|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 10 2013 03:46 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 02:24 nunez wrote:On May 10 2013 01:57 Kimaker wrote:
It is non-quantifiable since the variables are floating and exponential. 'floating' variables and exponential growth are not necessarily insurmountable obstacles when it comes to mathematical modelling. i don't see anything comparatively more difficult when it comes to modelling since they both seek to control the same system. Which comes back to the relational definition I was talking about. Mathematics like this is non-categorical in it's thinking. You can define human nature, but only in relational terms. So I agree with the gist of what you're saying, hence why I still use the term "Human nature" at all.
ah, sorry, i don't know what categorical / non-categorical or relational means in this context. maybe i wouldn't have posted if i did. i feel like i'm missing the point.
my gripe was with the implication that supposed 'floating' and exponential variables made 'human nature' impossible to model precisely enough to regulate the system to some satisfactory degree.
can you perhaps expand on what you mean by 'defining human nature in relational terms'? to me it seems that any physical variable is relational. accurate mathematical modelling of human behavior is not inherently impossible and it's being done.
On May 10 2013 04:43 aksfjh wrote:
Yes it does. It requires the predisposition that inefficient use of raw materials is morally wrong. But efficiency can't be defined by strict terms, because at some point it hinges on desires, same as socialism.
ah i think i understand a bit more reading this post. not accounting for a dynamic in your model doesn't remove it, it just disguises it as noise.
|
On May 10 2013 04:51 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:47 frogrubdown wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 10 2013 03:42 frogrubdown wrote:
"Subjective to" isn't English. Maybe you're thinking of "subject to" while also thinking of "subjective".
I say this not just to be pedantic (though the repeated use of that phrase is grating) but because your use of it exacerbates the problem of interpreting your position. This is a problem that is quite large to begin with, as no one seems to have any clear idea in mind when they call something "subjective", at least not on the internet. Isn't subjective generally a synonym of 'bias' such that 'bias to' would fit so why doesnt subjective to also fit? Just curious since I meant it as subjective or bias rather then 'subject' why it doesn't work, no one ever told me this before hahaha and I use it in my psyc and phil essays in university at times and never got docked on it (must be bad professors or not noticing etc). Thanks : D Well, I'd mark it if I saw it on a paper. :p Are you using "bias to" to mean "biased in favor of"? I've never heard "subjective" used like that, and I'm not sure how it fits in with your point. You say "morality is subjective to ones human experience" which it would be hard to understand as meaning "morality is biased in favor of ones human experience", whatever that would mean. It means that morality is based upon your human experience and what has personally moved you, there is no objective governing law behind your subjective experience such that the experiences you have as a person define how your moral compass is. And yes I mean it as in "morality is bias in favor of ones human experience" such that your morality isn't anything but personal bias on situations either you, as a person, or society as a whole has experienced. All of these 'morals' have, at one point, been reversed in almost every case from slaughtering children as medieval knights sacked a city to owning and trading slaves as one might see a legal commodity, it is from that experience (or one similar to) we have decided its moral repulsive to do so but not beforehand and as such I think a strong argument could be made for moralities subjectivity or bias to the human experience.
Most of this was addressed in the edit I wrote simultaneously.
Though, I still don't see how "morality is bias [sic] in favor of ones human experience" captures what you want (I really don't mean to be this pedantic about word use here, but the noun form of 'bias' doesn't make sense in this sentence and if you want to use the verb you have to make it passive by adding 'ed'). From the clarification you make immediately afterwards, it sounds like you do mean something more like what I talk about in my edit.
To be clear, a bias in favor of one's experience would be some inclination to support your experience. I don't know what that means. It could mean an inclination to make your experience continue existing, to make your experience happier, to make your experience win first prize at the experience contest. None of these are what you appear to be trying to defend.
edit:
I'll quote the edited post here for ease of reading:
+ Show Spoiler +On May 10 2013 04:47 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:11 Hitch-22 wrote:On May 10 2013 03:42 frogrubdown wrote:
"Subjective to" isn't English. Maybe you're thinking of "subject to" while also thinking of "subjective".
I say this not just to be pedantic (though the repeated use of that phrase is grating) but because your use of it exacerbates the problem of interpreting your position. This is a problem that is quite large to begin with, as no one seems to have any clear idea in mind when they call something "subjective", at least not on the internet. Isn't subjective generally a synonym of 'bias' such that 'bias to' would fit so why doesnt subjective to also fit? Just curious since I meant it as subjective or bias rather then 'subject' why it doesn't work, no one ever told me this before hahaha and I use it in my psyc and phil essays in university at times and never got docked on it (must be bad professors or not noticing etc). Thanks : D Well, I'd mark it if I saw it on a paper. :p Are you using "bias to" to mean "biased in favor of"? I've never heard "subjective" used like that, and I'm not sure how it fits in with your point. You say "morality is subjective to one's human experience" which it would be hard to understand as meaning "morality is biased in favor of ones human experience", whatever that would mean. edit: An interpretation which would sit better with that sentence would be something like, "caused to be biased by", but that's also pretty problematic. A bias is just an inclination towards one view/outcome/set of norms or another, and it generally comes with a negative connotation that makes it something more like a prejudice or conflict of interests. But what does it mean to say that someone's "human experience" gave them the inclination toward given views that they have? Isn't this true off all views, with the possible exception of whatever turns out innate? And, of course, many think that some inchoate portion of ethics is innate as well. So claiming that our views are formed based on our experience in the case of ethics hardly separates it from anything else. Bringing in the negative connotation of 'bias' makes things even harder to parse, because then you have to have some conception of what better or unbiased views of ethics would be like. But you want to deny these.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
The Minnesota House of Representatives just passed marriage equality! Bill goes to the Senate on Monday! So proud!
|
The top two Republicans in Congress informed President Obama on Thursday that they will refuse to fulfill their duty under the Affordable Care Act to recommend members of a new board with the power to contain Medicare spending.
It’s a dramatic power-play driven by the explosive partisan politics of Obamacare and with potentially important implications for federal health care policy.
In a letter to President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) noted their original opposition to Obamacare, reiterated their intent to repeal it entirely, and declared that they would not make any appointments to the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
The IPAB is a 15-member panel whose members must be confirmed by the Senate. The President selects three members himself and is required by law to seek three recommendations each from the top Democrat and Republican in each chamber. With Thursday’s letter, Boehner and McConnell refused to make any recommendations.
The IPAB will be stood up in 2014 by Obamacare and tasked with making cuts to Medicare provider payments (it may not touch benefits) if costs exceed economic growth plus an additional percentage point in any given year. Congress can override it by passing equally large cuts with a simple majority or waiving the cuts entirely with a three-fifths majority.
Source
|
With ringing chants, waving signs and prayful gatherings, Minnesotans prepared the Capitol for the coming marriage vote Thursday.
The Minnesota House has passed a measure to legalize same-sex marriage. The vote was 75 to 59.
“We come not to destroy marriage, but to uphold it for all,” said Rep. Barb Yarusso, DFL-Shoreview.
Opponents said the measure is too divisive and could ultimately harm children.
“History will determine whether this was the right move, but one thing I think we really know is that Minnesota is divided over the issue,” said House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt, R-Crowne. "Heads and minds may be changing, but Minnesota is still divided and now is not the time.”
The measure now goes to the Senate, which will take up the issue Monday.
Debate in the House got underway in the early afternoon, as thousands of supporters and opponents gathered outside the chamber. House Democratic leaders and the bill's supporters were confident it would pass. If it passes Monday in the Senate, Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton could be sign it into law by early next week and make Minnesota the 12th U.S. state to legalize gay marriage.
"My family knew firsthand that same sex couples pay our taxes, we vote, we serve in the military, we take care of our kids and our elders and we run businesses in Minnesota," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Karen Clark, a Minneapolis Democrat who is gay. "... Same-sex couples should be treated fairly under the law, including the freedom to marry the person we love."
Opponents argued the bill would alter a centuries-old conception of marriage and leave those people opposed for religious reasons tarred as bigots.
"We're not. We're not," said Rep. Kelby Woodard, R-Belle Plaine. "These are people with deeply held beliefs, including myself."
In the debate's first hour, House members adopted a Republican-offered amendment to strengthen religious protections that backers hoped would draw a few GOP votes for the final bill. The House also rejected a Republican amendment to swap marriage for civil unions.
The Minnesota push for gay marriage grew out of last fall's successful campaign to defeat a constitutional amendment that would have banned it. Minnesota became the first state to turn back such an amendment after more than two dozen states had passed one over more than a decade.
Eleven other states allow gay marriages — including Rhode Island and Delaware, which approved laws in the past week. Minnesota would be the first state in the Midwest to pass the measure out of the Legislature. Iowa allows gay marriages because of a 2009 court ruling.
Leaders in Illinois — the only Midwestern state other than Minnesota with a Democratic-led statehouse — say that state is close to having the votes to approve a law too. But most other states surrounding Minnesota have constitutional bans against same-sex weddings, so the change might not spread to the nation's heartland nearly as quickly as it has on the coasts and in New England.
Demonstrators chanting and waving signs choked the Capitol's marbled hallways leading up to the debate, and passion was evident on both sides as gay marriage supporters waved bright orange signs and opponents hoisted pink ones. The crowds prompted heighted security at the Capitol.
Among the demonstrators was Grace McBride, 27, a nurse from St. Paul. She said she and her partner felt compelled to be there to watch history unfold. She said she hopes to get married "as soon as I can" if the bill becomes law. The legislation would allow her to do so starting Aug. 1.
"I have thought about my wedding since I was a little girl," she said.
On the other side of the divide, the Rev. Steve Goold of New Hope Church led followers in a morning prayer before they set out to lobby lawmakers. He told them they had the power to change minds, but urged them to be respectful.
"Do not shout and boo. Pray," Goold said. Galina Komar, a recent Ukrainian immigrant who lives in Bloomington, brought her four-year-old daughter and one-year-old son to the Capitol to express her religious concerns.
"I do believe in God, and I believe God already created the perfect way to have a family," Komar said.
But gay marriage supporters also boasted faith leaders in their ranks.
"I've celebrated marriages for same-sex couples, but I've never been able to sign a marriage license for any of them," said the Rev. Jay Carlson, pastor at a Minneapolis Lutheran church. "I look forward to the day when I can."
Democrats hold 73 of the 134 House seats, but at least two from more-conservative rural districts intended to oppose the bill. Some others have said they wouldn't discuss their vote prior to casting it.
Rep. Jason Isaacson, a Democrat from the St. Paul suburb of Shoreview, recalled how when he was a student, classmates were mocked with homophobic names.
"In middle school that was one of the worst things you could call somebody else," Isaacson said. "I like to think today that is changing."
Source: http://www.startribune.com/politics/206794041.html?page=1&c=y
The Senate has significantly more support for the bill than the House did, and the governor has said that he will sign the bill into law if it hits his desk. Now that it's passed the House, it is almost guaranteed to become law.
This state is fuckin' awesome, for those of you wondering.
|
Question: Is their the possbillity that same-sex marriage will be allowed by a nationwide law,
or is this question a state issue by default?
By knowledge on us politics in this regard is kinda lacking.
|
On May 10 2013 04:37 renoB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 02:58 renoB wrote:On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 08:14 renoB wrote:On May 09 2013 07:45 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Also if you want it to be a country of intelligent people then why just focus on immigration, it's not like only the smartest foetuses choose to attach themselves to American wombs. Being born in a country isn't an achievement, if you want to have a country of successful people then selective deportation would be far more effective than selective immigration. Because it's not about manipulating peoples lives after the fact. A country is like a club (a really big one), where you get grandfathered in. Once people are in, they're in. Period. To say otherwise opens up a whole new can of worms and is logistically impossible. However, NEW members to the club having to prove themselves? I don't see why not. It's not ideal, but as it stands I don't see how screening immigrants and establishing a stricter criteria for allowing immigration can be a bad thing for the country. Besides, focusing on half the equation never seemed to bother Keynesians or Neo-Liberals, don't know why it should bother me  This same argument can be used to exclude any group, then. Like I said before, it's plainly discrimination. You're telling someone they're not good enough, or they're not in the right group, and so they can't fit in our country. Currently we do something similar for allowing immigrants in our country. If you're not skilled in any sort, there's virtually no way of attaining access to citizenship or even a green card. So what do we get? A lot of unskilled laborers saying "fuck the process" (except they usually say it in spanish) and coming here anyway. But they're not able to be hired by many companies because they don't have the necessary credentials to work. I don't understand why people are suggesting skilled labor is the only good form of labor for America. There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial. To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits. Also, the unskilled labor demand? 1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes. 2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions. 3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth. We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. But you're kind of contradicting yourself though. You're saying we have degree inflation on the one hand, and so we need unskilled labor, but that we should only allow skilled or intelligent immigrants and disallow unskilled workers. So maybe the question isn't about accepting people based on IQ (which I feel is kind of a dumb idea) but accepting people based on labor demands. This way its not discriminatory in saying "you're not good enough for America", its saying "you may come here if you're willing to work in the place where there's demand". It seems you're putting words in my mouth when it comes to 2, 3 and your last comment. I never said anything about those topics. I simply said there is a demand for unskilled labor, I don't care where it comes from, but there's demands for it and it makes goods cheaper to have it. If American's aren't going to work it, then someone needs to do it. The fact of the matter is, and despite me telling people in America they don't have to go to college and that teenagers should work these jobs (which I agree with), they aren't doing it and I can't force them to. But here we have large populations who want to work these jobs that others don't and we're keeping them from doing it. I never suggested we need immigrant labor, I suggested it would be extremely helpful given the circumstances of high demand for unskilled labor and low (legal) supply. Which would be a recommendation. Which is synonymous with suggestion. Don't pretend you weren't suggesting immigrant labor could solve the unskilled labor shortage, it could. I actually agree with you. I'm simply saying that the externality costs make this an undesirable solution. In purely economic terms, yes, it works. In terms of culture? It's damaging to the identity of the nation and results in a schizophrenic society, paralyzed by disagreement and introspection. As to your first point, it is not a contradiction. It's a structural argument. I'm advocating the same general "solution" but through a different configuration of the pieces available, which happens to include the exclusion of certain pieces aka: teeming masses of unskilled labor. 2 and 3 were provided to show that there are alternative and less problematic pools of unskilled labor that don't require a cultural dilution. It all comes back to the point where you claim you weren't recommending immigrant labor, when in fact you were. I'm actually really hung up on this: "There's huge demands for unskilled labor, so why would we try to cap the amount of unskilled labor coming in? It could only be beneficial" You are clearly advocating immigration as a solution. And it is. But it's a shitty one. We already have a glut of "skilled labor" that is ill-defined since large swaths of these people are only capable of unskilled work (which would be financially in their interest as well). It's the difference between moving around the contents of an unbalanced boat to avoid capsize, or bringing in new weight to re-balance it. The second solution works, but it still puts the boat lower in the water. We both want to re-balance the boat, but we're doing it in different ways. Okay so that's where the disagreement is, its in culture. First off, there's no evidence to guide the idea of a decline in American culture, or whatever you're advocating (kind of confused by it)... I don't see how having different people in America destroys culture or whatever, and even if it does, who the fuck cares? Culture is meant to change, its an ever adapting thing. And like I said before, I'd like nothing more for people to work these jobs when they have the availability to (I know I worked 2 unskilled jobs all throughout college while doing an internship). But the fact is, either people aren't filling these positions because there's not enough supply, or people that can be doing them don't want to. You can't force them to, and you can't really indoctrinate someone to decide what job they should be working. Meanwhile we have a bunch of people, a lot of which are already in our country, who are ready and willing to do it but can't because of lack of documentation. I don't like the boat comparison as its trying to prevent disaster, when realistically that boat could support a hell of a lot more people, and would run more efficiently in doing so. "There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor" - Ludwig Von Mises, your buddy :D
Fair enough. Like I said, I don't think your solution is WRONG. Just that it's not how I would handle it.
Also, just because I dig some things the guy says doesn't mean I can't think he's wrong about stuff.
On May 10 2013 04:56 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 02:24 nunez wrote:On May 10 2013 01:57 Kimaker wrote:
It is non-quantifiable since the variables are floating and exponential. 'floating' variables and exponential growth are not necessarily insurmountable obstacles when it comes to mathematical modelling. i don't see anything comparatively more difficult when it comes to modelling since they both seek to control the same system. Which comes back to the relational definition I was talking about. Mathematics like this is non-categorical in it's thinking. You can define human nature, but only in relational terms. So I agree with the gist of what you're saying, hence why I still use the term "Human nature" at all. ah, sorry, i don't know what categorical / non-categorical or relational means in this context. maybe i wouldn't have posted if i did. i feel like i'm missing the point. my gripe was with the implication that supposed 'floating' and exponential variables made 'human nature' impossible to model precisely enough to regulate the system to some satisfactory degree. can you perhaps expand on what you mean by 'defining human nature in relational terms'? to me it seems that any physical variable is relational. accurate mathematical modelling of human behavior is not inherently impossible and it's being done. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:43 aksfjh wrote:
Yes it does. It requires the predisposition that inefficient use of raw materials is morally wrong. But efficiency can't be defined by strict terms, because at some point it hinges on desires, same as socialism. ah i think i understand a bit more reading this post. not accounting for a dynamic in your model doesn't remove it, it just disguises it as noise.
To illustrate the difference between categorical and relational thinking:
When I say: Hammer, Nail and Tool. Which one doesn't belong?
+ Show Spoiler +If you say "Tool" is the odd man out, this mean you are thinking relationally, aka, hammer strikes nail. If you say "Nail" you are thinking categorically, aka, Hammer is a tool (though technically so is a nail, but most people leave the Nail alone).
Obviously this is in no way rigorous, it does however demonstrate the differences between the two forms of thinking.
Relationally you can define "Human Nature" based on the surrounding data, how it plays out, and what occurs across multiple instances. Relational definitions make no attempt to say that "Human Nature" intrinsically has some sort of definition or (mathematically) value. Think of it as a scatter plot which is then aggregated within a circle. Everything in the circle is human nature, everything outside is not. I can't name everything inside the circle, since the variables are changing and the circle itself is contracting and expanding, meaning I cannot give the standard "dictionary" definition. However, this does not mean the Aggregation, or "Human Nature" does not exist.
I'm not a math person, but I hope that cleared it up? In all honesty I may have just made a fool of myself and said the wrong thing, but I tried...
On May 10 2013 04:43 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 01:57 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 01:40 Shiori wrote:On May 10 2013 01:35 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 00:52 Shiori wrote:On May 10 2013 00:29 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 00:20 Shiori wrote:On May 10 2013 00:15 Kimaker wrote:On May 09 2013 14:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
[quote]
To the bold section: that is precisely what I'm saying. You're acting like discrimination is bad in this case. Choosing who can come into your house is a fairly intelligent form of "discrimination" I'd say. I'm just suggesting we up the criteria from where it currently sits.
Also, the unskilled labor demand?
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. Cause Corporations now abide by rules and labor standards.... That and those "unskilled" workers should really just agree to accept living below normal standards of living unlike those "skilled" classes. Serfdom and a Caste System all around! You act like you're not already a financial serf. I suppose it just comes down to what sort of serf you're willing to be. Standards of living are subjective, there is no teleological end or goal for what constitutes a "high standard of life". As such, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this assessment. I guess it's clever pathos. Unless you were agreeing...in which case...ugh...I can't really tell. xD Actually modern psychology and sociology make it pretty easy to construct a fairly impartial standard of living that would result in contentment for most people insofar as they wouldn't be struggling. People who work every day and barely make ends meet are not in an enviable position. The fact is that our society can do a lot better, therefore it should. Okay fine, fuckit, let's pull out the mystical "appeal to authority" and see where that gets us: It has also been psychologically proven...
Happiness normalizes over time. So yes, there may be a way to objectively determine an acceptable "standard of living" which would result in contentment for most people, but that only considers their happiness as of now or within a given range of norms. There is no overarching principle which says, "X is the ultimate standard of living and when it is attained, people won't have to reach anymore." Bullshit. You're advocating Brave New World. You're advocating post-scarcity. Nothing would disgust me more. Also, you're acting like society can actively "do better". Only individuals can do that, society is constructed out of individuals pursuing their independent interests. We can't lose sight of that fact when we're theory-crafting society here, otherwise you're just a Utopian Hope-monger, no better than a fear monger. I'm not advocating BNW; I'm advocating a society in which people have essentially opportunity as a result of equal distribution of resources and an elimination of classes. In short, I'm a socialist. I probably should have read your signature before replying to you. Didn't realize you were a follower of Mises. I like to think that some of the individuals in society pursue the interests of others. If that makes me a hope-monger, it's a label I gladly accept. The burning question then remains: How do you fit men into a society at odds with their very nature? It's all well and good that you have the "moral" answers, but answer the question of implementation please? I'll admit, Capitalism (broadly speaking since the word encompasses a number of variations on the theme) is without a precise moral doctrine. But we know it works. We know it generates growth, we know it meets the needs of those who exist under it, we know that it is the system which most readily generates innovation and is responsible for the greatest material gain amongst the lower classes in human history. How does equal distribution of wealth do any of that? How do you get men to agree to such a society? "Talk to them"? Convince them? Some men will not be convinced. You're begging a moral question, and not all men have the same morals as you do. What then? Kill them? (no, you're not a Communist). Limit their political power? (no, you'd cut your own legs out from under yourself by just creating a different permutation of classes.) What then? How do you fit a square peg, into a round hole? Can you define human nature for me, please? I've always found that this concept of "human nature" is an abstraction employed whenever one wishes to make a point without substantiating it they defer to human nature or "common sense" or something like that. I don't mean that as a dig, but I do want to know what you think human nature is, and I'd like to know if it's objective. If people won't be convinced by argumentation, then they are perfectly free not to be a part of the entirely voluntary socialist society. I think that real socialism/communism must be essentially voluntary if it's going to succeed, and so I have absolutely no qualms with giving people discretion as to whether they wish to be a part of it or not. I'd also say that your claim that capitalism "meets the needs of those who exist under it" is sort of specious at best. There are plenty of poor people that, arguably, aren't being particularly well-served by capitalist principles. As an aside, the implication that communism = killing dissenters is rather telling and completely ridiculous.The Soviet Union does not define communism. That's precisely it. The Definition of human nature, eludes definition. Capitalism doesn't require such a definition to function. It doesn't attempt to make moral claims about peoples actions. Socialism does, since it claims certain actions undertaken by humans are "bad" or at least not desirable (it creates a universal system of morality). In it's most basic form human nature would include the aggregation of human activity, an impossibility. It is non-quantifiable since the variables are floating and exponential. Your request for a definition is...not possible I'm sorry. At least not in categorical terms. Relationally, I got this, but then you don't seem like someone who is a fan of relational thinking in terms of definition. Also, I respect the anarcho-socialist stance, even if I think it's impossible. As for the "needs" bit, that's your perspective, "needs" can only be known by the individual who has the "needs". You can't eat for a starving person. So, yes, that was a fallacious statement on my part. I apologize. The Communism part: The very doctrinal difference between a Socialist and a Communist is the Communists advocation for the necessity of violent revolution. I'd call that killing dissenters since the targets were to be the Bourgeoise. Yes it does. It requires the predisposition that inefficient use of raw materials is morally wrong. But efficiency can't be defined by strict terms, because at some point it hinges on desires, same as socialism.
No. In classical economics there's almost no morality involved. It wasn't until Socialism upped the ante that we began to see ethical justifications for Capitalism. They were invented as a response to an attack, they did not lie at the root of the theory. My God, classical economists didn't even prescribe policies, they just observed and recorded for the most part.
|
On May 10 2013 05:35 Paljas wrote:
Question: Is their the possbillity that same-sex marriage will be allowed by a nationwide law,
or is this question a state issue by default?
By knowledge on us politics in this regard is kinda lacking.
The funny part of the us constitution is that its been established that you can ignore it at any point or uningore it at your discretion. the only penalty to it is your ability to justify it to the voters and the current political leaning of the courts.
Its just been wildly accepted that the federal government is going to allow state by state decisions on how they do business within their own state. Not defense or other obvious things that need to be done on a federal level but smaller things like pot legalization and gay marriage have been delegated on a state by state basis. I belive the "right to work state" movements have also been delegated to states to decide.
So its not really as much of a "states legal rights" as much as it would require effort in washington instead of St. paul or Chicago.
I love how amazingly civil everyone was with this gay marriage bill in the state capitol. an example of how government should work on a national level.
|
United States42695 Posts
On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture.
It sucks to be the baron of bad news but unskilled workers really are a diamond dozen. It's a doggy dog world out there.
|
On May 10 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. It sucks to be the baron of bad news but unskilled workers really are a diamond dozen. It's a doggy dog world out there.
You have no idea how angry your post makes me right now, even if it's in jest.
|
On May 10 2013 05:58 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. It sucks to be the baron of bad news but unskilled workers really are a diamond dozen. It's a doggy dog world out there. You have no idea how angry your post makes me right now, even if it's in jest.
What's wrong with it? Sometimes the world just feels like it has more dogs than I know what to do with.
|
On May 10 2013 06:01 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:58 aksfjh wrote:On May 10 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. It sucks to be the baron of bad news but unskilled workers really are a diamond dozen. It's a doggy dog world out there. You have no idea how angry your post makes me right now, even if it's in jest. What's wrong with it? Sometimes the world just feels like it has more dogs than I know what to do with.
I don't think we can take anything for granite anymore. It is simply far too easy to forget that it takes two to tangle.
|
On May 10 2013 06:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:01 frogrubdown wrote:On May 10 2013 05:58 aksfjh wrote:On May 10 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. It sucks to be the baron of bad news but unskilled workers really are a diamond dozen. It's a doggy dog world out there. You have no idea how angry your post makes me right now, even if it's in jest. What's wrong with it? Sometimes the world just feels like it has more dogs than I know what to do with. I don't think we can take anything for granite anymore. It is simply far too easy to forget that it takes two to tangle.
I could care less. There's no statue of limitations on taking things for granite.
|
On May 10 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. It sucks to be the baron of bad news but unskilled workers really are a diamond dozen. It's a doggy dog world out there.
Googling that led me to this. Still not sure if it's better or worse than advocating the removal of child labor laws.
I am sorry to be the baron of bad news, but you seem buttered, so allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies, and are more than just ice king on the cake. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite.
So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality.
I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the fax, instead of making a half-harded effort. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it's a peach of cake.
|
On May 10 2013 05:35 Paljas wrote:
Question: Is their the possbillity that same-sex marriage will be allowed by a nationwide law,
or is this question a state issue by default?
By knowledge on us politics in this regard is kinda lacking.
Chance of nationwide law from Congress in coming years is near 0%. There is a chance it could be enacted nationwide by Supreme Court decision, a Loving v. Virginia part 2. That's why people are so interested in the gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court. But traditionally states are the ones that regulate marriage and they have all sorts of different restrictions about waiting periods, consanguinity, age restrictions etc.
|
On May 10 2013 06:10 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:35 Paljas wrote:
Question: Is their the possbillity that same-sex marriage will be allowed by a nationwide law,
or is this question a state issue by default?
By knowledge on us politics in this regard is kinda lacking. Chance of nationwide law from Congress in coming years is near 0%. There is a chance it could be enacted nationwide by Supreme Court decision, a Loving v. Virginia part 2. That's why people are so interested in the gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court. But traditionally states are the ones that regulate marriage and they have all sorts of different restrictions about waiting periods, consanguinity, age restrictions etc.
I thought even if all states enact same sex marriage, it has to be enacted at the federal level to get the same treatment for federal laws. Isn't that what the SCOTUS case was about? I'm no legal scholar, but I remember it being something about inheritance laws not applying because the federal gov't didn't recognize their marriage even though the state did.
edit: (The Windsor case, not the Prop 8 one)
|
On May 10 2013 06:19 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:10 NovaTheFeared wrote:On May 10 2013 05:35 Paljas wrote:
Question: Is their the possbillity that same-sex marriage will be allowed by a nationwide law,
or is this question a state issue by default?
By knowledge on us politics in this regard is kinda lacking. Chance of nationwide law from Congress in coming years is near 0%. There is a chance it could be enacted nationwide by Supreme Court decision, a Loving v. Virginia part 2. That's why people are so interested in the gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court. But traditionally states are the ones that regulate marriage and they have all sorts of different restrictions about waiting periods, consanguinity, age restrictions etc. I thought even if all states enact same sex marriage, it has to be enacted at the federal level to get the same treatment for federal laws. Isn't that what the SCOTUS case was about? I'm no legal scholar, but I remember it being something about inheritance laws not applying because the federal gov't didn't recognize their marriage even though the state did.
The SCOTUS case was solely about federal laws and benefits. If I'm not mistaken, state governments decide the terms of marriage contracts, and the laws regarding them at the federal level simply respect the terms of the contracts.
|
On May 10 2013 06:10 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 05:54 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2013 13:05 Kimaker wrote:
1. CHUCK CHILD LABOR LAWS. Dead Serious. The culture has changed enough where these laws are redundant for all intensive purposes.
2. Americans who are unskilled workers...should stop expecting to have a standard of living on par with the middle-class. Sorry, that's how life works. Doesn't make them less "human" or anything, just how reality functions.
3. Stop telling kids in HS they HAVE to go to college. We already have disgusting amounts of degree inflation, and most of these kids are only hurting themselves by trying to go to college when they should just get a damn job. It's not shameful, it's not demeaning, it's not discriminatory, it's the goddamned truth.
We don't NEED immigrant labor. This line of reasoning is absolute trash, particularly when it fails to consider the externality costs to the primary culture. It sucks to be the baron of bad news but unskilled workers really are a diamond dozen. It's a doggy dog world out there. Googling that led me to this. Still not sure if it's better or worse than advocating the removal of child labor laws. Show nested quote +I am sorry to be the baron of bad news, but you seem buttered, so allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies, and are more than just ice king on the cake. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite.
So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality.
I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the fax, instead of making a half-harded effort. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it's a peach of cake.
LOL
Good God. Kwark wins. Fuckit. I give up arguing forever + Show Spoiler +.
|
intensive purposes... "shudders" INTENTS and PURPOSES NOT INTENSIVE
Someone was correcting me earlier on how to phrase subjective, thought I'd have a go. That really jerked my chain, rattled my cage, grinded my gears etc etc
|
On May 10 2013 06:19 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 06:10 NovaTheFeared wrote:On May 10 2013 05:35 Paljas wrote:
Question: Is their the possbillity that same-sex marriage will be allowed by a nationwide law,
or is this question a state issue by default?
By knowledge on us politics in this regard is kinda lacking. Chance of nationwide law from Congress in coming years is near 0%. There is a chance it could be enacted nationwide by Supreme Court decision, a Loving v. Virginia part 2. That's why people are so interested in the gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court. But traditionally states are the ones that regulate marriage and they have all sorts of different restrictions about waiting periods, consanguinity, age restrictions etc. I thought even if all states enact same sex marriage, it has to be enacted at the federal level to get the same treatment for federal laws. Isn't that what the SCOTUS case was about? I'm no legal scholar, but I remember it being something about inheritance laws not applying because the federal gov't didn't recognize their marriage even though the state did. edit: (The Windsor case, not the Prop 8 one)
Yes for federal benefits to apply either DOMA needs to be overturned or repealed by Congress. I think he was asking a different question though, whether Congress would make the states permit same sex marriages in their state. And the chance of that is pretty damn low in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
