Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[BigBallinStalin]

If you can finagle your way into founding your own police department, you could get some serious military equipment for free!


http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ice-forces

[pimpdave]

If you can finagle your way into founding your own police department, you could get some serious military equipment for free!


http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ice-forces

Well I'm not worried about this at all. My creator endowed right to own a handgun will stop that government built tyrannous armored personnel carrier from treading all over me!

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, well, remember in Saving Private Ryan when he blew up the tank with his 1911?


The debate is over.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

I'm sure it did happen. The tenor of your original post seems to suggest that pre-20th century societies' problems had to do with religion, especially with respect to scientific advancement. I'm trying to think of examples (other than your example below) of religion repressing science such that quality of life did not improve.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, so there's that. And it wasn't like Galileo was repressed.

[PLAYER57832]

The government creates the strong incentive for very poor people to continuously procreate. Essentially, welfare services (like medicare and medicaid, and subsidies within the tax code) reward people who earn very little for producing more kids. People tend to be geared toward thinking in the short-term, so they'll discount the long-term costs of raising kids in exchange for the immediate tax credits and services received by the government.

NOPE!

The government has no such incentive. Despots, monarchs, dictators, etc all have incentive to keep people heavily dependent so they won't complain about much of anything and will more fully serve the whims of the elite.

There's a difference between the government creating an incentive which shapes human behavior (my position) and the incentives which shape government/political behavior (your position).

Seeing that you failed to see this distinction by conflating the two different positions, and that you simply discarded my entire argument without really addressing it (via your patented Tangent to the Unknown), then I'd be glad to discuss your criticism if someone else takes up the torch and pitchfork. Or if you wanted to focus on one specific thing in the argument, then I'll talk with you about it.

Nice try at sidswiping the issue by, again pretending that you sit in some lofty hallowed position of understanding that the rest of us cannot possibly understand.

The government has no independent incentives. Leaders have incentives to keep their power. People have incentives to demand security and safety. In the past, the two worked in tandem (oppositional tandem, but it worked). However, just as monarchs in the past gained too much power and became abusive, the heavy capitalists of today are also deciding that its OK for them to have everything and give nothing to those below .. or only very little.

That we are not yet at the point of having droves starving, massive plagues, etc is a benefit of technology, but the disparity is still there, and still marked.

Yes, that's nice.


Excuse me:

yeah, I know... anyone who disagrees with you is just farting. Try education, not excuses.

The trouble is the whole scenario you described above (which is, yes, accurate) of collapse is BECAUSE our economic system has been so disassociated from the real basis of wealth.. creation and production of goods and services for sale. And that came about, in large part BECAUSE of what I said, along with a hefty dose of " I don't care about no *%$ resources.. just give me my fancy SUV and 10 course dinner, thank you... if you can't get hose, its because you are just plain lazy and anyone claiming there are real limits is just trying to take what is righfully mine from me!".

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

I'm sure it did happen. The tenor of your original post seems to suggest that pre-20th century societies' problems had to do with religion, especially with respect to scientific advancement. I'm trying to think of examples (other than your example below) of religion repressing science such that quality of life did not improve.

We are facing one right now, in the utter disregard for Global warming and natural resource use.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, so there's that. And it wasn't like Galileo was repressed.[/quote]
It is true that there was a lot more going on in the so-called "dark ages" and "middle ages" than popular history can lead us to believe. In fact, the suppression was relatively limited, particularly in the context of the day. People who ran afoul did so for complex reasons, rather than just their scientific discoveries.

[BigBallinStalin]

yeah, I know... anyone who disagrees with you is just farting. Try education, not excuses.

The trouble is the whole scenario you described above (which is, yes, accurate) of collapse is BECAUSE our economic system has been so disassociated from the real basis of wealth.. creation and production of goods and services for sale. And that came about, in large part BECAUSE of what I said, along with a hefty dose of " I don't care about no *%$ resources.. just give me my fancy SUV and 10 course dinner, thank you... if you can't get hose, its because you are just plain lazy and anyone claiming there are real limits is just trying to take what is righfully mine from me!".

lol, I love how you argue. It's typically the following format:

1) See opposing* argument
*all non-Player arguments are opposing.

2 Routes follow:

Route A:

A2) misconstrue the argument (typically, turn it into a strawman)

A3) savagely destroy it, (usually by arguing something similar to "NO, UR WRONG" Why? "Because I said so!" )

A4) then declare victory while people laugh at you


Route B:
B2) make opposing argument analogous to some tangent (granted, I'm being generous here; usually the tangent is insert out of the blue and its relevance isn't explained)

B3) show how state that the Player-tangent is correct

B4) refute opposing argument with logically inconsistent analogy/tangent, then declare victory while people laugh at you


The two routes are usually blended. Also, there's an underlying framework working for you: vague definitions. You tend to lose coherence with the rest of the world because you need to somehow support your preconceived notions while remaining absolutely opposed to revision. This results in you shifting other people's definitions and inventing fun ones (like "heavy capitalists," "oppositional tandem," "independent incentives," "sidswiping.")


Of course, you'll read the above, refute it, pull out a tangent, throw out some vague words whose meaning are only known to you, "defeat" me, and then everyone will laugh at you.

[BigBallinStalin]

The trouble is the whole scenario you described above (which is, yes, accurate) of collapse is BECAUSE our economic system has been so disassociated from the real basis of wealth.. creation and production of goods and services for sale. And that came about, in large part BECAUSE of what I said, along with a hefty dose of " I don't care about no *%$ resources.. just give me my fancy SUV and 10 course dinner, thank you... if you can't get hose, its because you are just plain lazy and anyone claiming there are real limits is just trying to take what is righfully mine from me!".

Savings and Nominal Value v. Real Value

Let's look at your quoted, straw man argument.

Here's my main point:

Lack of concern for resources and consumption itself doesn't really matter as much as the lack of savings which would effectively prepare people for the impending crisis. The perception of savings is distorted by people's mistaking nominal value for real value.


Regarding your abundant concern for the environment:
Sitting on potential resources and doing nothing with them for the sake of environmentalism only works if everyone lived like American Indians circa 17th century. That seems romantic, but it's a life of low living standards and quality (yes, subjectivity matters too, but ask people to live like Am. Indians, and you won't get many takers for good reasons.)
[/end_commentary on environmentalism]

The problem with the housing crisis was one of failing to distinguish real value v. nominal value. People reasonably believed that home equity (measured in nominal values) was a secure, long-term investment. They estimated that the value of their house would continue rising, or at least would remain very high. This leads to the mindset of consume, consume, consume, because one's savings are perceived as sufficient to cover any future interruption in cash flows (e.g. income, unexpected expenses, etc.). Unfortunately, the nominal values were perceived as real, so the value of their savings (i.e. investment) was extremely overestimated.

That's just one aspect though, but it's significant enough to show you that consuming in itself isn't bad, as you've implied. Buying an SUV and eating a 10 course meal is fine--as long as one is living within one's means. This balance was distorted when people mistook nominal values on home equity as real value. Among several factors, the Federal Reserve and the federal government serve as a primary distorter of prices. They tend to inflate the money supply (or reduce taxes) in order to stimulate a spending frenzy, which in the short-term is great for re-election and for instilling public faith in the government, but in the long-term, it distorts the capital structure and prevents restructuring of the economy by individuals, i.e. people can't properly adapt because of the distortions creating by state intervention in the economy.


"The trouble is the whole scenario you described above (which is, yes, accurate) of collapse is BECAUSE our economic system has been so disassociated from the real basis of wealth.. creation and production of goods and services for sale."

No, it's isn't. The US produces plenty of goods and services, but production alone isn't the "real basis of wealth." Savings is the source of the accumulation of wealth. Savings enables greater, future capital investment, which leads to a greater production of goods and services.

The underlying problem is the distortion of real wealth. The price mechanism relays information to consumers and producers. The Federal Reserve distorts the perception of these signals with its cute, expansive monetary policy. Increasing the money supply is used to mislead people into perceiving that the economy is healthy, that more production will lead to higher profits, etc.

The problem is that printing money devalues everyone's dollars, and that fear of deflation is perceived yet false. Short-run, perceived value (i.e. nominal value) is mistaken for real value. There's also Wall Street's role in creating this false perception and lulling people to sleep, and there's plenty more with it, but that's enough for now.

[rockfist]

Personally I think the woman is largely irrelevant to the wider issues. Sure she should be condemned, but she is not a valid rationale for scrapping welfare systems world wide.

I'd personally rather have people fend for themselves than see any of our money taken by force to be given to people like the woman in this story.

I had an aunt (through marriage) that was on public assistance after she bankrupted my uncle...and I was appalled with the way she spent her money. I'd have cut them off from all monetary assistance. I'd have made sure my cousins had cloths/food, but paper money was of more use being burned to heat your home than being given to her.

Except "public assistance" IS just about giving the kids clothing, food... and yes, shelter. So, basically, you are saying that you don't want public assistance... but you want people to still have the things public assistance provides.

No I do not. Public assistance is basically never cut off - and that is wrong. People who recieve transfer payments recieve money. The government does not send them food/clothing. It sends them money - and they quite often waste it as my aunt did. Some people deserve to live with the results of their own stupidity.

[thegreekdog]

We are facing one right now, in the utter disregard for Global warming and natural resource use.

I really don't think that's religious repression.

[Lootifer]

Oh dont invest in NZ BBS, our production is all agriculture. Way to dependent on the price of oil getting the shit out of the country. Aussie is a much better bet; mineral rich and a decent enough domestic demand to insulate against world matters (to an extent ofc).

NZ is at the mercy of the world economy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh dont invest in NZ BBS, our production is all agriculture. Way to dependent on the price of oil getting the shit out of the country. Aussie is a much better bet; mineral rich and a decent enough domestic demand to insulate against world matters (to an extent ofc).

NZ is at the mercy of the world economy.

WTF, but everyone loves kiwis. >=(

[Phatscotty]

the mother should at least start to try being accountable

[AAFitz]

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

I'm sure it did happen. The tenor of your original post seems to suggest that pre-20th century societies' problems had to do with religion, especially with respect to scientific advancement. I'm trying to think of examples (other than your example below) of religion repressing science such that quality of life did not improve.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, so there's that. And it wasn't like Galileo was repressed.

You cant necessarily find an example, because it essentially never happened. What you can do, is realize that the sceintific breakthroughs happened, as religious governments simply lost their stranglehold on them, and it is perfectly reasonable to essentially understand that the achievements that improve our quality of life today, would certainly have progressed faster had the religious governments simply not...well... killed people that otherwise would have made that advancement.

It wasnt called the dark ages because the sun shone less brightly. It was the dark ages, because the light of truth, ie science, was darkened by simple men, who simply enjoyed their position of power.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

I'm sure it did happen. The tenor of your original post seems to suggest that pre-20th century societies' problems had to do with religion, especially with respect to scientific advancement. I'm trying to think of examples (other than your example below) of religion repressing science such that quality of life did not improve.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, so there's that. And it wasn't like Galileo was repressed.

You cant necessarily find an example, because it essentially never happened. What you can do, is realize that the sceintific breakthroughs happened, as religious governments simply lost their stranglehold on them, and it is perfectly reasonable to essentially understand that the achievements that improve our quality of life today, would certainly have progressed faster had the religious governments simply not...well... killed people that otherwise would have made that advancement.

It wasnt called the dark ages because the sun shone less brightly. It was the dark ages, because the light of truth, ie science, was darkened by simple men, who simply enjoyed their position of power.

And how are the dark ages different from today?

My point, to put it specifically, is that I think it's misguided for people to blame nonadvancement of science on religion, no matter the generation or historical reference. I agree that in every generation there are people in power who repress things that don't help them retain power or obtain more of it. I don't believe this has anything to do with religion. Perhaps religion was used as a tool for those powerful men, but it certainly wasn't the root cause of the nonadvancement of science in any historical time period.

[pimpdave]

I'm really surprised to be reading all of this and then see some of you doubt the existence of Tea Party Death Squads.

[rockfist]

If Tea Party Death Squads existed, why would you still be alive?

[pimpdave]

It's not because of a lack of effort on their part, I can tell you that.

The big mistake you're making in your thinking is that you assume competency from them. The leaders they've managed to elect are a good indicator of just how stupid and incompetent the death squads are. Otherwise I'm sure there would be even more frequent instances of their terrorist acts.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

I'm sure it did happen. The tenor of your original post seems to suggest that pre-20th century societies' problems had to do with religion, especially with respect to scientific advancement. I'm trying to think of examples (other than your example below) of religion repressing science such that quality of life did not improve.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, so there's that. And it wasn't like Galileo was repressed.

You cant necessarily find an example, because it essentially never happened. What you can do, is realize that the sceintific breakthroughs happened, as religious governments simply lost their stranglehold on them, and it is perfectly reasonable to essentially understand that the achievements that improve our quality of life today, would certainly have progressed faster had the religious governments simply not...well... killed people that otherwise would have made that advancement.

It wasnt called the dark ages because the sun shone less brightly. It was the dark ages, because the light of truth, ie science, was darkened by simple men, who simply enjoyed their position of power.

And how are the dark ages different from today?

My point, to put it specifically, is that I think it's misguided for people to blame nonadvancement of science on religion, no matter the generation or historical reference. I agree that in every generation there are people in power who repress things that don't help them retain power or obtain more of it. I don't believe this has anything to do with religion. Perhaps religion was used as a tool for those powerful men, but it certainly wasn't the root cause of the nonadvancement of science in any historical time period.

How would the religious-science argument account for the role of coffee in civilization? How about the division of labor since the industrial revolution? Wouldn't the division of labor lead to different and new fields of knowledge that further expand the world's the total knowledge and capacity to solve problems?

For the science-religion argument to work, you need to assume that individuals were actually capable of significantly expanding knowledge and solving problems without the alleged suppression of religion. Nevertheless, other constraints would remain:

What of guilds and their monopolies on particular forms of knowledge? How about the lack of patents? How about the high transaction costs associated with the dissemination of new ideas? Even until the 19th century, people were inventing practically the same things. Also, the state, pre-20th century, hardly invested in R&D... et cetera, et cetera.


Conclusion: you can't drop all this shit on religion's doorstep because it isn't known how much and how effective religion was a preventing scientific inquiry, and there's other significant constraints to the development of Science.

[AAFitz]

Yes, and all Germans supported Hitler during World War. Sorry, just because any dissent was met with banishment or death, hardly means it was not truly there, and that suppression didnt happen.

I'm sure it did happen. The tenor of your original post seems to suggest that pre-20th century societies' problems had to do with religion, especially with respect to scientific advancement. I'm trying to think of examples (other than your example below) of religion repressing science such that quality of life did not improve.

Galileo feared for his life because he simply tried to describe how the planets orbited the sun. Id say that was an environment win which science was definitely suppressed.

Galileo was a practicing Catholic, so there's that. And it wasn't like Galileo was repressed.

You cant necessarily find an example, because it essentially never happened. What you can do, is realize that the sceintific breakthroughs happened, as religious governments simply lost their stranglehold on them, and it is perfectly reasonable to essentially understand that the achievements that improve our quality of life today, would certainly have progressed faster had the religious governments simply not...well... killed people that otherwise would have made that advancement.

It wasnt called the dark ages because the sun shone less brightly. It was the dark ages, because the light of truth, ie science, was darkened by simple men, who simply enjoyed their position of power.

And how are the dark ages different from today?

My point, to put it specifically, is that I think it's misguided for people to blame nonadvancement of science on religion, no matter the generation or historical reference. I agree that in every generation there are people in power who repress things that don't help them retain power or obtain more of it. I don't believe this has anything to do with religion. Perhaps religion was used as a tool for those powerful men, but it certainly wasn't the root cause of the nonadvancement of science in any historical time period.

History simply disagrees. I agree that there are other factors as well, but none that are simultaneously so ridiculous and powerful at the same time.

Science is an exponential process. For every time religion held back science even a little, it held back science a lot. Its essentially the butterfly effect. Go back and discover a better way of treating infection, a few years before it was discovered, and thousands and possibly millions would be saved.

Hell, just the bias towards homosexuals slowed AIDS funding when it was most needed in the early years, and while its impossible to calculate the exact number of lives affected, one can very much intelligently summarize that it was millions.

Even when simple in-vitro fertilization science emerged, some religions fought it passionately. The only real argument against it was that it was against Gods will. Thousands or millions were affected, and the science was held back. If there was never any religious opposition, it would absolutely have emerged into the staple of medical procedures that it is today much faster.

There is simply no way to argue against that. Religions fight against stem cell research as we speak. While there are other fears, the main one that religious leaders are against is that it tampers with Gods plan. Its the same example thats played through the history books, thousands of times over.

Legislatures must cater to their religious constituents and religious beliefs, and essentially underfund, or outright block possibly one of the most important sciences in medicine right now, that has the potential to help billions. Again, it will survive, and one can never know how things may have gone differently, but one certainly can know that the science was slowed, and absolutely slowed by religion and religion only in many cases, because in every case, the only real argument against the science, was a religious one.

[TheProwler]

Go back and discover a better way of treating infection, a few years before it was discovered, and thousands and possibly millions would be saved.

And then we factor those saved lives into the rate of population growth and we'd have something like 15 billion people on this planet and we'd be in an even deeper mess. Polluting, devouring natural resources, etc..


I don't understand why people always assume that saving lives is a good thing. Look at the subject in the opening post in this thread. Be honest. If you could....Thumbs Up!....or Thumbs Down!!!!

[AAFitz]

Go back and discover a better way of treating infection, a few years before it was discovered, and thousands and possibly millions would be saved.

And then we factor those saved lives into the rate of population growth and we'd have something like 15 billion people on this planet and we'd be in an even deeper mess. Polluting, devouring natural resources, etc..


I don't understand why people always assume that saving lives is a good thing. Look at the subject in the opening post in this thread. Be honest. If you could....Thumbs Up!....or Thumbs Down!!!!

Its true. Not all lives are worth saving or make the world a better place.

However, in general, treating infection and medical attention is a good thing and if you're suggesting that we should simply let more children die, well...you are free to think so or even advocate it.

Overpopulation is a real concern as well, and science will no doubt help in dealing with it, and the stiffling of said science for cures, has also arguably been stifled in all other areas as well.

I am very glad I cant give a thumbs up or thumbs down though, and so should you and your family. While you have no problem disconnecting yourself and assuming the lives are meaningless... I know full well if I gave you or one of your family the thumbs down, real people would be affected. Perhaps I shouldn't be concerned with such things, but for now, I am.

I imagine the idea of giving someone thumbs up or down isn't as appealing when it can be aimed at you and yours though.

As far as the children in the story...I am fulling willing to give them the benefit of the doubt however. The damn christian upbringing just gets the best of me every time.

[BigBallinStalin]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

[Phatscotty]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

too many details and realities. Please keep things simple where religion is evil and without religion the airplane would have been invented in 100 b.c.

[ViperOverLord]

AAFitz, regarding science and religion "way back in the day," don't you admit that you're overestimating the capabilities of science? If you subtract religion, you're still left with other constraints? and you're overlooking the lack of additional benefits, which have yet to exist. *


*transaction costs, high price of books, monopolistic organizations (guilds), lack of patents, lack of cheap and quick communication, lack of government investment in R&D, lack of private investment in R&D, lack of a market economy which coordinates human action and allocates resources much more efficiently than 13th to 18th century economies, etc.

All good points. I actually would not deny that the state of religion likely inhibited scientific advances during the middle ages.

Still, I think it is a misnomer that religion in and of itself denies science. Many of great minds have subscribed to some form of religiosity and would even claim that their scientific efforts were inspired by their deeper beliefs.

Also, religion has directly and indirectly contributed to the pursuits of science during the course of history.