|
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 January 13 2014 06:11 sam!zdat 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? 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
Many small firms failing can be just as bad as a few large firms failing. There's no magic to small.
|
On January 13 2014 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:11 FallenStar wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
If the disadvantages were bigger than the advantages, there wouldn't be big companies. So you haven't really answered my question.
|
On January 13 2014 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Many small firms failing can be just as bad as a few large firms failing. There's no magic to small.
right. but when the big ones fail, we nationalize their failure. what I'm saying is that we should just cut the crap and nationalize them in advance. anyway, you're wrong - distributed risk is always safer
On January 13 2014 06:14 ziggurat 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 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.
ah yes thanks I didn't realize that. it's very important to realize
|
United States43581 Posts
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?
Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older".
If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?".
On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday.
|
On January 13 2014 06:20 FallenStar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 06:11 FallenStar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If the disadvantages were bigger than the advantages, there wouldn't be big companies. So you haven't really answered my question.
Your question doesn't have a straight answer. You can have a large company making beer and small companies making beer. The big company can win market share when cost matters since their large economies of scale reduce per unit costs. Conversely, the small companies can win market share when local taste preferences override cost preferences. So they both can exist simultaneously - each having advantages and disadvantages that don't result in complete dominance.
|
On January 13 2014 06:20 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 06:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Many small firms failing can be just as bad as a few large firms failing. There's no magic to small. right. but when the big ones fail, we nationalize their failure. what I'm saying is that we should just cut the crap and nationalize them in advance. anyway, you're wrong - distributed risk is always safer
Having many small firms can result in concentrated risk.
|
On January 13 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:20 sam!zdat wrote:On January 13 2014 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 13 2014 06:11 sam!zdat wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Many small firms failing can be just as bad as a few large firms failing. There's no magic to small. right. but when the big ones fail, we nationalize their failure. what I'm saying is that we should just cut the crap and nationalize them in advance. anyway, you're wrong - distributed risk is always safer Having many small firms can result in concentrated risk.
um
|
On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday.
How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron?
There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them.
|
Hello everyone! I haven't read a single word of this thread since mid -December, but it's one my favorite time of year right now! - The Gathering of the Almighty Nine Individuals to make Constitutional and Societal Decisions that are Irreversible.
Here's a badly written article on what will happen tomorrow.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2014/01/supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-temporary-appointments.html
It's bad because it manages to be wrong or omit about every almost single thing that is important in the case!
1. This is not really a partisan issue, this is a constitutional one.
2. It has a lot of useless details.
3. It omits the history of the recess appointment- to fill needed slots when the Senate was not there to meet by their own declaration. Believe it or not, but there was once a time when Congress was out of session longer than it was in session, meaning that if the president needed a job filled, he could do so temporarily. Nowadays, with the constant government involvement into every aspect of the economy, our lives, and our society means that they don't take any time to just leave the people be, they must always be doing SOMETHING, they are ALWAYS in session.
4. The court's ruling would not "dramatically upset that long-settled equilibrium." No President in history has done what Obama did- unilaterally declare the Senate in recess. And that is the question here. There have been similar cases, but none like this. As a side note, saying "well it's been this way for a long time" is a crappy argument, though I think everyone in this thread knows that.
Cheers!
edit: Here is a brief being filed by the side I root for 
http://www.marklevinshow.com/upload/Docs/SCrecessBrief.pdf
|
Constitutional issues are partisan.
|
On January 13 2014 07:27 farvacola wrote:
Constitutional issues are partisan.
They are now, yes. But this issue was not brought up because Obama is a democrat, but because of what he did. But it can be easy to get confused, because the democrats are really the party most willing to take a mallet to the Constitution.
|
United States43581 Posts
On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote: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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them.
Because A conforms with the observable evidence we know about the universe while B is just a thought experiment that amounts to armchair philosophers going "what if everyone else is just in my imagination, the only thing I know for sure is that I am". These are not two equally valid intellectual exercises.
|
On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote: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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them.
There are smart religious people you're right, its mostly as a result of indoctrination that they still believe the things they do because the mind works in a funny way. Sometimes it seeks ways (sometimes very intelligent ways) to justify things it believes, rather than looking at the evidence and trying to draw the most rational conclusion. It happens to many people, not just religious (i.e. anarchists who believe if the government disappeared we would all get along in harmony).
So I don't think you can necessarily judge someone as dumb like that because it is a bit more complex, and intelligence isn't really all that well defined anyway, but I think there is also a 'practical' quality to intelligence that I think exists, where people adopt the most reasonable beliefs in accordance with reality even if its not possible to know anything with 100% certainty. You could be an idealist and believe there is no such thing as physical reality, and I don't think that makes you less intelligent, but to actually carry on in the world as if nothing exists is clearly problematic.
|
On January 13 2014 07:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:27 farvacola wrote:
Constitutional issues are partisan. They are now, yes. But this issue was not brought up because Obama is a democrat, but because of what he did. But it can be easy to get confused, because the democrats are really the party most willing to take a mallet to the Constitution.
The only person confused is the one who thinks that partisan politics in constitutional issues is a new thing.
|
On January 13 2014 07:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote: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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them. Because A conforms with the observable evidence we know about the universe while B is just a thought experiment that amounts to armchair philosophers going "what if everyone else is just in my imagination, the only thing I know for sure is that I am". These are not two equally valid intellectual exercises.
No. A and B both conform equally well to the observable evidence.
|
United States43581 Posts
On January 13 2014 08:33 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:34 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote: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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them. Because A conforms with the observable evidence we know about the universe while B is just a thought experiment that amounts to armchair philosophers going "what if everyone else is just in my imagination, the only thing I know for sure is that I am". These are not two equally valid intellectual exercises. No. A and B both conform equally well to the observable evidence.
What if you only think they both conform, what then?!?
I'm going to keep doing that until you admit it's not a valid argument.
|
On January 13 2014 07:49 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote: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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them. There are smart religious people you're right, its mostly as a result of indoctrination that they still believe the things they do because the mind works in a funny way. Sometimes it seeks ways (sometimes very intelligent ways) to justify things it believes, rather than looking at the evidence and trying to draw the most rational conclusion. It happens to many people, not just religious (i.e. anarchists who believe if the government disappeared we would all get along in harmony). So I don't think you can necessarily judge someone as dumb like that because it is a bit more complex, and intelligence isn't really all that well defined anyway, but I think there is also a 'practical' quality to intelligence that I think exists, where people adopt the most reasonable beliefs in accordance with reality even if its not possible to know anything with 100% certainty. You could be an idealist and believe there is no such thing as physical reality, and I don't think that makes you less intelligent, but to actually carry on in the world as if nothing exists is clearly problematic.
Sure, I agree with this. But faith by definition is not based on evidence. It's a different way of thinking about the world. Many people don't really think it makes any sense, but the majority of people in the world believe one religion or another. I'm hesitant to dismiss them all as retards.
An interesting read on this subject is Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis. Lewis was an atheist who in later life converted to Christianity, and he wrote this book about his reasons. I read the book, I don't know, maybe 15 years ago, and while it didn't convince me it did give me a lot more understanding of people who are religious.
|
On January 13 2014 08:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:33 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 07:34 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote: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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them. Because A conforms with the observable evidence we know about the universe while B is just a thought experiment that amounts to armchair philosophers going "what if everyone else is just in my imagination, the only thing I know for sure is that I am". These are not two equally valid intellectual exercises. No. A and B both conform equally well to the observable evidence. What if you only think they both conform, what then?!? I'm going to keep doing that until you admit it's not a valid argument.
I don't understand what you're asking but let me try explaining this a different way.
We live in a world that appears to be millions of years old, in a universe that appears to be billions of years old. There are (at least) two hypotheses to explain this:
A: It actually is what it appears to be
B: It was made by God 6000 years ago, and when he made it he designed it to appear much older, as described in (some interpretations of) the bible
I think you agree that we have no way of knowing which is true for sure. What I'm asking is, how do we even begin to choose between these two hypotheses? I don't see how the science can answer this question.
|
There's a difference between dismissing religion and young earth creationnism.
|
United States43581 Posts
On January 13 2014 08:45 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2014 08:37 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 08:33 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 07:34 KwarK wrote:On January 13 2014 07:18 ziggurat wrote:On January 13 2014 06:35 KwarK wrote: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? Not at all. Likewise you can't prove that magnets don't work because God wills it or any other thing. However what we basically have is a geological calendar that reads, for example, August 10th. If we flip back a few pages we can see May, April, January and so forth, all with appointments written in and checked off. We can see that as August 10th goes by appointments get done and the day gets checked off. The question comes down to "if you find this calendar should you conclude that it is at least 8 months and 10 days old or should you instead consider the possibility that it is 1 day old and was created with all the traits of something 8 months and 9 days older". If you accept the latter possibility then you're in for a world of possibilities including, but not limited to, "is this the Matrix?", "is this the Matrix sequel?", "what if it's like the Matrix but instead of robots it's aliens?" and "dude, when it comes down to it, how can you really like know anything?". On the other hand, given we can conclude we know how calendars work and we can see all the previous dates on the previous pages we can probably conclude it wasn't made yesterday. How can we really know anything. Exactly. Most of us just go on with our lives without worrying too much about big questions like this. But if person A believes that the universe was created by a big bang 14 billion years ago and person B believes it was created by God 6000 years ago -- and in point of fact neither one really knows -- then why is A smart and B a moron? There are many very smart, sophisticated religious people. I'm sure you're aware of this. If you've never met one, it probably says more about you than it does about them. Because A conforms with the observable evidence we know about the universe while B is just a thought experiment that amounts to armchair philosophers going "what if everyone else is just in my imagination, the only thing I know for sure is that I am". These are not two equally valid intellectual exercises. No. A and B both conform equally well to the observable evidence. What if you only think they both conform, what then?!? I'm going to keep doing that until you admit it's not a valid argument. I don't understand what you're asking but let me try explaining this a different way. We live in a world that appears to be millions of years old, in a universe that appears to be billions of years old. There are (at least) two hypotheses to explain this: A: It actually is what it appears to be B: It was made by God 6000 years ago, and when he made it he designed it to appear much older, as described in (some interpretations of) the bible I think you agree that we have no way of knowing which is true for sure. What I'm asking is, how do we even begin to choose between these two hypotheses? I don't see how the science can answer this question.
And what I'm saying is why even bother talking about B when it's entirely possible I just think you're talking about B but you're not really real and you're in my imagination and even though you may yourself know you're real how can you possibly know we're really having this exchange and it's not all just a dream?
The B argument is intellectually worthless. Save it for late nights when you're high and saying shit like "How do you know you see the same colour as red that I do? What if your red is my yellow!?!? What then!?!?".
It's a dead end that wastes the time of everyone involved and gives the lazy or stupid the ability to ignore doing any actual thinking in favour of nonsense they think is clever.
But what if I'm not really making this argument?!?! What if it's all in your head and this is your brain trying to tell you you're being dumb!?!?? What then!?!??!
As you can see, B is really fucking dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
