|
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. |
United States42794 Posts
On January 13 2014 05:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:33 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:43 Doublemint wrote:On January 13 2014 04:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 03:58 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 03:38 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Fascinating to think that the world's science powerhouse, that has brought us iPhones, space shuttles and sent men on the moon has only 15% of its population really believing in science, and 45% of its population holding on absolutely medieval beliefs.
I wouldn't like being a 35th century's archeologist trying to understand that country in the XXth and XXIst century. It's going to be a giant mindfuck for future observers. You do realize you can cherry pick your beliefs, right? Someone who's religious can understand the science perfectly fine but choose not to roll with that in their personal lives. Sure, and someone could be an airline pilot professionally and choose to deny that gravity exists in their private life but at a certain point it's reasonable to expect someone to pick beliefs that conform with reality. While I accept that someone can choose to disbelieve in evolution, gravity, left (I heard it's just right in a mirror) or any number of other silly things people should be held accountable for their beliefs. If they choose to believe really dumb shit then they're probably just really dumb. You're waling a fine line between making on obvious point and being a bigot. Evolution is a scientific fact and people who don't understand that are either willfully ignorant or just stupid. Now I'm not saying all religious people are stupid, most have been smart enough to get around the obvious cognitive dissonance caused by being an intelligent individual trying to hold a belief they know is wrong and settled on God having a passive background role in the process. But those that have declined to take the out given to them by God guided evolution should merit a special type of contempt usually reserved for flat earthers and adults who still believe in Santa. Again, we don't put up with this shit regarding gravity. If someone just flatly insisted that things didn't fall when dropped on earth you'd seek a diagnosis for them. Hell, even if people argued that while things do fall it's only because an invisible, all powerful and all knowing being that loved them was everywhere at once dragging them about you'd still think that was pretty dumb. Evolution gets a special pass for this bullshit in America, and only in America, because the mass delusion has taken hold so deeply that people don't get called out on it enough. Other crazy shit is rightfully dismissed but doubting evolution, despite being no less crazy, has a critical mass that makes it acceptable and it won't change until people start challenging it. Tolerance, Kwark. If there's one thing Europeans should know by now, it's that tolerance has value. And you as American should know that political correctness is the scourge of our time  Tolerance isn't the same as PC  On January 13 2014 05:15 FallenStar wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:30 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:09 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm not saying we should put them into camps and gas them, I'm saying it shouldn't be socially acceptable to believe something so stupid and that it already isn't in the case of every other clearly ridiculous belief. It's not that Americans don't feel the same way as Europeans regarding idiocy, you wouldn't employ someone who came to a job interview with his shoes on the wrong feet and then told you he believed in his heart that both feet are the same shape, it's that disbelief in evolution has somehow been grandfathered in as a special exemption to the social conventions against being a moron. In America it's generally considered bad form to hate on someone over religious / cultural differences. Frankly, intolerance of this sort seems extremely moronic to me and I can't imagine you having an easy time getting hired if you wear these views on your sleeve. Believing really dumb shit should be a thing you're ashamed of. It's not a religious or cultural difference, it's a choice. If I don't hire you because you've got an Arabic name then I'm discriminating against you because of your culture. If I don't hire you because you couldn't work out how to get into the building because you're choosing not to believe in doors today then I'm discriminating against your stupidity. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated the same way. A lot of Americans believe in their heart that Obama is disqualified from being President for being a Kenyan but it doesn't count for shit when they try to ignore his laws because Americans, like the rest of the world, don't let stupid beliefs overrule reality. It's only evolution that gets a free pass. If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. So, if a group of people believe in something stupid, it's reasonable to accept their beliefs if that group is big enough? It depends. Are the stupid beliefs causing anyone harm? If not, let it go. I don't think we need more wars, hate crimes and mass exoduses over religion, ethnicity, etc. But you agreed flat earthers are dumb, even though they do no harm. Again, I'm not suggesting genocide, I'm suggesting challenging dumb beliefs. I've never run into a flat Earther. Nor have I ever heard of hate crimes or wars or hostile work environments against flat Earthers.
So a belief is not assessed on its merit now but instead on the degree to which the group of believers has been oppressed?
Your argument is changing too quickly for me to nail it down here.
|
On January 13 2014 05:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:29 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:15 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:30 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
In America it's generally considered bad form to hate on someone over religious / cultural differences. Frankly, intolerance of this sort seems extremely moronic to me and I can't imagine you having an easy time getting hired if you wear these views on your sleeve. Believing really dumb shit should be a thing you're ashamed of. It's not a religious or cultural difference, it's a choice. If I don't hire you because you've got an Arabic name then I'm discriminating against you because of your culture. If I don't hire you because you couldn't work out how to get into the building because you're choosing not to believe in doors today then I'm discriminating against your stupidity. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated the same way. A lot of Americans believe in their heart that Obama is disqualified from being President for being a Kenyan but it doesn't count for shit when they try to ignore his laws because Americans, like the rest of the world, don't let stupid beliefs overrule reality. It's only evolution that gets a free pass. If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. Why do beliefs need a God in order to deserve tolerance and protection? Is there some kind of line here, like if I believe God told me the earth is flat I'm in the clear but if a titan told me then it's a bit questionable and if a pixie told me then I don't get any credit? What about religions with multiple Gods, do their delusions get extra tolerance on account of having more religion backing it up? Surely a system where beliefs are either respected and treated with tolerant acceptance or judged on their merits would be simpler than trying to quantify the degree to which the belief is religious or cultural. Although this is all somewhat moot because you've already agreed with my core point that flat earthers are dumb. I didn't say that God or religion was a prerequisite for tolerance. And I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a closed minded bigot. Your reply said that as they didn't qualify for some kind of religious or cultural excuse for delusion then you'd conclude they were dumb. Why religion or culture excuses it is a fair question and if you maintain that they do then you will need to establish a line. Or just go refuse to talk about it. That too. It's a little childish but these are difficult questions. I pointed out religion because we've been talking about belief in evolution... a topic that involves both science and religion. Are you really too stupid to make that connection on your own? So if flat earthism was a scientific claim with a religious source then you'd accept it? Just trying to work out exactly what you're arguing here.
I'm arguing that you shouldn't treat people like shit just because that have different religious / cultural values than you.
And wow, the fact that I still have to say these things in 2014...
|
On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:30 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:09 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 03:58 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 03:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 03:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Sure, and someone could be an airline pilot professionally and choose to deny that gravity exists in their private life but at a certain point it's reasonable to expect someone to pick beliefs that conform with reality. While I accept that someone can choose to disbelieve in evolution, gravity, left (I heard it's just right in a mirror) or any number of other silly things people should be held accountable for their beliefs. If they choose to believe really dumb shit then they're probably just really dumb. You're waling a fine line between making on obvious point and being a bigot. Evolution is a scientific fact and people who don't understand that are either willfully ignorant or just stupid. Now I'm not saying all religious people are stupid, most have been smart enough to get around the obvious cognitive dissonance caused by being an intelligent individual trying to hold a belief they know is wrong and settled on God having a passive background role in the process. But those that have declined to take the out given to them by God guided evolution should merit a special type of contempt usually reserved for flat earthers and adults who still believe in Santa. Again, we don't put up with this shit regarding gravity. If someone just flatly insisted that things didn't fall when dropped on earth you'd seek a diagnosis for them. Hell, even if people argued that while things do fall it's only because an invisible, all powerful and all knowing being that loved them was everywhere at once dragging them about you'd still think that was pretty dumb. Evolution gets a special pass for this bullshit in America, and only in America, because the mass delusion has taken hold so deeply that people don't get called out on it enough. Other crazy shit is rightfully dismissed but doubting evolution, despite being no less crazy, has a critical mass that makes it acceptable and it won't change until people start challenging it. Tolerance, Kwark. If there's one thing Europeans should know by now, it's that tolerance has value. I'm not saying we should put them into camps and gas them, I'm saying it shouldn't be socially acceptable to believe something so stupid and that it already isn't in the case of every other clearly ridiculous belief. It's not that Americans don't feel the same way as Europeans regarding idiocy, you wouldn't employ someone who came to a job interview with his shoes on the wrong feet and then told you he believed in his heart that both feet are the same shape, it's that disbelief in evolution has somehow been grandfathered in as a special exemption to the social conventions against being a moron. In America it's generally considered bad form to hate on someone over religious / cultural differences. Frankly, intolerance of this sort seems extremely moronic to me and I can't imagine you having an easy time getting hired if you wear these views on your sleeve. Believing really dumb shit should be a thing you're ashamed of. It's not a religious or cultural difference, it's a choice. If I don't hire you because you've got an Arabic name then I'm discriminating against you because of your culture. If I don't hire you because you couldn't work out how to get into the building because you're choosing not to believe in doors today then I'm discriminating against your stupidity. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated the same way. A lot of Americans believe in their heart that Obama is disqualified from being President for being a Kenyan but it doesn't count for shit when they try to ignore his laws because Americans, like the rest of the world, don't let stupid beliefs overrule reality. It's only evolution that gets a free pass. If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point.
A flat earth is a part of the cosmology presented in the Bible.
|
United States42794 Posts
On January 13 2014 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:36 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:29 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:15 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Believing really dumb shit should be a thing you're ashamed of. It's not a religious or cultural difference, it's a choice. If I don't hire you because you've got an Arabic name then I'm discriminating against you because of your culture. If I don't hire you because you couldn't work out how to get into the building because you're choosing not to believe in doors today then I'm discriminating against your stupidity. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated the same way.
A lot of Americans believe in their heart that Obama is disqualified from being President for being a Kenyan but it doesn't count for shit when they try to ignore his laws because Americans, like the rest of the world, don't let stupid beliefs overrule reality. It's only evolution that gets a free pass. If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. Why do beliefs need a God in order to deserve tolerance and protection? Is there some kind of line here, like if I believe God told me the earth is flat I'm in the clear but if a titan told me then it's a bit questionable and if a pixie told me then I don't get any credit? What about religions with multiple Gods, do their delusions get extra tolerance on account of having more religion backing it up? Surely a system where beliefs are either respected and treated with tolerant acceptance or judged on their merits would be simpler than trying to quantify the degree to which the belief is religious or cultural. Although this is all somewhat moot because you've already agreed with my core point that flat earthers are dumb. I didn't say that God or religion was a prerequisite for tolerance. And I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a closed minded bigot. Your reply said that as they didn't qualify for some kind of religious or cultural excuse for delusion then you'd conclude they were dumb. Why religion or culture excuses it is a fair question and if you maintain that they do then you will need to establish a line. Or just go refuse to talk about it. That too. It's a little childish but these are difficult questions. I pointed out religion because we've been talking about belief in evolution... a topic that involves both science and religion. Are you really too stupid to make that connection on your own? So if flat earthism was a scientific claim with a religious source then you'd accept it? Just trying to work out exactly what you're arguing here. I'm arguing that you shouldn't treat people like shit just because that have different religious / cultural values than you. And wow, the fact that I still have to say these things in 2014...
The fact that scientific facts still have to take a back seat to delusions in 2014 is as appalling to me as that is to you.
Again, if a group of people made the scientific claim that the earth was flat for religious reasons would you accept that as a reasonable thing to claim or would you judge them for it? Note that you have already said you would judge them as being dumb before I added the religious reasons so this really comes down to whether it's better if you believe it because of God or if the belief is judged equally regardless.
|
On January 13 2014 05:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:15 FallenStar wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:30 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:09 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 03:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Evolution is a scientific fact and people who don't understand that are either willfully ignorant or just stupid. Now I'm not saying all religious people are stupid, most have been smart enough to get around the obvious cognitive dissonance caused by being an intelligent individual trying to hold a belief they know is wrong and settled on God having a passive background role in the process. But those that have declined to take the out given to them by God guided evolution should merit a special type of contempt usually reserved for flat earthers and adults who still believe in Santa.
Again, we don't put up with this shit regarding gravity. If someone just flatly insisted that things didn't fall when dropped on earth you'd seek a diagnosis for them. Hell, even if people argued that while things do fall it's only because an invisible, all powerful and all knowing being that loved them was everywhere at once dragging them about you'd still think that was pretty dumb. Evolution gets a special pass for this bullshit in America, and only in America, because the mass delusion has taken hold so deeply that people don't get called out on it enough. Other crazy shit is rightfully dismissed but doubting evolution, despite being no less crazy, has a critical mass that makes it acceptable and it won't change until people start challenging it. Tolerance, Kwark. If there's one thing Europeans should know by now, it's that tolerance has value. I'm not saying we should put them into camps and gas them, I'm saying it shouldn't be socially acceptable to believe something so stupid and that it already isn't in the case of every other clearly ridiculous belief. It's not that Americans don't feel the same way as Europeans regarding idiocy, you wouldn't employ someone who came to a job interview with his shoes on the wrong feet and then told you he believed in his heart that both feet are the same shape, it's that disbelief in evolution has somehow been grandfathered in as a special exemption to the social conventions against being a moron. In America it's generally considered bad form to hate on someone over religious / cultural differences. Frankly, intolerance of this sort seems extremely moronic to me and I can't imagine you having an easy time getting hired if you wear these views on your sleeve. Believing really dumb shit should be a thing you're ashamed of. It's not a religious or cultural difference, it's a choice. If I don't hire you because you've got an Arabic name then I'm discriminating against you because of your culture. If I don't hire you because you couldn't work out how to get into the building because you're choosing not to believe in doors today then I'm discriminating against your stupidity. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated the same way. A lot of Americans believe in their heart that Obama is disqualified from being President for being a Kenyan but it doesn't count for shit when they try to ignore his laws because Americans, like the rest of the world, don't let stupid beliefs overrule reality. It's only evolution that gets a free pass. If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. So, if a group of people believe in something stupid, it's reasonable to accept their beliefs if that group is big enough? It depends. Are the stupid beliefs causing anyone harm? If not, let it go. I don't think we need more wars, hate crimes and mass exoduses over religion, ethnicity, etc.
Imagine I tell you that I firmly believe the Earth is flat, and that every picture of Earth from space and every proof that dismisses my belief is a scam. Wouldn't you tell me I'm stupid?
Now, imagine I convince a bunch of people, let's say 100. We all believe what I explained earlier. Would you tell us we're stupid?
I'm not advocating for hate crimes or anything, but come on, you'd think we're just a bunch of crazy people. What's wrong with telling us we're dumb and stupid? Any reason I can think of could be applied in the case of me being the only one believing it. Why is it reasonable if I have a bunch of friends that agree with me, and not if I'm on my own?
On January 13 2014 05:37 Roe wrote:Guys I think we're pushing Johnny B Noho to DEB levels 
Why do you say this? (it's an honest question).
Edit: Minor corrections.
|
On January 13 2014 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:36 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:29 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:15 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Believing really dumb shit should be a thing you're ashamed of. It's not a religious or cultural difference, it's a choice. If I don't hire you because you've got an Arabic name then I'm discriminating against you because of your culture. If I don't hire you because you couldn't work out how to get into the building because you're choosing not to believe in doors today then I'm discriminating against your stupidity. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated the same way.
A lot of Americans believe in their heart that Obama is disqualified from being President for being a Kenyan but it doesn't count for shit when they try to ignore his laws because Americans, like the rest of the world, don't let stupid beliefs overrule reality. It's only evolution that gets a free pass. If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. Why do beliefs need a God in order to deserve tolerance and protection? Is there some kind of line here, like if I believe God told me the earth is flat I'm in the clear but if a titan told me then it's a bit questionable and if a pixie told me then I don't get any credit? What about religions with multiple Gods, do their delusions get extra tolerance on account of having more religion backing it up? Surely a system where beliefs are either respected and treated with tolerant acceptance or judged on their merits would be simpler than trying to quantify the degree to which the belief is religious or cultural. Although this is all somewhat moot because you've already agreed with my core point that flat earthers are dumb. I didn't say that God or religion was a prerequisite for tolerance. And I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a closed minded bigot. Your reply said that as they didn't qualify for some kind of religious or cultural excuse for delusion then you'd conclude they were dumb. Why religion or culture excuses it is a fair question and if you maintain that they do then you will need to establish a line. Or just go refuse to talk about it. That too. It's a little childish but these are difficult questions. I pointed out religion because we've been talking about belief in evolution... a topic that involves both science and religion. Are you really too stupid to make that connection on your own? So if flat earthism was a scientific claim with a religious source then you'd accept it? Just trying to work out exactly what you're arguing here. I'm arguing that you shouldn't treat people like shit just because that have different religious / cultural values than you. And wow, the fact that I still have to say these things in 2014...
When did he say he would treat people like shit just because their values are different? I'm pretty sure he was arguing against the content of those values, not the fact that they are different.
|
On January 13 2014 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 14:46 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year. That can be true, but even if you got rid of all regulations (I doubt we'd want to!) large businesses would still have advantages at times that society would want to keep. If you look at the current situation in the US some industries are dominated by large firms, some by small firms and most are a mix. Regulations play a role in that, but it's rarely the dominant factor.
Of course. It's hard to imagine a mom and pop cell phone provider, for example. There are plenty of industries that it's really only feasible to enter as a major player.
|
On January 13 2014 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:36 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:29 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:15 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Believing really dumb shit should be a thing you're ashamed of. It's not a religious or cultural difference, it's a choice. If I don't hire you because you've got an Arabic name then I'm discriminating against you because of your culture. If I don't hire you because you couldn't work out how to get into the building because you're choosing not to believe in doors today then I'm discriminating against your stupidity. They're not the same thing and shouldn't be treated the same way.
A lot of Americans believe in their heart that Obama is disqualified from being President for being a Kenyan but it doesn't count for shit when they try to ignore his laws because Americans, like the rest of the world, don't let stupid beliefs overrule reality. It's only evolution that gets a free pass. If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. Why do beliefs need a God in order to deserve tolerance and protection? Is there some kind of line here, like if I believe God told me the earth is flat I'm in the clear but if a titan told me then it's a bit questionable and if a pixie told me then I don't get any credit? What about religions with multiple Gods, do their delusions get extra tolerance on account of having more religion backing it up? Surely a system where beliefs are either respected and treated with tolerant acceptance or judged on their merits would be simpler than trying to quantify the degree to which the belief is religious or cultural. Although this is all somewhat moot because you've already agreed with my core point that flat earthers are dumb. I didn't say that God or religion was a prerequisite for tolerance. And I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a closed minded bigot. Your reply said that as they didn't qualify for some kind of religious or cultural excuse for delusion then you'd conclude they were dumb. Why religion or culture excuses it is a fair question and if you maintain that they do then you will need to establish a line. Or just go refuse to talk about it. That too. It's a little childish but these are difficult questions. I pointed out religion because we've been talking about belief in evolution... a topic that involves both science and religion. Are you really too stupid to make that connection on your own? So if flat earthism was a scientific claim with a religious source then you'd accept it? Just trying to work out exactly what you're arguing here. I'm arguing that you shouldn't treat people like shit just because that have different religious / cultural values than you. And wow, the fact that I still have to say these things in 2014...
You just don't seem to get it.
Denying evolution is not a religious/cultural trait. It is an intellectual failing.
If I'm hiring someone and they start professing about their denial of evolution, then, if all other things are equal with other candidates, I'm going to not hire the evolution denier. Why? Because if you deny evolution, you're intellectual capabilities and competence are put into question. It's not discriminating against religious/cultural beliefs, and to claim so is idiotic.
|
On January 13 2014 05:54 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 14:46 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year. That can be true, but even if you got rid of all regulations (I doubt we'd want to!) large businesses would still have advantages at times that society would want to keep. If you look at the current situation in the US some industries are dominated by large firms, some by small firms and most are a mix. Regulations play a role in that, but it's rarely the dominant factor. Of course. It's hard to imagine a mom and pop cell phone provider, for example. There are plenty of industries that it's really only feasible to enter as a major player.
yep. everything should be a locally owned business, except things which can't be, which should be nationalized
|
On January 13 2014 05:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:36 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:29 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:15 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. Why do beliefs need a God in order to deserve tolerance and protection? Is there some kind of line here, like if I believe God told me the earth is flat I'm in the clear but if a titan told me then it's a bit questionable and if a pixie told me then I don't get any credit? What about religions with multiple Gods, do their delusions get extra tolerance on account of having more religion backing it up? Surely a system where beliefs are either respected and treated with tolerant acceptance or judged on their merits would be simpler than trying to quantify the degree to which the belief is religious or cultural. Although this is all somewhat moot because you've already agreed with my core point that flat earthers are dumb. I didn't say that God or religion was a prerequisite for tolerance. And I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a closed minded bigot. Your reply said that as they didn't qualify for some kind of religious or cultural excuse for delusion then you'd conclude they were dumb. Why religion or culture excuses it is a fair question and if you maintain that they do then you will need to establish a line. Or just go refuse to talk about it. That too. It's a little childish but these are difficult questions. I pointed out religion because we've been talking about belief in evolution... a topic that involves both science and religion. Are you really too stupid to make that connection on your own? So if flat earthism was a scientific claim with a religious source then you'd accept it? Just trying to work out exactly what you're arguing here. I'm arguing that you shouldn't treat people like shit just because that have different religious / cultural values than you. And wow, the fact that I still have to say these things in 2014... The fact that scientific facts still have to take a back seat to delusions in 2014 is as appalling to me as that is to you. Again, if a group of people made the scientific claim that the earth was flat for religious reasons would you accept that as a reasonable thing to claim or would you judge them for it? Note that you have already said you would judge them as being dumb before I added the religious reasons so this really comes down to whether it's better if you believe it because of God or if the belief is judged equally regardless.
I personally don't view things like a belief in a flat Earth or Creationism positively. I'm not a religious person myself and so those views aren't for me. However, I try not to hold things like that against people. Ultimately, getting along with others is far more important than whether or not the person serving me lunch believes in evolution or not.
|
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Frustration is mounting for many of the 300,000 West Virginia residents who've gone three days without clean tap water.
Chris Laws found bottled water on Saturday for his two elderly next-door neighbors.
"They can't get out," said Laws, 42, of Marmet, a coal miner. "I'm keeping an eye on them. You got to watch out for your neighbors. They're the ones who are going to watch out for you."
He said he was angry at the company at the center of the leak, Freedom Industries.
"A lot of people are facing bad situations because of this," he said. "They're struggling. What I don't understand is how did this happen?"
The emergency began Thursday following complaints to West Virginia American Water about a licorice-type odor in the tap water. The source: the chemical 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, which had leaked out of a 40,000-gallon tank at a Freedom Industries facility along the Elk River.
State officials said Saturday they believe about 7,500 gallons leaked. Some of the chemical was contained before flowing into the river; it's not clear exactly how much entered the water supply.
It could take days for clean tap water to flow again. First, water sample test results must consistently show that the chemical's presence in the public water system is at or below 1 parts per million, the level recommended by federal agencies, West Virginia American Water President Jeff McIntyre said Saturday at a news conference.
Source
|
On January 13 2014 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:36 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:29 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:15 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 04:39 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
If you can't understand the difference between someone dis-believing in evolution on religious grounds and someone not being able to figure out how a door works, you are, without a doubt, stupid. But let's take a real example, flat earthers. Would you judge a flat earther as being as intelligent as someone who believed the earth was round given no other information? I don't know of any special religious or cultural belief that would make someone believe in a flat Earth. So, yes, I'd think less of that person's intelligence. However, it's not usually a good idea to draw conclusions about people based on one data point. Why do beliefs need a God in order to deserve tolerance and protection? Is there some kind of line here, like if I believe God told me the earth is flat I'm in the clear but if a titan told me then it's a bit questionable and if a pixie told me then I don't get any credit? What about religions with multiple Gods, do their delusions get extra tolerance on account of having more religion backing it up? Surely a system where beliefs are either respected and treated with tolerant acceptance or judged on their merits would be simpler than trying to quantify the degree to which the belief is religious or cultural. Although this is all somewhat moot because you've already agreed with my core point that flat earthers are dumb. I didn't say that God or religion was a prerequisite for tolerance. And I'm not going to waste any more time talking to a closed minded bigot. Your reply said that as they didn't qualify for some kind of religious or cultural excuse for delusion then you'd conclude they were dumb. Why religion or culture excuses it is a fair question and if you maintain that they do then you will need to establish a line. Or just go refuse to talk about it. That too. It's a little childish but these are difficult questions. I pointed out religion because we've been talking about belief in evolution... a topic that involves both science and religion. Are you really too stupid to make that connection on your own? So if flat earthism was a scientific claim with a religious source then you'd accept it? Just trying to work out exactly what you're arguing here. I'm arguing that you shouldn't treat people like shit just because that have different religious / cultural values than you. And wow, the fact that I still have to say these things in 2014... You just don't seem to get it. Denying evolution is not a religious/cultural trait. It is an intellectual failing.If I'm hiring someone and they start professing about their denial of evolution, then, if all other things are equal with other candidates, I'm going to not hire the evolution denier. Why? Because if you deny evolution, you're intellectual capabilities and competence are put into question. It's not discriminating against religious/cultural beliefs, and to claim so is idiotic.
Actively denying evolution is also different than a passive disbelief.
|
On January 13 2014 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:54 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 14:46 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year. That can be true, but even if you got rid of all regulations (I doubt we'd want to!) large businesses would still have advantages at times that society would want to keep. If you look at the current situation in the US some industries are dominated by large firms, some by small firms and most are a mix. Regulations play a role in that, but it's rarely the dominant factor. Of course. It's hard to imagine a mom and pop cell phone provider, for example. There are plenty of industries that it's really only feasible to enter as a major player. yep. everything should be a locally owned business, except things which can't be, which should be nationalized
What if an industry has a mix of locally owned and large national players?
|
Is there any logical way to rule out the possibility that some god created the earth 6000 years ago and it was already old when he made it? Have any of you read that old Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land?
|
On January 13 2014 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:On January 13 2014 05:54 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 14:46 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year. That can be true, but even if you got rid of all regulations (I doubt we'd want to!) large businesses would still have advantages at times that society would want to keep. If you look at the current situation in the US some industries are dominated by large firms, some by small firms and most are a mix. Regulations play a role in that, but it's rarely the dominant factor. Of course. It's hard to imagine a mom and pop cell phone provider, for example. There are plenty of industries that it's really only feasible to enter as a major player. yep. everything should be a locally owned business, except things which can't be, which should be nationalized What if an industry has a mix of locally owned and large national players?
Wouldn't the big companies end up buying all the small ones? Even if they don't buy all of them, I gues they would probably buy a majority of them. And is it fair that a small company has to compete with a really big one?
On January 13 2014 06:09 ziggurat wrote:
Is there any logical way to rule out the possibility that some god created the earth 6000 years ago and it was already old when he made it? Have any of you read that old Heinlein novel Stranger in a Strange Land?
If we accept that as reasonable, then everything's valid. I could say the world was created the way it is (with all of our memories included) 3 seconds ago, and you couldn't disprove it. Then, science has no value. Why bother searching an explanation for anything? Every phenomenom you see on Earth was programmed to happen 3 seconds ago. That's it.
|
On January 13 2014 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:On January 13 2014 05:54 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 14:46 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year. That can be true, but even if you got rid of all regulations (I doubt we'd want to!) large businesses would still have advantages at times that society would want to keep. If you look at the current situation in the US some industries are dominated by large firms, some by small firms and most are a mix. Regulations play a role in that, but it's rarely the dominant factor. Of course. It's hard to imagine a mom and pop cell phone provider, for example. There are plenty of industries that it's really only feasible to enter as a major player. yep. everything should be a locally owned business, except things which can't be, which should be nationalized What if an industry has a mix of locally owned and large national players?
then you should bust up the big ones. look, I'm in favor of local economies, bioregionalism, and all the rest of it - our entire economic order is too big to fail, and you know what happens to things that are too big to fail - they fail
|
On January 13 2014 05:33 Falling wrote:
Flat earthers are weird. Because the flat earth theory is an anachronistic understanding of what the medievals actually believed. The assumption is always that the older generations are dumb and we are so much smarter. But if the medievals thought the earth was round and even had an idea how big it was (due to Greek writings- they just didn't think you could necessarily sail around it), how much more dumb are the modern flat earthers?
A reference to geocentrism in medieval times would probably be even more appropriate, since religion in the medieval ages was quite a brutal force in fighting for their world-view.
On the other hand, science today is way more settled as you point out, so modern people playing up beliefs that has been proven wrong is quite a way worse off. Then we can discuss if it is stupidity, indoctrination, group pressure or propensity for trolling the constant pollers causing it and how to alleviate that problem. Defending the beliefs that has been proven wrong might sound compassionate, but you have to wonder if you are doing the believers any favours?
|
On January 13 2014 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 05:54 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 14:46 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year. That can be true, but even if you got rid of all regulations (I doubt we'd want to!) large businesses would still have advantages at times that society would want to keep. If you look at the current situation in the US some industries are dominated by large firms, some by small firms and most are a mix. Regulations play a role in that, but it's rarely the dominant factor. Of course. It's hard to imagine a mom and pop cell phone provider, for example. There are plenty of industries that it's really only feasible to enter as a major player. yep. everything should be a locally owned business, except things which can't be, which should be nationalized
It's important to realize that very few individuals have the resources to start a major business on their own. This is why modern corporate structures and modern corp financing vehicles have been incredibly important to the creation of wealth in the modern world.
|
On January 13 2014 06:11 FallenStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 05:55 sam!zdat wrote:On January 13 2014 05:54 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 14:46 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year. That can be true, but even if you got rid of all regulations (I doubt we'd want to!) large businesses would still have advantages at times that society would want to keep. If you look at the current situation in the US some industries are dominated by large firms, some by small firms and most are a mix. Regulations play a role in that, but it's rarely the dominant factor. Of course. It's hard to imagine a mom and pop cell phone provider, for example. There are plenty of industries that it's really only feasible to enter as a major player. yep. everything should be a locally owned business, except things which can't be, which should be nationalized What if an industry has a mix of locally owned and large national players? Wouldn't the big companies end up buying all the small ones? Even if they don't buy all of them, I gues they would probably buy a majority of them. And is it fair that a small company has to compete with a really big one?
Being big can bring both advantages and disadvantages.
|
Maybe we should just let Amazon and Walmart sell us everything. The prices will be so low (like, exactly our own personal valuation price.) It will be fantastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
