|
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 August 29 2013 02:58 sam!zdat wrote:
because it's impossible. You can't actually do it. Maybe very dedicated buddhists are atheists, but that's it.
you always end up worshipping SOMETHING. Religious structures of belief don't go away. The key is to be aware of what you are worshipping and make sure it is a good thing to put your faith in.
meh, a religious strucutre is not a religion, a belief is no always a religious belief. why cant atheism just describe the disbelief in any kind of religion or deities.
|
On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:If there's economic power in environmentalism, wouldn't businesses pick up on that and make money hand over fist? No, because the technology simply isn't good enough yet. There's plenty of reasons. First of all, we are rather entrenched in the system we have now. Why would companies change when what they're doing now is making lots of money now? It's not like transferring to sustainable energy is going to be cheap. That's part of the problem with the private industry, is that it's vulnerable to that kind of short-sightedness. The fact is that we've invested a shit ton of money into never ever ever switching out of fossil fuels. Which is a big reason why we have such resistance to do so. What is the alternative to fossil fuels? Here's a hint: + Show Spoiler +THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT FOSSIL FUELS DOES AT A COMPARABLE PRICE. Show nested quote +So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Show nested quote +This is still the big lie of green politics. Green energy and environmentalism is not boosting our economy, nor will it for the foreseeable future. The technology isn't there yet. Have we already forgotten about Solyndra and all he other bankrupt green companies?
There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels. None of the alternatives is as plentiful, cheap, efficient, or versatile. Oh my god, will you shut up about solyndra? Jesus fucking christ. All of environmentalism is not debunked by the word "solyndra". Bullshit simplistic thinking. We're not going to get a viable replacement for fossil fuels without goddamn trying. And fossil fuels are an assortment of technologies, so you're going to have an assortment of technologies to replace them. Fossil fuels are not the be-all, end-all of energy, and it's honestly pretty silly to pretend that it is. Fossil fuels are unquestionably the "be-all, end-all of energy" right now. Get back to me when "big solar panel" replaces "big oil."
So the West develops their economy without regard for environment. Now that the West is developed and can afford to care about the environment, you expect the developing world to slow down their own economic growth to care about the environment just as much? When the West won't share their wealth that came through their own non-regulated development? No shit the rest of the world doesn't go along with that.
|
On August 29 2013 03:06 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 02:58 sam!zdat wrote:
because it's impossible. You can't actually do it. Maybe very dedicated buddhists are atheists, but that's it.
you always end up worshipping SOMETHING. Religious structures of belief don't go away. The key is to be aware of what you are worshipping and make sure it is a good thing to put your faith in. meh, a religious strucutre is not a religion, a belief is no always a religious belief. why cant atheism just describe the disbelief in any kind of religion or deities.
fine. I don't believe any such people actually exist. I don't believe in people who don't believe in some kind of religion or deity.
what's more, people who claim to be atheists and believe it themselves are the most dangerous because that means they worship a hidden god which even they don't know about. Can't trust 'em. I like to know where a man's loyalties really lie 
|
On August 29 2013 03:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 03:06 Paljas wrote:On August 29 2013 02:58 sam!zdat wrote:
because it's impossible. You can't actually do it. Maybe very dedicated buddhists are atheists, but that's it.
you always end up worshipping SOMETHING. Religious structures of belief don't go away. The key is to be aware of what you are worshipping and make sure it is a good thing to put your faith in. meh, a religious strucutre is not a religion, a belief is no always a religious belief. why cant atheism just describe the disbelief in any kind of religion or deities. fine. I don't believe any such people actually exist. I don't believe in people who don't believe in some kind of religion or deity. what's more, people who claim to be atheists and believe it themselves are the most dangerous because that means they worship a hidden god which even they don't know about. Can't trust 'em. I like to know where a man's loyalties really lie
thats strange. because i am not dangerous at all.
|
debbie don't talk about the profligacy of past societies there has never been a society anything like ours and you know that perfectly well.
I know perfectly well that you're wrong, societies always have and always will consume up to or past their ability to produce. Sometimes that ability is internally constrained, sometimes externally constrained, but modern society as uniquely rapacious in consumption is nonsense.
you guys responded to accusations of messianism by saying 'no, but OUR messiah is real, it's the historical record!' you ARE believers in the cult of technological progress, don't try to deny it.
Human technological progress is as assured as the sun coming up tomorrow. It's an evolutionary system that can't be stopped, again don't hate the train for existing get on it for the ride samipanda
I have no problem with the idea of original sin. I think about original sin a great deal. My family is rich because of oil, and that's how I have money to study and learn about how oil is dooming us all. If that's not original sin I don't know what is.
Oil would have to not be one of the prime factors in the incredible progress made by the human race in life expectancy, technology, and quality of life before it dooms us all.
And samipanda if you think you're chock full of extra-bad capitalist original sin because your family made oil money back in the day... I can't think of something more frivolous to have such a moral quandary over.
When the West won't share their wealth that came through their own non-regulated development?
how many trillions of dollars has the West given to the undeveloped world over the last 50 years again? hint: it is not a small number of trillions.
|
On August 29 2013 03:06 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:On August 28 2013 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:If there's economic power in environmentalism, wouldn't businesses pick up on that and make money hand over fist? No, because the technology simply isn't good enough yet. There's plenty of reasons. First of all, we are rather entrenched in the system we have now. Why would companies change when what they're doing now is making lots of money now? It's not like transferring to sustainable energy is going to be cheap. That's part of the problem with the private industry, is that it's vulnerable to that kind of short-sightedness. The fact is that we've invested a shit ton of money into never ever ever switching out of fossil fuels. Which is a big reason why we have such resistance to do so. What is the alternative to fossil fuels? Here's a hint: + Show Spoiler +THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT FOSSIL FUELS DOES AT A COMPARABLE PRICE. So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). This is still the big lie of green politics. Green energy and environmentalism is not boosting our economy, nor will it for the foreseeable future. The technology isn't there yet. Have we already forgotten about Solyndra and all he other bankrupt green companies?
There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels. None of the alternatives is as plentiful, cheap, efficient, or versatile. Oh my god, will you shut up about solyndra? Jesus fucking christ. All of environmentalism is not debunked by the word "solyndra". Bullshit simplistic thinking. We're not going to get a viable replacement for fossil fuels without goddamn trying. And fossil fuels are an assortment of technologies, so you're going to have an assortment of technologies to replace them. Fossil fuels are not the be-all, end-all of energy, and it's honestly pretty silly to pretend that it is. Fossil fuels are unquestionably the "be-all, end-all of energy" right now. Get back to me when "big solar panel" replaces "big oil." So the West develops their economy without regard for environment. Now that the West is developed and can afford to care about the environment, you expect the developing world to slow down their own economic growth to care about the environment just as much? When the West won't share their wealth that came through their own non-regulated development? No shit the rest of the world doesn't go along with that.
You have a fair point, but I think you should moderate it a bit. The West does share it's wealth and technology via aid, trade and investment. The developing world is developing very fast (faster than the West developed) because of this. It's also not strictly a bad thing to encourage other countries to not make all the mistakes the West made.
|
debbie our aid to the 3rd world does more harm than good. It just sustains population explosions and corruption. Our aid is about the cold war, not the well being of the 3rd world.
|
On August 29 2013 03:39 sam!zdat wrote:
debbie our aid to the 3rd world does more harm than good. It just sustains population explosions and corruption. Our aid is about the cold war, not the well being of the 3rd world.
I'll never understand why the U.S. gives so much money to countries that hate our guts. I mean I know its a form of control or whatever, akin to maybe a parent taking away your allowance if you act up.
|
On August 29 2013 03:39 sam!zdat wrote:
debbie our aid to the 3rd world does more harm than good. It just sustains population explosions and corruption. Our aid is about the cold war, not the well being of the 3rd world.
That's a good joke samipanda but clearly you need to go consult the holy book and get some better boilerplate responses.
|
it's a legacy of the cold war and our desire to contain soviet influence. By giving aid you can control social instability in a limited fashion to weaken the left and also set up client states (because a lot of the aid goes to graft). Aalso they use the money to buy us weapons, so it's also about creating new markets for the us arms industry. We complain about instability in the middle east, but basically all we do is pump arms into the region. Gee... Instability?? We are such fools
|
On August 29 2013 03:39 sam!zdat wrote:
debbie our aid to the 3rd world does more harm than good. It just sustains population explosions and corruption. Our aid is about the cold war, not the well being of the 3rd world.
I'm not sure that I agree that our aid does more harm than good. However, I am under no delusions that the primary purpose of our aid isn't humanitarian. We're looking to buy influence, plain and simple.
|
On August 29 2013 03:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 03:06 Paljas wrote:On August 29 2013 02:58 sam!zdat wrote:
because it's impossible. You can't actually do it. Maybe very dedicated buddhists are atheists, but that's it.
you always end up worshipping SOMETHING. Religious structures of belief don't go away. The key is to be aware of what you are worshipping and make sure it is a good thing to put your faith in. meh, a religious strucutre is not a religion, a belief is no always a religious belief. why cant atheism just describe the disbelief in any kind of religion or deities. fine. I don't believe any such people actually exist. I don't believe in people who don't believe in some kind of religion or deity. what's more, people who claim to be atheists and believe it themselves are the most dangerous because that means they worship a hidden god which even they don't know about. Can't trust 'em. I like to know where a man's loyalties really lie
You're basically fully admitting projection here. Why do you believe this? You're professing a strong belief right here, but my guess is the only evidence you have is anecdotal and your internal biases. No, you don't have to worship things.
Just because I reject certain silliness doesn't mean I replace it with other silliness. That's silly, and therefore I reject it.
And sam, you're really hurting my "environmentalists aren't just a bunch of vegan hippie stoners" thing.
|
right, I'm saying I don't believe you when you say that anymore than I believe some christian who talks about his Heavenly Daddy. I don't believe that you don't worship anything because I think that is an exceedingly difficult thing to which almost nobody attains.
if you're looking for someone to apologize for the counterculture, you'll have to find some other hippie stoner (im not vegan). The counterculture is the only worthwhile culture this country has produced, I've no interest in conforming to your bourgeois sensibilities 
|
On August 29 2013 03:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 03:39 sam!zdat wrote:
debbie our aid to the 3rd world does more harm than good. It just sustains population explosions and corruption. Our aid is about the cold war, not the well being of the 3rd world. I'm not sure that I agree that our aid does more harm than good. However, I am under no delusions that the primary purpose of our aid isn't humanitarian. We're looking to buy influence, plain and simple.
There's a difference between government-to-government aid and general humanitarian aid or disaster relief, I'm a cynical fellow but not adding things into your equation like the relief effort after the Boxing Day Tsunami or AIDS aid to Africa is a bridge too far for me. "We're looking to buy influence" or "it's to weaken a country's Left and counter the Soviet Union" is too much of a simplification.
And anyway samipanda not our fault that the USSR was incompetent in trying to counter our influence buying and left-weakening. Take up your beef with Prophets Marx and Engels, they devised the principles that proved themselves not exactly conducive to competent governing or ideological struggling.
if you're looking for someone to apologize for the counterculture, you'll have to find some other hippie stoner (im not vegan). The counterculture is the only worthwhile culture this country has produced, I've no interest in conforming to your bourgeois sensibilities
A bunch of incompetents who were incompetent at literally every single thing they did including personal hygiene (okay that's a low blow) produced the only worthwhile culture this country has ever seen.
Welp I'll just say some dirty wook breaking into my RV at Bonnaroo and asking me if I can kick down some schwills and grilled cheese sandwiches and some heddy nuggz brah is not a culture to me that has any worth. I'll stick with my bourgeois sensibilities that made the incompetent counterculture possible.
Samipanda have you ever analyzed how the things you believe in breed incompetence the way a dead horse breeds maggots?
|
On August 29 2013 04:04 sam!zdat wrote:right, I'm saying I don't believe you when you say that anymore than I believe some christian who talks about his Heavenly Daddy. I don't believe that you don't worship anything because I think that is an exceedingly difficult thing to which almost nobody attains. if you're looking for someone to apologize for the counterculture, you'll have to find some other hippie stoner (im not vegan). The counterculture is the only worthwhile culture this country has produced, I've no interest in conforming to your bourgeois sensibilities
Yea but the only reason you don't believe me is because you're projecting. I am not you. Just because something is difficult for you doesn't mean it is difficult for me.
Try making the claim empirical. How could you possibly tell the difference between me being genuine or me lying?
|
On August 29 2013 03:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:
how many trillions of dollars has the West given to the undeveloped world over the last 50 years again? hint: it is not a small number of trillions.
Well what's small is the effect. We (both Europe and the US) are just paying enough money so that we don't feel too bad. Our agricultural subsidies are effectively stopping 3rd world countries form developing some kind economy.
|
Reading Sammy's posts here and the Reading thread, I feel like he was away at some reeducation camp and came back even more radical than before.
|
On August 29 2013 02:58 sam!zdat wrote:
because it's impossible. You can't actually do it. Maybe very dedicated buddhists are atheists, but that's it.
you always end up worshipping SOMETHING. Religious structures of belief don't go away. The key is to be aware of what you are worshipping and make sure it is a good thing to put your faith in.
isn't this statement just a "my one truth must be accepted by you all, and I won't accept any challenges to it"?
In REAL news...(not Debbie vs Samipanda nonsense)
Iran wants to sue the US over 1953 coup
Iran's parliament has given preliminary approval to a bill requiring the government to sue the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected prime minister.
The bill follows the release of newly declassified documents offering more details of how the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh 60 years ago.
It calls for setting up a committee to study the issue and provide a report within six months before legal action is launched against the US government in an international court.
Of 196 lawmakers attending Wednesday's session of parliament, 167 voted in favour of the bill while five opposed it. The session was broadcast live on state radio.
The coup restored the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He was overthrown in the 1979 Iranian revolution.
'Oppressive behaviour'
Lawmaker Mahdi Mousavinejad said Iran should take legal action and make the US take responsibility for its actions.
"America's oppressive behaviour shows that the Iranian nation has to stand up and pursue its trampled rights," he said.
But Mohammad Mahdi Rahbari, another lawmaker, opposed the bill, saying it would not bring anything tangible for Iran.
"Pursuing this bill has no benefits for our country. It will waste the parliament's time," he said.
Lawmakers said the documents prove that the US has a history of bad intentions towards Iran and that the admission was sufficient evidence to get compensation.
In a document revealed earlier this month titled "The Battle for Iran", the CIA reveals the coup plan was called "Operation TPAJAX".
The US cut off diplomatic relations with Iran after students stormed the US embassy in Tehran to protest against Washington's refusal to hand over the toppled shah back to Iran for trial.
Source
|
On August 29 2013 05:22 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 02:58 sam!zdat wrote:
because it's impossible. You can't actually do it. Maybe very dedicated buddhists are atheists, but that's it.
you always end up worshipping SOMETHING. Religious structures of belief don't go away. The key is to be aware of what you are worshipping and make sure it is a good thing to put your faith in. isn't this statement just a "my one truth must be accepted by you all, and I won't accept any challenges to it"? In REAL news...(not Debbie vs Samipanda nonsense) Iran wants to sue the US over 1953 coup Show nested quote +Iran's parliament has given preliminary approval to a bill requiring the government to sue the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected prime minister.
The bill follows the release of newly declassified documents offering more details of how the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh 60 years ago.
It calls for setting up a committee to study the issue and provide a report within six months before legal action is launched against the US government in an international court.
Of 196 lawmakers attending Wednesday's session of parliament, 167 voted in favour of the bill while five opposed it. The session was broadcast live on state radio.
The coup restored the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He was overthrown in the 1979 Iranian revolution.
'Oppressive behaviour'
Lawmaker Mahdi Mousavinejad said Iran should take legal action and make the US take responsibility for its actions.
"America's oppressive behaviour shows that the Iranian nation has to stand up and pursue its trampled rights," he said.
But Mohammad Mahdi Rahbari, another lawmaker, opposed the bill, saying it would not bring anything tangible for Iran.
"Pursuing this bill has no benefits for our country. It will waste the parliament's time," he said.
Lawmakers said the documents prove that the US has a history of bad intentions towards Iran and that the admission was sufficient evidence to get compensation.
In a document revealed earlier this month titled "The Battle for Iran", the CIA reveals the coup plan was called "Operation TPAJAX".
The US cut off diplomatic relations with Iran after students stormed the US embassy in Tehran to protest against Washington's refusal to hand over the toppled shah back to Iran for trial. Source
The most they can do is attempt to take the case to the International Court of Justice, but the ICJ only judges cases if both coutries agree to it. Trying to get something done through international law in this case seems like a very silly move.
|
WASHINGTON -- Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D) on Wednesday morning announced an ambitious plan to reform the criminal justice system, promising to make it his focus if he wins a U.S. Senate seat in October.
"One of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars in our society today can be found in a criminal justice system in serious need in reform," Booker writes in a report released Wednesday. "As mayor of Newark, I have watched as my police arrest, re-arrest, and then re-arrest again, sending the same person for another trip through a revolving door system that not only largely fails to rehabilitate, but too often makes reoffending commonplace and most definitely is not helping to make our communities safer."
Some of the reforms Booker is advocating: - Step up the national conversation on decriminalizing marijuana.
- Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders.
- Eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.
- Increase federal funding for drug and community courts that divert low-level drug offenders from prison.
- Work to end the use of private prisons.
- Help inmates and their families maintain functional relationships, by making phone calls financially accessible, providing domestic abuse and counseling classes and working to incarcerate inmates in facilities as close to their families as possible.
- Pass the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013 to restore federal voting rights to the formerly incarcerated.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
