ParanoiA

I think you might be on to something there scrappy. (Incidentally, Larry the Cable Guy uses artificial breast augmentation to justify using monopoly money at the strip club... )

See I think that's your answer right there. I've seen these threads in the DAW forums too and the conclusion is always one of preference. There is no arbiter of better or worse here. Macs offer more stability and less issues since they are more of a closed architecture. PC's are more of an open architecture, so everybody and their mother are making hardware and software for them. Each has its advantages and disadvantages that seem to come directly from that arrangement. Since I'm a poor bastard, I build my own PC's, and I can do that while remaining pretty stupid about them. I doubt I could do that with a Mac.

Was it that obvious? You have any idea what kind of brownie points I'd get? She'd probably mow the lawn for a month. True. And to that end, I'll say I'm actually quite confident he'll make a good appointment.

We're all gonna die...and I can hardly contain my excitement.

How can you construct a group of 9 people that somehow represents every form of minority we have in the country? No matter what you do you'll be left with a "narrow set of interests". And who says your particular minority groupings are the ones we should pay attention to? Who says race or gender is the minority type we should have representation for? What about rich people, or libertarians, or statists, or ex-cons, or any other minority group one can dream up? I could see far more benefit in other forms of group-representation than mankind's silly superficial obsessions with skin color and sexual orientation. Sisyphus was exactly right. We have 435 representatives with the job of representation - a far cry from 9 slots of distinction. And that's why we have so many of them, because there are so many kinds of minorities and groupings, which effect specific interests and desires and that takes a large quantity of reps to do the job any justice. Some of us, myself included, believe there should be far more of them, like in the thousands. (There are some fascinating threads on the subject here, whatever your opinion it's interesting). Wrong. Every one of us is a minority in one category or another. You may dismiss my particular minority group...but then, that is the problem isn't it? What I see is folks choosing to hold some minorities in higher esteem than others. I'd like to know how that's good for the country and how that serves the good of all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And I love it. Wouldn't it be awesome if they outnumbered us like 3 or 4 to 1? The only thing that would make it better is if male homosexuality took off like a fad so I wouldn't even have to work for a hottie. Oh wait...I'm married. Never mind. (Although she is a hottie).

A brief browse of Myspace would seem to confirm xhenia's theory...

That's not what I was talking about, as I agree with individualism. In fact, my beliefs count on it. Diversity follows from individualism, and only maximized liberty can provide for both. No, I was referring to our healthcare tradition in particular. Not all of our traditions are good and noble, and their status as "tradition" is not a sound argument anyway. If you're not willing to let people die on the hospital entrance steps, or deny laboring mothers access to the delivery room since they don't have any money, then you're not doing free market capitalism. Capitalism can't function correctly, naturally, when you undermine its function. So, the tradition has been to give away services that folks can't afford at the worst possible moment, when they're in the ER. We could have saved that person a lot of pain and anguish and potential permanent disability (which then costs the taxpayers exponentially more money for life) or even death, AND saved money, reduced demand at the ER and have a healthier tax base to boot if we would have covered the health expenses of that person before it got bad enough for the ER. That's the tradition I'm referring to. This is not really about pretentious nobility in using other's money to fix the sick. This is about acknowledging we are going to spend money on fixing the sick, no matter our political affiliation or preferences on the matter, so let's be smart about it instead. Either that, or start arguing for letting sick people fend for themselves until they have money for health service. That's the only way to stick up for free market forces and exclusively lean on capitalism without being a hypocrite or thoughtlessly wasteful safety net funding.

Because we are selfish. We are a selfish society, obsessed with the short term particulars of our happiness. We think altruism removes the "self" from our efforts, when really it is the vehicle for railroading other's liberty that we have removed from our field of view. This is the cost of never having really been through anything. We are spoiled and expect more than we deserve. Just my opinion, of course.

Because we can't figure out why logical people don't get the logical implication of the word "stimulus" as opposed to normal spending. If all spending "stimulates" the economy, or prevents downward spirals, then what in the world is a stimulus bill then? Where is the qualifying partition that separates 'stimulus' spending from normal spending? Hell, give me one example of just good ole spending that no one can argue is "stimulus" spending. Give me one example of regular spending that you don't think is "stimulus" spending. Instead, you've renamed it to "Rebuilding The American Economy" bill. We have had stimulus bills several times in the past, and those have set the precedence for what a 'stimulus' bill is - so why is it surprising that logical people would logically conclude that a bill called 'stimulus' would be comparable to previous bills referred to as 'stimulus'? Every dollar spent is stimulating somewhere, so there is no successful argument to limit it's scope such that it creates a fraction of difference with a regular spending bill. So, either the "stimulus" bill is propaganda since it's really just a regular spending bill "spun" so we agree to the drunken spending, OR, folks are being disingenuous on the scope of what 'stimulus' really is. Which one is it? As far as funding the pandemic goes, my incredulity is way beyond the rest in here because I'm wondering where in the hell the money went in the first place. It shouldn't have been included in any stimulus bill - it should have been there already. The only kind of spending we should be talking about related to pandemics should be surplus funding, which doesn't qualify as "stimulus" spending to me.

But where's the limiter in that statement? I can justify all out socialism, or even communism using "health of the citizens of a nation". Food is more important and vital to the health of the citizen than medical care. Everyone will need to eat, every damn day, but not everyone will need healthcare everyday. Food is far more important to the health of the citizen than medical care, yet we don't have a universal grocery system - we just swoop in at the last minute and offer food stamps to those who can't afford it - just like healthcare, swooping in at the last minute and providing service at the ER. What about nutrients and vitamins? The health of the citizen dictates we must provide all of those for the citizens, since they're not customers. Same with college education. It must be nationalized because stupid people make unhealthy choices, for the sake of the health of our citizens we must nationalize every single thing we can think of that makes a connection to "health of the citizen". These moral arguments fall flat on their face because there is no automatic implication that your neighbor is somehow responsible for your plight. When you use the word "government", replace it with "your neighbor", because that's what our government is - the citizens themselves. So, you're saying that when we start talking about the health of the citizen, it automatically involves my neighbor - somehow he's obligated to me. I object to that. He doesn't owe me squat. It doesn't matter if I got an illness I didn't deserve or had no control over - it still doesn't create a logical obligation on strangers in the land. To me, the stronger argument is pointing out the structural, foundational problem with capitalism and healthcare - we *cannot* use free market forces exclusively since the most basic economic requirements of trade in our free society cannot be implemented - we will not let people die; we will not restrict services for non-pay; we are undermining free trade between citizens - and Thank goodness! Perhaps that's a moral argument as well. But as long as we're going to undermine the fundamentals of capitalism, then any downstream implementation of nationalized healthcare is justified. We are rationalizing around the principle of free trade, no doubt, and I see no way around it. As libertarian as I am, I still feel justified in robbing my neighbor to save a sick citizen. I think we have to admit that instead of doing intellectual flips and summersaults, trying to make believe we're performing a necessary function of government. Universal healthcare, in whatever form it takes, is justified because we have already established we are not willing to follow through on the basic principles and obligations of trade in our society - therefore, the next logical desicion is to make it function better and more efficiently. I agree with Universal Healthcare, just for entirely different reasons. No surprise there.

Sadly, this built in benefit is largely ridiculed rather than being used. We're too busy standardizing and centralizing to notice we missed the point. You certainly have fought a brave battle. The problem with your logic here is a structural one and can't be repaired with layers of tradition. One's health problems are *not* determined solely by "bad choices", but rather by an essentially unquantifiable mix of choices and genetics. While that still doesn't make a case for government's responsibility, it at least makes the case that it's not realistically feasible for everyone to make a perfect decision and have every dime they'll ever need for health care and it does not support the moral appeal in accounting for one's behaviors. This may be a piece of the American traditional culture that needs to be buried.

Very thoughtful posts. Thanks you two. I have always set the minimum at a "C" grade level for my boys. My deal was, if you bring home C's, I'll stay out of your business. The idea being that they must be handling themselves sufficiently to achieve it, and don't need me to interfere. I would then pay them for B's and A's. Well...all I get are C's and D's. The occassional B or A pops up, but my oldest should be cranking out straight A's sprinkled with B's. There's no excuse for it. And promises of reward aren't doing the trick, apparently. They are living up to the expectation that I set - C. Actually a little less. How stupid could I be? So, in talking with my wife last night, we have plan of action to get us started, that looks like a blend of your two posts. We need to be active in their business - interfering - regardless of their achievement. I think we need to be involved down to each assignment, making sure they're putting forth an above average effort, ensuring they really studied for that test and help with it, following up with checking their resultant grades on these assignments, getting involved in planning and managing for papers that are due at a later date so they don't wait until the last minute and cram to get a "D". We need to be knee deep in this and show them how you manage it, how you do it to achieve the best result. Mainly, to get them to give 100%, instead of the bare minimum I taught them up until now. That's just one piece of this. But it's an important one. I like what iNow said about praise, I've not had the opportunity to do that much. Instead just waiting on them to impress me. Again, I think I need to stop waiting, and make them try so they can finally realize the reward. My oldest says he doesn't care about anyone's praise, except his father. Well hell, I guess I'd better not blow such a glaring opportunity. MM6, you bring up some interesting perspective. Perhaps I could use that to inflate his interest in robotics and tech. He's always aspired to those subjects, but hasn't acted on them much. Maybe I could get something started. And no, I didn't think you were being patronizing at all. iNow, we are definitely on the same page. I'm not into the "impossible standards" game, as I've seen first hand the damage that can do. That seems as awful as no standards at all. I like your balanced approach. High standards, difficult to achieve, but doable, and fulfilling when it's accomplished. I like that.

Last I checked terrorism is bad for the economy. How much of that is in the stimulus bill? How about earthquakes? Those are horrible for the economy too. How about post-asteroid impact relief efforts? Asteroids will really take it to a struggling economy. So, anyway, everyone feel free to chime in with their own list of stuff that "could effect the economy negatively" so we can make believe that's part of any "responsible" stimulus bill. And then maybe someone could tell me what a regular spending bill does. I can only guess a regular spending bill doesn't effect the economy, since anything that does, apparently belongs in a "stimulus" one now. One wonders about the need for a term, "stimulus" - oh wait, that's right, we're in fear mongering mode to justify spending the american people would normally not tolerate. Never mind. Be sure to add fishing line entanglement studies to the stimulus bill, as any decrease in fishing will be detrimental to the economy.

I'm not sure if I'm opening this thread in the right spot or not, so if I find this has been moved, my feelings will not be damaged in the least... Now don't laugh...but, I was watching the NFL channel on Jimmy Johnson and his 1992 Dallas Cowboy team. Apparently Johnson is a psychology major, although I'm not sure of any detail beyond that statement. He used some of these tools throughout his career, and I was taken by a statement he made, that we've all heard time and again throughout our lives about expectations and motivating others to meet them, like our kids, or in Johnson's case, his players. He said, "Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat him as he could be and should be and he will become what he could be and should be". I don't know why that struck me so much this time, like I said, I've known most of my life that expectations are a self fulfilling prophecy, so-to-speak. In short though, I feel I have let my children down. I don't believe that I treat them as they could be, rather I think I treat them as they are. Then I wonder why they won't do better in school, or with their behavior. So, my question becomes...how do I do that? How do I put those words into action? What does that look like? It would seem to miss the point if I just stepped up what I get onto them about. There must be more to it than saying "from now on..you'll perform at this level, because you should be.."

I fail to see how any pandemic funding should come from a stimulus bill. It ought to come from the "gee, we don't wanna' die" bill. You mean to tell me we didn't have the cash for a pandemic, already?? After the freaking plague, for crying out loud? I agree with Pangloss, it should not be part of any stimulus bill. However, it should have been part of every spending bill until fully funded (if there's such a thing as 'fully funded'). That's the basic job of government.

No, because distrubution of power does not promote efficiency at all. Why would you think so? That's the whole point of consolidated power - central planning - to efficiently control and manipulate. The more consolidated, the more efficient, and the more tyrannical. That's the trade off. And since we're talking about private business, they are free to be inefficient and run their business like a republic, or they can choose efficiency and run it like a dictatorship - I would choose the latter for my private business, as would most. Well the power is equal among the citizens' date=' it comes from them. If they choose to not to wield it or cower like puppies like they do today, then they lose it. They've been losing it for quite some time now and are very comfortable with it. Let's see, how did that saying go...The greatest trick the devil ever performed was fooling everyone into believing he didn't exist...something like that. Our government and today's common citizen is the epitomic relationship of handing power to perceived "benevolence"; as if those good ole days of tyrannical dictatorship all behind us now...never to be returned. You're really going to pretend as if there was no implied safety net for Fanny and Freddie? And that huge corporations - knowing full well their size and stake and "co-risk feedback" systems - and legislating a mortgage market won't have deliterious effects? Look, the government may have done some good things in FHA, but that doesn't make them economically sound. Stealing a donut and feeding a homeless man with it is nice, but it isn't an economic winner. The mortgage market is heavily regulated, by comparison. When I have to put up new screens on my house and install a GFCI outlet in the kitchen in order to sell a one hundred thousand dollar home - that's regulation. Don't misunderstand, that's just beans, but the point is that there is far more regulation than we perceive - every step of the process is littered with regulation that we take for granted. As heavily regulated as it is, you are shocked when you don't preempt market forces with your foresight - so then they get "accused". It's laughable. The entire mortgage market is a carefully orchestarted scheme of regulated steps, from buying to selling - everyone must do it the same way. There isn't that much difference even when one achieves a conventional loan, although there are some steps that can be ignored. I don't believe this interdependency would emerge without the hand of government's regulatory centralization and standardization process of the entire market. Innovation is stifled in such a controlled market - so creativity is limited to loop holes, in this case, financial ones, probably the worst kind.

Well, I'm having a hard time fielding your posts because your points aren't really what I'm taking issue with. Here, let me clear up my position, and then I'll go back. I don't condone nor condemn torture. It's open to me, if they are not a citizen, and if it's believed it will work and the cost in human life is justified - in the same way that the cost in human life is justified for nuclear retaliation. The key here is, "if it will work" - which everyone believes it won't. I've read plenty of articles detailing why it doesn't work and so forth - so its efficacy is nil. So I can't see a scenario where I'd support torture. In other words, appeals to effectiveness and constitutionality are good arguments against the use of torture. Appeals to cruelty, and moral objections are not sound arguments to me, at all. That's what I'm arguing here in this thread. And it's because of the obvious. I'm not going to sit here and pretend as if I wouldn't rape a baby to save the world. Sounds hideous huh? But you wouldn't do something horrible to prevent an even more horrible thing? That's a false dilemma, to be sure. But the point builds off of Mokele's earlier in the thread, about societies drawing moral lines. I have to deal with the notion that nuclear retaliation is necessary. I have to deal with the reality that war devastates innocent people and collateral damage is a freaking insulting idea to the entire human race. Yet we use these excuses to commit atrocities. We feel like we're justified, that we've thought it all out and this is the nature of the beast. As long as we're not "aiming" for kiddos, then it's justified to slaughter them - because of some greater good or the best of a bad situation. The moral repugnance of torture enjoys no exclusive boundary to me. If it's good for slaughtering babies in vietnam, then it's good for dunking innocent ones in water until they almost drown. If I'm to draw a line at torture - for moral reasons - then I'd better become a pacifist, or I'm a hypocrite. Hypocrisy requires you to ignore what's wrong with your logic - it's the klaxon for truth evasion. It may make you feel better, but then, believing in Zeus might make you feel better... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged We can do this all day. By your logic, it's OK if the earth explodes if Captain Marvel hands you a sadistic choice between the end of all humanity or skin an 8 year old alive. Really, 6 billion people dead because you can't step up and make the tough decision? I'm not arguing utilitarian extremism, I'm arguing that we stop acting like we're "above" this and that with blanket statements on torture - although "officially" we probably should. Be real. It's always open whether you like it or not. That's why I prefer no absolutist positions here. Torture is a bad idea for plenty of good reasons, there's no point in appealing to inconsistent notions of morality.

Well that's certainly fair. I will admit, the passion possessed by a religious follower typically pales in comparison to, say, my wife's belief in ghosts. I know when I've been bested. I cannot counter this point.

It's just that we disagree on how that's achieved. Since I value freedom over performance, I'm willing to sacrifice for it. You always sacrifice something, whatever your choices are. I love your point on the education system, and how this conceptually finds its way into all areas of politics. You are spot on. I also don't advocate a pure market, but you'd probably call it that compared to what we have today. Distribution of power over consolidated power, for all the reasons used to establish the republic. And my argument has been that we haven't been assessing risk accurately because of the unnatural forces of implied safety nets, and legislation that have built up over time. Do not confuse this with regulations - I may object to some, but not to the concept. I do not believe the housing crisis would have happened if every entity involved thought they were truly on their own - like market forces require. No way for me to prove that, of course. Because laws typically create a shotgun approach to killing a fly? You're eliminating any chance of innovation or creativity by applying some "standard" for distributing risk, when it can be maintained by establishing a rejection of bailing out the private sector. When you fail to catch a falling behemoth, the message is loud and clear: You will reap what you sow...proceed accordingly. I'm not sure this network of risk and systemic consequence would be as dramatic when those companies know they are not any more special than any other private citizen, and no, they will not be "taken care of". Right. The same consequence with our republic. We don't do things as correctly or efficiently here. Kim Jong Il can efficiently govern and could probably save billions in legislator's salaries, and pass laws by the hundreds on a daily basis. I don't see you or anyone else clamoring for a dictator to take over and make our country more efficient and stable. How did they get them? What enables them bascule?

Well, I guess I'm confused as to why you thought I was speaking to this point. I agree, efficacy trumps all. My comments are about the moral rejection of the method. So if some country launches a hundred nukes at our country, your position is to reject nuclear retaliation? Just die and take it for humanity? Even so, I think that's quite a minority position. Most are hopeful this kind of thing would never happen, and admit it's no easy decision, but would retaliate in kind. In fact, risking subsequent potential nuclear warfare might just require the business end of MAD. No. I'm really asking. Why do you draw the lines where you do? "Because every change begins with a few small steps" is not an answer - that's a rebuttal. I'm asking you to ask yourself. Not to answer me. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged My concern is for what happens to a republic that lies to itself, voluntarily; does intellectual acrobats to condemn waterboarding, but ok mass murder of innocents. I suffer from psychological pain, and I know it matters. My point was a clinical one. The aftermath of bombing Japan with nukes was *both* pyschological ( on a scale that dwarfs waterboarding and my personal issues to laughable ) as well as physical. That was my point. Psychological pain only, one person, one case at a time = no. Psychological pain and physical suffering/disfigurement on mass innocents = yes. What a proud country I live in. Yes, I've been married to such a person for 18 years. That doesn't make indiscriminate nuclear mass murder and disfigurement any better.

No, actually I haven't. Regulations are a force by government to protect someone else's liberties. Regulations, on their face, are quite justified. I'm talking about taking ownership. I'm talking about buying crappy companies and then kicking out their CEO's. I'm talking about invading the private sector with acquisition, using fear to get the public to comply. I'm talking about forcing companies to readjust their mortgage rates for irresponsible poor folk that choose to stay poor and abuse credit intentionally. In short, these companies won't behave this way when you make them account for it. When you circumvent market forces, you create an unnatural condition that can't be swept under the rug. So when you unsuccessfully ignore it and then use it as a pretense for fault, you're just adding to the insult. I think most of the behavior and structure we see in the market today is a direct result of complicated implied safety nets built up throughout the years to the point that risk assessment is no longer checked by natural forces. The first case is more free. The second case requires the freedom of countless others to be sacrificed in order for this person to be free. That's tyranny. I get the same result owning a slave. I'm more free then, with better resources, time to spend with my family, accumulation of wealth - at the expense of other's liberty. It's easy to do this more-free less-free thing when you're only looking at the person gaining freedom. Remember, all men want liberty. Some want liberty for all, some want liberty for themselves over others. I'm the former case. But of course, I'm not advocating non-regulation and zero entitlements. We do sacrifice our liberty right out the gate when we enforce taxation. But a freedom first society will not tolerate much beyond that. And we are way, way beyond that.

The quote you used to reply to my quote doesn't even address a single thing in my quote. Not sure what the point was. I didn't say that, exactly. I'm saying your emotive bias creates the prejudice. Do you launch into some rant and post Youtube videos and exerpts from articles - all in response to someone's inquirey on the dangers of black cats and ladders? Seriously, I really don't know. Of course, I also understand the consequences are different. The cost of religion is arguably higher. But it still qualifies for the question posed by Pangloss on potential anti-religious extremism. We've talked enough that I know your take on this. We've also talked enough that we both know your aversion to religion, specifically. An aversion I thought you were rather proud of. If you're saying I've interpreted you wrong, please correct me.

Oh, I agree with a lot of that actually. It's not like one side is good, the other is bad. And I'm glad you brought Dawkins up, because he's an example of what I consider the right style and attitude. Like you said, he's an advocate for reason. He will assail religion, thoughtfully, patiently and convincingly (love his arguments) but it's always within the context of irrational or unsubstantiated belief systems. I watched some specials from him on psychics and other silly pseudo phenomena as well - he's quite consistent. But I really think he's the minority here. I think most revel in his debates on religion, and just kind of nod along on the other stuff. True, if you ask them, you will find they also have no love for other forms of irrational thought - but they don't earn the same impassioned disdain nor focus on irradication. I'm not talking about the religous "making it about them". I'm talking about how I can bring up superstition and get a few laughs, then a few minutes later bring up god and get a face full of objection and ridicule. I'm talking about my side, my associates, my people. Again, my statement is that those that are the most outspoken in assailing religion, tend to focus solely on religion. And that, to answer Pangloss's question which started this exchange, is anti-religious extremism - or at least, prejudice. My personal experience could betray me here I suppose, but I just haven't run into any ranting and raving critics of superstition and ghost hunting as opposed to the residual god bashing I get almost daily.