OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
You don't have much of an understanding of economics, do you. If you are not healthy, then you cannot produce economic output.

Tough. Think of it as incentive to get better. Never underestimate the power of positive thinking, after all. Besides, you can produce output even while not healthy. It'll just require that you suffer. But you know what? No pain, no gain.

No, it shows how ignorant you are of weather in any parts of the world outside of your own narrow little worldview.

I have travelled far more of the world than you likely have. I am aware that people have legs for a reason: So that when conditions do not suit them, they can get off their fat asses and MOVE. It's not like yours were shot off in the war, like some people I know. Those people deserve my compassion. Those who simply can't be bothered to do something on their own, even though they certainly CAN, don't.

Because a person's life has value simply because of the fact that they are human. If you can't understand this basic fact, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I do not see why I should place more value on someone's own life than they place on it themselves. Your life is not worth more to a total stranger than it is to you. People should run their own lives. If somebody feels that running his own life is too burdensome and would rather be someone else's responsibility, maybe he should sell himself into slavery. At least then he will have an owner who will be obligated to protect his investment.

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
No, it's called observation. You haven't demonstrated a great deal of maturity, have no time committments, and have demonstrated that you are still stuck at the ethical level of a child. If you aren't actually a teenager then you definetly lead a sad existence.

I have no time commitments because I am comfortably and independently retired. Something YOU might wish to aspire to. I have the ethical level of a child? Maybe my ethics don't agree with yours, but I have a clear and consistent code by which I live, and am not a psychotic axe murderer.

Why would I go hungry? I'm a graduate engineering student who hasn't lived with or depended on my parents for over six years. I have no debts, pay my bills every month, and could get any number of well-paying jobs if I decided to quit grad school.

So you've been fortunate your entire life. That puts you in a great position to comment on the misfortunes of others, now doesn't it? I, on the other hand, have been in the position of being UNABLE TO AFFORD said healthcare, food, and lodging. You know what? I SURVIVED. Oddly, you don't see me advocating that this stuff be made available to all at somebody else's expense.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I have no evidence that supports the existence of God, or souls. Assuming that God exists, there's no reason why I should place any real value in what he says, ....

Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Certainly he makes no effort to actually enforce any of this, and even if he did, he'd be nothing more than a bully.

God doesn't stop mankind from doing Evil actions such as killing, suicide or abortion, however mankind is expected to stop Evil. Just because the United States could make prostitution, abortion, suicide and using addictive drugs legal doesn't mean we should accept them as some pro-choice decision for our family and children.

Originally posted by Norfleet:
As for souls, well, as you said yourself, only God truly knows when an entity or organism has a soul, right? Let's stay away from eating animals, too, right? Yeah. I love animals. They taste great.

That's where you turn to the Bible and read where only mankind is referred to as having a soul. When that soul is created is only known by God therefore saying abortion is okay could get someone into big trouble during judgment day.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Look, Graeme. Another fictional characterization belonging to a teenager living in his parents' basement is disagreeing with you.

Yes, you are obviously telling the truth when you describe your life.

Apparently you:
Drive a tank throughout the town you live in.
Don't sleep for days at a time.
You'be been shot in the back by people before while not at war.
Believe that if a person can do something that they must have actually done that thing.
You live as a hermit, wear kevlar, and travel while heavily armed.

That such a person exists anywhere outside of a mad max movie strains believability.

[rabelais]

I just read as much of this thread as I could stand, which while not impressive on a percentage basis, leads me to make the following comment:

I think there is a unifying theme to the objections of the conservatives, "lazy sods for rejecting opportunity and economic empowerment" and the horror of the liberals, regarding lassiez-faire social services (up to "nature red in tooth and claw") aka some primtivist Hobbesian nightmare.

The difference is one that plays out quite strkingly in the differences between the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations.

The conservatives (both on this board, and the ones running the show from the White House) like to work from expedient *principles* and have faith that everything will turn out swimmingly, or at least as well as can be expected in an imperfect world.

Liberals on the other hand, tend to attempt a more complex optimization where the *consequences* of a policy or behavior is paramount, and believe the amelioration of crippling economic conditions (which lead to antisocial behavior fairly consistently) is a necessary step in maintaining the society in the civilized sense of the word.

I tend to favor the latter view, since I'm not sure that a very small percentage of the population having a very large proportion of the assets in a democracy (a natural, indeed *inevitable* result of unbridled capitalism) is likely to have a positive effect on the quality of life of the population at the median.

Take gun control for example. Repulicans are in favor of free gun ownership, because people have a right to self-defense.

This is plausible enough. In principle it seems like it should elegantly self-equilibriate.

The actual data shows, however, that the effect of widespead gun possession, is that people use the guns, on each other and themselves, in a way that exacerbates the effects of their innate aggression.

This is why liberals everywhere attempt to restict freedom of access, not something they

If the most advanced easily available weapon technology was a particularly foul-smelling wet herring, fatal outcomes in violent situations would be far less common.

Note that in most first world republics, personal firearms are much harder to obtain, with a very pronounced effect of murder and even suicide rates, even where improvements on herring have been made.


Bush, in my view, has a problem in that he appears to be immune to negative reinforcement.

The inabilty to admit error is not a useful quality in an ruler. This is compounded by his confusion on the concept of leadership.

Leaders require followers, which further mandates, in the long term, both well thought out policy and flexibility in implementing it.

I almost hope he wins so he has to clean up his own mess. Almost.

But overall, I agree with the person who was shuddering uncontrollably in fear of what 4 more years of this administration, with no election at the end to keep them constrained, would be like.

My issue with the Republicans isn't that they aren't Democrats, (who are it must be admitted enslaved to a much more diverse group of special interests! ) but that they aren't even democrats.

I expect the voter fraud we saw in 2000 is going to seem minor compared to what is coming, even ignoring the probable (dogwagging) October surprise.

Plutocracy, corporate feudalism and Christian Fascism are not pretty ideologies, particularly when employed running the alpha superpower on the highly militarized planet.

Human beings are just monkeys with hypertrophic cerebral cortices. The thalamic reptile brain is still down there, and appears to be running the show.

Lord help us.


Rabe the Political Nutjob

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
So you've been fortunate your entire life. That puts you in a great position to comment on the misfortunes of others, now doesn't it?

No, I've worked hard my whole life. Something I doubt that you'll bother to do despite your ranting about it.

I, on the other hand, have been in the position of being UNABLE TO AFFORD said healthcare, food, and lodging. You know what? I SURVIVED. Oddly, you don't see me advocating that this stuff be made available to all at somebody else's expense.

Why should I believe a word of what you've just written? You're a known liar, so you'll have to do better than claim your own personal experiences.

Edit: Fixed the quoting

[ July 29, 2004, 00:01: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.

I somewhat agree...
if people are lazy we shouldn't just blindly feed them and give them free healthcare otherwise a percentage will reproduce and a high percentage of them will follow or be stuck the same example.

The best solution is to instead give them food for a few days and teach them how to fish. Have them realize the rewards of working such as getting healthcare. I definitely believe in helping others, but only with permanent/productive solutions... not some lifetime leeching plan.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cainehill:
I've been out of work for over four months (laid off, Marine and programmer always employed for 22 years straight), I should be supporting Graeme and the welfare state!

What welfare state? I wasn't aware that the equivalent of making health insurance mandatory and universal was the equivalent of a welfare state. I'm not supporting a comfortable lifestyle for those people who don't want to work, and suggesting that I am is nothing more than a strawman. I am suggesting that a person should be guaranteed enough resources so that they aren't malnourished, as long as they don't waste those resources on anything that is unnecssary. If they want to waste that money, then yes, let them starve, but at least try and help their children so that they don't end up like their parents.

---

"Help their children so they don't end up like their parents"? In the case of the unemployed single mother with 8 kids (I believe that was the gist of your example), the only way to help the children is by taking them away from the parent. And spaying the parent. (We do it to dogs and cats, and dogs and cats are generally nicer 'people' than humans.)

You said we should support that mother of 8. That's a welfare state. You said that we should ensure that no one starves, no one is in poverty, no one is homeless, regardless of whether or not they're able to work but choose not to. That's a welfare state.

As I said - I think we ought to work harder at providing _opportunities_ for people to work; health care, education, the prison systems, etc, shouldn't be set up with profit as their sole motive (which is what privatization is all about). We should fix the system so that CEOs don't get obscene bonuses for screwing their employees, their communities, and the environment over.

But with Boy George preparing for a second term in office, and Little Jeb planning to occupy the White House after that, none of those things are going to happen. Not with the @#$#@ Bush Dynasty trying to rework the USA's politics and system.