted twice and though that stat was all encompassing.  You would have to admit that if it were the case, my consideration would have been valid.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:37:52 PM
Phinehas is becoming extremely obnoxious.

No personal attacks here...where is Dan? Let's see if he stops this or his words are hollow.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:39:50 PM
congratulations phinehas you've descended to argument level 0, which is name-calling.

and your post directed to tuto99 is where?  I don't see it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 13, 2014, 04:41:14 PM
We're all replying to you in this thread, nobody is on your side because you haven't told us any solid reasoning as to why we should switch to your side, you've just called us obnoxious, thugs, ignorant, and several other things that I forget.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:44:20 PM
isn't that the only way to do things?

aren't all the preprints on arxiv about ideas and not people? it's holding up pretty well.

in terms of intellectual soundness, ideas are more intellectual than people, so attacking ideas is more intellectual than attacking people, and more intellectually sound

Setting aside your nonsensical comments, the core of which misses the point...Dan thinks it's intellectually sound to think attacking a person's beliefs is not attacking the personal personally.  A person's beliefs are a part of them as much as the physical..more so.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 13, 2014, 04:48:02 PM
Phinehas stop being childish. I was stating a truth, rather than subjectively naming you something.

Also, please leave. We don't want you here, thank you very much. :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:49:12 PM
We're all replying to you in this thread, nobody is on your side because you haven't told us any solid reasoning as to why we should switch to your side, you've just called us obnoxious, thugs, ignorant, and several other things that I forget.

That's your subjective opinion.  I gave solid reasoning backing Capitalism as an economic system versus Socialism/Communism or any other form of tyranny.  People can make arguments without the goal being to switch anyone's side.  Refuting bad ideas in itself is valid enough.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 04:51:47 PM
Phinehas stop being childish. I was stating a truth, rather than subjectively naming you something.

Also, please leave. We don't want you here, thank you very much. :)

So, when you guy's say something, it's stating a truth...go figure. I'm not forcing you to read anything I write on this forum, just ignore and I would be effectively gone in your world.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 13, 2014, 05:05:07 PM
Well, nobody that matters in the US government is Marxist, for one.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 13, 2014, 05:17:43 PM
Phinehas stop being childish. I was stating a truth, rather than subjectively naming you something.

Also, please leave. We don't want you here, thank you very much. :)
So, when you guy's say something, it's stating a truth...go figure. I'm not forcing you to read anything I write on this forum, just ignore and I would be effectively gone in your world.
Nah, it's a lot better if you are not here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
Well, nobody that matters in the US government is Marxist, for one.

Unfortunately, the president, most of the Senate, about half the Supreme Court and the people running most of the major cities do matter and affect all of us here in America.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 13, 2014, 05:24:03 PM
I have shown in this political thread the double standard by some and the condoning of religious bigotry.  I was wanting to see how Dan would respond and it's crystal clear now.  Thanks for participating.


"So true. Why should we respect crazy people like these? I mean, if they didn't have the word 'religion' to hide behind, I'd simply call them sick nazis (don't get me wrong - Hitler was religious too, but nazism isn't a religion, and we usually don't respect nazism because we see how crazy it is)." -Bla

"Creationists are idiots." - atomic7732
"Agreed" - Bla


" Even though there are occasional cases of religious idiocy and all that, but luckily not to the extent it seems like in USA."-Bla
"How sad that we as a society still hasn't managed to progress beyond such stupidity."-Bla


"To the extent that you can find good things in Christianity and Islam you'll have to cherry pick. Of course you can always simply ignore the bad parts and pretend that Christianity is good. But the truth is that it's clearly not - and that is equally evident from it's evil influence" -Bla
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 13, 2014, 06:09:36 PM
Do you have any evidence that that Barack Obama, the democratic portion of the Senate, four of the Supreme Court members, and the mayors of large cities are all communist?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 13, 2014, 06:19:04 PM
Well, nobody that matters in the US government is Marxist, for one.

Unfortunately, the president, most of the Senate, about half the Supreme Court and the people running most of the major cities do matter and affect all of us here in America.
I find it amazing conservatives and other people like them, who live in heaven here in the United States, find some way to make themselves feel marginalized and persecuted and live in their own little world where everyone is out to get them and they are an oppressed minority. They're living in a delusion of their own construction.

I don't know what kind of world you're living in (not the real world), but when a Marxist takes funding from and supports corporate interests, they're not a Marxist in my eyes (and no one's because they never proclaimed themselves as such nor are they in reality).

Out here in the real world, we're seriously lacking leftists.

Let me draw you a diagram to help illustrate:

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 13, 2014, 06:27:34 PM
isn't that the only way to do things?

aren't all the preprints on arxiv about ideas and not people? it's holding up pretty well.

in terms of intellectual soundness, ideas are more intellectual than people, so attacking ideas is more intellectual than attacking people, and more intellectually sound

Setting aside your nonsensical comments, the core of which misses the point...Dan thinks it's intellectually sound to think attacking a person's beliefs is not attacking the personal personally.  A person's beliefs are a part of them as much as the physical..more so.

when you insult a person's ego, you make them feel bad, which is not the goal. however, when you attack a person's beliefs, they are much less likely to feel insulted because they can shed or adapt new beliefs at any time, the belief is not them. the entire point is to debate beliefs anyways. it is irrelevant what is a part of who to whatever extent
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 14, 2014, 06:49:27 AM
We're all replying to you in this thread, nobody is on your side because you haven't told us any solid reasoning as to why we should switch to your side, you've just called us obnoxious, thugs, ignorant, and several other things that I forget.
I'm on his side!


This turns out to be a politics page. No wonder.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 14, 2014, 06:58:19 AM
The fact that you keep fighting back at Phinehas is the reason he is being so "obnoxious". If everyone shuts up, considers what they and others have said, and replies civilly, we can get along fine.

P.S. Before you go on about me being an ass to DDR, let me just say that I have apologized many times (yes, Dan, I meant it when I said it) and changed my way of posting. Many of you don't realize it, but you are all bullying Phinehas.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 07:31:49 AM
Interesting and unexpected.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 14, 2014, 08:18:04 AM
How are of all of us bullying phinehas? The only one making silly and insulting arguments is tuto.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 14, 2014, 08:22:00 AM
Interesting and unexpected.
not understood.

How are of all of us bullying phinehas? The only one making silly and insulting arguments is tuto.
Statement Ignored.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 14, 2014, 08:41:27 AM
Please respond, I want to know how. Is it with overwhelming of information?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 09:03:50 AM
Quote
not understood.

I guess I didn't expect anybody to see part of the problem as it is and say anything.  Your PM, as I understood it, would seem as you didn't mind negativity being directed at me.  So, I find it interesting that you would, at least on face value, stand up for me on any aspect.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 14, 2014, 09:43:30 AM
Your welcome, Phinehas, although your reply raises more questions. My mind is completely surreal in a social area (I don't mind being called Frooty in the Loops) so I said I was drawing needles on your doorknob. Darvince, you said that no one was on his side and everyone is against him, which is bullying. I shall inform The High Tyto and Her Pureness immediately.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 09:56:57 AM
Ok, so forgive me if I am unable to comprehend the surreality of the world you and obviously others here live in.  I guess I can accept the flashes of coherence when and where it presents itself.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 14, 2014, 10:36:13 AM
The High Tyto and Her Pureness immediately.
ew Kludd and Nyra
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 14, 2014, 10:59:12 AM
A majority of people having opinions that oppose those of a minority group and discussing these is not bullying. What is bullying is telling Phinehas to leave the forum because he supposedly has childish arguments.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 14, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
Oh yeah, we are bullying phinehas when he has called people parasites, indoctrinated, ignorant, dumb, and crazy.... Xriqxa, are you freaking kidding me?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 14, 2014, 12:05:46 PM
A majority of people having opinions that oppose those of a minority group and discussing these is not bullying. What is bullying is telling Phinehas to leave the forum because he supposedly has childish arguments.
Are you pointing fingers at me now? Wtf.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on April 14, 2014, 12:15:06 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '120078'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on April 14, 2014, 12:55:05 PM
Things.

And stuff.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 12:56:53 PM
LOL, the virtues of Folkesocialisme and Volksgemeinschaft.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 14, 2014, 01:15:49 PM
Yes, Tuto, I am pointing a finger at you, because instead of arguing at his level and trying to show him what is true instead of his conspiracy theorist view of the world, you descend to telling him to leave, which is essentially the same as what he is doing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 01:31:08 PM
"instead of his conspiracy theorist view of the world"

Please quote any conspiracy theory from me.  It's not a conspiracy to think that Odumbo and is ilk are Socialists.  It's clearly evident in their policies and in at least the case of Obamao, his grandparents were commies, his Mom and Dads were commies, the people and professors he associated with were commies and his political backers are commies.  When the commies and Socialist parties all endorse Obama and other Democrats every single time...how much more evidence do you need?  They can all go around lying to the dumb Americans all they want, but they slip up all the time about their plans to redistribute wealth in this country and the only people they fool are the grossly ignorant and/or highly dependent people who can't think past a weekend.  Then there are the people that support them that are not fooled but actually want America to be a Socialist society, at least as a starting point.  People like Bernie Sanders and those that endorse him.  They are Socialists, at least until the chickens come home to roost.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 14, 2014, 01:43:38 PM
It is clear that you are insecure in your beliefs as you called Obama using a derogatory term, Odumbo, and Obamao. You have only accused his relatives and the Congress of being communist, and not cited anything that could show me how he and his kinsmen are communists with extreme left political beliefs. When have they "slipped up" about wanting to take from the poor and give to the rich, since that is what you appear to believe socialism is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 02:50:35 PM
It is clear that you are insecure in your beliefs as you called Obama using a derogatory term, Odumbo, and Obamao. You have only accused his relatives and the Congress of being communist, and not cited anything that could show me how he and his kinsmen are communists with extreme left political beliefs. When have they "slipped up" about wanting to take from the poor and give to the rich, since that is what you appear to believe socialism is.

Again, your double standards are falling on deaf ears.


You seriously don't know that redistribution of wealth is a part of Socialism?  Some of you guy's get your news and understanding of politics from comedians, how about you let Russell Brand explain that concept to you.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/russell_brand_profit_is_a_filthy_word.html

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” -Karl Marx

Here is one policy of Obumbo that is the redistribution of wealth.  Isn't this enough or do you need more?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-perazzo/obamacares-stunning-redistribution-of-wealth/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 14, 2014, 03:11:46 PM
He did say take from the poor and give to the rich, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 14, 2014, 03:22:28 PM
What Darvince said...

Here is one policy of Obumbo...

It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you keep resorting to name calling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 03:58:16 PM
What Darvince said...

Here is one policy of Obumbo...

It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you keep resorting to name calling.

and it's hard to take you seriously when you only protest the name calling towards your ideological direction.

I direct you again towards what you conveniently ignore.  Religious bigotry on your business related forum.
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,3221.msg120036.html#msg120036
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 14, 2014, 05:28:35 PM
and it's hard to take you seriously when you only protest the name calling towards your ideological direction.

It has nothing to do with my or Obama's ideology... calling people names automatically undermines any argument you're making... not to mention that "Obumbo" also seem racist, given that 1941 film Dumbo had many racist references.

And there's a difference, between attacking people and attacking ideas.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 14, 2014, 06:02:02 PM
and it's hard to take you seriously when you only protest the name calling towards your ideological direction.

It has nothing to do with my or Obama's ideology... calling people names automatically undermines any argument you're making... not to mention that "Obumbo" also seem racist, given that 1941 film Dumbo had many racist references.

And there's a difference, between attacking people and attacking ideas.

LOL, the race card is so weak.  Besides I am calling him a bum, not an cartoon elephant...it was the freaking birds anyway that had "racist" overtones...who gives a crap anyway, it's just you trying to deflect and thinking that calling me a racist or a homophobe or any other Liberal go to catch phrase is going to make me dive for cover.

Again, you don't say anything when others attack Christian people, as I linked to on your business related forum.  You can't have it both ways Dan, at least not without looking totally and utterly intellectually bankrupt.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 15, 2014, 03:42:20 AM
The High Tyto and Her Pureness immediately.
ew Kludd and Nyra

You found the Easter Egg. Well done.

Oh yeah, we are bullying phinehas when he has called people parasites, indoctrinated, ignorant, dumb, and crazy.... Xriqxa, are you freaking kidding me?
in defence of the massive oppression laid upon him.

A majority of people having opinions that oppose those of a minority group and discussing these is not bullying. What is bullying is telling Phinehas to leave the forum because he supposedly has childish arguments.
but you are using these majority ideas to oppress Phineas.

From Tuto:
Quote
Please go away this forum will be better if you(Phineas) are gone (Or words to the same effect. Bear with me, I can't go back pages because I am on an iPad
A good example of the Mighty Oppresion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on April 15, 2014, 03:48:05 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '120231'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 15, 2014, 06:01:45 AM
Well... His real name is out in the open next to the video that I think he put a link for here. So, the whole world can see his name and apparently he doesn't care. So what is it going to change if it is posted a 4th time on the internet? Also, nobody even acknowledged my philosophy that you can find on the page before this one. Consequently, this arguement will go on with nothing changed. Politics indeed.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 15, 2014, 07:00:03 AM
Xriqxa, you seem to be mistaken. The politics thread was going along just fine until literally the first post that phinehas made (here (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,3221.msg119863.html#msg119863)) where he blatantly personally attacks us and puts up a useless argument.

Note that, we had no idea phinehas was even on and we didn't mention him or people like him in above posts.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 15, 2014, 07:17:15 AM
Well... His real name is out in the open next to the video that I think he put a link for here. So, the whole world can see his name and apparently he doesn't care. So what is it going to change if it is posted a 4th time on the internet? Also, nobody even acknowledged my philosophy that you can find on the page before this one. Consequently, this arguement will go on with nothing changed. Politics indeed.
I would have just preferred if you had just used my nickname.
Despite my interference in this, this is exactly the reason why I don't argue with people. This topic should be locked for a while.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 15, 2014, 07:42:30 AM
Sorry, I changed it. 


Well, atomic, I guess I am. Still, everyone is against Phineas and if they peacefully asked him to change this wouldn't be happening. So I am half-right. While I am at it, why does your Avatar keep changing in a random cycle from a princess to another princess to a few MLP Ponies to a cyclone to an inunderstandable cartoon?

In conclusion, this thread should be restarted to maintain peace.

Hope this helps,
Xriqxadinae
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 15, 2014, 07:49:26 AM
Oops, forgot to add a weird looking pink dog and an uaivailable(?) image, not to mention many others.

In a further conclusion, Phineas needs to                                              calling people "ass hats"
                                                               STOP 






Just joking, he didn't say that. But he needs to either move up from Lvl one or seperate from the graph entirely.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 15, 2014, 09:04:50 AM
Xriqxa, you seem to be mistaken. The politics thread was going along just fine until literally the first post that phinehas made (here (http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,3221.msg119863.html#msg119863)) where he blatantly personally attacks us and puts up a useless argument.

Note that, we had no idea phinehas was even on and we didn't mention him or people like him in above posts.

Going along just fine until somebody disagreed.  I simply did it in the same manner has some did in the Religion thread.  If you don't want to be called an idiot, or words to that affect, then don't do it to others.  I won't be the last one to teach that lesson if it's not learned.  I explained why I posted in that manner earlier, in relation to Dan as well.  So, you can either see the errors of your ways or continue to muffle your cries on a unicorn's shoulder.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 15, 2014, 11:56:42 AM
Quote
If you don't want to be called an idiot, or words to that affect, then don't do it to others.

Sorry, but everyone's not perfect? If you are so critical to other people, then what is the point of sharing opinions if they simply can't get an idea out without someone being a dickhead to them? Before you start a whole new argument on something else, focus on what I'M saying, then reconsider.

Quote
I won't be the last one to teach that lesson if it's not learned.

You have a point, but you don't need to call other people ignorant, dumb, or crazy to tell a point. It's not necessary, and if you can't seem to get that through your head then you need to re-evaluate how you express yourself.

Stop arguing phinehas, it's evident what the problem is. Just STOP namecalling others, it's THAT SIMPLE. Okay?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 15, 2014, 07:52:57 PM
"You have a point, but you don't need to call other people ignorant, dumb, or crazy to tell a point."

Actually I did.  If I didn't you would not have experienced the contrast nor the emotion otherwise.  You would have no long term empathy for the people you are calling stupid and crazy if you had not experienced the shoe being on the other foot personally.

Edit:  I am using the term "You" generically to cover those who made the comments and not you specifically.

Edit:  Actually I didn't.  I didn't have to use those words and tone and I could have proved my point and hopefully changed attitudes on the communication by a different way.  You are right.  I am sorry and let me know if I slip on this matter.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 16, 2014, 06:36:44 AM
Is the argument over yet?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 16, 2014, 09:58:30 AM
As far as the argument over the form of communication, I think so.  As far as the argument over Capitalism versus another economic system, that will never be over since new people are born everyday and eventually  reach an age of an economic disappointment and questioning.  People born in a Capitalistic society will look at the current system, see the logic and historically tested paradigm and thrive within it, others won't and look for an alternative.  People born is a Non-Capitalistic society will do the same thing but will have less options and will wonder why the others are even complaining...unless of course they are born into the ruling class.  I'm sure  Kim Jong-un isn't wanting to change things.  Somebody should have dismantled that punk when he was in Switzerland.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 16, 2014, 10:46:04 AM
Why does this concern capitalism? You are certainly being an "ass-hat" to others by making your first post an attack. Who do you think you are, Christopher Columbus?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 16, 2014, 10:50:06 AM
I have no clue as to what you are talking about.  You asked a question, I gave an answer.
Are you seriously defending Kim Jong-un?  If so, that's a guy I will continue to personally attack without apology.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 16, 2014, 10:53:31 AM
What is a Kim Jong-un?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 16, 2014, 11:07:21 AM
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/134479?hl=en
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 16, 2014, 11:25:42 AM
Thank you for your clear and well thought out answer.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on April 16, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
"You have a point, but you don't need to call other people ignorant, dumb, or crazy to tell a point."

Actually I did.  If I didn't you would not have experienced the contrast nor the emotion otherwise.  You would have no long term empathy for the people you are calling stupid and crazy if you had not experienced the shoe being on the other foot personally.

Edit:  I am using the term "You" generically to cover those who made the comments and not you specifically.

Edit:  Actually I didn't.  I didn't have to use those words and tone and I could have proved my point and hopefully changed attitudes on the communication by a different way.  You are right.  I am sorry and let me know if I slip on this matter.
I appreciate the empathy. It's frustrating when someone insults others; it adds unnecessary tension and a whole lot of negativity. I don't mind if you have strong beliefs, that's not my problem, but I was just sitting here looking at your posts and seeing the bluntness of your wording.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 17, 2014, 01:38:04 PM
Interesting. 31% of people above 16 years in the Copenhagen region were doing voluntary work without wages in 2004, and the number has been increasing, in 2012 to 38%.
In the sport clubs the value of voluntary work was worth 17 billion DKK per year in all of Denmark, and the total value of all voluntary work (including sports and others) was estimated somewhere around 130 billion DKK in Denmark in 2004, and has been increasing since then. For comparison, the state budget of Denmark is around 630 billion DKK.
350,000 people in the sports sector (the vast majority) work as volunteers.

The public sector is increasingly working together with the voluntary sector, for example there are a lot of people assisting the firefighters, so many that they've had to reject people because they couldn't offer them all the necessary education. There were also young people helping people in nursing homes, and people arranging trips for children in asylum centers. And people working in recycling centers and centers selling used clothes, were the surplus goes to relief.

Source: TV2 Lorry regional news for Copenhagen.
http://www.tv2lorry.dk/arkiv/2013/12/10?video_id=85805
http://www.tennis.dk/Sektioner/Klubudvikling/Tennisseminar/~/media/Files/Klubudvikling/Tennisseminar/2013/Jan%20Gudnitz.ashx

Edit: Fixed some facts which were listed as regional rather than national statistics (sorry, I got them mixed up from when I saw them in tv because it was a regional program and have re-watched the program and looked up the numbers elsewhere), and added more facts and additional clarifications and bolding to help people understanding the post.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 17, 2014, 02:39:04 PM
holy shit that's a lot
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 17, 2014, 02:50:05 PM
I didn't realize poor people in Denmark were really just in need of soccer, go figure, I thought it was food, shelter, clothing and training for jobs.  I guess if you are good enough you can football your way out of poverty...but man I don't think those odds are very good.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 17, 2014, 03:52:08 PM
the voluntary work in sports clubs doesn't mean the voluntary work was sports.

no claim was made that you can
Quote
football your way out of poverty
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 17, 2014, 03:57:49 PM
the voluntary work in sports clubs doesn't mean the voluntary work was sports.
One of those interviewed in the sports clubs said it helped her in her pedagogy studies to be a sport teacher.

With that said, the sports make up 17 billion DKK of the voluntary work while the total worth is over 130 billion DKK, luckily it's not all sports, the sports sector just happens to be pretty much volunteers only.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 17, 2014, 04:07:48 PM
the voluntary work in sports clubs doesn't mean the voluntary work was sports.

no claim was made that you can
Quote
football your way out of poverty

I took the post in question to be some attempt to counter the post I made in another thread...that showed people in the U.S.A. give more (substantive, like money..for substantive things poor people need) to help poor people than in other countries.  So, it's nice and all that people are volunteering at sport clubs, which somehow isn't related to sports...so if not, what is it related to and how does it help poor people in Denmark. 

Grasping at straws, perhaps it keeps poor kids off the streets from committing crimes that uses up more tax dollars than otherwise..idk.  Somebody will have to tell me because of right now, it just seems like people volunteering to coach non-poor kids and in return they get help with their own education...so again, don't see the poor benefiting from all this Denmark philanthropy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 17, 2014, 04:12:30 PM
maybe they don't have that many poor people
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 17, 2014, 04:27:44 PM
I guess...but then again, it's easy to simply look up facts.

http://cphpost.dk/news/poverty-on-the-rise-throughout-denmark.2832.html

But hey, this guy from Mexico says, suck it up.

http://it-is-a-great-day-in-denmark.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-is-poor-in-denmark.html
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 17, 2014, 04:33:48 PM
rising poverty doesn't mean higher poverty.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 17, 2014, 04:40:18 PM
I took the post in question to be some attempt to counter the post I made in another thread...
The post in question was an urge to share some statistics I found interesting when watching the news while visiting my grand mother today. You can take it as an attempt to counter whatever you want and make as many arguments you want based on that. It wasn't.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 17, 2014, 04:42:48 PM
Quote
rising poverty doesn't mean higher poverty.

I'm pretty sure the meaning of the word rising, in the context of economics, means the same thing as higher.  If poverty is rising then it has to be higher than it was previously.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 17, 2014, 04:44:17 PM
I took the post in question to be some attempt to counter the post I made in another thread...
The post in question was an urge to share some statistics I found interesting when watching the news while visiting my grand mother today. You can take it as an attempt to counter whatever you want and make as many arguments you want based on that. It wasn't.

Ok, sure.  If it wasn't related to the other topic, then all my points on it are unrelated as well.

I'll have to read up more on the Denmark "asylum" program...he..he, seems chock full of logical thinking.
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/asylum/conditions_for_asylum_applicants/obligation_cooperate_concerning_accommodation.htm (http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_to_dk/asylum/conditions_for_asylum_applicants/obligation_cooperate_concerning_accommodation.htm)

The food allowance program

If an asylum seeker does not live up to the obligations specified in the Danish Aliens Act, the Danish Immigration Service can place him/her, and his/her family, if applicable, on the ‘food allowance’ program.

The program is primarily intended for asylum seekers who have received a final rejection of their application for a residence permit, have not left the country by the set deadline and are refusing to assist the police with the departure process.

Wow.  A whole country *****-whipped.  LOL.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 17, 2014, 04:51:24 PM
Quote
rising poverty doesn't mean higher poverty.

I'm pretty sure the meaning of the word rising, in the context of economics, means the same thing as higher.  If poverty is rising then it has to be higher than it was previously.

if the poverty of A starts at 0 and rises at 0.02 per year
and the poverty of B starts at 0.1 and rises at 0.01 per year
then at the current time t = 0, B has a higher poverty rate
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 17, 2014, 04:54:10 PM
Quote
rising poverty doesn't mean higher poverty.

I'm pretty sure the meaning of the word rising, in the context of economics, means the same thing as higher.  If poverty is rising then it has to be higher than it was previously.

if the poverty of A starts at 0 and rises at 0.02 per year
and the poverty of B starts at 0.1 and rises at 0.01 per year
then at the current time t = 0, B has a higher poverty rate

What are you even arguing...the poverty rate of A rises and means it is higher, just like B.  If the rate of your poverty is lower but rising, then your poverty is getting worse..sheesh.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 17, 2014, 05:06:29 PM
i said

Quote
maybe they don't have that many poor people

implying that denmark has lower poverty than america.

you replied with the article about the rising poverty rate and

Quote
I guess...but then again, it's easy to simply look up facts.

the 'but' implies you think i was wrong, and that the article proves so.

but the article does not prove my point wrong. it only shows that denmark's poverty rate is getting worse, but it doesn't show that denmark's poverty rate is worse than the us'
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 17, 2014, 05:36:09 PM
That would only be valid if I had in fact made a comparison between the two countries in that regard, which I didn't.  So when you said something about Denmark not having many poor people, I gave evidence showing the number and that the number is rising. Got it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 18, 2014, 06:31:19 AM
Boom chiki chiki boom chiki boom...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 19, 2014, 03:25:02 AM
I expected 90 anti-spam posts...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 19, 2014, 12:38:45 PM
From 1977-2007... 60% of national income (in the United States) went to the top 1%.

This is why it's okay to tax those that have more than they need and give it to those that don't.

In fact... redistribution of wealth is required for a health society (and especially given that inequality is "probably higher than in any other society at any time in the past, anywhere in the world").

http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-the-1-dont-want-you-to-know-2/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 23, 2014, 10:47:08 AM
So May 1st is coming up soon and it has been announced that the prime minister will speak in Copenhagen. Some people have planned a noise protest at her speech with whistles in order to disrupt her speech. I find their arguments for why this action should be held very good. The media has been whining last year and this year about how this action is violating the prime minister's right to free speech.

But the prime minister is followed by the press wherever she goes and can always make a public statements if she wishes to, while the students, teachers, jobless and other groups that have been angered by her government's politics do not otherwise have this opportunity to speak out. We have carried out demonstrations, like the one against the sale of Dong, made petitions collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures, seen in opinion polls how the vast majority of people were clearly against it, only to be ignored by the government. I think it is only fair to then use Arbejdernes Internationale Kampdag properly for showing resistance against the hypocritical social democratic government rather than giving them another free ticket to May 1st, an event where they've proven clearly that their party no longer belongs at, a great disappointment given their many historical struggles and important victories for people in Denmark.

However, I've just seen that a parlament member of Enhedslisten is publicly opposing the action, calling it "dumb to prevent speakers from speaking on May 1st". Last year the government laughably blamed Enhedslisten for the action (they were probably pissed over seeing that at least Enhedlisten's speeches didn't get disrupted by angry people, kol).

What do you people think? Do you think the action is or can be justified?

Here are some videos of the events from last year. The prime minister fled to hold a speech in Århus and instead left the social democratic mayor of Copenhagen to speak there, probably a smart move for her kol, and many speculated it was because of the public anger, but this year she's actually going to speak in Copenhagen. The last year speech in Copenhagen was successfully interrupted for a while. (Besides from that, the mayor in Copenhagen actually had written an okay speech mentioning many results achieved in Copenhagen unlike the prime minister who just kept spewing out vague stuff and values in no way reflecting her government's actions in reality).

The prime minister in Århus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX7l3cccTP0

The mayor in Copenhagen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmM28vNcvr8
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on April 23, 2014, 01:49:00 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '121074'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 24, 2014, 09:41:42 AM
Thanks for pulling the topic away from argument.

Well done guys.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 24, 2014, 12:22:52 PM
life is the longest NS issue ever
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 24, 2014, 03:05:56 PM
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation

-rockstar

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 24, 2014, 03:16:31 PM
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation

-rockstar
Those are basically just 2 points. 3 of them are irrelevant (2, 3, 5) because they are not how socialism works at all, which you continuously fail to understand. 1 and 4 are wrong because "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."... like I don't know if you know math but, if you take money from people who have a lot and give it to people who don't have as much to the point that they are equal... then obviously the standard of living would have to be worth less than what everyone has, else everyone dies, or, alternatively you realize that money is an abstract concept that is only backed because everyone agrees to it, and they can stop agreeing at any time they want.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 24, 2014, 03:31:02 PM
You have failed to show any of the points are not valid and true.

Watch the numbers...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 24, 2014, 11:30:37 PM
As my dear friend also said:

DONT DO-IT!!!

STAYAP arguing!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 25, 2014, 06:03:13 AM
This isn't even an argument, this is just phinehas saying "no" and then posting irrelevant links.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 25, 2014, 09:32:42 AM
I am official not on Phinehas's side anymore.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 10:29:14 AM
This isn't even an argument, this is just phinehas saying "no" and then posting irrelevant links.

I don't recall you making a logical argument or having a valid rebuttal on anything.  It's nice to see a moment of written clarity though versus the usual, IB4 no egt smiley.jpg KOL, incoherence. You guy's really have no clue has to how you would be perceived in the world based on what you scribble here on this forum in crayon.

Quote
I am official not on Phinehas's side anymore.

No kidding.  What will I do now?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 25, 2014, 10:31:12 AM
You're being pretty aggressive...

STAYAP IT!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 10:34:09 AM
Here we go again...Others say something...no problem.  I respond...and it's me being aggressive.

Besides, STAYAP isn't a word and I don't respond to such nonsense.  You don't like it, don't read what I post.  I'm pretty sure SMF has a feature to block user posts for you to see.  Google it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on April 25, 2014, 10:42:22 AM
STAYAP as in how my friend flawlessly tries to make me laugh by making a weird

Quote
No kidding.  What will I do now?


Well, I was all you had. Now, you're on your own.

And yes, you are being aggressive. Darvince and dose people are just having a more-or-less civil debate or something, and then you butt in and speak your opinions and raise them above the rest so high you can't even see them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 25, 2014, 01:36:54 PM
That isn't the usual, you're just exaggerating those times when I do not make sense (on purpose) to pat yourself on the back and call it a day well done of trolling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 25, 2014, 01:42:28 PM
I suspect few people understand the difference between socialism and communism, or how the communism you desire is different from what was implemented in the USSR historically. I'd love to hear your thoughts Bla.
Hijacking this to another thread :b

I think the USSR made some big mistakes on the democracy side and after Stalin took over, degenerated into a very oppressive society that I don't support, which it didn't properly recover from after the de-Stalinization.

Economically USSR's military was also a gigantic burden on its production and one of the main reason why its economy ended up falling apart, but I can understand why they focused so much on it despite their historically much smaller economy compared to the west, given the threats from the west, the second world war and many western interventions in the revolution to begin with. But I think the USSR wasted too many resources on its military and that it ended up being larger than necessary in the situation (especially their nuke stockpile).

But the situation that USSR was in when it was created and the historical events that shaped its history are also very different from the conditions that I usually think about when considering my ideology. In a developed country like many countries in the west, with technology like the internet and computers, there is a good infrastructure to create a planned economy based on a strong direct democractic influence in the economy and openly sharing information about the planning process, where the internet technology can be used more efficiently in determining the needs and problems in the economy compared to the older communication methods.

As for the differencies between socialism and communism, this is how I see them:

Socialism is a society with a fully planned economy, but where wages are still distributed based on the quality and quantity of people's work (unless they are judged unable to work for physical or mental reasons).
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution."
Here wages still play as a factor in people's motivation to work (a role that should decrease over time to transition to a more need-based economy), and I'm not completely sure about what should be considered basic human rights and what should be granted in return for wages. Some examples of the services that I think should be universally granted in any socialist society are healthcare, clothing and collective transport. Housing/shelter I am also strongly leaning towards, but not food and luxuries. The extreme housing inequality that capitalism leaves behind would probably take decades to repair and balance, however.

Socialist societies in the past have proven, unlike capitalist ones, to be able to make unemployment virtually non-existant, and of course, if the state cannot supply work to some fraction of the work force for a period, that is the state's fault and not the jobless work force's fault, and the state should also cover their food and other fundamental needs. The distribution of income in this socialist society should be vastly more equal than that found in capitalism, where clearly bankers and those playing the stock economy game clearly do not work hundreds of times harder than a farmer or smith, but some people might earn somewhat more than others.
However, it should also be a harshly punished crime to refuse to work if you are capable of it.
In this socialist society, since the state sets all wages, taxes should also lose their meaning, as reducing wages becomes the exact same thing as increasing tax rate.

Communism is the future vision of a classless society where goods are distributed according to need. I don't think I follow Marxism completely here, because I see the most important factor in making this society possible as technology, which eventually replace humans in work completely.

I've written down some of my ideological goals here in a more general sense than to apply to the situation in specific countries and plan to expand and improve it over time:
http://www.nationstates.net/nation=blaist_blaland/detail=factbook/id=39987
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 01:46:41 PM
That isn't the usual, you're just exaggerating those times when I do not make sense (on purpose) to pat yourself on the back and call it a day well done of trolling.

smiley.jpg, xerkillswitch, uh? bypass cargo, yeah right..inb4 you take a crap.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 02:19:30 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/business/global/17denmark.html

LOL
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 25, 2014, 02:47:11 PM
Worth pointing out again how non-socialistic America currently is:

From 1977-2007... 60% of national income (in the United States) went to the top 1%.  - Source (http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-the-1-dont-want-you-to-know-2/)

And from 2009-2012 (while Obama has been president)... 95% of all income gains went to the top 1%.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 02:59:59 PM
Yup, so un-Socialistic that the last line continues to spiral down...no wait.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Can you Socialist/Communists even fathom 128 Trillion dollars?  How your worldview has completely and utterly destroyed everything it get's it's hands on.  You can't and you never will comprehend something so simple.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 25, 2014, 03:08:32 PM
i don't know what you're trying to say
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 25, 2014, 03:15:21 PM
pls explain debt clock as your support because posting the link on its own isn't doing anything
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 25, 2014, 03:18:30 PM
So you're saying that high income inequality is related to why we have such high debt?

That makes sense given that we continue to slash taxes on the rich. It is true that billionaires and millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income than those that work for them.



Our debt wouldn't have been as high if congress hadn't approved the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which will end up costing at least $4 trillion dollars (maybe as much as $6 trillion). They approved war while slashing taxes for the rich. Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html)

Just imagine other ways we could have spent $6 trillion dollars... on infrastructure, research, education, and increasing the well-being of all Americans.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 03:31:36 PM
So you're saying that high income inequality is related to why we have such high debt?

That makes sense given that we continue to slash taxes on the rich. It is true that billionaires and millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income than those that work for them.

Nice deflection attempt but YOUR post made the assertion that the USA doesn't have Socialism.  I showed the plain hard facts that it does and it's cost is now at 128, soon to be 129 trillion dollars.  Yup, Socialism, it's logical thinking.  Not!  It's foolish, illogical and at 129 Trillion...insane...because the same people that watch it fail over and over again, continue to think it will work the next time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molWTfv8TYw

I see crazy people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFpThURViYw

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 03:34:21 PM
Quote
Our debt wouldn't have been as high if congress hadn't approved the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which will end up costing at least $4 trillion dollars (maybe as much as $6 trillion). They approved war while slashing taxes for the rich. Source

Nice try again.  Dan...the last line there...that's your Socialism programs, not even all of them...it's not the Pentagon budget.  Almost 129 Trillion.  This of course isn't just USA.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 25, 2014, 03:36:29 PM
that isn't a budget. that's a liability, which doesn't mean anything in your argument.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 03:38:02 PM
pls explain debt clock as your support because posting the link on its own isn't doing anything

I understand that you can't comprehend what you are looking at.  Stare at it like a 3d stereogram and it might pop out for you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 25, 2014, 03:40:23 PM
Obviously the plain hard facts aren't plain or hard because you're the only one here that thinks the US is socialist

You constantly fail to understand communism and socialism because your information comes from someone on your side against the dictatorial failures of the cold war, like... cool that you disagree with those and yeah they failed but could you actually talk about something we don't know

Your brain is an interesting one... maybe you really hate capitalism actually. You just fundamentally misunderstand both economic concepts (capitalism and communism) that you praise capitalism, something "foreign" in your mind because apparently the United States hasn't been it... for its entire history. So you hate the current system (which is capitalist) but you think it and it's rulers are socialist... I finally see where you're coming from.

You hate the actual thing you're promoting, what a wonder this is to behold.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 03:42:53 PM
that isn't a budget. that's a liability, which doesn't mean anything in your argument.

I can't help you comprehend the fact that 128 trillion Socialism debt and climbing has already blown any type of budget and proves my argument and completely destroyed Dan's assertion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 03:48:09 PM
obviously the plain hard facts aren't plain or hard because you're the only one here that thinks the US is socialist

you constantly fail to understand communism and socialism because your information comes from someone on your side against the dictatorial failures of the cold war, like... cool that you disagree with those and yeah they failed but could you actually talk about something we don't know

I am showing you the facts from the United States treasury relating to the United States of America, nothing about cold war dictatorial failures.  This is simply a failure of Socialism.  128 Trillion dollars shows it doesn't work in America either.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 04:04:07 PM
Quote
because apparently the United States hasn't been it... for its entire history.

Google Social Security and all the other programs that make up the 128 Trillion dollars and come back and tell us what dates they were implemented.  Do you think it goes back to 1800s...1700s..uh, no.  Seriously, do you read what you are writing.

Quote
So you hate the current system (which is capitalist) but you think it and it's rulers are socialist... I finally see where you're coming from.

You hate the actual thing you're promoting, what a wonder this is to behold.

Nope, you are still confused because you don't have a firm enough grasp on history and economics...so what I am saying is "something "foreign" in your mind..."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 25, 2014, 04:12:34 PM
Quote
I can't help you comprehend the fact that 128 trillion Socialism debt and climbing has already blown any type of budget and proves my argument and completely destroyed Dan's assertion.

1. wth is "Socialism debt". this has nothing to do with socialism
2. you didn't destroy dan's assertion. that's like saying 128 is greater than 6 so 6 is not a number
3. you didn't prove your argument because the us debt clock is not even relevant
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 04:23:41 PM
Quote
1. wth is "Socialism debt". this has nothing to do with socialism
2. you didn't destroy dan's assertion. that's like saying 128 is greater than 6 so 6 is not a number
3. you didn't prove your argument because the us debt clock is not even relevant

1.  Debt directly related to Social programs does indeed have everything to do with it. The debt incurred by your fictional father by gambling...does indeed have something to do with gambling.

2.  That makes no sense at all.  Dan stated this: "Worth pointing out again how non-socialistic America currently is:"  He asserted that the America was non-socialistic...I gave 128 trillion reasons why his assertion was false.  Dan then had to create straw men versus defending his original assertion...cause he knew it got blown out of his Universe Sandbox.

3.  See 1 and 2.  Relevancy clearly shown....over and over.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 25, 2014, 04:25:30 PM
Quote
because apparently the United States hasn't been it... for its entire history.

Google Social Security and all the other programs that make up the 128 Trillion dollars and come back and tell us what dates they were implemented.  Do you think it goes back to 1800s...1700s..uh, no.  Seriously, do you read what you are writing.
because a social safety net is socialism. last I checked corporations (are those socialist?) had their interests protected fiercely by the government and they always have since industrialization began. at the expense of not only whites but also (most significantly) amerindians, immigrants, and blacks. get back to me when the government protects the people, then call the united states socialist. kthx.

Quote
Quote
So you hate the current system (which is capitalist) but you think it and it's rulers are socialist... I finally see where you're coming from.

You hate the actual thing you're promoting, what a wonder this is to behold.

Nope, you are still confused because you don't have a firm enough grasp on history and economics...so what I am saying is "something "foreign" in your mind..."
lol i may not have a PhD in economics, or be a history professor, but i highly doubt you're any more qualified than me to be arguing about anything you're saying, cause you aren't doing a very good job

The United States is, objectively, capitalist. By that logic, you are hating a system you so wholeheartedly defend, passing it off as something you hardly understand and have never lived under (socialism), because in your mind, you see that the system in place has failed, so obviously since capitalism is a perfect, incorruptable, system that serves justice to all people based on their willingness to work and prosper for themselves, a failed system cannot be capitalist! It must be socialist because a capitalist system is ideal and would work perfectly no matter what, so you project its failures onto some system which you try so hard (and fail) to argue is in place.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 25, 2014, 04:25:47 PM
Quote
1.  Debt directly related to Social programs does indeed have everything to do with it. The debt incurred by your fictional father by gambling...does indeed have something to do with gambling.
what social programs

Quote
2.  That makes no sense at all.  Dan stated this: "Worth pointing out again how non-socialistic America currently is:"  He asserted that the America was non-socialistic...I gave 128 trillion reasons why his assertion was false.
oh yeah well i have $5. that'll prove america is truly capitalist

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 04:26:57 PM
vh, your comments don't deserve a response..try harder.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 25, 2014, 04:28:44 PM
frankly we're all getting tired of your bullshit... try harder
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on April 25, 2014, 04:29:29 PM
vh, your comments don't deserve a response..try harder.

phinehas, your comments are too capitalist to deserve a response. try more socialism.

well of course they don't deserve a response. i was imitating your style of argumentation.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 04:35:56 PM
Quote
because a social safety net is socialism. last I checked corporations (are those socialist?) had their interested protected fiercely by the government and they always have since industrialization began. at the expense of not only whites but also amerindians, immigrants, and blacks. get back to me when the government protects the people, then call the united states socialist. kthx.

First sentence, is that a question, a statement..,you will have to clarify in order for it to make any sense for a response.  Again, I showed 128 trillion dollars and climbing related to Social programs...look at it compared to corporate welfare, which I never argued for..and get back to me. 

Quote
lol i may not have a PhD in economics, or be a history professor, but i highly doubt you're any more qualified than me to be arguing about anything you're saying, cause you aren't doing a very good job

I can show you the 128 trillion, I can't make you comprehend it. I believe in this case, most of the problem is on you end.

Quote
The United States is, objectively, capitalist. By that logic, you are hating a system you so wholeheartedly defend, passing it off as something you hardly understand and have never lived under (socialism), because in your mind, you see that the system in place has failed, so obviously since capitalism is a perfect, incorruptable, system that serves justice to all people based on their willingness to work and prosper for themselves, a failed system cannot be capitalist!

128 trillion and climbing of Socialist debt objectively shows that the US has taken on considerable Socialist ideas and it's objectively not shown to be a positive.  I refuted Dan's assertion...I never made an assertion that the US did not retain Capitalism.  Strawman.  I have also not gave a Utopian vision of Capitalism, that is another straw man.  If you can't argue what I say, then simply stop and not make up stuff.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 04:37:25 PM
frankly we're all getting tired of your bullshit... try harder

Nobody is forcing you to read what I post or respond.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 25, 2014, 04:39:49 PM
Quote
First sentence, is that a question, a statement..,you will have to clarify in order for it to make any sense for a response.  Again, I showed 128 trillion dollars and climbing related to Social programs...look at it compared to corporate welfare, which I never argued for..and get back to me.
your petty little social programs are not socialism, get over yourself

if anything the reason for their failure (read: the fact they cause debt) is because socialism and the premise of helping people out is 100% contrary to the capitalism and profit motive highly prevalent in society. i.e. if you aren't making money there's no point in doing it (whether it's helpful or human or not).

Quote
I can show you the 128 trillion, I can't make you comprehend it. I believe in this case, most of the problem is on you end.
guess so

Quote
128 trillion and climbing of Socialist debt objectively shows that the US has taken on considerable Socialist ideas and it's objectively not shown to be a positive.  I refuted Dan's assertion...I never made an assertion that the US did not retain Capitalism.  Strawman.  I have also not gave a Utopian vision of Capitalism, that is another straw man.  If you can't argue what I say, then simply stop and not make up stuff.
you have implied (if not stated) that you are a vehement proponent of capitalism and the free market and have expressed views stating that your primary economic belief is that people who don't work don't deserve anything and success and upward mobility is based upon the simple effort you put in. not much of a strawman tbh
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 25, 2014, 04:40:19 PM
frankly we're all getting tired of your bullshit... try harder

Nobody is forcing you to read what I post or respond.
no, i choose to respond because your arguments are pretty funny yet you keep responding with the same thing and the reiteration that you are right and that we are blind to the facts

so i basically just said try harder because you aren't trying very hard and it was partly the reasoning for why vh was responding as he did
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 05:04:31 PM
Quote
your petty little social programs are not socialism,
  128 trillion dollars is petty?  Please tell me another country that has a higher social program debt, say per capita.  Please do, because that would only show more evidence of why Socialism is a failure and has to be artificially propped up.

Quote
if anything the reason for their failure....

The rest simply makes no sense at all.

Quote
you have implied (if not stated) that you are a vehement proponent of capitalism and the free market and have expressed views stating that your primary economic belief is that people who don't work don't deserve anything and success and upward mobility is based upon the simple effort you put in. not much of a strawman tbh

1. wrong, I have said it's the best available system to bring the most people out of poverty and ethically give people control over their own destinies and retain the highest level of liberty.  I never implied it was perfect but that compared to other systems, Socialism, Communism and Despotism...it exponentially better on every level and more sustainable.  The problem with Capitalist societies has been too many people have allowed politicians to take on Socialistic ideas for political votes.  Being Santa Clause to people is looked upon more favorably by the masses than telling them they need to work in order to succeed.  People that actually can't work should be given charity by their family and concentric circles outward through the local community, groups and churches before ever reaching the State government and never reaching the Federal government.  People that can work but choose not to due to being lazy or drug users, etc.  People that want to give to them voluntarily can choose to do so but not via taxes.  Period.

Success and upward mobility are in fact determined mostly by effort, having a family consisting of a Father and Mother in the home statistically and from common sense also is a big factor.  Not taking drugs and abusing alcohol are also a factor...I could go on...point being, very few people are actually oppressed in America and have no ability to get out of poverty or stay out of it.

So again, stop making up strawmen about my positions.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 25, 2014, 05:09:30 PM
Does the United States have $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 25, 2014, 05:46:18 PM
Quote
your petty little social programs are not socialism,
  128 trillion dollars is petty?  Please tell me another country that has a higher social program debt, say per capita.  Please do, because that would only show more evidence of why Socialism is a failure and has to be artificially propped up.

you missed the point, let's put it in simpler terms for you:

social programs are not socialism

Quote
1. wrong, I have said it's the best available system to bring the most people out of poverty and ethically give people control over their own destinies and retain the highest level of liberty.  I never implied it was perfect but that compared to other systems, Socialism, Communism and Despotism...it exponentially better on every level and more sustainable.
You can't seem to prove this though, no matter how hard you try, because of your complete lack of understanding everything you're attempting to argue against.

Quote
The problem with Capitalist societies has been too many people have allowed politicians to take on Socialistic ideas for political votes.
you're funny, you're just using so called "socialist ideas" as a scapegoat for the shortcomings of capitalism
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on April 25, 2014, 06:06:30 PM
Does the United States have $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/


Nice try Dan.  If you look at your article, it states from it's source last year, Social Security being 23.1 trillion while the debt clock has it lower at 16.98 trillion right now.  The source ONLY speaks of SS.  LOL. Ba BAM! Whereas the debt clock is citing 128 trillion based on OASDI, Prescription Drug and Medicare.


Also, back in 2009 the Dallas Federal Reserve President gives the figure of 99.2 trillion and the debt clock is stating it's sources are the federal reserve.

https://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/5379285/China-warns-Federal-Reserve-over-printing-money.html

So given 5 years and the addition of Obamacare, 128 trillion still seems legit.

Plus this refutes your "low" number as well.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/10/three-pinnochios-for-glenn-kessler.php
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on April 25, 2014, 06:34:56 PM
So, in your mind, is it possible for a government to spend money and it not be socialism?

And do you also think privatized prisons are a good idea?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on April 29, 2014, 08:58:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-OcHUzTbsU

this is a pretty good video
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 01, 2014, 10:59:58 AM
Happy International Workers' Day. This was from Copenhagen, the weather was very nice (after getting a slight sunburn you could say it was literally reddening to be there).

Didn't have enough arms to take photos/vids of the noise protest against the prime minister's speech, unfortunately, but I red that she cut 13 minutes out of 20 minutes off her speech, kol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ij1MYrTni8

Her speech attempt can be seen in the video below the bottom of this article.
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/politik/2014-05-01-thorning-derfor-holdt-jeg-en-kortere-tale

The top video in this article:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Politik/2014/05/01/153858.htm

In this one I can hear my own airhorn from 0:34 to 0:52 kol, it had a high pitch and was periodic (because it used hand-compression).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-CsHCgMqk4

This video is also pretty fun to watch:
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/article2273604.ece

Some angry presumably social democrat went over to me, grabbing my arms and trying to steal my ear protection, whistle and horn periodically, kol. Another demonstrant kindly helped me to get him to stop so for most of the speech it worked. He can cry me a river until he steps up to the prime minister and tells her to listen to the people. The noise level was measured at 100 decibel by reports from the newspaper Politiken, and there were reports of a dad with his child sitting on his shoulders who began to hit a demonstrant until the police stopped him. Kol.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hati Hroovitnisson on May 09, 2014, 05:00:54 AM
Just a question; whats wrong with socialism? The government works for the people. If you are hungry it should feed you, if you are destitute it should house you. If you are lonely it should send someone around your house to show you a good time. It shouldn't provide the world but it should establish a minimum standard of living for even the ungrateful among us.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on May 09, 2014, 05:02:23 AM
Agreed.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cosmos on May 09, 2014, 05:42:46 AM
Just a question; whats wrong with socialism? The government works for the people. If you are hungry it should feed you, if you are destitute it should house you. If you are lonely it should send someone around your house to show you a good time. It shouldn't provide the world but it should establish a minimum standard of living for even the ungrateful among us.

Republican Jesus objects.

(http://i.imgur.com/CxIKULN.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hati Hroovitnisson on May 09, 2014, 07:56:46 AM
The republican position assumes that being a product of a civilization doesn't already make you dependent. When they say we stand on the shoulders of giants its in every facet of our lives, from language to our current worldview, ideas, education living standard, even your clothes are a product of multiple people you are dependent on.

Republicans should strip off completely naked and wander out into the countryside for a week or two to figure out what true independence is like. Accepting what it means to be in a civilization means accepting small doses of socialism and admitting you're dependent on others and should probably cooperate with them. The argument I've read so far is misguided.

Here's another turn of phrase for the hardcore capitalists here: "anything in overdose is a poison". You're supposed to pick and choose what facets of socialism and capitalism work best for what sections of society, not drown society in an extreme version of either. Imagine a capitalist fire department or a socialist oil company. A fire department that favors the highest bidder is as useless as an oil company that can't run in the business world. All this "socialism is bad" or "capitalism is good" stuff is nonsense. The benefits come about in terms of what needs to come out of it. Its this scary concept called a "grey area".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on May 09, 2014, 08:02:09 AM
similarly an unregulated oil company will run well but get so big that it must be supported to keep an economic depression from occuring
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hati Hroovitnisson on May 09, 2014, 08:20:16 AM
similarly an unregulated oil company will run well but get so big that it must be supported to keep an economic depression from occuring

I say let the depression happen. The things that are over bloated and inefficient tend to get routed in a depression, afterward what generally happens is we find things have centralized and money has freed up at the end of a bust because things have become more efficient from routing the redundancies. If an oil company is so large it can ruin our economy then it is too big for the economy and needs to be removed or drastically downsized.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 09, 2014, 08:24:43 AM
You're supposed to pick and choose what facets of socialism and capitalism work best for what sections of society, not drown society in an extreme version of either. Imagine a capitalist fire department or a socialist oil company. A fire department that favors the highest bidder is as useless as an oil company that can't run in the business world.
Assuming you by socialist oil company mean a state-owned one, I think Statoil would disagree.

If an oil company is so large it can ruin our economy then it is too big for the economy and needs to be removed or drastically downsized.
But splitting up all those large businesses would mean losing the advantage of economies of scale which means inefficiency... Then again, monopolies also drift towards inefficiency in capitalism due to lack of competition to balance the profit motive...
The solution to this should be to nationalize and merge the companies and exploit the economies of scale on the biggest possible level and have people cooperate rather than compete to fulfill society's needs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on May 09, 2014, 08:26:41 AM
The republican position assumes that being a product of a civilization doesn't already make you dependent. When they say we stand on the shoulders of giants its in every facet of our lives, from language to our current worldview, ideas, education living standard, even your clothes are a product of multiple people you are dependent on.

Republicans should strip off completely naked and wander out into the countryside for a week or two to figure out what true independence is like. Accepting what it means to be in a civilization means accepting small doses of socialism and admitting you're dependent on others and should probably cooperate with them. The argument I've read so far is misguided.

Here's another turn of phrase for the hardcore capitalists here: "anything in overdose is a poison". You're supposed to pick and choose what facets of socialism and capitalism work best for what sections of society, not drown society in an extreme version of either. Imagine a capitalist fire department or a socialist oil company. A fire department that favors the highest bidder is as useless as an oil company that can't run in the business world. All this "socialism is bad" or "capitalism is good" stuff is nonsense. The benefits come about in terms of what needs to come out of it. Its this scary concept called a "grey area".
you're taking everything too seriously.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 09, 2014, 11:13:33 AM
I also overheard a conversation at college about this new, interesting book:
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2

It has a lot of interesting datasets here:
http://www.quandl.com/PIKETTY?page=1
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on May 09, 2014, 11:22:42 AM
They talk about Thomas Piketty's book, Capital in this video:
http://billmoyers.com/video/#71448
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 12, 2014, 11:05:38 AM
Fascists tried a demo at the parlament on Saturday, lol. Antifascists gathered to boo at them and shout "no nazis in our streets". Their demo lasted 10 minutes before the police drove them away, kol.

In return, you can barely hear them shout "Denmark for Danes" "foreigners out" and calling the antifascists "gay asses". Enjoy watching their stupidity. :P

Later that day, 21 right wing radicals were arrested at a train station. Ha.

From 2:41

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDZTGlVx2I&t=2m41s

Also lolwut, how is this going to work??
(And notice his necklace - a popular nazi iron cross)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on May 12, 2014, 01:52:46 PM
Well to be honest, it's the iron cross, used in Germany since it was Purssia.
But yeah it does have Nazi connotations, not as strongly as the Swastika though imo.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: smjjames on May 14, 2014, 06:44:43 AM
Well to be honest, it's the iron cross, used in Germany since it was Purssia.
But yeah it does have Nazi connotations, not as strongly as the Swastika though imo.

Yeah, I just associate it with WWI Germany or just Germany in general.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 21, 2014, 12:35:45 PM
You're correct, it is, yes, but I think its meaning is a bit different to the far right, here it is a popular symbol they like to mix with various death-worshiping graphics, just try searching up on iron cross shirts and you'll get an idea of what kind of people run around wearing that.

Anyway, you should watch this, it's hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on May 21, 2014, 12:46:37 PM
Blaland is one of our best and strongest allies, and they punch above their weight.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 11, 2014, 03:46:54 AM
A recent opinion poll from May made by Gallup for the conservative newspaper Berlingske in Denmark asked 1,082 representatively chosen people above 18 years how much they agreed with the statement "I happily pay my taxes to the Danish society"

38% answered they completely agreed
50% answered they partially agreed
8% answered they partially disagreed
3% answered they completely disagreed
1% didn't know

Among people voting for Unity List, Socialist People's Party, Social Democrats and Radical Left:
59% completely agreed
38% partially agreed
2% partially disagreed
1% completely disagreed

Among people voting for Left, Conservative People's Party, Liberal Alliance and Danish People's Party:
24% completely agreed
58% partially agreed
12% partially disagreed
6% completely disagreed

The chosen main reason for agreeing were:
47%: "I expect to gain free access to doctors, hospitals, education and welfare"
23%: "Everyone should have equal access to welfare"
13%: "I support the principle that the richest people should give the most to society"
13%: "I feel that I get something myself for paying taxes"
3%: None of the above/don't know

The chosen main reasons for not agreeing were:
31%: "I don't want to pay welfare for people who don't contribute economically to society"
29%: "My taxes end up in bureaucracy and administration anyway"
20%: "I feel that I get punished for doing some extra work"
3%: "I think so many people already try to pay as little tax as possible that I won't make any difference"
13%: None of the above
4%: Don't know

Source: http://www.b.dk/nationalt/danskerne-betaler-med-glaede-deres-skat

Some more surveys:

2008: Zapera asked about 1,000 people whether they considered themselves socialists or not. 27% answered yes.
2013: YouGov asked about 1,000 people whether they considered themselves socialists or not. 29% answered yes, 46% answered no, and 25% had no opinion to the question.
(No definition of socialism was given in either of the surveys, so it was only whether they considered themselves to be it)
2014: Wilke asks 955 representatively selected people "Do you think that a socialist society would be better at securing welfare and work than the current capitalist society?"
23.0% answered yes, 51.3% answered no, 23.9% were unsure.
32.6% of people between 18 and 29 year old answered yes, while 12.7% of people above 70 years answered yes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on June 11, 2014, 11:49:30 AM
partially vs totally agreeing always confuses me. because do you mean the dictionary definition of totally, meaning totally totally? or perhaps i should interpret it as most people do, which is mostly totally?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on June 21, 2014, 02:13:46 AM
Kol... CIA makes propaganda toy doll of Osama Bin Laden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-hatched-plan-to-make-demon-toy-to-counter-bin-laden-influence/2014/06/19/cb3d571c-f0d0-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 21, 2014, 03:46:18 AM
osmotischen darmotikrase aufsfljuit abteildung kronisk obstruktiv lungesydom psychosis syndrome
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on June 21, 2014, 03:47:18 AM
this is a great simulation of politics dar congration
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on June 21, 2014, 03:47:46 AM
thank for many insight
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on June 23, 2014, 01:06:58 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VCqxVLnwNI
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on June 26, 2014, 01:13:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkUgLx0amDs
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on July 13, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/09/analysis-over-half-of-all-statements-made-on-fox-news-are-false/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on July 31, 2014, 01:48:16 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQeJuYd2p3k

pretty basic stuff
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 01, 2014, 06:05:43 AM
This book looks interesting

http://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=634

"Blekingegade is a quiet Copenhagen street. It is also where, in May 1989, the police discovered an apartment that had served Denmark’s most notorious twentieth-century bank robbers as a hideaway for years. The Blekingegade Group members belonged to a communist organization and lived modest lives in the Danish capital. Over a period of almost two decades, they sent millions of dollars acquired in spectacular heists to Third World liberation movements, in particular the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). In May 1991, seven of them were convicted and went to prison."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 09, 2014, 03:20:23 AM
So the party Venstre (which was the main party in the previous government) has presented its new immigration policies that it wants to implement... They propose that, people from the blue countries may immigrate if they get annual wages of more than 39,000 USD, while people from all the other countries may immigrate if they get annual wages of more than 73,000 USD.

...And yes, they are serious. A vomitingly disgusting proposal to treat people as first or second rank citizens based on only their origin.

(http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/htm/baggrund/generel/Kort_over_lempelig_adgang.jpg)

Sources:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/08/09/101340.htm
"New immigration policy August 2014 - Denmark - For those who can and want"
http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/B25C8083-85C3-4025-AEFA-BBC3C062780C/5992374/NY_UDL%C3%86NDINGEPOLITIK__Danmark_for_dem_der_kan_og_v.pdf
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on August 09, 2014, 06:24:11 AM
That looks really east & west bloc.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 09, 2014, 07:20:24 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '130859'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on August 09, 2014, 10:12:27 AM
if you immigrate to Denmark from chad you are guaranteed to get paid 73k usd per year but if you immigrate from canada you're only guaranteed to get paid 39k

I think their idea to guarantee immigrants a job is a good one but this goes in the wrong direction, I agree it's strange. Just guarantee everyone 73k? :P
No, this has nothing to do with guaranteeing their wages. It has to do with not allowing them to stay if they make less than x amount per year. How on Earth they manage to earn that is up to themselves according to the party.
The proposal comes after a long discussion that was started when a member of the parlament and party wrote an article with the title "Happy Eid to all muslims" in which the person argued that there should be different criteria for different people.

Translated:
Quote
"But my answer is also that it's not necessary to set the same criteria for everyone, because in general there's a big difference in the ability and desire to integrate, depending on whether it is a christian American or Swede and a muslim Somalian or Pakistani, who comes here."

Original:
Quote
Men mit svar er også, at det ikke er nødvendigt at stille samme krav til alle, for i hovedreglen er det sådan, at der er stor forskel på evnen og viljen til integration, alt efter om det er en kristen amerikaner eller svensker og en muslimsk somalier eller pakistaner, der kommer hertil.

Source article:
http://www.b.dk/kronikker/glaedelig-eid-til-alle-muslimer

Basically they're trying to approach Danish People's Party on immigration issues in hope of letting Danish People's Party let them have their wishes on other issues, like the economy. It'd be interesting to see the chaos unfold as the right wing tries to agree on economic policies when Liberal Alliance wants negative growth in the public sector, Left (and the conservatives too if I remember correctly) want 0% growth while Danish People's Party wants 0.8% growth.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on August 09, 2014, 01:48:42 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '130908'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on August 19, 2014, 05:10:58 PM
So, in your mind, is it possible for a government to spend money and it not be socialism?

And do you also think privatized prisons are a good idea?

The United States has a Federal Government , State Governments and then Local governments.  The Federal Government has enumerated powers for good reasons.  The Federal Government should not reach it's power into what can be done via the State governments and the State governments should not reach it's power into what can be done at the local level and the local level should not reach it's power into what can be done by the individual.  The enumerated powers of the Federal government dictate constitutionally that all other powers are left to the States and to the People.  Charity is not the domain of any government.  Individuals can VOLUNTARILY be as charitable as they wish and have no need for governments to take by force, via taxes for anything outside of their enumerated powers that the PEOPLE have agreed to give the institutions.

The United States of America has the BEST form of Government in the history of mankind.  It was the first human advanced government that stated inalienable rights are endowed upon mankind by the Creator and can not be given or taken away by a Monarchy or despotic government run by "well meaning" delusional elites.

You want to ruin this form of government?  Continue to "fundamentally transform" America until it's broken beyond repair.

       “I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe.…Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent and they will be vigilant, give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.” (Daniel Webster, Works, 1:403.) 

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Lovechild on August 21, 2014, 01:37:36 PM
^ this guy is hilariously myopic
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on August 21, 2014, 06:59:43 PM
please don't debate him you'll just get extremely frustrated and facepalm a lot
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on September 02, 2014, 10:04:40 PM
That's all you can do, declare delusions of having the truth when reality and facts have yet to be on the forum's group-think side of any "debate".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 02, 2014, 10:15:22 PM
so guys what's your favorite communist party in your country?

www.pslweb.org
i've heard the party for socialism and liberation is pretty good.

CPUSA (communist party of usa) seems to be a puppet of the democrats, so not at all worth supporting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on September 02, 2014, 10:16:38 PM
That's all you can do, declare delusions of having the truth when reality and facts have yet to be on your group-think side of any "debate". This is simply where you declare your positions and Bla declares his, and sometimes we butt in and add our beliefs, and you continue ramming Bla for not believing your proof-less arguments.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 02, 2014, 10:20:06 PM
so guys what's your favorite communist party in your country?

www.pslweb.org
i've heard the party for socialism and liberation is pretty good.

CPUSA (communist party of usa) seems to be a puppet of the democrats, so not at all worth supporting.
I like the green party because it seems pretty decent and it's got some popularity and it's not super "radical" or anything too drastic of a change other than what's needed

so not really socialist but close enough
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on September 02, 2014, 10:22:36 PM
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php)

for reference (jill stein is green)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on September 02, 2014, 10:24:52 PM
Sorry, reality and facts show that America's form of government along with it's economic system of capitalism is on one end of the desirable graph and Communist and other despot countries are on the other end.  Socialism is simply the road to Communism and totalitarianism.  Nobody is beating the door down to immigrate into North Korea, Cuba, etc.  Where people are literally putting their lives in jeopardy to get into America.  That's been a historical fact and only people living in North Korea, Cuba, etc. could deny that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 03, 2014, 06:42:23 AM
Sorry, reality and facts show that your head is fucking solid.

Socialism/communism and totalitarianism have nothing to do with each other. I'd like to know if you could count how many times this has been mentioned.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on September 03, 2014, 07:48:40 AM
...all you have are insults and ignorance.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&type=issue
http://history.genius.com/Karl-marx-communist-manifesto-chap-3-socialist-and-communist-literature-part-3-critical-utopian-socialism-and-communism-annotated

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 03, 2014, 10:21:19 AM
at this point that's all you get
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on September 22, 2014, 09:14:42 PM
this book i'm reading

(http://i.imgur.com/8zOUptS.png)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 01, 2014, 12:32:40 PM
54% of people in Denmark respond they would be ready to pay more in taxes to preserve the current quality of public services, while 19% respond they would be ready to accept lower quality to avoid increasing taxes.
But 35% 943 of municipal board members respond they would be ready to accept lowering the service quality to avoid increasing taxes.
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/10/01/103937.htm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 08, 2014, 10:16:00 AM
Pretty fun, University of Copenhagen's matriculation earlier this year got "couped" by a leftist student activist group who spoke against a reform that would give people less time to finish their studies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1BEDfLRjDY

There were large student demonstrations against it last year, one day pretty much everyone from math and physics went to demonstrate and many parked their bikes inside the institute.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on October 08, 2014, 10:20:23 AM
Politicians suck.

Anarchy plis
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 16, 2014, 05:17:54 PM
Excellent. Hopefully they'll all rot in jail.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/greece-golden-dawn-mps-tried-criminal-offences
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on October 21, 2014, 07:39:09 AM
What is a nation ruled by a dictator called? I think it's Empire but I can't be sure
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 21, 2014, 08:27:03 AM
Dictatorship

Empire is ruled by an emperor/empress, but since they usually inherit their position and aren't elected most of them could be called dictators as well.
If it's really really big maybe you could call it dictatorfrigate, dictatordreadnought... And the small ones dictatorboats
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on October 21, 2014, 08:32:17 AM
whee

(http://www.moolf.com/images/stories/Funny/Adolf-Hitler-Funny-Pictures/Adolf-Hitler-Funny-Pictures-10.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 21, 2014, 09:21:00 AM
Hitler drowning in a bathtub with a miniature Titanic could actually be an entertaining movie.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on October 21, 2014, 09:22:56 AM
<+07:21:00 PM> Bla can't tell the difference in between warships and the Titanic, or the difference in between drowning and bathing.

Noted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on October 21, 2014, 11:17:02 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '140136'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Xriqxa on October 21, 2014, 11:17:26 AM
yes that's how badass I am
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on October 21, 2014, 12:24:22 PM
drowning hitler on the titanic sounds like a pretty good move
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Lord DC on October 21, 2014, 12:30:41 PM
Aww what the hell
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 30, 2014, 10:23:53 AM
In northern Fyn the local municipality is discussing whether it should be possible for private companies to advertize on schools and in kindergartens. A blue [right-wing] majority is for the proposal.

The mayor from the party Venstre ("Left") says:
"Children are met with advertising on the bus on the way to school, and when they go from school on the way to after-school centers, there's also advertising. I think we should also allow that on, for example playgrounds and in schools."

"The incomes from advertising should then be used by the institution, so that they for example can pay for new toys. That means the municipality will spend less money on purchasing", he argues.

Paragraphs from the article
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Regionale/Fyn/2014/10/30/150004.htm



Kol, it's remarkable what a narrow worldview it is all seen from. Advertising is everywhere else, there's no reason to question that - it's simply a reason to put it in even more places. Putting it up will give us more income to buy the stuff we need, as if it's dumped down from the sky.

Where does the money come from? There are people who have paid jobs to make advertising. But the thing about it is that it makes people who see it statistically buy the things they see, enough to make a surplus from making and putting up the ads. The money aren't dumping down from the sky but come from regular people, who are attempted brainwashed by this ugly propaganda to buy things they wouldn't otherwise have bought and don't need.

From their narrow worldview, it looks all nice and beneficial, but if you zoom out a bit, it becomes clear how ridiculous this economic system is. Get rid of advertising. Get everyone who work on it to work on the things humanity needs. We need more aluminium for wind turbines, more apartments people can afford... not capitalist propaganda in places where people don't search for products themselves. Maybe they could be the ones to actually construct the playground instead of putting up ads that fund its construction through a complex but irrational process. Accept that economic growth, if it stems only from advertising causing people to buy things they don't need, is ultimately pointless, and only makes it harder to achieve a sustainable society. Please, dear mayor, accept reality.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on October 30, 2014, 03:56:04 PM
I disagree about the brainwashing part, and the capitalistic propaganda part. I think that in a world with products, there will always be advertising for them
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: matty406 on October 30, 2014, 03:58:43 PM
In a world with any service offered, be it a single craftsperson or a multinational company, there will be advertising.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on October 30, 2014, 04:39:42 PM
no he's $100% right u r brainwashed if u see an ad "buy JIGSAW deodorant today"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on October 30, 2014, 04:42:23 PM
I heard that Jigsaw Spray is a good condiment for hamburgers $190 approved by A Random Hobo
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 30, 2014, 11:58:42 PM
I disagree about the brainwashing part, and the capitalistic propaganda part.
Why?

I think that in a world with products, there will always be advertising for them
In a world with any service offered, be it a single craftsperson or a multinational company, there will be advertising.
I think the world disagrees with you, the Soviet Union had products but no advertising before ~1960s for example. That's simply not true.
Advertising as posters, movies, etc. made with the intent to convince people to buy products, don't necessarily have to exist along with the products. They only exist because the people who make products tend to also make advertising, because it increases their income. In a planned economy you could simply create the products without the advertising, or even in a capitalist one you could ban advertising.
Maybe in a capitalist economy with banned advertising there'd still be people who try to do it, but it'd be nothing like what it is today, but in any case that's not really what I'm arguing for, I'm arguing for a planned economy without advertising.

no he's $100% right u r brainwashed if u see an ad "buy JIGSAW deodorant today"
However I never said people were brainwashed as soon as they see an ad. I'm saying the advertising's way of communicating things are so biased and subjective they're basically propaganda and attempts to brainwash people. Watching the ads interrupting movies is like watching news from North Korea, only difference being they have different agendas. Please find other places to twist people's statements with your sarcasm.



Just to clarify, by advertising I meant the parasitic kind. Like interruptions on TV, the internet, people interrupting you on the street trying to sell you phone subscriptions, or when they throw them and other ads into your letter box. (Despite the fact that I have a sticker saying no to ads, ads getting thrown in actually still make up the majority of my paper waste). The ads in the issue I linked to also falls into the parasitic category, because it uses society's resources, requires labor to make, but only serves to artificially inflate our consumption of products.

I'm not against shops having signs showing that you're entering a place where you can get vegetables or books, etc. And I also think people should be able to search for products in databases - but the key part is they're not confronted with it everywhere, but choose to search for it themselves, and the products should be described in a manner that's as objective as possible, without being tied to a goal of selling them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on October 31, 2014, 05:20:10 AM
(http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/communism.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on October 31, 2014, 06:43:26 AM
(http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/communism.jpg)
Mfw apparently because i have a minnimum wage job at Mcdonalds im literally a slave getting no money
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on October 31, 2014, 10:40:35 AM
you're also not supporting a family
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on October 31, 2014, 11:56:09 AM
Having to support a family =/= Slave labour
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on October 31, 2014, 12:21:09 PM
(http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/communism.jpg)
The money in the cartoon represents profits, not wages.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097111/High-school-accused-promoting-communism-capitalism-social-studies-lesson-worksheet.html
But yes the chains aren't necessarily accurate. I'm not really a fan of the cartoon.

For the 25 million coffee farmers in the developing world who earn only 2% of what their coffee is finally sold for (see http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,3221.msg79356.html#msg79356), or the people who actually make the Apple products in factories in Asia, or the clothes in Bangladesh (many of who are literally not allowed to exit the factories - as can be seen the last time one burned down and workers died as they were locked up inside), I think the chains make a pretty accurate depiction however, at least symbolically.

Also kol @ the cartoon being taken from Faux News radio.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 06, 2014, 07:53:59 AM
343 multinational companies from around the world negotiated secret tax agreements with Luxembourg in order to pay as little as 1% in tax. What a disgrace, but not really surprising considering the corrupt and rotten system capitalism is.

Here from Denmark TDC has participated (source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/11/05/114322.htm), we should never have privatized the telephone data services...

Leaks:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/05/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-tax-avoidance-industrial-scale
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/business/international/hundreds-of-companies-seen-cutting-tax-bills-by-sending-money-through-luxembourg.html?_r=0
(Interactive graphic at bottom in English):
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/luxemburg-leaks-klicken-sie-sich-durch-die-geheimdokumente-1.2207307
News in other languages:
http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/11/05/luxembourg-ikea-champion-de-l-optimisation-fiscale_4518898_3234.html
http://www.svt.se/ug/sverige-ligger-pa-tio-i-topp-i-lackan
http://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/2014-11-05/las-big-four-de-la-auditoria-juegan-un-papel-clave-en-la-evasion-de-impuestos_435392/

A list of companies can be seen in here (hall of shame):
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2014/11/05/151417.htm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 06, 2014, 09:06:57 AM
meanwhile in luxembourg they are drowning in wealth
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on November 06, 2014, 12:23:47 PM
Meh, this doesnt really bother me. If they can find a way to beat the system and pay less in tax then by all means get more money.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 06, 2014, 12:44:27 PM
Meh, this doesnt really bother me. If they can find a way to beat the system and pay less in tax then by all means get more money.
I see. There's nothing wrong with having an official 29% tax rate for corporations except 343 selected ones who you make deals with... and trying to cover that up from the public, those who elected you, and the neighboring countries whose people pay for it. There's nothing morally wrong with avoiding paying taxes to the countries, whose states built up vital infrastructure that your activities rely on and ensure millions of people don't end up under conditions like the people during the great depression.

It is truly saddening to see the amount of apathy.

But yes, it highlights a problem; company taxes are way too easy to navigate around, this isn't the first time we see issues with transfer pricing. Nationalize the companies, make taxes unnecessary, let people have their rightful power over the economy instead of having billions upon billions being fiddled around with behind our backs by greedy parasites, only to have people go around apathetic of a situation that has huge indirect consequences for their wages, life and security.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on November 06, 2014, 05:04:09 PM
  i heard Obama is sending troops to Africa so they can get ebola, come back to Texas and infect everyone, so Texas can't vote against him in 2016
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 06, 2014, 11:58:55 PM
sigh....business doesn't actually pay taxes.  Logical and rational thinking will help you go far in life as ignorance ,whether blinded by emotion or not, simply gives you a false perception of reality.  Logically thinking about the concept can not result in the wrong conclusion.  This is one out of many articles that is true in 2012, any time prior and any time after.

http://mercatus.org/expert_commentary/corporate-taxes-trickle-down
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 07, 2014, 09:24:10 AM
The trickle down doesn't happen, this has been established for a while.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Lord DC on November 07, 2014, 09:41:09 AM
Trickle down economics is bullsh*t.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 07, 2014, 10:15:38 AM
Quote
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 07, 2014, 02:16:26 PM
America isn't a civilization, it never was, unless you expect the entire West to collapse in a giant ball of chaos in the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on November 07, 2014, 03:23:04 PM
The damn liberals are literally killing the heart and soul of America.  Muh guns can't even protect against this
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 07, 2014, 03:39:39 PM
I guess you tend to read into stuff  when you can't refute an actual point made.  That may work with other children in the playground you romp around in but you are not talking to a child but an adult with a mature worldview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

The Western Civilization is but the evolution of the Roman Empire to a large degree.  The quote I gave is still valid and historically and during the present shows a consistent progress through the stages.  While a generic 200 years isn't set in stone it doesn't invalidate the whole if the time is expanded.  The Western Civilization has managed to prolong it's death and I would assume this is due to technology...but dying it is and dead it will become.

The enlightened of humanity were not the despots, Communists or other evil dredges of the world but were men and women who valued Liberty and the pursuit of knowledge and beauty of creation, not it's destruction.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 07, 2014, 03:42:47 PM
The damn liberals are literally killing the heart and soul of America.  Muh guns can't even protect against this

Funny how you state a truth in your feeble mockery and bigotry.  No, guns can't protect against the utter stupidity of others.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 08, 2014, 10:24:59 AM
You say that the West is an evolved Roman Empire... this is true... however, you forget the European middle ages which would suit the "bondage" you talk about... I see the world as progressing out of this "bondage" in many, many, areas throughout the world, such as India or Africa... social revolutions too, in the middle east especially...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on November 08, 2014, 11:46:24 AM
I mean,  you could just shoot all the stupid people
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 08, 2014, 11:47:23 AM
I mean,  you could just shoot all the stupid people

KOKLOK I SAID THAT WHO REMOVED POST
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Lord DC on November 08, 2014, 11:50:01 AM
if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be considered a tea party extremist..
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 08, 2014, 11:54:08 AM
if I was alive today, he would be considered a pone

oh wait
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 08, 2014, 11:58:54 AM
India, sure...Caste system still an issue but they certainly are moving forward but I would say a big part of that was it's interaction with the West.

Africa, maybe in another few hundred years but they started in a ditch and continue to dig deeper is so many ways.

Quote
social revolutions too, in the middle east especially...

I don't see any of these "revolutions" heading in a positive direction.  Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda..pretty much the same thing by a different name.  While I certainly think the governments of West should leave them COMPLETELY to their own devices.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 08, 2014, 12:01:21 PM
Have you forgotten Libya? Egypt? And plenty of other countries in which the Arab Spring took place?

Terrorist organizations are a completely different story.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 08, 2014, 12:02:21 PM
@me?

but srsly
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 08, 2014, 12:06:55 PM
no phinehas
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 08, 2014, 12:08:18 PM
Quote
Have you forgotten Libya? Egypt?

LOL, are you serious?  You obviously have internet...simply Google both words and see what comes up...unless of course you live in a country that restricts access to objective news.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 08, 2014, 12:10:18 PM
unless of course you live in a country that restricts access to objective news.


"Transgender" is blocked on Wikipedia where I live... does that count?

Quote
Have you forgotten Libya? Egypt?

LOL, are you serious?  You obviously have internet...simply Google both words and see what comes up


I'm sure he was talking about
Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda..pretty much the same thing by a different name. 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 08, 2014, 12:13:32 PM
Quote
"Transgender" is blocked on Wikipedia where I live... does that count?

I don't think all information available is worth knowing about.

Quote
I'm sure he was talking about

Same countries, same groups, same problems.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 08, 2014, 12:15:25 PM
But why transgender? Why not zoophilia? Seriously, why block these?

Also it's worth knowing all of these so you aren't treated like a buttard when you meet a non-traditional sexuality.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 08, 2014, 12:32:15 PM
whoops i'm sorry in my world view everyone is a straight white cis male
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 08, 2014, 04:53:04 PM
LOL, the only forum I am aware of that deletes posts that call Jeffery Dahmer's sexuality aberrant.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on November 08, 2014, 08:03:03 PM
Please do not make disparaging comments about transgendered persons. That is not acceptable on this forum.

It might be hard to imagine... but for some people their mind and body do not match up. Imagine feeling as you do about being male, but having the body parts of a female. That is the experience for some transgendered persons. They are humans just like you and me who have feeling and experiences, who want to love and be loved, and who are harming no one. There's no harm in children learning about transgendered people.

Transgendered people deserve our affection and understanding, not our hate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 08, 2014, 08:37:37 PM
Since when did anyone make a negative comment about transgenders?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 08, 2014, 11:28:05 PM
Quote
Please do not make disparaging comments about transgendered persons. That is not acceptable on this forum

Pointing out the fact, that being transgendered is not the norm of the human condition is not disparaging.  Pointing out that people with green and "black" eyes are aberrant is not disparaging...it's factual. Look it up, 1-2% of the population have green eyes and about 1% have very dark brown eyes.  About 2% of the population is considered "transgendered".

Quote
It might be hard to imagine... but for some people their mind and body do not match up. Imagine feeling as you do about being male, but having the body parts of a female. That is the experience for some transgendered persons. They are humans just like you and me who have feeling and experiences, who want to love and be loved, and who are harming no one.

Irrelevant to what I wrote in the post you deleted.  I said nothing that denies their humanity nor their common traits that are shared by all human beings.

Quote
There's no harm in children learning about transgendered people.

The post you deleted didn't say anything about harm...I simply said that children should not be introduced to the confusing concepts of abnormal sexuality, gender, self identification without the proper understanding of the normal development and propagation.  I say abnormal because that is reality, just like being born blind, deaf, only one kidney or more than two legs is abnormal. That's just a physiological fact.

Quote
Transgendered people deserve our affection and understanding, not our hate.

I love people, regardless of their sexuality, gender identification, eye color, skin color and to point out that there are differences in people isn't hate, it's telling the truth.

You seem to have no problem with people talking about Zoophilia as long as nobody states it isn't the norm.
You seem to have no problem with people talking about Necrophilia as long as nobody states it isn't the norm.

In other words, you accept the talk about differences until somebody points out that it's a difference.  The ONLY reason anyone is talking about it is due to the fact that it is different.  Why are there no whole threads on Heterosexuality?  Because it's the norm and pointing out that it's the norm is not disparaging either.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 09, 2014, 12:56:12 AM
Is there any evidence that shows that children should not be exposed to abnormalities?

Do you fear that the children will become abnormal?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on November 09, 2014, 03:20:37 AM
Equating transexuals with Jeffrey Dahmer is disparaging and bigoted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 09, 2014, 03:21:46 AM
Quote
Is there any evidence that shows that children should not be exposed to abnormalities?

I'm pretty sure children being exposed to pedophiles is harmful, just google if you want evidence.  You are being silly.  Of course, it depends on what you mean by exposure and what abnormalities.  If you ever become a parent you will understand the reasoning behind not exposing children to some experiences or knowledge before they are equipped and mature enough to cope emotionally and intellectually.

Quote
Do you fear that the children will become abnormal?

Genetic changes can't occur if that's what you are asking, which I would hope you knew that wasn't the case.  That being said, I'm sure there are environments that could bring about certain mental illnesses within people that may or may not have a certain disposition to it genetically.  Drug abuse comes to mind, abuse sexually can certainly affect people.  In my opinion, there are a lot of people in prison now that became mentally abnormal and it's not all genetics, it's environment as well.  How may times do you hear from the defense that John or Jane Doe did XYZ and it's due to abuse as a child and/or other environmental factors...so yes, it's a safe bet to suggest mental abnormality can occur even when there is no genetic basis behind it.  So, any intelligent and caring parent would consider what their children are exposed to.  Crack heads don't make good parents.  Usually the children have problems...and probably what they are exposed to in their environment plays a big part but that's just a hunch.


Quote
Equating transexuals with Jeffrey Dahmer is disparaging and bigoted.

No, equating the low statistical occurrence in the human population for both is not disparaging or bigoted, it's objective fact, it's math.  Same way as pointing out the percentage of African America males in prison in relation to the demographics is not disparaging or bigoted.

You may think it's disparaging for somebody to point out the reality of being in an extreme minority but that will never invalidate the reality.  Delusion would be the only way around it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on November 09, 2014, 03:51:51 AM
What you wrote was disparaging and discriminatory against transgendered people which is why it was removed.

Your defense also borders on discrimination. And there's no empathy or attempt to understand their situation in anything you wrote.

I'm done discussing this. In case you missed it: Please do not make disparaging comments about transgendered persons. That is not acceptable on this forum, go say it somewhere else on the internet.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 09, 2014, 05:38:42 AM
Is there any evidence that shows that children should not be exposed to abnormalities?

Do you fear that the children will become abnormal?
Funnily, being abnormal is the norm, as everyone is abnormal.

Most people like to divide eye colors into blue, brown, green, etc... but in reality they're arbitrary. You could simply narrow in and say dark blue, light blue, grey blueish,... if you're patient enough, you'll end up with so many categories that everyone is in a minority. You could of course also do the opposite and just say people with eyes and pretty much everyone would be a part of the majority.

Or you could just look at what color clothes you're wearing... your hair length... your finger length... your nail lengths... everyone is aberrant. If you aren't, you certainly aren't the norm.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality work the same way. You could also simply make a term for people who may be attracted to other adults (or people around their own age)... if that category were used instead of e.g. homosexuals then they'd be a part of a majority group.

So "abnormal" is really just a question of how you like to define things, the word in itself says pretty much nothing as it could be about something as harmless as belonging to a group wearing a rare kind of jacket or it could be people who are a part of a criminal gang.

Often the people who like to call others abnormal conveniently define the categories such that they get to flash their superiority complex and make the subtle point that others are inferior, not worthy of attention or that there's something wrong with them, when in reality they really just have no clue what they're talking about.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 09, 2014, 07:34:58 AM
I still don't see what this has to do with me, since I didn't say anything degrading the value of transgenders. I don't think I would in the first place, since my only friend is an MtF
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 09, 2014, 07:55:54 AM
I don't think anyone here said it had anything to do with you
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 09, 2014, 01:02:31 PM
What you wrote was disparaging and discriminatory against transgendered people which is why it was removed.

Your defense also borders on discrimination. And there's no empathy or attempt to understand their situation in anything you wrote.

I'm done discussing this. In case you missed it: Please do not make disparaging comments about transgendered persons. That is not acceptable on this forum, go say it somewhere else on the internet.

Quote
Funnily, being abnormal is the norm, as everyone is abnormal.

Dan, by your own definition, your comments here would be disparaging and discriminatory.  That's how nonsensical your position has been.

What I wrote was neither disparaging or discriminatory, unless you choose to change the meaning of words, which apparently you do. My "defense" also does not border on discrimination, that's just silly.  You can change the meaning of words all you want and can deny fact and math but you would simply be anti-science and anti-reality.

Quote
Often the people who like to call others abnormal conveniently define the categories such that they get to flash their superiority complex and make the subtle point that others are inferior, not worthy of attention or that there's something wrong with them, when in reality they really just have no clue what they're talking about.

That thought is also simply wrong and quite silly.  It's not some convenient definition to state that being born blind is NOT normal to the human condition.  It's not.  There is no superiority implied with stating that fact.   It's a physiological condition that is statistically not the norm in the human population, like certain eye color and sexual/gender orientations. That's a fact and anyone that denies that fact is like I said, anti-science and anti-reality.

You should get back to working on the software and spend less time on the social justice crusade.  At least with the software it makes sense and doesn't attempt to alter reality but actually tries to emulate it.

Yes, Clark Kent, it's obvious.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 09, 2014, 01:40:44 PM
You should get back to working on the software and spend less time on the social justice crusade.  At least with the software it makes sense and doesn't attempt to alter reality but actually tries to emulate it.

Yes, Clark Kent, it's obvious.
Do you think I and Dan are the same person?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 09, 2014, 02:07:36 PM
no he's showing off how little he actually cares

- dar
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 10, 2014, 09:14:45 AM
You've got quite the attitude.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 10, 2014, 12:35:32 PM
what do you mean it's true as far as i know
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 12, 2014, 01:04:35 PM
no he's showing off how little he actually cares

- dar
Going with how Dan's and my replies were mixed as well as the responses to them, and with
"Yes, Clark Kent, it's obvious."

Quote
Clark Kent is an American fictional character, a superhero created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Appearing regularly in stories published by DC Comics, he debuted in Action Comics #1 (June 1938) and serves as the civilian and secret identity of the superhero Superman.

Over the decades there has been considerable debate as to which personality the character identifies with most. From his first introduction in 1938 to the mid-1980s, "Clark Kent" was seen mostly as a disguise for Superman, enabling him to mix with ordinary people. In 1986, during John Byrne's revamping of the character, Clark Kent became more emphasized. Different takes persist in the present.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Kent

it looks to me like he thinks we're the same, lol.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 12, 2014, 01:36:45 PM
yeah there's only one left wing egalitarian in the world clearly
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on November 13, 2014, 09:00:19 PM
You should get back to working on the software and spend less time on the social justice crusade.  At least with the software it makes sense and doesn't attempt to alter reality but actually tries to emulate it.

Championing social justice is one of the most important uses of my time (and I'd say of everyone's time).

Developing software that helps people better understand our amazing universe and fragile planet is my way of contributing to social justice. As climate change will most impact the poor people living at the equator (and isn't being addressed with any urgency because of the insane greed of the rich) it's totally linked with social justice.

We're working hard to make our climate simulation emulate reality as best we can inside of a real time gravity simulator.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 14, 2014, 07:05:27 PM
Quote
and isn't being addressed with any urgency because of the insane greed of the rich

Cry me a fake river, Blan.

LOL, according to people like you, YOU are part of the problem.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8879/20140904/gamings-carbon-footprint-downloadable-games-actually-worse-disks.htm

The truth is, as Barack Obola continues to fly around multiple big ass carbon spewing jets every other week, hiding from his job to continue his perpetual campaign of self aggrandizing, wasting taxpayer money and making stupid deals with the Chinese that laugh at his ignorance or smile at his cooperation...nobody is going to change their lifestyle based on people who are obviously evil and liars.  Get the Scientists out from under their government grants and marching on the streets of Washington showing the doomsday severity of the situation and maybe the rest of the population will take it seriously.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 14, 2014, 07:13:27 PM
remove obummer from office he is literally kenya
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 14, 2014, 07:15:45 PM
idk isn't that a thing that happened in canada or something but canada was like 'eh whatever we're pretty well off'
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 14, 2014, 07:16:40 PM
canada secretly wants global warming because then they'll be as important as america
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on November 14, 2014, 08:02:48 PM
Quote
and isn't being addressed with any urgency because of the insane greed of the rich

Cry me a fake river, Blan.

LOL, according to people like you, YOU are part of the problem.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8879/20140904/gamings-carbon-footprint-downloadable-games-actually-worse-disks.htm

The truth is, as Barack Obola continues to fly around multiple big ass carbon spewing jets every other week, hiding from his job to continue his perpetual campaign of self aggrandizing, wasting taxpayer money and making stupid deals with the Chinese that laugh at his ignorance or smile at his cooperation...nobody is going to change their lifestyle based on people who are obviously evil and liars.  Get the Scientists out from under their government grants and marching on the streets of Washington showing the doomsday severity of the situation and maybe the rest of the population will take it seriously.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

You have officially passed in to the "Too retarded to not be a troll" category.
Holy shit how can anyone be this goddamn stupid
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 14, 2014, 11:47:16 PM
>Phinehas literally of thinks that Bla and Dan are the same
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on November 15, 2014, 02:47:38 AM
Quote
and isn't being addressed with any urgency because of the insane greed of the rich

Cry me a fake river, Blan.

LOL, according to people like you, YOU are part of the problem.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/8879/20140904/gamings-carbon-footprint-downloadable-games-actually-worse-disks.htm

The truth is, as Barack Obola continues to fly around multiple big ass carbon spewing jets every other week, hiding from his job to continue his perpetual campaign of self aggrandizing, wasting taxpayer money and making stupid deals with the Chinese that laugh at his ignorance or smile at his cooperation...nobody is going to change their lifestyle based on people who are obviously evil and liars.  Get the Scientists out from under their government grants and marching on the streets of Washington showing the doomsday severity of the situation and maybe the rest of the population will take it seriously.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full

You have officially passed in to the "Too retarded to not be a troll" category.
Holy shit how can anyone be this goddamn stupid
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 15, 2014, 03:39:25 AM
You have officially passed in to the "Too retarded to not be a troll" category.
Holy shit how can anyone be this goddamn stupid
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cosmos on November 15, 2014, 07:05:12 AM
This is my first time in this thread and I never want to be in it again.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: phinehas on November 15, 2014, 07:12:01 AM
You have officially passed in to the "Too retarded to not be a troll" category.
Holy shit how can anyone be this goddamn stupid

See how it is?  When I used the R word, not even directed at a forum member, Blan was on here in five seconds admonishing me for using the word.  When I am even the least bit blunt with other forum members, Blan was on here in five seconds admonishing me for not being nice.  But when it's others...directing it at me, Blan is Awol.  Blan however will be on here shortly because I just posted.

Quote
This is my first time in this thread and I never want to be in it again.

If you give an articulate, well thought, fact based opinion that doesn't match the consensus on "Everything Else", this is usually the result.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 15, 2014, 07:32:21 AM
You have officially passed in to the "Too retarded to not be a troll" category.
Holy shit how can anyone be this goddamn stupid
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: gabriel.dac on November 15, 2014, 08:11:22 AM
vote GOP
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 15, 2014, 11:43:12 AM
>When GOP is already in power
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on November 15, 2014, 01:19:38 PM
why do we waste our time lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 15, 2014, 01:24:34 PM
why do we waste our time lol

What else is there to do with it

Also I came to agree with Jorster on how Bla is kind of a fascist
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 15, 2014, 01:28:12 PM
Also I came to agree with Jorster on how Bla is kind of a fascist
Please give your reasons for why you think I am "kind of" a fascist.
At least you know that I don't actually support fascism so you're wise enough to include the "kind of" so you can suit the definition to whatever argument. Anyway I'd like to hear your reasons.
Also this is what Jorster says about your post
Quote
<Guest83325>what
<Guest83325>i never said that at all

Cry me a fake river, Blan.
Also lol. Thanks. This made my day.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hellpotatoe on November 15, 2014, 02:33:29 PM
Kol wait, he really thinks that Bla and Dan are the same person?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on November 15, 2014, 03:18:47 PM
Yes, and everyone else is the same person except Shriqua and Gordon Freeman who are two very different people /s
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 15, 2014, 03:58:47 PM
Kol wait, he really thinks that Bla and Dan are the same person?
It's not like we haven't seen it before. Kol.

[...]

LOL, go figure, You ahve posted twice, your last post was in 2013 and all of a sudden you appear to post in this thread.  Nice try but even a fake consensus with bogus usernames means little.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dan Dixon on November 15, 2014, 07:06:37 PM
@Jorster
Please do not use the word 'retarded' as a replacement for words like stupid or idiot. It is offensive toward people who have an intellectual disability.

"It is now no longer socially acceptable to use this term..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard_(pejorative)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on November 15, 2014, 07:07:41 PM
my lal teacher says that too!!
(language arts and literacy)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on November 16, 2014, 12:22:31 AM
@Jorster
Please do not use the word 'retarded' as a replacement for words like stupid or idiot. It is offensive toward people who have an intellectual disability.

"It is now no longer socially acceptable to use this term..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard_(pejorative)
My apologies
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 16, 2014, 06:29:30 AM
Also I came to agree with Jorster on how Bla is kind of a fascist
Please give your reasons for why you think I am "kind of" a fascist.
At least you know that I don't actually support fascism so you're wise enough to include the "kind of" so you can suit the definition to whatever argument. Anyway I'd like to hear your reasons.

You take the rules too far sometimes

Quote
Also this is what Jorster says about your post
Quote
<Guest83325>what
<Guest83325>i never said that at all

Go to the "What If..." thread

Quote
Cry me a fake river, Blan.
Also lol. Thanks. This made my day.

"blan mikxon"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 16, 2014, 08:19:29 AM
You take the rules too far sometimes
Fair enough. It's unlikely everyone will agree on how to interpret the rules. I also think you request things to be removed that I don't think the rules say anything about sometimes.

However that has nothing to do with being fascist. Being fascist means you approve of a nationalist, militaristic and authoritarian ideology, which blindly praises a leader and accepts private ownership of the means of production, and which is often combined with racist, anti-gay and christian elements. I don't think calling people "fascist" because they don't interpret the rules the way you want is a good idea, especially not in a politics thread where there's no context saying it has anything to do with the rules.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 16, 2014, 11:33:05 AM
Last time I defined fascism I understood it as "Intolerance of everything different", like Taliban and Anti-Bronies
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on November 26, 2014, 11:59:32 AM
Arian Planet has been making some social experiments, to see how people react in public about issues like discrimination of homosexuals, racism, violence, and homeless people.

This was pretty interesting. He asked some regular people for food but they wouldn't share any, however, he gave some food to two homeless people, and came back a bit later with a different appearance, and they shared their food with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GGjEagUim0
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gordon Freeman on November 26, 2014, 12:30:30 PM
Homosexuals video please.

Also give de homeless a herpy meel of course
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blotz on December 08, 2014, 04:04:08 PM
http://www.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on December 09, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
So a bit of the report on CIA's interrogation methods after 9/11 has been released.

Quote
While the Office of Legal Counsel found otherwise between 2002 and 2007, it is my personal conclusion that, under any common meaning of the term, CIA detainees were tortured. I also believe that the conditions of confinement and the use of authorized and unauthorized interrogation and conditioning techniques were cruel, inhuman, and degrading. I believe the evidence of this is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
- Dianne Feinstein, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (page 4)

Quote
The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions:
#1: The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of
acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.
#2: The CIA's justification for the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques rested on
inaccurate claims of their effectiveness.
#3: The interrogations of CIA detainees were brutal and far worse than the CIA
represented to policymakers and others.
#4: The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had
represented to policymakers and others.
#5: The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice,
impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program.
#6: The CIA has actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program.
#7: The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making.
#9; The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General
#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including
inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation
techniques.
#11: The CIA was unprepared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation
Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities.
#12: The CIA's management and operation of its Detention and Interrogation Program
was deeply flawed throughout the program's duration, particularly so in 2002 and early
2003.
#15: The CIA did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of
individuals it detained, and held individuals who did not meet the legal standard for
detention. The CIA's claims about the number of detainees held and subjected to its
enhanced Interrogation techniques were inaccurate.
#17: The CIA rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable for serious and
significant violations, inappropriate activities, and systemic and individual management
failures.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

so did you accomplish your mission Bush.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 06, 2015, 02:07:36 AM
Some good news for once. In 2013, 33.8% of Denmark's power supply came from wind power, which is the first time a country reaches above 1/3, and 57.4% of the power used in December came from wind power, which is also a world record. On December 21, the wind turbines produced more than 100% of the power used.

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/14/104657.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/14/104657.htm)
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Regionale/MidtVest/2014/01/13/173345.htm (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Regionale/MidtVest/2014/01/13/173345.htm)
Update from 2014: 39% of power supply came from wind turbines (due to more turbines as the wind was average) and in January 2014 61.7% of power came from wind turbines, which is also a new record.
Source: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2015/01/06/004325.htm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 19, 2015, 12:24:38 PM
News: The 80 richest people own more wealth than the poorest half of people on the planet (>3.5 billion).

(http://i.imgur.com/z25yHcS.png)

Source:
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2015/01/16/154115.htm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 19, 2015, 12:30:24 PM
yee capitalapitalismo
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jorster on January 20, 2015, 06:52:32 AM
I don't really see an issue in that?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 20, 2015, 10:51:12 AM
I don't really see an issue in that?
The issue I see is that the 80 richest do not deserve to own as much wealth as 3,500,000,000 people. 80 is a microscopic number compared half the world's population.

In addition the wealth of the poorest half has been falling over the past few years. That is an issue in itself.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 20, 2015, 11:06:05 AM
it doesn't mean they own half the wealth in the world. Half the world's population doesn't necessarily have half of the wealth of the world, unless you pick the right people or everyone has equal wealth. It's going to be less.

Granted, they still own as much wealth as HALF OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 20, 2015, 11:28:20 AM
If those 80 people owned more than half of the wealth on earth, then the other 7.2 billion would own the other half, not the poorest 3.5 billion. It's still rather frightening though, because these three billion people have a wealth on average of, let's see, only $542 per person. Could you live off of $542 a year?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on January 20, 2015, 09:40:38 PM
Quote
The issue I see is that the 80 richest do not deserve to own as much wealth as 3,500,000,000 people.
I would strongly disagree.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 20, 2015, 11:13:17 PM
Quote
The issue I see is that the 80 richest do not deserve to own as much wealth as 3,500,000,000 people.
I would strongly disagree.
So what makes them deserve that much?
You could make 3,500,000,000 twice as wealthy at the expense of 80 people (a lot of it I know isn't wealth in the sense of money they can spend on food or clothes they need, but still). There's no reason to think those 80 people would be capable of experiencing as much happiness as 3.5 billion, since they're all human they probably experience about the same and have roughly the same needs. Nor is there any reason to think those 80 people have performed as much work as those 3,500,000,000 people, ironically we often see how many of the poorest people on the planet are pressured to perform work 60-70 hours per week just for the few richest in the rest to take the majority of their added value to the planet for themselves. Hence, ending up with this distribution. That's ridiculous. From any ethical or incentive point of view it's ridiculous.

Even from the typical consumerist point of view this is ridiculous. Very unequal distributions mean all those poor people end up unable to buy the products they themselves helped produce, and a billion bikes or cars or beds are of little use to 80 people. The result is that such trends lead to them being unable to sell the products and unemployment increasing. Thus high inequality in itself hinders growth and leads us into crises.

So now I ask, how would anyone here argue that 80 people should in fact own all that wealth?



In other news kol, Paris wants to sue Fox News for erronously reporting about muslim-only zones in the city, I don't have time to translate but kol
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2015/01/20/220241.htm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on January 21, 2015, 08:06:10 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '146219'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on January 21, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
@Bla
My point is, if you worked your ass off your first 20 or so years to get where you are today, you deserve it.
If you work hard to earn 500k per year, you deserve it. If you worked hard to become an NBA player who earns
5 million dollars or more per year, you deserve it. And mind you, most of these NBA players donate their money to NBA Cares or to other charities, so it's not like they are greedy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 21, 2015, 03:03:34 PM
ok and if you work your ass off for your entire life and live in poverty your entire life i guess you deserve it too
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on January 21, 2015, 03:15:24 PM
ok and if you work your ass off for your entire life and live in poverty your entire life i guess you deserve it too
Good point,  but I think that should not happen unless if you were born into it, or you didn't complete school and don't have the credentials for a high paying job.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 21, 2015, 03:21:54 PM
maybe in theory, but in practice not everyone has the same opportunities or conditions under which to attempt to prosper

and if everyone had a high-paying job... you wouldn't have all the luxuries and conveniences you do now

unless of course, everyone was highly-paid no matter what type of work you do
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on January 21, 2015, 03:27:04 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '146241'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 21, 2015, 03:30:40 PM
then they would be able to afford more than everything they need
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 21, 2015, 03:43:20 PM
mfw the CEO of walmart works literally one billion times harder than a poor farmer african in uganda
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on January 21, 2015, 04:04:34 PM
Yes, so building a prosperous conglomerate means that you don't deserve a penny that you make.
Of course, you can donate money to the poor. I have no problem with donating money, as long as I am not financially thin myself. I DO believe that poor people don't deserve the horrible lives that they live, but why bring everyone else down with them and make the problem worse? I think communism is practical and very humane in theory, but not effective in reality. Trying to be realistic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 21, 2015, 04:06:29 PM
No one said we were making the Walton family live on the streets

but don't you think it's kind of funny they (one family) have millions to spend on mansions and cars, when millions of people struggle to buy a house or car, and millions are in a worse condition than that.

question: how is communism not effective in reality?

capitalism, a system where matching minimum wage with the cost of living causes perpetual inflation (that's really silly, in case you didn't know), is "effective" in reality in the sense that everyone buys into it and it functions just enough to keep itself going[citation needed]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on January 21, 2015, 04:30:16 PM
actually communism would give everyone the equivalent wealth that $14400 would buy[Source] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita), so you would get poorer, yes, but that's because you live in a first world country where everyone is (relatively) rich. can you imagine how thankful those three and a half billion people would be to suddenly get so much money and wealth?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: atomic7732 on January 21, 2015, 04:35:34 PM
and with everyone making the same amount of money, the entitled first world will have to come to terms with, you know, having everyone actually be able to live, and not squander and dehumanize them (including some of the first world) for personal gain

so don't let the small amount of money fool you it doesn't necessarily mean you won't be able to afford luxuries anymore
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tuto99 on January 21, 2015, 04:36:31 PM
Actually yes I thought of that. You have a point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on January 22, 2015, 04:34:01 AM
@Bla
My point is, if you worked your ass off your first 20 or so years to get where you are today, you deserve it.
If you work hard to earn 500k per year, you deserve it. If you worked hard to become an NBA player who earns
5 million dollars or more per year, you deserve it.
The problem is you ignore the process which determines those wages. The NBA player who earns 5 million USD/year does not perform anything near 3000 times as much work as the Bangladesh clothes factory worker who earns 1600 USD/year
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/08/bangladesh-factory-life_n_3407797.html
Therefore the NBA player etc. do not deserve 3000 times as high wages.

And mind you, most of these NBA players donate their money to NBA Cares or to other charities, so it's not like they are greedy.
Receiving unproportionally high amounts of money for what you do and then giving away symbolic amounts does not solve the problem you received more than you deserved. If the 88 richest gave away anything else than symbolic amounts I would've had nothing to point out, because there wouldn't be persons with 80 billion USD of wealth.
Donations are good but it's naive to think people will just donate the money they don't deserve to those who do.

ok and if you work your ass off for your entire life and live in poverty your entire life i guess you deserve it too
Good point,  but I think that should not happen unless if you were born into it, or you didn't complete school and don't have the credentials for a high paying job.
Should as in you think it should be prevented from happening, or you think it won't happen? The fact is that it does happen. Many people who are perfectly capable of working also can't get jobs because unemployment is a fundamental market mechanism in capitalism which acts to keep wages in 'balance'.

Yes, so building a prosperous conglomerate means that you don't deserve a penny that you make.
Again as I pointed out earlier, this is a naive view of money and value. Capitalists do not make the value they end up with in form of money. It is well explained here:
Quote
Imagine a worker who is hired for an hour and paid $10. Once in the capitalist's employ, the capitalist can have him operate a boot-making machine using which the worker produces $10 worth of work every fifteen minutes. Every hour, the capitalist receives $40 worth of work and only pays the worker $10, capturing the remaining $30 as gross revenue. Once the capitalist has deducted fixed and variable operating costs of (say) $20 (leather, depreciation of the machine, etc.), he is left with $10. Thus, for an outlay of capital of $30, the capitalist obtains a surplus value of $10; his capital has not only been replaced by the operation, but also has increased by $10.

The worker cannot capture this benefit directly because he has no claim to the means of production (e.g. the boot-making machine) or to its products, and his capacity to bargain over wages is restricted by laws and the supply/demand for wage labour. Hence the rise of trade unions which aim to create a more favourable bargaining position through collective action by workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value

Of course, you can donate money to the poor. I have no problem with donating money, as long as I am not financially thin myself. I DO believe that poor people don't deserve the horrible lives that they live, but why bring everyone else down with them and make the problem worse? I think communism is practical and very humane in theory, but not effective in reality. Trying to be realistic.
You don't bring everyone else down to the poorest - you bring the rich down and the poor up - if considering those 88, 3,500,000,000 people would have twice as much wealth while 88 would be poorer. If you want to turn that into bringing everyone down to the level of the poorest you need to give some reasoning for that.
I often see the argument that 'communism/socialism is a nice theory but doesn't work in practice', but I also can't reply to it when there isn't given any reason for why that should be the case. I could merely say the same about capitalism.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on March 04, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
"Our investigation showed that Ferguson police officers routinely violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force against them."

Quote
The department found that Ferguson Municipal Court has a pattern or practice of:

- Focusing on revenue over public safety, leading to court practices that violate the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection requirements.

- Court practices exacerbating the harm of Ferguson’s unconstitutional police practices and imposing particular hardship upon Ferguson’s most vulnerable residents, especially upon those living in or near poverty.Minor offenses can generate crippling debts, result in jail time because of an inability to pay and result in the loss of a driver’s license, employment, or housing.

The department found a pattern or practice of racial bias in both the FPD and municipal court:

- The harms of Ferguson’s police and court practices are borne disproportionately by African Americans and that this disproportionate impact is avoidable.

- Ferguson’s harmful court and police practices are due, at least in part, to intentional discrimination, as demonstrated by direct evidence of racial bias and stereotyping about African Americans by certain Ferguson police and municipal court officials.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-two-civil-rights-investigations-ferguson-missouri

That looks really messed up.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Lord DC on March 05, 2015, 07:16:43 AM
not really surprising to me, considering i live in the Police States of 'Murica
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on March 05, 2015, 12:46:27 PM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '148352'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vh on March 21, 2015, 09:38:08 PM
-snip-

Well i have changed my opinion on this. I'm campaigning for the UN to ban consumption of (most) meats. The current strategy for maximizing the utilons of livestock is for the governments immediately ban eating most meats, followed by subsidies so that corporations can care for the animals for the rest of their lives (or humanely kill them, if the former is impractical), and then to create new jobs for the livestock farmers and migrate them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on March 22, 2015, 05:10:44 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '148827'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FiahOwl on April 11, 2015, 06:09:43 AM

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '149510'.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on April 24, 2015, 10:33:46 AM
Campaign money spent by the parties at the last election

(http://i.imgur.com/IQRLD5P.png)
(V = Venstre, C = Konservative Folkeparti, A = Socialdemokratiet, I = Liberal Alliance, F = Socialistisk Folkeparti, O = Dansk Folkeparti, B = Radikale Venstre, Ø = Enhedslisten)

Fraction of votes received per DKK spent:
Enhedslisten: 2,6 * 10-8
Dansk Folkeparti: 1.43 * 10-8
Radikale Venstre: 1.4 * 10-8
Socialdemokratiet: 1.07 * 10-8
Venstre: 8.44 * 10-9
Socialistisk Folkeparti: 5.3 * 10-9
Liberal Alliance: 2.7 * 10-9
Konservative Folkeparti: 1.7 * 10-9

Inversed, or in other words, the conservatives got 15 times as much money to spend on their election campaign as Enhedslisten per voter, and the right-wing bloc used 63.7% of the money, but received 48.6% of the votes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Darvince on April 24, 2015, 03:19:08 PM
køl
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bla on May 01, 2015, 02:30:18 PM
Happy International Workers' Day. This was from Copenhagen, the weather was very nice (after getting a slight sunburn you could say it was literally reddening to be there).
Happy 1st May, a reddening experience again this year, joined Socialist Youth Front and Enhedslisten's