|
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 April 27 2016 07:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 06:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 06:14 Simberto wrote:
I am not convinced that a large percentage of the population actually likes driving that much. Most people drive when they need to go to a place. Only a very small percentage of road traffic is people driving around randomly just for the fun of it.
Some people might enjoy driving more than riding a bike or taking the bus.
A lot of people like the convenience of having a car that takes them where they want to go at the time they want to go there, warm, dry, and with a lot of room to transport stuff without a lot of effort of necessary.
But imagine instead of driving the car, you could just sit there and watch a movie/eat breakfast/read a book/check facebook/get some work done while the car drives itself. Do you really think that a majority of the population would choose driving themselves? (If they think it at least as safe) That's called public transit. In the US, the reason for cars is for a sense of control. A sense that "since I am a better driver/navigator/etc.. I can find the faster/fastest/least obstructed route to _____. Its part of the bootstraps capitalist personality of being the top dog. Having a Siri drive you from place to place will result in people wanting to turn it off and take over the wheel themselves. I dunno. Even in Holland, a tiny country with a highly connected public transit system, people drive cars for convenience. Even if the bus stops at a 5 minute walk from your door, and has a quick route to your work, where you have another 5 minute walk, it puts you in a crowded environment with a risk you have to stand; it doesn't go on demand, but you have to wait on its timetable, and usually its seats aren't as comfy as car seats. You can take a taxi, but what exactly does it matter to the passenger whether the taxi driver is human or an AI, as long as the latter is at least as safe as the former. The only thing an AI driver would not do is the chit chat, but you can whatsapp/facebook/skype with someone instead.
Which is exactly my point. We already have a lot of services that simulate that, but in the end its just a service. Either you crowd yourself in public transportation, or you shell out for private transportation.
|
On April 27 2016 06:14 Simberto wrote:
I am not convinced that a large percentage of the population actually likes driving that much. Most people drive when they need to go to a place. Only a very small percentage of road traffic is people driving around randomly just for the fun of it.
Some people might enjoy driving more than riding a bike or taking the bus.
A lot of people like the convenience of having a car that takes them where they want to go at the time they want to go there, warm, dry, and with a lot of room to transport stuff without a lot of effort of necessary.
But imagine instead of driving the car, you could just sit there and watch a movie/eat breakfast/read a book/check facebook/get some work done while the car drives itself. Do you really think that a majority of the population would choose driving themselves? (If they think it at least as safe)
Driving is almost a culture milestone in the US. Getting in a car and just going wherever feels great to some. When the country opens up your minds does as well.
|
|
|
On April 27 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:17 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:51 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
False, again. Anyone can register as a Democrat to get a voice in who's going to be in on the Democratic ticket for November. Registering as a Democrat is free. Also, Independent voters/those with no party are free to create their own party if they'd like, just like everyone else. You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine. Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it. Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on? I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw. Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it. NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question. Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence?
We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
|
Guessing you didn't see what the campaign actually said? Or what people actually think/know happened in AZ and who's responsible?
On April 27 2016 07:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 02:17 kwizach wrote:On April 27 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2016 01:43 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 18:06 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 17:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 17:11 kwizach wrote:On April 26 2016 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're acting like states like New York don't have exclusionary rules that go beyond reasonable. That's fine. You are suggesting folks start their own party. That's fine. Democrats don't want to change the party. That's fine.
Just don't expect us to vote for Hillary. I think it's a terrible plan for the party, but people are free to disagree. Just don't be surprised if the 70-80% of voters under 30 don't want to support that kind of party. I'm not "acting like" anything. You made the claim that Democrats "support the largest segment of voters (Independent/No party) being excluded from getting a voice in who's on the ballot in Nov". That is a false statement. In the sense that "the Constitution protects the rights of every American" is a true statement. You might of missed it, but I was wondering if you would agree that we have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans? That our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee? No, in the sense that it is free for independents to register as Democrats if they want to be sure to be able to voice their support for the person they think should be on the Democratic ticket in November. I didn't miss it. It's a ridiculous question that you're asking as a springboard for a follow-up post. I've already answered it several times in my posts in these last few pages and over the years on these boards. Let's make it clear then, you don't think that by requiring people to declare they want to vote in the democratic primary months ahead of time, before the first debate, that the democratic party of New York is making it excessively difficult to participate for millions of people who don't think either party represents them at the time? You don't think that it is excluding people who might have been reconsidering coming into the party if Bernie was at it's head or into the Republican party with Trump? That no one believed the talking heads that said the parties were both going to nominate the status quo back then, and would have joined to support either of the candidates mentioned had they thought they would even get a chance? I'm fine with allowing same-day registration as a Democrat, but I don't have any particular objection to putting the deadline to register quite a bit of time before the primary voting deadline (and possibly closer to the deadline for new voters than for independents), as long as it's free, and the required information is public and easily accessible. If you'd like to contribute to choosing the Democratic nominee for the general election, I don't think it's too much to ask to decide that you want to do so some time before the day of the Democratic primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the question, I also want to make clear that you either agree or disagree or what parts you disagree with. I've payed attention to your last conversation and I don't intend to ask you to repeat yourself, I just want to be clear about what exactly you're saying. Please, this is the equivalent of asking "are you against world hunger/poverty", to then get a foot in the door and talk to me about my lord and savior jesus christ. If you're not sure about my obvious answer to your questions, go read my posts again, and if you have a point, make it. Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on? I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw. Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it. NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question. Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence? We're getting closer to your point. Feel free to make it any time.
I don't think you can answer that question is the point right now.
|
Canada11363 Posts
(1) I guess I don't understand what you are arguing. I took you to mean that you disagree with Harris belief that there are 'radicals, and they are the ones who take the faith seriously, and then there are the moderates who aren't serious about their faith', and that you had a problem with that characterization. I agree that it leaves out a lot of nuance, but again, the general idea as I see it is that the 'fundamentalists' adhere more strictly to the literal texts (hence why they have the name fundamentalists). This is what is meant when someone says the extremists take their faith more seriously. They mean that their beliefs are so extreme and so integral to everything about their lives, that they translate into action. Now sure, a moderate can be just as devout, but generally speaking their actions aren't going to be as extreme as the fundamentalist types. Perhaps 'they don't take their faith seriously' is a bad way to phrase it, but I think that is the main point.
(2) Again your original point was dealing with interpretation and how beliefs are formed. My point was that we see the wide array of interpretations because the text allows for this. Again, if a text truly was divinely inspired, surely the divine being would have had it written in such a way that things were very clear, and no errors in interpretation could be made. But alas all these things are man made. My point about reformation was that as time went on, Christianity became less and less extreme in its beliefs and practices because it was forced to, and in my mind Islam is at a similar stage. In order to denounce the extremism, there needs to be a large change.
As a side commentary- I find the recent trend of saying Islam needs a Reformation rather interesting. Especially when Reformation is used as a contrast to fundamentalism as those that "adhere more strictly to the literal texts". Because the comparisons aren't so neat as all that. The popular narrative right now is that all religions begin violent, then there's some sort of moderating Reformation, and then we get some sort of nominal religion that secularists are not bothered by. But Christianity began peaceful, got violent when Roman emperors (or Frankish kings) thought it would be a neat religion to support their imperial expansion, and then muddled their way to the present. But I find it hard to make the jump to the claim that the Reformation was a time of less strict adherence to religious beliefs, when you consider a large part of the movement began as part of the Renaissance push for original texts (and in the Reformers' case, Hebrew texts.) If anything, it was a doubling down on strict adherence to the text and cutting out away tradition that had built up over time (much of it owing to syncretism and accumulated secular power over the centuries.)
I find the hope for Islam to gain the perceived desirable effects of the Reformation to be at odds with one of the driving forces of the Reformation: the emphasis on original texts and original meanings. That driving force of the historical Reformation is the very thing that people like Harris believe is the problem with Islam in the first place (fundamentalism). In all, it seems an anachronistic view of the Reformation that allows for this rather misplaced hope for Islam.
|
Pitching in on the other discussion running in the background. The greatest mischaracterization imho is the false dichotomy created by stating that the only true Islam is radical Islam. It makes about as much sense as equating all of Christianity with Westboro Baptists (or if you prefer, IRA Catholics). We clearly distinguish them as fringes who can safely be ignored, because the vast majority of Christians are not raging lunatics to want gays to be stoned, or blow up British police stations.
Now here is where people claim Islam is critically different from Christianity/Judaism, because they claim that while Christians follow the Bible and Jews the Torah, neither see the book as the literal word of God, that Muslims do claim the Koran is. They then cherrypick surahs justifying their point that only radical fundamentalists are true Muslims, because they follow the Koran (the word of God) to the letter. However, as Nebuchad has tried to point out a couple of times now, this is simply not true. Firstly, the Koran uses some flowery language, which needs interpreting, and thus you cannot say that those surahs mean that, only that, and exactly that. Secondly, there are surahs that contradict one another. For every surah (that can be interpreted as) justifying the murder of unbelievers, there are others showing multiple ways for Muslims to live peacefully side by side with unbelievers. It is prejudiced to state that only those who choose to live by the surahs preaching violence are "true muslims" and those who live by the peaceful surahs "don't take their faith seriously". And this is only talking about devout (fundamentalist) muslims, and not about the moderates who make up the vast number of muslims. They follow Islam significantly closer than most Catholics I know follow their religion, yet are the baby being thrown out with the bathwater by people like Sam Harris for the sake of making an argument. Most moderate Muslims do not eat pork, drink alcohol, and fast during Ramadan. Most Catholics I know don't even know what Lent is, let alone what you're supposed to do during it; and if they go to church at all, it's once a year, for Christmas mass. Thus most moderate Muslims make significantly more concessions for their religion (which can be interpreted as being more devout) than most Catholics, although probably when it comes down to it, they actually pray about equally as much (only in dire circumstances). Treating these people as not-real-muslims means we should throw out the vast majority of Catholics (and protestants, and probably most followers of other religions as well), leaving the crazies in charge there as well (Opus Dei for instance).
|
The U.S. Senate campaign of Rep. Donna Edwards is seeking a court order to keep late-opening Baltimore polling sites open past the 8 p.m. closing time.
Well-known Baltimore attorney William H. "Billy" Murphy Jr. went to court late Tuesday to seek the order on the campaign's behalf. A hearing is scheduled before Baltimore Circuit Judge Althea M. Handy.
A complaint filed by Murphy alleged that various polling locations in the city opened as much as an hour late. Polls had been scheduled to open at 7 a.m.
In addition to seven sites listed in the court filing, a voter reported that one was at the Waxter Senior Center on Cathedral Street. Long lines of voters waited both inside and outside the building.
The complaint alleges that a failure to extend the hours would “threaten to prevent thousands of eligible residents from effectively exercising their right to vote in violation of federal and state law.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/2016-senate-race/bal-donna-edwards-campaign-seeks-court-order-to-keep-polls-open-in-baltimore-20160426-story.html
|
The GOP races are going to be amazing.
|
I'm not particularly interested in defending everything Harris says, I just think that he catches some undue and overly reactionary criticism. This whole 'not a real/devout believer' thing is rather silly to me. I don't care if someone labels themselves devout or not. The fact is most people who are believers will tell you they are serious about it, and all of them would take offense to being told they don't take their religion seriously, whether they actually do or not. My point is just that extremists and fundamentalists are by definition more consumed with the religion, it is what makes them EXTREME. I grant that there are deeply devout people who are peaceful and by any measure upstanding people, but they aren't the ones who usually cause problems (though I would argue that as well, but I'm of the mind that all religions and supernatural beliefs are by definition bad). Take my experience with Christianity from my family. Most everyone in my family is religious. My father is a fundamentalist southern Baptist. He is so consumed with it that he never reads anything but the Bible, and it is all he can talk about. It runs his entire life. He is the type that thinks its reasonable that Obama is the anti-christ, and all the other such nonsense. He takes his beliefs 'seriously' in the sense that it infects literally every aspect of his life. The rest of my family are more moderate, they can go to work and talk about topics that have nothing to do with religion; my extremist father can't.
Another point, moderates often times foster an environment that allows for extremism to foster and spread. This is the case with Islam (and I could note some examples of Christianity in the US), while the majority might not carry out attacks or be violent, the beliefs they hold allow for those that do to exist. Again, all you have to do is look at any Muslim majority country and see what they say when polled on certain questions. By the standards of Western values they are all extreme.
EDIT: the 'they' in that last sentence being the majority of Muslims in majority Muslim countries.
|
Canada11363 Posts
Going back a few pages. I really don't know what to make of basic income. The part of me that wants to scale back work and try writing books likes it. But it seems like building a giant dependency on government that makes me nervous. I believe in social safety nets, but the entire point is to catch people when they fall so that they can become independent again. While government employs many people (or else contracts), I think it's good that no one institution controls the purse of the majority. Even if it were never abused, it just seems like such a controlling interest in people's budgets. (I think people's budgets will adjust accordingly and what was supplemental will become necessary.)
I don't know what to make of the underlying assumption: that for the first time in history automation will obsolete the need for most people's labour. In the past, specialization, technological innovations, etc have obsoleted many jobs, but human innovation has found new things to produce and sell. It seems a radical claim to say that will now end. Will it? How do we know? Is this truly a radical departure from the past, or do we simply see the future unclearly?
It would certainly be an interesting experiment that I would like some other country to try. But I am too cautious to want my country to be the guinea pig.
|
I think we'd start with guaranteed employment before doing basic income.
The need for everyone to work will end because of improved productivity; people could still work, or they could not work and still enjoy some standards simply due to how much money there is. A post-scarcity economy can become possible depending on how much people want.
|
Well we could start by making food stamps universal, and having the food stamp card double as a Voter ID.
EDIT: it worked for the Romans.
|
On April 27 2016 08:03 Falling wrote:
Going back a few pages. I really don't know what to make of basic income. The part of me that wants to scale back work and try writing books likes it. But it seems like building a giant dependency on government that makes me nervous. I believe in social safety nets, but the entire point is to catch people when they fall so that they can become independent again. While government employs many people (or else contracts), I think it's good that no one institution controls the purse of the majority. Even if it were never abused, it just seems like such a controlling interest in people's budgets. (I think people's budgets will adjust accordingly and what was supplemental will become necessary.)
I don't know what to make of the underlying assumption: that for the first time in history automation will obsolete the need for most people's labour. In the past, specialization, technological innovations, etc have obsoleted many jobs, but human innovation has found new things to produce and sell. It seems a radical claim to say that will now end. Will it? How do we know? Is this truly a radical departure from the past, or do we simply see the future unclearly?
It would certainly be an interesting experiment that I would like some other country to try. But I am too cautious to want my country to be the guinea pig.
Its more fundamental question of what equity and worth means in society. People desire having things, but with limited resources only X people get the things they want, Y people get enough of what they want to not be sad, Z people get less than what they want and are sad, and the last group are the people who are in want with not enough of anything.
Basic income is about minimizing the last group at the cost of the first group. Or, more specifically, disincentivizing progress for the sake of security.
|
Basic income will never work, the proof of that is that it supported by both the left and the right lolz.
More seriously, people don't understand labor is not only about income ; it's also the main way through which someone live and get a place in society, it is the collective participation to the creation of wealth (something we commonly cherrish way too much maybe).
Basic income is valued by liberal because they believe they will destroy politics with it ; thousands of people will effectively have the money to "live" decently so they won't be a political question anymore. It's a good way to responsabilize individuals for their situation, or at least to deresponsabilize the society. Note that most plan for a universal income goes with the end of any kind of social security : you have your money, now make your choice of consumption INDIVIDUALLY !
Just think about it from an historical standpoint : the poor laws failed because they pushed tons of people in dependancy, and the end of the poor laws pushed those dependant people in intolerable poverty - I envison the same with any kind of universal income, as the level of the income would either create inflation (and rich will ask for its end) or not be high enough, either way creating a mass of people entirely dependant on the whim of the state and virtually "useless" to our society as it thinks itself (and will those people vote ? hum... I doubt so).
Back in the middle age, the noble forced the "lazy" to achieve stupid works, like building a wall, then destroying the wall, then building the wall, thinking that the simple task had value. We'd gone from such world to world that basically see individuals (and not collectives) as consumers that are no object of politics (which is the life of the city - collective by nature, social and politics being basically synonymus, greek and latin) as long as they have the meaning to consume.
But do not worry, they will fix capitalism, and after that we will all be able to discuss what is "really political" (effectively achieving the ideal of all liberal, which is to completly isolate the economy from politics, free the market !) : gay mariage, gender troubles, migration policies, etc.
By the way about that critic on marxism I've read earlier, it's dumb or ignorant, or both. How do you finance universal income ? With taxation ... What is taxation ? Virtually a partial collectivisation of capital : taking a % of the income coming from said capital is similar to owning it to X %. You always go back to the problem of the property of the means of production, changing the words does not change that fact ; and to quote Marx : "there is only one way to kill capitalism : taxes, taxes and more taxes".
Marxism has flaws, especially in the rather weak solutions it propose to the problem it unveil, but it's not a religion, it's a ground breaking work on philosophy, economy and sociology.
Secondly, there are surahs that contradict one another. For every surah (that can be interpreted as) justifying the murder of unbelievers, there are others showing multiple ways for Muslims to live peacefully side by side with unbelievers That joke, they can live side by side with christian and jews if they pay the islamic tax. For non believers - atheist - there is salvation, as for apostate, in the shariah. A moderate islam usually interpret shariah as some kind of set of spiritual rules. Every possible muslim that takes shariah seriously as a set of law as they were a thousand years ago are just radicals and should be eliminated.
|
"Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are flip sides of the same coin. Hillary has made millions of dollars selling political influence. Donald Trump has made billions of dollars buying politicians like Hillary"
- Ted Cruz
This election tho...
|
|
|
Makes one wonder if Trump gets 100+ delegates tonight. Not only would it be a great night for him but the RNC might force Kasich to drop out.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's time to get on board the Trump train.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm pretty sure that the polls generally predicted a blowout today - let's see if the delegates agree.
|
how do they know who won so quickly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gcdIB3J.jpg)
