On October 16 2007 07:26 NoName wrote:
Brick and mortar school would still be used for (...) baby sitting.
Brick and mortar school would still be used for (...) baby sitting.
What do you think brick and mortar schools are for now?
Forum Index > General Forum |
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On October 16 2007 07:26 NoName wrote: Brick and mortar school would still be used for (...) baby sitting. What do you think brick and mortar schools are for now? | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 05:20 Mindcrime wrote: his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.Show nested quote + On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous. Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation. Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject. private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination. | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 16 2007 09:33 oneofthem wrote: Show nested quote + his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.On October 16 2007 05:20 Mindcrime wrote: On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous. Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation. Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject. private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination. So you are against private property? | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 04:18 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: i didn't make an argument there, just getting some clarification on what sort of positive theory i'm supposed to make. i could say property as ideology enshrines privateness, erecting a wall of exclusivity around the self against others. libertarians take property to define islands of privateness within which the individual can go about things 'freely' as in without obligations to others. this idea of negative rights surely trace these islands functionally, as in, what you can't do to me and my stuff. but this is an ideological analysis. Show nested quote + On October 16 2007 04:04 oneofthem wrote: On October 16 2007 03:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: You're not explaining yourself very clearly. Again, I'm asking you for a positive statement and not merely shooting down opinions with claims of authority. i gave a positive statement. liberalism has its share of good ideas, but libertarianism is overdoing it, to say the least. a positive theory of property? talking about private property, that it is a peculiar state of society is the received view. this is to be understood as attitudes and customs, along with institutional presence, like law and government. but in any case, a social theory has some necessary methodological commitments, and these define the class of the theory. you can list theories like 'natural law' 'social contract' etc along idealistic lines, theories like evolutionary sociology (group survival etc) in the naturalistic line, and the mainstream theories a mixture of the two. each of these can give a theory, but they are limited by their methods. i think the contours of the attitude expressed in private property is pretty well traced out. this should be a requirement for any attempts at an analysis fo capitalist societies. as for the topic, i only posted to ridicule libertarianism. I see you're using a lot of words, but I'm completely failing to see any sort of argument from you other than: "libertarianism is bad." The first two sentences or so started to give your opinion, seemingly, and then you went on to define things, still failing to give any sort of argument. all rights are positive social commitments. negative rights are specific to a certain attitude of privateness that cannot be taken as primary. they must be translatable to positively held social commitments to be of any use as a social theory. by asserting a certain negative right, you are asserting a positive duty to uphold your negative right. libertarians would have you think that this is all their configuration of privateness against the burden of social obligations and basic moral principles can be sustained, but evidently they still depend on civil obligations to respect the order of the day. if you want evidence of libertarian anti-social tendencies, look no further than their treatment of positive rights. now, what does liberalism without propertarianism say. the only acceptable society is a free society of freely operating individuals. this is fine and great, does not justify libertarian ideology, however. the libertarian, when presented with an offer to do some positive work for society, immediately appeals to negative rights or property claims, as if asking him to help out the needy is a direct threat to his person. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 09:45 fight_or_flight wrote: against? i think it is not a good attitude to have. this mememe stuff. it is something that can be questioned. Show nested quote + On October 16 2007 09:33 oneofthem wrote: On October 16 2007 05:20 Mindcrime wrote: his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous. Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation. Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject. private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination. So you are against private property? private property can only be understood wtihin a certain framework. i may not accept this framework. so specify your framework with proper attention to methodology, so i can see whether i accept it or not. | ||
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
On October 16 2007 03:46 Servolisk wrote: Show nested quote + Funny how Hillary loves to criticize Bush so much on the war when she voted for the war authorization herself, as did many of the other democrats running. She not only voted for it, she was actively making the case for it. why can't hillary criticize bush for his management of the war? unless she's criticizing him for starting it, then i don't see the hypocrisy there. when has she mismanaged a war? when has she prolonged a war? | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 16 2007 09:49 oneofthem wrote: Show nested quote + against? i think it is not a good attitude to have. this mememe stuff. it is something that can be questioned. On October 16 2007 09:45 fight_or_flight wrote: On October 16 2007 09:33 oneofthem wrote: On October 16 2007 05:20 Mindcrime wrote: his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous. Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation. Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject. private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination. So you are against private property? private property can only be understood wtihin a certain framework. i may not accept this framework. so specify your framework with proper attention to methodology, so i can see whether i accept it or not. More like, there are things you can own that no one has the right to take away from you, as long as you aren't actively hurting/endangering others. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2007 10:04 fight_or_flight wrote: do you understand what 'own' means. Show nested quote + On October 16 2007 09:49 oneofthem wrote: On October 16 2007 09:45 fight_or_flight wrote: against? i think it is not a good attitude to have. this mememe stuff. it is something that can be questioned. On October 16 2007 09:33 oneofthem wrote: On October 16 2007 05:20 Mindcrime wrote: his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous. Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation. Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject. private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination. So you are against private property? private property can only be understood wtihin a certain framework. i may not accept this framework. so specify your framework with proper attention to methodology, so i can see whether i accept it or not. More like, there are things you can own that no one has the right to take away from you, as long as you aren't actively hurting/endangering others. owning does not equal right to use. it is right to use + right to deprive of use to others. please work on your fundamentals before discussing the issues. it is only proper to talk about 'taking away' as 'taking away property' in a propertarian framework, or, in the change of hands between two exclusive spheres of property. if say you are in a family of 3 and you 'owned' the oven, and later on you are made to give up yoru 'ownership' it means merely that you lost the right to stop otehrs from using the oven. it says nothing about your right to use the oven. if you 'own the river', it merely means that your potential to hurt people, by depriving them of the river, is legitimized. legitimizing total individualism within the boundaries of property can only mean legitimizing selfish operations and disregard for moral responsibility. there are way superior frameworks for understanding and supporting credible notions of 'ownership.' | ||
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On October 16 2007 01:30 kalami wrote: I don't know the entire creed of the libertarian philosophy, but I share the same repulsion to central planning of monolithic governments. That is why we need a libertarian president and not some [strike]socialist[/strike] progressive president who wants to give every single person a 1,000 dollars to start a 401k or every baby 5,000 dollars for whatever they want when they hit adulthood. Nobody wants to do that. You're an idiot. | ||
NovaTheFeared
United States7201 Posts
On October 16 2007 10:19 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2007 01:30 kalami wrote: I don't know the entire creed of the libertarian philosophy, but I share the same repulsion to central planning of monolithic governments. That is why we need a libertarian president and not some [strike]socialist[/strike] progressive president who wants to give every single person a 1,000 dollars to start a 401k or every baby 5,000 dollars for whatever they want when they hit adulthood. Nobody wants to do that. You're an idiot. You're the idiot, Clinton floated both ideas just recently. Incidentally, that is a big reason why I'm not supporting Ron Paul for president. I do not believe he will beat Hillary in the general election. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
relaxxl
Japan78 Posts
made love for this guy. | ||
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
Teamliquid does the same thing with all internet polls, anyway. | ||
kalami
United States214 Posts
On October 16 2007 10:19 TheFoReveRwaR wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2007 01:30 kalami wrote: I don't know the entire creed of the libertarian philosophy, but I share the same repulsion to central planning of monolithic governments. That is why we need a libertarian president and not some [strike]socialist[/strike] progressive president who wants to give every single person a 1,000 dollars to start a 401k or every baby 5,000 dollars for whatever they want when they hit adulthood. Nobody wants to do that. You're an idiot. someone else already mentioned who was for those things. That same person also wants to make health care essentially compulsory (proof of coverage before you can get a job), and have tax payers pay for the college education of illegal aliens (it's not enough they get free primary and secondary education). I actually think Ron Paul stands the best chance versus hillay out of any GOP candidate. He beats her on the war issue which is the primary issue. | ||
triangle
United States3803 Posts
First of all, text message polls are ridiculous and no way to determine accurate polling information. Only people who care enough to text are counted. As a result, responses are often heavily biased. Every "internet poll" or "call in poll" is meaningless. online polls, political rallies and meetup groups None of which translates well into votes... On to the source which showed that "normal" opinion polls are biased: Opinion polls are mostly conducted by using telephone landlines. The reason is that landline numbers are easy to obtain, and they produce a fairly accurate and random result for most questionnaires. As known from marketing, each product has a life cycle, and those who hang on to landline numbers tend to be late adopters of new technology. These late adopters do not use the internet, so they have (most likely) not even heard of Ron Paul. So, what percent of Americans don't have landline phones? It's small. And what percent of these people actually vote? Unfortunately, the young vote in very low percents, while the elderly vote in very high percents. Late Adopters = votes. New Adopters = Forum posts. In order to reduce the inaccuracy between two polls conducted by the same pollster, vote multipliers are added, which can be based on earlier polls, prior elections, "scientific" analyzes or just simply guesses. Here is how they work. Let's say that a vote multiplier for Rudy Giuliani is 1.2, for John McCain 1.5 and for Ron Paul –3.0. If the pure poll gives Giuliani 25%, McCain 10% and Ron Paul 10% of the vote, the opinion polls are counted to show 30% for Giuliani, 15% for McCain and only 3% for Ron Paul. The chances are that opinion polls for Ron Paul have negative multipliers, since no-one conducting the polls believes that he can win. The same phenomenon has happened in various European countries during the last five years when so-called far right parties (with anti-immigration, anti-EU and fiscal conservative views) have taken many land-slide victories, even if their results in opinion polls have been often either poor or mediocre. ??? Any potential "vote multiplier" would be very small and based on demographic factors, nothing more. Ron Paul would lose at the very most 20%. Yay, he's up to 3.6%! Opinion polls are not value free or interest neutral. Even if the opinion polling company would want to conduct a poll on honest scientific standards, they still know that their poll has been ordered by USA Today, NBC, FOX News, the Washington Post or the New York Times. So a polling company's self-interest is to produce a result that the mainstream media likes. It's a conspiracy!!! OMG H4X! In reality, any manipulation by a credible poll source will be nonexistant. As Justin Ptak correctly pointed out, "the national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates." For example Carter was only polling 1% in 1975 and he won the presidency. Back in 1991 Clinton's support was at 2% and he became the president. Joe Lieberman was leading the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003, yet he failed to win a single primary. That is true. The Ron Paul revolution has already succeeded At what exactly? It's a revolution now? It has brought a lot of attention to the libertarian ideas of peace and a limited government. Even though as you just said Ron Paul is largely unheard of. Just like a real revolution the Ron Paul revolution has become a movement everyone wants to join. Well I sure as hell don't want to join... -------------------------------------------------------------- Why I cannot support Ron Paul for president Because he would actually be even worse than Bush. Which is pretty freaking difficult. Ron Paul's economic policies are nothing short of insane, including advocating for the removal of the federal reserve. If that happened the US would crash into a horrific depression overnight, and such an act would undermine the fundamental structure of the US and world economy. That one policy alone would actually be more damaging to America than everything Bush has done during his time in office combined. Furthermore, Ron Paul has a strict constitutional viewpoint. This means anything not mentioned in the constitution is gone. He is also furiously against any use of government power above constitutional limits. So, no: Miranda Rights Social Security Medicare Social safety nets for the poor State run education Government business oversight Abortion rights etc. Again, all with catastrophic consequences. Ron Paul would be a compelling candidate in 1820. In 2008, his ideas are completely insane and not connected to reality. Lots of people on the internet love Ron Paul. A closer look shows him likely to take away Bush's "crown" as worst president of all time. | ||
fanatacist
10319 Posts
| ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 16 2007 10:54 triangle wrote: + Show Spoiler + Why I cannot support Ron Paul for president Because he would actually be even worse than Bush. Which is pretty freaking difficult. Ron Paul's economic policies are nothing short of insane, including advocating for the removal of the federal reserve. If that happened the US would crash into a horrific depression overnight, and such an act would undermine the fundamental structure of the US and world economy. That one policy alone would actually be more damaging to America than everything Bush has done during his time in office combined. Furthermore, Ron Paul has a strict constitutional viewpoint. This means anything not mentioned in the constitution is gone. He is also furiously against any use of government power above constitutional limits. So, no: Miranda Rights Social Security Medicare Social safety nets for the poor State run education Government business oversight Abortion rights etc. Again, all with catastrophic consequences. Ron Paul would be a compelling candidate in 1820. In 2008, his ideas are completely insane and not connected to reality. Lots of people on the internet love Ron Paul. A closer look shows him likely to take away Bush's "crown" as worst president of all time. Are you really that clueless? | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 16 2007 10:54 triangle wrote: Ron Paul's economic policies are nothing short of insane, including advocating for the removal of the federal reserve. If that happened the US would crash into a horrific depression overnight, and such an act would undermine the fundamental structure of the US and world economy. That one policy alone would actually be more damaging to America than everything Bush has done during his time in office combined. Do you realize how close it is to crashing now? China, japan, russia, or saudi arabia could crash our economy anytime they want just by getting rid of their reserves of our money (which is losing value fast). Furthermore, Ron Paul has a strict constitutional viewpoint. This means anything not mentioned in the constitution is gone. The president can't magically abolish what he feels like abolishing. He is also furiously against any use of government power above constitutional limits. So, no: Miranda Rights Social Security Medicare Social safety nets for the poor State run education Government business oversight Abortion rights etc. Again, all with catastrophic consequences. Ron Paul would be a compelling candidate in 1820. In 2008, his ideas are completely insane and not connected to reality. Lots of people on the internet love Ron Paul. A closer look shows him likely to take away Bush's "crown" as worst president of all time. First of all, this will never happen because the president cant do much without congress. Second, these are very important issues. They've been decided over time by various entities. These are so important that I think amendments to the constitution to include them would be good. So in other words, they would be decided by 100 people in congress elected by the country, instead of 9 appointed judges on the supreme court. It seems reasonable to me in principle. But again, this will never happen. Neither will the fed change. The only thing electing him would accomplish in the real world is getting out of iraq, and probably a lot of vetoed bills. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On October 15 2007 23:04 GrandInquisitor wrote: the fact that ron paul is remotely a second-tier candidate in online polls suggests to me the sheer stupidity of people on the internet rather than any particular sanity on his part. ron paul? might as well vote in ayn rand god i hate libertarianism. i'd rather take four more years of bush over this lunatic i mean, it's the digg crowd that's doing all this online ballot-box stuffing, you know that. i stopped reading digg after about the 475th article each day on "RON PAUL IS THE SAVIOR OF MANKIND" YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 16 2007 09:33 oneofthem wrote: Show nested quote + his views on labor is his idea of self ownership. that you mix your labor with the thing and thus it becomes a part of you somehow.On October 16 2007 05:20 Mindcrime wrote: On October 16 2007 03:45 oneofthem wrote: lockean theory of proerty is a joke. more like a case study in some history or sociology class, not a respectable theory. the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' is ridiculous. Uh, Locke's justification of property was an extension of his views on labor. I don't recall self ownership being in that equation. Some political philosophers have argued that you need to recognize self ownership if you're going to recognize private property, but that's a different subject. private property is obviously a peculiar array of human attitudes that is no way immune from critical examination. Can you give me a quote from Locke where he said that when your mix your labor with something it becomes a part of you? | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games tarik_tv24374 summit1g10333 shahzam1281 Day[9].tv1268 NuckleDu264 Maynarde129 missharvey48 Terrorterran47 PPMD40 Temp010 Organizations StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Hupsaiya 51 StarCraft: Brood War• HeavenSC 30 • gosughost_ 1 • IndyKCrew • Poblha • Migwel • aXEnki • Laughngamez YouTube • intothetv • Gussbus • LaughNgamez Trovo • Kozan League of Legends Other Games |
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Hatchery Cup
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
OSC
[ Show More ] Sparkling Tuna Cup
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
H.4.0.S
GSL Code S
herO vs Reynor
soO vs GuMiho
|
|