Basically, it's clear that this rule was proposed by people who don't have a clear picture of the area they are asking this to be applied to - much less of the processes of the people who would actually do it.
I was with you until that last sentence. If you had visited one of our agribusinesses' massive feedlots, you would see the people who support these rules. They are designed to do a few key things: raise the cost of doing business proportionally more for smaller farmers (thereby, giving the Cargills of the world a bigger advantage), make the world believe that US beef is now safer, and give the government more control over the US food chain. Those behind this know exactly what they are doing and why.
Imagine if the fire marshal had to get a warrant every time he wanted to make sure that the fire exits weren't being blocked in a large office building. It would significantly hamper the ability of the agency to conduct its job.
We're not talking about commercial equipment in a large office building. Imagine of the fire marshal had to get a warrant each time he wanted to make sure you had batteries in the smoke alarms in your house might be a bit better analogy.
"Environmental regulations" is rather vague, but I don't think the US stance at global warming would set it as a model.
Environmental regulations is not really that vague. Compare what the US allows in regard to air pollution, water pollution, industrial zoning, etc, against China or India. They are going through an industrial boom similar to what the US experienced for a century, when our rivers were so polluted that they could actually catch fire and burn. As for global warming, which industrialized nation would you point to as being ahead of the curve compared to the US?
Brazil is 13th among 171 countries in total military spending, putting it near the top of the list, and 61st as a percentage of GDP, making it more or less average. Ireland is 65th in total spending and 146th as a percentage of GDP, making it more or less average on both counts.
And where does the US fall on that list? I'll give you a hint - at the top. Brazil's spending is about 3% that of the US. Ireland is about 2/10 of a percent. Again, I don't argue that the US spends too much on the military-industrial complex, but steep cuts here will dramatically hurt the economy and quickly. Your answer may not be wrong philosophically but it is amazingly oversimplified for reality.
It's the US government at all levels, federal, state, and local, that should learn to live by the rules. When the corporations are moving overseas to places with lower taxes this means your taxes are too high, you should cut government spending and taxes at the same time.
Where do we start? Should the US adopt the environmental regulations of China and India? Or, perhaps the military of Brazil or Ireland? I don't disagree that the US needs to cut government spending, but your answer oversimplifies the problem to ridiculousness.
Done correctly, the delivery network lacks any reason to prefer or favor one provider over another, and the providers lack the ability to deny access to each other, since they don't own the delivery network. The consumer can then freely choice which they want, and the entry barrier for a new provider is low because it doesn't require digging up streets.
The method by which some US states quasi-deregulated their natural gas industries allows this, if you are savvy enough to take advantage of it. Natural gas distribution companies almost always have a local monopoly - the cost of entry is extremely high and the government has been involved in industry regulation for years (primarily from the safety perspective). Over the past 40 years, many of the large gas companies have broken into pieces, often due to regulation. Most are now organized into local distribution companies that are analogous to the telco last-mile provider, transmission companies that are national backbone networks, and extraction companies that actually get the gas from the ground.
In many states, local distribution companies are required by law to allow customers to use the local infrastructure for gas they buy from whomever they want. That means that I can sign my own purchase contracts from a supplier in the Gulf of Mexico and pay a nominal delivery fee for the use of the local distribution company's pipes. Of course, I'm not getting the same gas molecules that I purchased, but I don't care as long as the local distribution company's QA is up to snuff.
The average consumer would rather pay the regulated rates of the local gas company but many industrial customers are saving money by buying their own gas.
I am so saddened at the state of Slashdot moderatorship that this post was modded insightful.
I see, and when IE is taken out of the windows install and the new user is provided with discs containing Opera, Firefox, Chrome and IE, which will they choose to install?
Obviously the OEMs would install their browser of choice. Assuming that no browser would be pre-installed sets the tone for this whole off-base rant of yours.
I suspect that most people who are willing to use 3rd party apps feel the same - 3rd party apps which suck don't have the right to try and poach users from the OS manufacturer's apps by stopping users having that default and hoping to bamboozle them into installing the suckier 3rd party app. If your app is good people will use it anyway.
This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the business of computer software. The issue is so much deeper than which application is "better". How can applications compete on an even playing field when the manufacturer of the only desktop OS grossly stacks the deck in favor of their own products?
And now for the car analogy:
Imagine a world where electric windows aren't standard. Now, imagine that someone starts selling aftermarket electric windows... Sucks to be you - make a better product or make a different add on in the full expectation that it'll become standard equipment in a few years, but don't bitch that you want the people who buy the cars to be forced to take the car home from the dealer and then either pay you to fit your electric windows, leaving their car out of action for a week, or return it to the dealer to fit electric windows for free, but still leaving them car-less for a week.
Again, you clearly do not understand the real issue here. To make your weak car analogy relevant, you would need some significant changes. Let's say that your imaginary car maker integrated the oxygen sensor, starter solenoid, and CD player in the electric window. They provide little to no documentation for third-parties who want to make better replacement windows, and even threaten to sue those who do manage to reverse engineer the interfaces. As the only car manufacturer, they are able to dictate to the dealerships that no other type of windows can be installed prior to selling the car to a customer. Then, for the real cherry on top, this manufacturer also makes serious money on their other line of business - producing and selling equipment that makes window tinting, window defrosters, power mirrors, etc. By guaranteeing that their windows are in their cars and that they have the only legitimate development platform for other add-ons, something small as an electric window has opened up numerous ancillary monopolies with good income potential.
OpenOffice complaining that wordpad competes with them? Octave complaining that for simple work calc competes with them?
Now you're just getting silly. Seriously.
Finally, I hear no-one screaming that linux should adhere to the same standards. Linux will not 'win' whilst it's seen as trying to create an unfair playing field with legal actions. If someone suggested that Firefox, Lynx, Konqueror and Nautilus were abolished from default installs so that other browsers could get a shot, it would be laughed off the mailing list. Someone sugesting that both browsers and all methods of getting browsers should go, forcing users to get them from a seperate disc would probably find themselves off the mailing list sharpish.
Perhaps if you could show me where Linux, Inc. sells their computers with their Linux branded browser, then you could be in the same plane as this discussion. Since you clearly have absolutely zero idea how open source - and linux in particular - works, let me give you a hint. Linux is not a company, a group, or even an OS. There are linux-based distros with no browser installed and others with numer
What I'm saying is that there's no need for pictures of people eating, belching or blowing their noses. The igniting of farts is also unnecessary. I don't see a purpose in pushing a massive pull-down either.
That the mothers see this as important (as in, an important thing to do) is irrelevant. There are a number of things that are important to do that don't need to be photographed and presented to the world.
So, you personally don't see the point in it but also don't believe that FB needs to be removing it? If that is what you're saying, we're actually in agreement. Of course, the discussion isn't about either of our tastes in photography, but whether FB ought to consider a baby nursing on a mostly unexposed breast as pornography.
My understanding of the ToS guidelines (the ones I've looked at) is "no nipples." If exceptions are made for nipples shown during breastfeeding, that relatively simple standard becomes complicated and, potentially, useless. When you agree to the ToS, you abide by the ToS, like them or don't. If you can'd abide by them, go somewhere else.
Several posters have quoted the FB TOS already and it says nothing about nipples. Further, I've seen the picture removed and I'm at a loss for the nipple in it. Just to be clear, I'm not questioning FB's right to exclude nipples, knees, or chins from their site. The legal right to take an action does not make it the right thing to do.
That last paragraph is pretty close to totally off-base, afaict. There's nobody saying that there's anything wrong with breastfeeding that I've seen (I'm not trolling at 0 and reading every AC). Some folks are saying they'd rather not see it. I'm suggesting some modesty is appropriate. I've not called anybody a freak, sinner nor pervert for disagreeing with me about this. If you want to bark at the people who have done more than I have, be my guest, but that's not me, and I'm not going to apologize for something I haven't done.
Actually, there are plenty in this discussion and across America who find breastfeeding in general to be disgusting and would prefer that it at least be banned in public. There are laws in most states specifically protecting the right to discreetly breastfeed in public exactly because of this. You went off on a tangent about militant free thinkers who want others to accept them, so I responded in kind to the other side of the coin. That does not imply that you personally spit on breastfeeding moms at the local Walmart.
I see no need for pictures of anybody eating on FB/MS, regardless of age or what they're eating. I also don't see a need for pictures of people belching, or blowing their noses. I don't think that needs to be a ToS issue (as of yet). When it comes to babies breastfeeding, I don't see any purpose in showing pictures of that. It's a crappy angle for looking at the baby. I'd rather see the baby sleeping or playing or smiling or being cute or something -- speaking just for me.
So, what are you actually trying to say? Are you suggesting that FB should leave the breastfeeding pictures alone, or they also should remove those of Jimmy eating a hamburger?
As for personal feelings on breastfeeding pictures, you are correct that you don't get a good picture of the baby - the picture obviously is of the mother doing something she considers important. Just as some people post pictures of them with their dog, on their snowboard, holding a fishing rod, or graduating school, some mothers identify this action as an important part of their being so it seems natural to include it in their photographs. It isn't about boobs or being provocative.
The pushing of the boob is getting to be an issue for me. I ran into a guy on an IM network who's an amateur photographer, and he wanted to send me some of his pictures. Since I didn't know him, I was a bit concerned about what the pictures would be, which he picked up on, and assured me that he didn't do nudes. However, he did do some tasteful topless shots of his wife. I told him I didn't want to see those, and he's been so intrigued by that that it comes up every time we chat (every week or three). I'm planning on getting very direct the next time he asks, if he does. Topless isn't all he does, and I don't mind looking at his other shots from time to time.
Interesting story, but some guy wanting you to see his wife posing topless is completely unrelated to a mom breastfeeding her baby. It is this inappropriate mixing of opinions on breastfeeding with erotic art or pornography that is the crux of this discussion.
I do think there's something of militancy in this movement of "accept me, approve of me, or you're a bigot/puritan/pervert." And that I'm totally ready to give the finger to. I don't shove my lifestyle down your throat or demand your acceptance or approval, and I'm not obliged to build your feelings of self-worth.
And there's even more of a militancy in the status quo of "conform or you're a freak/sinner/pervert". Society as a whole, and the more outspoken members (like many in this thread) regularly shove their lifestyle down everyone's throat and demand acceptance. Further, they demand that everyone else adopts it. I don't see these mothers on FB trying to force your wife to post pics of her breastfeeding or requiring that all mothers must breastfeed in public. No, they simply want not to be considered a deviant for doing something as natural as breastfeeding their baby.
If a guy did this to Megan, and given how large the media circus was, he'd be branded a sexual predator regardless of age and be ostracized from society for the rest of his life.
If a guy did that to Megan, it wouldn't have been a large media circus and most of society would have never known about it. You know about it only because the details made it interesting enough for the national media to pick it up.
Terrible analogy, for these reasons:
1) You have a deductible - that's money out of your pocket
2) Your car insurance is for "fair market value" not "replacement value" - if your car is not average - i.e. it is a beater or it is modified or it is just extremely well cared for - the insurance check may not be enough to cover the cost of an equivalent-to-you replacement
3) Having your car stolen is a PITA - lots of hassle and rigmarole before you are made whole, that's time and money wasted
So, no you do not have every motivation to leave the keys in the car, in fact you have plenty of incentives to take reasonable steps to prevent its theft.
Did you hear that sound as the OP's point went flying over your head? In your failure to get his sarcasm, you helped make his point. If you think having your car stolen is a PITA, imagine how inconvenient it would be to find yourself dead.
Seriously, do you not think before you speak? The author said not to PUBLISH the information PUBLICLY. You still tell the families of those involved, but beyond that no one needs to know. Lets use the current case with Lori Drew as an example. The Judge presiding the case himself wanted to EXCLUDE the suicide information, but because *every* person they got for the Jury had heard about the case they couldn't. So now we have a problem with people's rights to a FAIR trial being taken away thanks to mainstream media having to have sensationalist stories.
I ask the same initial question of you. How do you suppose that the US goes about implementing your suggestions? Do you believe that we need a federal law that prohibits anyone from publicly discussing anything related to potential or on-going legal actions? Crimes can't be reported (in the newspaper, on the television, by bloggers, or mentioned around the water cooler) because details would get out. We can't have anyone knowing about suicides, or rapes, or murders, or thefts, or corruption, or anything else, because it could impede the justice system? Seriously, do you not think before you speak?
You don't see the problem here? I can't help you see something I'm not suggesting. You can't get there rationally. Reason can inform your personal theology (you can call it a 'bastardization' if you need to) but I would never suggest that you can get there through any mechanism other than the philosophical equivalent of jumping off a cliff.
And we get the persistent dualism even to the end. Later in this same response, you claim that you can make a good argument for this via inductive reasoning, yet here you're saying either that you can't or that such is useless anyway. You need to decide if it is really just faith in a randomly selected set of myths or if you have actual justification for where you are. If I were in your shoes, I most certainly would want to know why I picked the stories I picked. When my personal answer turned out that it was simply what my family handed me, I took the opportunity to start from scratch (as much as one can while realizing there are many years of bias built in). You were intentional in your avoidance of this line of discussion, making it appear that you have no answer. Perhaps this isn't the case, but I was certainly disappointed at the silence.
You would have it 'more likely' that there are whole swaths of missing quotations of Jesus (or perhaps they never even existed) and that legions of followers instead choose to invent and/or believe his Messiah message a generation or two after the fact.
You would have it more likely, if not absolutely so, that what we have today is an accurate representation of facts that occurred 50 or 70 years prior to being recorded, that survived intact orally across more than one generation of religious followers, and that despite several significant finds in the past 50 years of previously unknown works, only the good ones survived for 2000 years and the worthless ones (if any existed) were lost. You would have it that the authors of non-canonical gospels such as Thomas and Mary chose to invent their own Messiah message and history, along with the author of John and even Paul to some degree. And while you've been careful to avoid commenting on it, I wager that you would have other later prophets doing the same, since Jesus was the ultimate Messiah.
I posit that, if you don't believe any of this already (via irrational faith in something), considering the popularity of the Messiah concept at the time, and the subsequent popularity of the idea later on, a far more 'frugal' explanation with fewer 'entities' involved in the causation would be that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, and he merely lied about it.
And I never said such wasn't a possibility.
Which is the point. In spite of your countless reasons, I say that this, for you, is some kind of a priori analytic knowledge or something. If I wasn't feeling generous I'd simply call it petitio principii. I'm confident that I will not convince you of that.
You'll have to excuse the obvious lack of Latin in my response, but find this one somewhat amusing. Your primary argument is completely circular. What you see in the Bible works because you believe Jesus was the son of God. Without the Bible, you would have no idea that such a person existed nor that he claimed to be a deity. Nothing you have stands alone. I, on the other hand, use archeology, history, religious studies, sociology, and reason to question your unfounded assumptions. I appreciate your generosity (gratias tibi ago?), but this appeal to formal logic fails the sniff test. You can't make a deductive argument for your position so you try a weak inductive one instead. Then you want to attack the logical base of my arguments against your inductive argument? Your vocabulary certainly hints that you are quite knowledgeable about philosophy and logic, yet your application of it here simply doesn't work.
Here's my summary of what I've seen thus far. You say that you don't buy into much of the standard Christian dogma, including the inerrant word of Bible. You are fascinated by the prophesy aspect of the Bible and accept purely on faith that what is written is true (for the parts that you want). What you call straw men and attempts to toss you in with Christian apologetics are simply the twists and turns of arguments around what you say you accept on faith. You keep coming back to a claim that it really is as simple as faith, yet you want to argue history and texts when challenged. I have consistently tried to make the argument that is more likely than not that some of what you accept as true (on faith) didn't actually happen as you believe, and you consistently twist it to argue against a phantom point of stuff absolutely not happening that way.
Apparently, that's a reasonable and logical position after all. That is, unless there is something logical and rational about reincarnation, karma, or Samara that I'm not aware of, and something equally irrational about prophecy (which we are all well aware of). And this was, after all, all that I was originally saying. Do you think rebirth is 'logically' more intriguing than say, the Book of Revelation?
I find the possibility of reincarnation just as likely as the idea of heaven and hell. In fact, the Christian dogma really seems like a simplified version of reincarnation. That said, I know that you didn't ask for that comparison - you asked only about the last book of the standard Christian New Testament. However, you're talking apples and oranges. Studying and even appreciating eastern philosophies requires no cult of personality or acceptance of the veracity of supposed witness accounts from thousands of years ago. I don't need to accept the existence of Buddha or any of his writings to find something of value in the body of work. Just as I need not accept that Jesus was the son of God (or even that he claimed to be) to find something of value in the philosophical musings of Christianity as a whole. However, believing in prophecy is a horse of a different color. Prophecy is nothing without the veracity of the original work.
Hypothetical Situation: If I tell you I predicted the current economic collapse - in startling detail - in 1980, my claims should have no merit without some evidence as to the timing and the details. This doesn't mean that my extensive body of work on economical theory is invalidated. In fact, as my theories are promulgated and expanded upon, they become larger than me or any other person. But, this does nothing to prove my standing as a prophet.
Never. I said it was a fantasy to suggest that a scam - involving a non-existent Jesus or a Jesus that never claimed to be more than a rabbi - could have taken over Israel and later the whole Roman empire, particularity in the face of such persecution. Not impossible, unlikely to the extreme, which is still just an opinion.
But this isn't true unless you establish that the majority of early Christians actually knew Jesus personally and heard him say these things. Given that Christianity didn't really take off for a generation after the death of Jesus, it is much more likely that the religion was built more upon what others said about Jesus. We know that the writers of Mark, Matthew, and Luke almost assuredly did not know Jesus personally and had no first hand experience with what they wrote. Again, I'm not saying that Jesus absolutely didn't exist or didn't claim to be supernatural, but simply pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
I'm attacking your contention that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. This is absolutely fantastic to me.
And, I'll again repeat that I never said this. There are plenty of good arguments for how and why the Son of God aspect could have been added to the story after the death of Jesus. And, I've offered several arguments for doub
The print out the user gets is X and the one the machine stores is whatever fantasy is needed along with the electronic tally.
The point you're missing and the GP is neglecting to say specifically is that your printed ballot would be dropped in a box and used for any needed manual recount. There also should be a requirement each election cycle that a random sample of ballots are audited. If the voter verifies that the paper ballot matches their on-screen selections before dropping it in the box, the only issue I see is that the software could keep a list of ballots changed and present the auditor with the original version instead of what was used for tabulation. Of course, this could be worked around with good enough auditing requirements, or more simply, with open source requirements.
Christianity and the Bible, taken together as a whole, seamless concept, a package so to speak, is obviously problematic to the point of absurdity. Internal contradictions, a general lack of self-consistency, 'clear' myths such as deluges and rainbows and arks, and then there is the that you can never really know that any of these people even said any of these things in the first place. If you don't take it together as a whole, then why are you taking any of it? And how can you call that 'Christianity' anyway?
Now you're either not paying attention or starting to take my questions and comments more personally. I certainly have said things to imply the first part of that, but I've not even gotten close to anything like your last two sentences. I don't care what you call your religious beliefs. I don't care how you package it. I might point out apparent inconsistencies or ask how you got to 3 without adding 1 and 2. But, that's nothing like what you're now implying.
I mean, Noah? Where did that come from? I have to believe in Noah if I believe in Christ? I understand that 'most' Christians think this way... but this is slashdot... I thought we made fun of what 'most' people think about 'most things anyway. Now I find that my words are getting mixed up with every crazy thing you've heard any Christian say... and your arguments continue to be mixed up with retorts to arguments I never made...
Again, where did this come from? You asked me about my beliefs on historical and religious stuff, so I tried to give you a quick answer by way of examples. I also note that you picked one little snippet out of the middle of a large paragraph, somehow ignoring the context. I'll repeat it just for clarity.
You said:
I mean, do you believe ANY historical or religious text? Do you believe ANYTHING we know say, about the early Etruscans? Did Moses even exist for you? What about Hammurabi? What about Amenhotep I, given that the priests did EVERYTHING they could to wipe out his memory?
To which I replied:
Perhaps I've not been clear about my thoughts on this. I believe it quite likely that these people, in some manner, existed in history. As I think I've said about Jesus, he likely did exist and probably was a Jewish teacher who focused on the outcasts of Jewish society. However, I find no reason to believe that he was the fleshy incarnation of the all powerful creator or even claimed as much himself. I do not believe that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were the first humans, created and placed in a near-perfect garden. I do not believe that there was a man named Noah who built a giant boat and used it to save his family and all of the animals of the world from an Earth-covering flood. I do not find it likely that this god used to make regular appearances to people 2,500 to 2,000 years ago then suddenly went quiet. I do not find it likely that the all powerful creator selected one nomadic tribe in the Middle East thousands of years ago and made them his special people at the expense of the rest of the world. I do not believe that the king of gods (Zeus, Jupiter, or Indra depending on your flavor of choice) lives on a big mountain and hurls thunderbolts. I do not believe that the world exists on the back of a turtle. I am intrigued by some of the philosophy of Buddhism and Taoism, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them.
I am baffled at how you read that and twisted it to say that I'm claiming you believe in the story of Noah. Seriously.
I mentioned Caesar because 'we' believe a lot of things about him too, and I don't think the historical evidence for these ideas is really all that different than for our ideas about Christ. That might be hard to accept, but that is how I see it. You say Jesus existed, not everyone does. I find it hard
I certainly take no offense at anything you've said; you've been very polite and your arguments are clear. However, and no offense meant from my side either, but you seem very well prepared for a fight that I'm not picking.
I am aware that some of my comments may not be 100% relevant to you; your view is somewhat unique so it is not always obvious where you'll land on any particular issue.
I don't have your background... so excuse me if I do not factor the 'dangers' of Christian prophecy (historical texts you mean?) when I read them and find application (if any) for my life.
That was a comment about what happens when people put too much into the so-called prophecies. If you believe that the texts say eternal bliss will follow a huge war in Israel, it is not surprising that a segment of believers see it their duty to make it happen. I'm not suggesting that you carry things this far, but simply pointing out a problem with the concept in general.
It sounds very much to me like you are 'going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be' FALSE.
But you are ignoring what I told you about my journey to where I am now. I spent years looking explicitly for confirmation of what I believed to be true. I feel that I learned from this process and now tend to look for complications for what I feel to be true. I put myself in the shoes of someone who would disagree with me, or play my own devil's advocate, if that makes sense. Of course, my research methods are separate from how I discuss the issue with another person who actually disagrees with me:)
Let's pretend that I'm not a Christian Software Consultant. Instead, let's say I'm a Physicist by day, Buddhist by night. I'm a professor at MIT and I've won the Nobel Prize, all that, you get it. I'm clearly 'rational' and 'scientific', by anyone's standard, no? Let's say I like to meditate. Let's say I do believe in reincarnation. Also, let's say I freely admit that I have a mystical side and that my belief in reincarnation has NO foundation in empirical data or proof...BUT it's quite another to say 'there probably never really was a Siddhartha, and if there was, he probably never really said all these things.' I mean, do you believe ANY historical or religious text? Do you believe ANYTHING we know say, about the early Etruscans? Did Moses even exist for you? What about Hammurabi? What about Amenhotep I, given that the priests did EVERYTHING they could to wipe out his memory?
Perhaps I've not been clear about my thoughts on this. I believe it quite likely that these people, in some manner, existed in history. As I think I've said about Jesus, he likely did exist and probably was a Jewish teacher who focused on the outcasts of Jewish society. However, I find no reason to believe that he was the fleshy incarnation of the all powerful creator or even claimed as much himself. I do not believe that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were the first humans, created and placed in a near-perfect garden. I do not believe that there was a man named Noah who built a giant boat and used it to save his family and all of the animals of the world from an Earth-covering flood. I do not find it likely that this god used to make regular appearances to people 2,500 to 2,000 years ago then suddenly went quiet. I do not find it likely that the all powerful creator selected one nomadic tribe in the Middle East thousands of years ago and made them his special people at the expense of the rest of the world. I do not believe that the king of gods (Zeus, Jupiter, or Indra depending on your flavor of choice) lives on a big mountain and hurls thunderbolts. I do not believe that the world exists on the back of a turtle. I am intrigued by some of the philosophy of Buddhism and Taoism, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them.
It will be very hard for me to refute nameless 'historians' who are 'convinced' that something 'clearly refers' to something. One of my points was that the 'Antichrist' of John (if taken literally) has attributes that are a superset of the historical Nero. For example, I know of nothing Nero did that would compare to "causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." If the argument is: "this is not a prophecy proper... it refers to current events... fulfilled clearly by Nero... but let's not take it too literally..." Then I can't follow that reasoning. But I understand that this is a common theory.
While I think this is mostly a pointless sidebar by now, I do welcome you to start with a few minutes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast. If you consider this a literal prophecy of the coming end of the world, what exactly do you believe this mark to mean? Will everyone be forced to have a tattoo of the numerals 666 (what is the significance of that number anyway)?
Perhaps it's confirmation bias, perhaps not. This would take longer than it takes to post to slashdot to resolve. I would suggest that confirmation bias can operate both ways (skeptics and true believers alike), as I've been in many conversations where the debate gets shut down because some 'result' is 'well-known' by 'researchers' or something or another. Perhaps, but I have to make up my own mind in the matter... and there is no substitute for rolling up your sleeves and getting into it.
No doubt. And for what it's worth, I grew up in a Baptist church in a religious family. My transition occurred over 15 years or more as I researched to support my assumptions and slowly was forced to accept that I couldn't. As piece after piece slowly fell away, I could either stop and close my mind or I could take the next step and challenge my bigger core beliefs. I chose the latter and here I am today, a so-called skeptic.
However, if we can agree that Daniel stabilized a generation or two before Jesus...suddenly some 'impossible' prophecies became 'likely' to come true.
There are several things that you need to keep in mind regarding the so-called prophesies of Jesus - such as the writers of the Gospels were very familiar with the existing prophesies and certainly would have needed their new demi-god to fulfill them if they were going to recruit more followers, and Jesus was but one of many who were proclaimed to be the Messiah (either self-claimed or given the title by others). And, just like followers of other soothsayers, you seem happy to assume that yet-unfulfilled visions are just around the corner. Most of Daniel's prophecies took only a century or so but we've waited over 2000 years for that third temple? When I read Daniel I see a strange mixture of specific prophesies that coincidentally match up fairly well with the history of the region, stirred up with a bunch of extremely vague stories that sound more like Nostradamus. Of course, I'm not going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be true.
And if there ever is a third temple it would be built on the Dome of Rock, and that sounds like a big conflict waiting to happen, which is 'foretold' in other prophecies.
And, here we see a big danger in these prophesies. Just as followers of Jesus needed his story to fit the existing prophesies (see the torturous twisting of his family tree to tie him to King David or the need for a virgin birth, for example), there are Christian sects today actively promoting this conflict in the Middle East because they believe it is necessary in order for the return of Christ. They believe they can trigger the Rapture by making the Jews and Muslims slaughter each other.
Lucas was clearly mining ALL kinds of myths when he
True, true. There may be a slight difference in degree. The events of the Apocalypse are beyond Nero (but just barely) in many ways, and there are wild things like the infamous 'mark of the beast' that had no historic precedent at the time
My comment was directed at your reference to Hitler, not to the writings of John of Patmos in general. As for the mark of the beast, there is a sizable segment of biblical historians who are convinced that this clearly refers to Nero and nothing more. As you likely know, the Jews would have been familiar with the number values of their letters, and 666 neatly converts to Nero (there's actually an even older fragment of the book that pretty clearly says 616, which also converts to a common alternate spelling of Nero).
Rather I'm saying, IF you already believe in God and in Jesus in particular, THEN John in many ways is consistent with the old testament, things Jesus has been reported to have said, and ALSO, there is a good chance that these are yet FUTURE events because, and so forth, etc, etc.
But doesn't this quickly get you into the common circular logic of the average Christian? Why do you believe in God and Jesus? Because the Bible tells you so. How do know what the Bible says is right? Because it is the word of God. Round and around we go. If you don't already believe in God and Jesus then these writings likely mean little to you. If you believe in God and Jesus, it is because these writings already mean something to you.
However, I WILL say that in Daniel there are some prophecies that we could debate like this. I mean, you and I could actually debate the dating of the texts, the interpretations, and if, in fact, they came true or not. It still would not qualify as 'proving' anything though.
The problem usually occurs when a new discovery or strong theory sheds doubt on some tenet (no matter how minor) of Christianity, so it must be crushed. A challenge to anything is a challenge to all. I'm, of course, not speaking of you specifically. However, when research shows the Daniel was still being revised and rewritten within a generation or two of Jesus but most mainline sects want to date it much earlier due to their existing convictions, we quickly reach an impasse.
Well, for me, because it complements the (supposedly) recorded words of Jesus. In other words, the theology of John of Patmos (for me) is VERY consistent with Jesus... to the point where in the prophecy where Jesus is supposed to be talking... I - this is 100% belief however, faith - believe that Jesus is talking to John.
And why wouldn't it? Given that John was very likely familiar with the early editions of the Gospels, he should have known what we would expect Jesus to say.
Is it ridiculous? I suppose. Is it ridiculous when Obi Wan talks to Luke via force apparitions? Yeah, but we enjoy the idea of it. We like the idea that there is some order, meaning to the universe...
That is a great example. Both are fairly entertaining epic stories set mostly outside the realm of reality. The average person would have no trouble labeling the idea of the Force and Jedi Knights as fiction, yet would not dare do the same to the Christian Force and their own Luke Skywalker.
I believe John because his vision resonates with my faith.
And, again, you and John have similar ideas because you both read the same stories.
I read anything I can. I treat the gospels as suspect historical accounts, nothing more, not the 'inherent word of God'.
That's good to hear. Unfortunately for you, you've just marked yourself a heretic for 99% of mainline Christians:)
The Gospel of Thomas or Mary doesn't really do it for me... seems inconsistent with the Jesus in the other books. Oh, guess what? The Gospel of John (not t
Your post is certainly well-written and not the standard "Jesus Freak" babble. However, there are a few points that I would like to address.
Which is NOT to say that believing these (or some of these) prophecies are true is necessarily irrational. If you KNOW you don't have scientific or empirical proof, YET you still believe that God exists and that he spoke to one of us through a dream/hallucination/vision 2000 years ago, AND you find it consistent with other prophecies (Ezekiel, Isaiah) and things that Christ is supposed to have said, that is perfectly sound reasoning.
But, shouldn't it matter that the author of The Apocalypse of John most assuredly was quite familiar with the earlier prophecies in Ezekiel and Isaiah? Shouldn't it matter that archeology and historical research indicates that the books of the Old Testament were revised many times over the centuries prior to the time of Jesus? Shouldn't it matter that the writers of the four Gospels likewise were familiar with the earlier prophesies when they scribed their works, and they also built upon each other? Doesn't these somewhat solid facts weigh into your acceptance of the supposed prophecies?
A good example of why I do lend credence (not proof!) to biblical prophecies is something like this: I don't think that the Bible "predicted" Hitler. However, there are "predictions" (warnings) of a world dictator that tries to exterminate the Jews and Christians on an unprecedented, global scale. I think before Hitler this would have seemed like a fantasy. I think after Hitler we can see that there is something dark in human nature... and the Bible was talking about it 2000 years ago.
I am quite certain that the Jews of the first century AD and early Christians both would have had no trouble accepting the story of a "world" dictator who tries to exterminate the Jews and Christians. It would have been no fantasy to the Jewish and Christian world that was ruled by the iron fist of Roman emperors like Nero.
And a scenario like that is clearly no longer science fiction. And all too probable. And there are many other things ('meteor' impacts, fire that reigns down on the planet, large armies, instant global communication, etc. etc.) that seem all too 'normal' in modern times yet must have seemed like the insane ravings of a cultist 2000 years ago.
And crazy ideas like an earth-centered universe, a round earth, natural explanations for earthquakes and eclipses, and countless other things that religion historically claimed to answer (and sometimes violently so), but we now know better. Yet, I'm not sure how this lends any support to anything you've said.
On slashdot, if you say you believe in a "God" you are instantly labeled irrational and are assumed to have failed eighth grade science... how much worse is it to admit that you believe that you believe that he told us something important via one man's wild nightmare, that is, John of Patmos?
Why this one? There were many apocalyptic writing circulating during the second and third centuries. Why did this one become the accepted one, despite much opposition to it during the third and fourth centuries? It's not even in many early canon, including the Peshitta. If you want to reason yourself into this, I'd love to hear why you believe this particular writing. Of course, that also introduces the sticky issue of translations and lost works, to which I've never gotten a reasonable answer from any believer.
I'll grant that we can argue the semantics of whether or not the US is officially in a recession. However, I will take issue with your agreement that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong".
First, lack of a formally declared recession does not mean that the economy is strong or fundamentally sound. In reading your numerous posts in this discussion, I see you arguing the definition of a recession and how you believe the media and politicians have used FUD, but I find nothing to actually support a sound economy. In fact, even a layman's understanding of economics and the US economy would show real problems with the base upon which the US has lived for decades.
Real domestic production - e.g. manufacturing - has declined significantly, yet the economy continued to grow on the back of massive debt at all levels (individual consumers, businesses, and government) and the real estate market. While the real estate market certainly generated some ancillary real growth via construction, most of the so-called growth was simply magic money created by the financial industry. Now we see a lot of that supposed equity evaporating, which has further exacerbated the massive levels of debt undertaken.
Given that the US economy has in just the last three or four decades shifted from producer to consumer and financed it with massive debt, how can you suggest that the fundamentals are strong?
Well, forget about having a technician. There just aren't enough of them. They are understaffed even to fix their ATMs, there's no way in hell they can install a tech all day in every polling location, even assuming you could get them all to go through the non-partisan . Even having a few floating around is out of the question.
Just to correct a host of problems with your first paragraph.
The machines in WV (see TFA) are ES&S, not Diebold.
Diebold's voting machines were handled by a completely separate corporate element from their banking group.
At least in this state, Diebold is not understaffed to maintain their ATMs or other banking equipment.
That said, I do agree with your basic sentiment. Kanawha County (next door to Putnam County) reported that they don't even have contact information for the ES&S technician supposedly assigned to them.
Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT. I'd take that in a heartbeat over having my effective hourly rate start slowly dropping after I hit 40 hours for the week, since my pay won't change no matter how long I stay...
Any HR manager with half a brain takes that into account when determining pay rates. The one hourly guy in my IT department will be going to salaried at the end of this year and his pay rate will increase to compensate for the lost overtime. If you are working salaried for the same pay rate as you would get as an hourly employee, then you certainly have a point.
The simple fact that your are the one contributing to your 401k means that you're in control of your money, if you don't like the 401k plan your employer uses then use another one and forgo the matching funds which are few and far between anyways. This way you start investing in your retirement when you 25 and you end up with a mighty decent chunk of change by the time you choose to retire. You can also of course use that money once you retire to further invest in funds if you feel confident to risk your retirement funds while in retirement. With a couple of million dollars in your fund you can probably feel comfortable investing a hundred thousand or so which will give you enough gains if you invest properly or will a loss you can live with.
Since you're looking at this from the employee's perspective here, an employer-provided retirement plan is free icing on the cake. To repeat what I said earlier, like most, my defined-benefits pension plan costs me nothing. I can participate in the 401K if like.
As for the mortgage meltdown, it was a result of more idiotic thinking, why on earth would they think people could pay their mortgage if the payments went up 50%?
I wasn't talking about the people who sold bad loans by greedy mortgage officers; I was referring to those telling the lies to the borrowers, those bundling the mortgages to hide the risk, those selling the bundles to investors.
More than not reacting accordingly all through the 80s they continued increasing pensions instead of increasing salaries.
We certainly agree here. This "put off 'til tomorrow" attitude is the root of their problems and it goes back at least 30 years prior to the 80s. Increasing pensions rather than salaries kept the unions happy and kept the income sheets looking great.
You state how I speak from ignorance and then go on to support my statements exactly. GM did not start setting aside money when the employee enrolled in the pension plan. As a result when it came time for people to retire they had to use current profits to support it. As more and more retire it only gets harder for them, Sorry, but idiotic is indeed the way to describe this behavior.
I assume you have some reference that shows GM didn't put money into the pension plan until people started retiring? For good or ill, corporate pension plans are never 100% funded; this isn't a GM oddity. However, GM did spend on their retirement plans and continues to. The problem with setting aside 100% of the cost is that inflation and increased health care costs means that what they set aside in 1973 is nowhere near enough to meet the commitment's true cost, and they had no way of knowing that in 1973.
In regards to 401ks being somehow unsafe, short of total collapse of the economy you can always shift your investments from low-risk funds to different low-risk funds if they aren't performing.
You can shift your money only as allowed by your 401K administrator. For example, the plan at the company where I work has very few options and not enough to properly mitigate your risk. Further, as the mortgage meltdown should have demonstrated to you, investing is risky and there are many dishonest people gaming the system. Fraud at an investment firm could wipe out a company's 401K. An economic slowdown or poor investment decisions on your part could result in less money than you put into it (after inflation) by the time you retire.
It may not be 100% safe but its a few orders of magnitude better than a pension. Potentially you get a lot more too since you can start a 401k whenever you want.
But you also need to consider that most defined-benefit pension plans are 100% employer funded. I don't pay a dime out of my paycheck for the pension plan here but the 401K is funded primarily by my (pre-tax) contributions. My employer has a very weak 401K match; most of the company's costs for this plan is from the overhead.
You didn't say anything literally wrong there -- just, your casual framing of it implied less avoidability than there was.
I argued elsewhere in this thread that GM's problems are directly due to the shortsightedness of company and union officials in the 50s and 60s. They committed themselves to costs that no company could bear in any economy.
Sure: pretty much every historical account of GM.
I asked for support of your claims regarding Japanese pension law. My understanding of it doesn't jive with what you claimed.
But I think we're talking about different things here: you're talking about the governmental pensions, I'm talking about the corporate pensions, and yes Japan did have problems with her national pension plans as you say, but no the corporate ones did not for the reasons I mention, and yes in a national system one advantage is that you have broader base of workers to dump the costs on when you mess up, but no that's not a different problem *in kind* from what GM is going through.
Again, I ask if you have anything that supports your understanding of their pension system, because it is my understanding that Japan has a national pension plan that covers all employees. Large employers may opt out to some degree but only if they provide benefits above and beyond the national plan. This was somewhat explained in the PDF that I linked in my last response. For the record, union leaders tried to get Detroit to push the US government for a similar national pension system in the 50s but the executives instead shot themselves (and the rest of corporate America) in the foot by refusing to support the union plan.
If a pension plan (corporate or governmental) wants to make up for poor planning by dumping more costs on the workers, it faces limits in that the workers can decide they're getting screwed, and go work where they don't get gored to pay old people and the mistakes of planners.
That's why they cut back benefits to retirees first. What options does a retired employee have?
Don't be ridiculous. They should only have to fund the benefits the employee has already earned, at their present *discounted* value. After working there a year, he's owed an annuity in e.g. 29 years for $20/month, so they need to have bought a third-party annuity covering that, which will cost something like $100.
The problem is that the future costs are unknown. Health care costs, prescriptions in particular, have outpaced inflation by a lot recently. All these retirement plans that included health care benefits suddenly see their promises costing significantly more than anyone predicted a decade ago. Additionally, pension plans are huge investment vehicles which exposes them to some risk over the long term; the alternative means to let the lose value due to inflation.
There needn't (and *shouldn't*) be any relationship between the current profitability of a company and its ability to pay deferred compensation to workers for work already performed. If the funds are set aside in advance, the retirees are accounted for, irrespective of the ability of the company to earn a profit. This holds true regardless of how many retirees the company has.
Same as above. Unless you're thinking of retirement plans as nothing but a fixed monthly check, I would like to know how you think this is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, it's clear that this rule was proposed by people who don't have a clear picture of the area they are asking this to be applied to - much less of the processes of the people who would actually do it.
I was with you until that last sentence. If you had visited one of our agribusinesses' massive feedlots, you would see the people who support these rules. They are designed to do a few key things: raise the cost of doing business proportionally more for smaller farmers (thereby, giving the Cargills of the world a bigger advantage), make the world believe that US beef is now safer, and give the government more control over the US food chain. Those behind this know exactly what they are doing and why.
Imagine if the fire marshal had to get a warrant every time he wanted to make sure that the fire exits weren't being blocked in a large office building. It would significantly hamper the ability of the agency to conduct its job.
We're not talking about commercial equipment in a large office building. Imagine of the fire marshal had to get a warrant each time he wanted to make sure you had batteries in the smoke alarms in your house might be a bit better analogy.
"Environmental regulations" is rather vague, but I don't think the US stance at global warming would set it as a model.
Environmental regulations is not really that vague. Compare what the US allows in regard to air pollution, water pollution, industrial zoning, etc, against China or India. They are going through an industrial boom similar to what the US experienced for a century, when our rivers were so polluted that they could actually catch fire and burn. As for global warming, which industrialized nation would you point to as being ahead of the curve compared to the US?
Brazil is 13th among 171 countries in total military spending, putting it near the top of the list, and 61st as a percentage of GDP, making it more or less average. Ireland is 65th in total spending and 146th as a percentage of GDP, making it more or less average on both counts.
And where does the US fall on that list? I'll give you a hint - at the top. Brazil's spending is about 3% that of the US. Ireland is about 2/10 of a percent. Again, I don't argue that the US spends too much on the military-industrial complex, but steep cuts here will dramatically hurt the economy and quickly. Your answer may not be wrong philosophically but it is amazingly oversimplified for reality.
It's the US government at all levels, federal, state, and local, that should learn to live by the rules. When the corporations are moving overseas to places with lower taxes this means your taxes are too high, you should cut government spending and taxes at the same time.
Where do we start? Should the US adopt the environmental regulations of China and India? Or, perhaps the military of Brazil or Ireland? I don't disagree that the US needs to cut government spending, but your answer oversimplifies the problem to ridiculousness.
Done correctly, the delivery network lacks any reason to prefer or favor one provider over another, and the providers lack the ability to deny access to each other, since they don't own the delivery network. The consumer can then freely choice which they want, and the entry barrier for a new provider is low because it doesn't require digging up streets.
The method by which some US states quasi-deregulated their natural gas industries allows this, if you are savvy enough to take advantage of it. Natural gas distribution companies almost always have a local monopoly - the cost of entry is extremely high and the government has been involved in industry regulation for years (primarily from the safety perspective). Over the past 40 years, many of the large gas companies have broken into pieces, often due to regulation. Most are now organized into local distribution companies that are analogous to the telco last-mile provider, transmission companies that are national backbone networks, and extraction companies that actually get the gas from the ground.
In many states, local distribution companies are required by law to allow customers to use the local infrastructure for gas they buy from whomever they want. That means that I can sign my own purchase contracts from a supplier in the Gulf of Mexico and pay a nominal delivery fee for the use of the local distribution company's pipes. Of course, I'm not getting the same gas molecules that I purchased, but I don't care as long as the local distribution company's QA is up to snuff.
The average consumer would rather pay the regulated rates of the local gas company but many industrial customers are saving money by buying their own gas.
I see, and when IE is taken out of the windows install and the new user is provided with discs containing Opera, Firefox, Chrome and IE, which will they choose to install?
Obviously the OEMs would install their browser of choice. Assuming that no browser would be pre-installed sets the tone for this whole off-base rant of yours.
I suspect that most people who are willing to use 3rd party apps feel the same - 3rd party apps which suck don't have the right to try and poach users from the OS manufacturer's apps by stopping users having that default and hoping to bamboozle them into installing the suckier 3rd party app. If your app is good people will use it anyway.
This comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the business of computer software. The issue is so much deeper than which application is "better". How can applications compete on an even playing field when the manufacturer of the only desktop OS grossly stacks the deck in favor of their own products?
And now for the car analogy:
Imagine a world where electric windows aren't standard. Now, imagine that someone starts selling aftermarket electric windows... Sucks to be you - make a better product or make a different add on in the full expectation that it'll become standard equipment in a few years, but don't bitch that you want the people who buy the cars to be forced to take the car home from the dealer and then either pay you to fit your electric windows, leaving their car out of action for a week, or return it to the dealer to fit electric windows for free, but still leaving them car-less for a week.
Again, you clearly do not understand the real issue here. To make your weak car analogy relevant, you would need some significant changes. Let's say that your imaginary car maker integrated the oxygen sensor, starter solenoid, and CD player in the electric window. They provide little to no documentation for third-parties who want to make better replacement windows, and even threaten to sue those who do manage to reverse engineer the interfaces. As the only car manufacturer, they are able to dictate to the dealerships that no other type of windows can be installed prior to selling the car to a customer. Then, for the real cherry on top, this manufacturer also makes serious money on their other line of business - producing and selling equipment that makes window tinting, window defrosters, power mirrors, etc. By guaranteeing that their windows are in their cars and that they have the only legitimate development platform for other add-ons, something small as an electric window has opened up numerous ancillary monopolies with good income potential.
OpenOffice complaining that wordpad competes with them? Octave complaining that for simple work calc competes with them?
Now you're just getting silly. Seriously.
Finally, I hear no-one screaming that linux should adhere to the same standards. Linux will not 'win' whilst it's seen as trying to create an unfair playing field with legal actions. If someone suggested that Firefox, Lynx, Konqueror and Nautilus were abolished from default installs so that other browsers could get a shot, it would be laughed off the mailing list. Someone sugesting that both browsers and all methods of getting browsers should go, forcing users to get them from a seperate disc would probably find themselves off the mailing list sharpish.
Perhaps if you could show me where Linux, Inc. sells their computers with their Linux branded browser, then you could be in the same plane as this discussion. Since you clearly have absolutely zero idea how open source - and linux in particular - works, let me give you a hint. Linux is not a company, a group, or even an OS. There are linux-based distros with no browser installed and others with numer
What I'm saying is that there's no need for pictures of people eating, belching or blowing their noses. The igniting of farts is also unnecessary. I don't see a purpose in pushing a massive pull-down either.
That the mothers see this as important (as in, an important thing to do) is irrelevant. There are a number of things that are important to do that don't need to be photographed and presented to the world.
So, you personally don't see the point in it but also don't believe that FB needs to be removing it? If that is what you're saying, we're actually in agreement. Of course, the discussion isn't about either of our tastes in photography, but whether FB ought to consider a baby nursing on a mostly unexposed breast as pornography.
My understanding of the ToS guidelines (the ones I've looked at) is "no nipples." If exceptions are made for nipples shown during breastfeeding, that relatively simple standard becomes complicated and, potentially, useless. When you agree to the ToS, you abide by the ToS, like them or don't. If you can'd abide by them, go somewhere else.
Several posters have quoted the FB TOS already and it says nothing about nipples. Further, I've seen the picture removed and I'm at a loss for the nipple in it. Just to be clear, I'm not questioning FB's right to exclude nipples, knees, or chins from their site. The legal right to take an action does not make it the right thing to do.
That last paragraph is pretty close to totally off-base, afaict. There's nobody saying that there's anything wrong with breastfeeding that I've seen (I'm not trolling at 0 and reading every AC). Some folks are saying they'd rather not see it. I'm suggesting some modesty is appropriate. I've not called anybody a freak, sinner nor pervert for disagreeing with me about this. If you want to bark at the people who have done more than I have, be my guest, but that's not me, and I'm not going to apologize for something I haven't done.
Actually, there are plenty in this discussion and across America who find breastfeeding in general to be disgusting and would prefer that it at least be banned in public. There are laws in most states specifically protecting the right to discreetly breastfeed in public exactly because of this. You went off on a tangent about militant free thinkers who want others to accept them, so I responded in kind to the other side of the coin. That does not imply that you personally spit on breastfeeding moms at the local Walmart.
I see no need for pictures of anybody eating on FB/MS, regardless of age or what they're eating. I also don't see a need for pictures of people belching, or blowing their noses. I don't think that needs to be a ToS issue (as of yet). When it comes to babies breastfeeding, I don't see any purpose in showing pictures of that. It's a crappy angle for looking at the baby. I'd rather see the baby sleeping or playing or smiling or being cute or something -- speaking just for me.
So, what are you actually trying to say? Are you suggesting that FB should leave the breastfeeding pictures alone, or they also should remove those of Jimmy eating a hamburger?
As for personal feelings on breastfeeding pictures, you are correct that you don't get a good picture of the baby - the picture obviously is of the mother doing something she considers important. Just as some people post pictures of them with their dog, on their snowboard, holding a fishing rod, or graduating school, some mothers identify this action as an important part of their being so it seems natural to include it in their photographs. It isn't about boobs or being provocative.
The pushing of the boob is getting to be an issue for me. I ran into a guy on an IM network who's an amateur photographer, and he wanted to send me some of his pictures. Since I didn't know him, I was a bit concerned about what the pictures would be, which he picked up on, and assured me that he didn't do nudes. However, he did do some tasteful topless shots of his wife. I told him I didn't want to see those, and he's been so intrigued by that that it comes up every time we chat (every week or three). I'm planning on getting very direct the next time he asks, if he does. Topless isn't all he does, and I don't mind looking at his other shots from time to time.
Interesting story, but some guy wanting you to see his wife posing topless is completely unrelated to a mom breastfeeding her baby. It is this inappropriate mixing of opinions on breastfeeding with erotic art or pornography that is the crux of this discussion.
I do think there's something of militancy in this movement of "accept me, approve of me, or you're a bigot/puritan/pervert." And that I'm totally ready to give the finger to. I don't shove my lifestyle down your throat or demand your acceptance or approval, and I'm not obliged to build your feelings of self-worth.
And there's even more of a militancy in the status quo of "conform or you're a freak/sinner/pervert". Society as a whole, and the more outspoken members (like many in this thread) regularly shove their lifestyle down everyone's throat and demand acceptance. Further, they demand that everyone else adopts it. I don't see these mothers on FB trying to force your wife to post pics of her breastfeeding or requiring that all mothers must breastfeed in public. No, they simply want not to be considered a deviant for doing something as natural as breastfeeding their baby.
If a guy did this to Megan, and given how large the media circus was, he'd be branded a sexual predator regardless of age and be ostracized from society for the rest of his life.
If a guy did that to Megan, it wouldn't have been a large media circus and most of society would have never known about it. You know about it only because the details made it interesting enough for the national media to pick it up.
Terrible analogy, for these reasons:
1) You have a deductible - that's money out of your pocket
2) Your car insurance is for "fair market value" not "replacement value" - if your car is not average - i.e. it is a beater or it is modified or it is just extremely well cared for - the insurance check may not be enough to cover the cost of an equivalent-to-you replacement
3) Having your car stolen is a PITA - lots of hassle and rigmarole before you are made whole, that's time and money wasted
So, no you do not have every motivation to leave the keys in the car, in fact you have plenty of incentives to take reasonable steps to prevent its theft.
Did you hear that sound as the OP's point went flying over your head? In your failure to get his sarcasm, you helped make his point. If you think having your car stolen is a PITA, imagine how inconvenient it would be to find yourself dead.
Seriously, do you not think before you speak? The author said not to PUBLISH the information PUBLICLY. You still tell the families of those involved, but beyond that no one needs to know. Lets use the current case with Lori Drew as an example. The Judge presiding the case himself wanted to EXCLUDE the suicide information, but because *every* person they got for the Jury had heard about the case they couldn't. So now we have a problem with people's rights to a FAIR trial being taken away thanks to mainstream media having to have sensationalist stories.
I ask the same initial question of you. How do you suppose that the US goes about implementing your suggestions? Do you believe that we need a federal law that prohibits anyone from publicly discussing anything related to potential or on-going legal actions? Crimes can't be reported (in the newspaper, on the television, by bloggers, or mentioned around the water cooler) because details would get out. We can't have anyone knowing about suicides, or rapes, or murders, or thefts, or corruption, or anything else, because it could impede the justice system? Seriously, do you not think before you speak?
You don't see the problem here? I can't help you see something I'm not suggesting. You can't get there rationally. Reason can inform your personal theology (you can call it a 'bastardization' if you need to) but I would never suggest that you can get there through any mechanism other than the philosophical equivalent of jumping off a cliff.
And we get the persistent dualism even to the end. Later in this same response, you claim that you can make a good argument for this via inductive reasoning, yet here you're saying either that you can't or that such is useless anyway. You need to decide if it is really just faith in a randomly selected set of myths or if you have actual justification for where you are. If I were in your shoes, I most certainly would want to know why I picked the stories I picked. When my personal answer turned out that it was simply what my family handed me, I took the opportunity to start from scratch (as much as one can while realizing there are many years of bias built in). You were intentional in your avoidance of this line of discussion, making it appear that you have no answer. Perhaps this isn't the case, but I was certainly disappointed at the silence.
You would have it 'more likely' that there are whole swaths of missing quotations of Jesus (or perhaps they never even existed) and that legions of followers instead choose to invent and/or believe his Messiah message a generation or two after the fact.
You would have it more likely, if not absolutely so, that what we have today is an accurate representation of facts that occurred 50 or 70 years prior to being recorded, that survived intact orally across more than one generation of religious followers, and that despite several significant finds in the past 50 years of previously unknown works, only the good ones survived for 2000 years and the worthless ones (if any existed) were lost. You would have it that the authors of non-canonical gospels such as Thomas and Mary chose to invent their own Messiah message and history, along with the author of John and even Paul to some degree. And while you've been careful to avoid commenting on it, I wager that you would have other later prophets doing the same, since Jesus was the ultimate Messiah.
I posit that, if you don't believe any of this already (via irrational faith in something), considering the popularity of the Messiah concept at the time, and the subsequent popularity of the idea later on, a far more 'frugal' explanation with fewer 'entities' involved in the causation would be that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, and he merely lied about it.
And I never said such wasn't a possibility.
Which is the point. In spite of your countless reasons, I say that this, for you, is some kind of a priori analytic knowledge or something. If I wasn't feeling generous I'd simply call it petitio principii. I'm confident that I will not convince you of that.
You'll have to excuse the obvious lack of Latin in my response, but find this one somewhat amusing. Your primary argument is completely circular. What you see in the Bible works because you believe Jesus was the son of God. Without the Bible, you would have no idea that such a person existed nor that he claimed to be a deity. Nothing you have stands alone. I, on the other hand, use archeology, history, religious studies, sociology, and reason to question your unfounded assumptions. I appreciate your generosity (gratias tibi ago?), but this appeal to formal logic fails the sniff test. You can't make a deductive argument for your position so you try a weak inductive one instead. Then you want to attack the logical base of my arguments against your inductive argument? Your vocabulary certainly hints that you are quite knowledgeable about philosophy and logic, yet your application of it here simply doesn't work.
On the other hand, I merely suggest that yo
Apparently, that's a reasonable and logical position after all. That is, unless there is something logical and rational about reincarnation, karma, or Samara that I'm not aware of, and something equally irrational about prophecy (which we are all well aware of). And this was, after all, all that I was originally saying. Do you think rebirth is 'logically' more intriguing than say, the Book of Revelation?
I find the possibility of reincarnation just as likely as the idea of heaven and hell. In fact, the Christian dogma really seems like a simplified version of reincarnation. That said, I know that you didn't ask for that comparison - you asked only about the last book of the standard Christian New Testament. However, you're talking apples and oranges. Studying and even appreciating eastern philosophies requires no cult of personality or acceptance of the veracity of supposed witness accounts from thousands of years ago. I don't need to accept the existence of Buddha or any of his writings to find something of value in the body of work. Just as I need not accept that Jesus was the son of God (or even that he claimed to be) to find something of value in the philosophical musings of Christianity as a whole. However, believing in prophecy is a horse of a different color. Prophecy is nothing without the veracity of the original work.
Hypothetical Situation: If I tell you I predicted the current economic collapse - in startling detail - in 1980, my claims should have no merit without some evidence as to the timing and the details. This doesn't mean that my extensive body of work on economical theory is invalidated. In fact, as my theories are promulgated and expanded upon, they become larger than me or any other person. But, this does nothing to prove my standing as a prophet.
Never. I said it was a fantasy to suggest that a scam - involving a non-existent Jesus or a Jesus that never claimed to be more than a rabbi - could have taken over Israel and later the whole Roman empire, particularity in the face of such persecution. Not impossible, unlikely to the extreme, which is still just an opinion.
But this isn't true unless you establish that the majority of early Christians actually knew Jesus personally and heard him say these things. Given that Christianity didn't really take off for a generation after the death of Jesus, it is much more likely that the religion was built more upon what others said about Jesus. We know that the writers of Mark, Matthew, and Luke almost assuredly did not know Jesus personally and had no first hand experience with what they wrote. Again, I'm not saying that Jesus absolutely didn't exist or didn't claim to be supernatural, but simply pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
I'm attacking your contention that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. This is absolutely fantastic to me.
And, I'll again repeat that I never said this. There are plenty of good arguments for how and why the Son of God aspect could have been added to the story after the death of Jesus. And, I've offered several arguments for doub
The print out the user gets is X and the one the machine stores is whatever fantasy is needed along with the electronic tally.
The point you're missing and the GP is neglecting to say specifically is that your printed ballot would be dropped in a box and used for any needed manual recount. There also should be a requirement each election cycle that a random sample of ballots are audited. If the voter verifies that the paper ballot matches their on-screen selections before dropping it in the box, the only issue I see is that the software could keep a list of ballots changed and present the auditor with the original version instead of what was used for tabulation. Of course, this could be worked around with good enough auditing requirements, or more simply, with open source requirements.
Your position seems to be something like:
Christianity and the Bible, taken together as a whole, seamless concept, a package so to speak, is obviously problematic to the point of absurdity. Internal contradictions, a general lack of self-consistency, 'clear' myths such as deluges and rainbows and arks, and then there is the that you can never really know that any of these people even said any of these things in the first place. If you don't take it together as a whole, then why are you taking any of it? And how can you call that 'Christianity' anyway?
Now you're either not paying attention or starting to take my questions and comments more personally. I certainly have said things to imply the first part of that, but I've not even gotten close to anything like your last two sentences. I don't care what you call your religious beliefs. I don't care how you package it. I might point out apparent inconsistencies or ask how you got to 3 without adding 1 and 2. But, that's nothing like what you're now implying.
I mean, Noah? Where did that come from? I have to believe in Noah if I believe in Christ? I understand that 'most' Christians think this way... but this is slashdot... I thought we made fun of what 'most' people think about 'most things anyway. Now I find that my words are getting mixed up with every crazy thing you've heard any Christian say... and your arguments continue to be mixed up with retorts to arguments I never made...
Again, where did this come from? You asked me about my beliefs on historical and religious stuff, so I tried to give you a quick answer by way of examples. I also note that you picked one little snippet out of the middle of a large paragraph, somehow ignoring the context. I'll repeat it just for clarity.
You said:
I mean, do you believe ANY historical or religious text? Do you believe ANYTHING we know say, about the early Etruscans? Did Moses even exist for you? What about Hammurabi? What about Amenhotep I, given that the priests did EVERYTHING they could to wipe out his memory?
To which I replied:
Perhaps I've not been clear about my thoughts on this. I believe it quite likely that these people, in some manner, existed in history. As I think I've said about Jesus, he likely did exist and probably was a Jewish teacher who focused on the outcasts of Jewish society. However, I find no reason to believe that he was the fleshy incarnation of the all powerful creator or even claimed as much himself. I do not believe that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were the first humans, created and placed in a near-perfect garden. I do not believe that there was a man named Noah who built a giant boat and used it to save his family and all of the animals of the world from an Earth-covering flood. I do not find it likely that this god used to make regular appearances to people 2,500 to 2,000 years ago then suddenly went quiet. I do not find it likely that the all powerful creator selected one nomadic tribe in the Middle East thousands of years ago and made them his special people at the expense of the rest of the world. I do not believe that the king of gods (Zeus, Jupiter, or Indra depending on your flavor of choice) lives on a big mountain and hurls thunderbolts. I do not believe that the world exists on the back of a turtle. I am intrigued by some of the philosophy of Buddhism and Taoism, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them.
I am baffled at how you read that and twisted it to say that I'm claiming you believe in the story of Noah. Seriously.
I mentioned Caesar because 'we' believe a lot of things about him too, and I don't think the historical evidence for these ideas is really all that different than for our ideas about Christ. That might be hard to accept, but that is how I see it. You say Jesus existed, not everyone does. I find it hard
I certainly take no offense at anything you've said; you've been very polite and your arguments are clear. However, and no offense meant from my side either, but you seem very well prepared for a fight that I'm not picking.
I am aware that some of my comments may not be 100% relevant to you; your view is somewhat unique so it is not always obvious where you'll land on any particular issue.
I don't have your background... so excuse me if I do not factor the 'dangers' of Christian prophecy (historical texts you mean?) when I read them and find application (if any) for my life.
That was a comment about what happens when people put too much into the so-called prophecies. If you believe that the texts say eternal bliss will follow a huge war in Israel, it is not surprising that a segment of believers see it their duty to make it happen. I'm not suggesting that you carry things this far, but simply pointing out a problem with the concept in general.
It sounds very much to me like you are 'going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be' FALSE.
But you are ignoring what I told you about my journey to where I am now. I spent years looking explicitly for confirmation of what I believed to be true. I feel that I learned from this process and now tend to look for complications for what I feel to be true. I put myself in the shoes of someone who would disagree with me, or play my own devil's advocate, if that makes sense. Of course, my research methods are separate from how I discuss the issue with another person who actually disagrees with me :)
Let's pretend that I'm not a Christian Software Consultant. Instead, let's say I'm a Physicist by day, Buddhist by night. I'm a professor at MIT and I've won the Nobel Prize, all that, you get it. I'm clearly 'rational' and 'scientific', by anyone's standard, no? Let's say I like to meditate. Let's say I do believe in reincarnation. Also, let's say I freely admit that I have a mystical side and that my belief in reincarnation has NO foundation in empirical data or proof...BUT it's quite another to say 'there probably never really was a Siddhartha, and if there was, he probably never really said all these things.' I mean, do you believe ANY historical or religious text? Do you believe ANYTHING we know say, about the early Etruscans? Did Moses even exist for you? What about Hammurabi? What about Amenhotep I, given that the priests did EVERYTHING they could to wipe out his memory?
Perhaps I've not been clear about my thoughts on this. I believe it quite likely that these people, in some manner, existed in history. As I think I've said about Jesus, he likely did exist and probably was a Jewish teacher who focused on the outcasts of Jewish society. However, I find no reason to believe that he was the fleshy incarnation of the all powerful creator or even claimed as much himself. I do not believe that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were the first humans, created and placed in a near-perfect garden. I do not believe that there was a man named Noah who built a giant boat and used it to save his family and all of the animals of the world from an Earth-covering flood. I do not find it likely that this god used to make regular appearances to people 2,500 to 2,000 years ago then suddenly went quiet. I do not find it likely that the all powerful creator selected one nomadic tribe in the Middle East thousands of years ago and made them his special people at the expense of the rest of the world. I do not believe that the king of gods (Zeus, Jupiter, or Indra depending on your flavor of choice) lives on a big mountain and hurls thunderbolts. I do not believe that the world exists on the back of a turtle. I am intrigued by some of the philosophy of Buddhism and Taoism, but I find just as ridicules the trappings of the various formal religions erected around them.
D
It will be very hard for me to refute nameless 'historians' who are 'convinced' that something 'clearly refers' to something. One of my points was that the 'Antichrist' of John (if taken literally) has attributes that are a superset of the historical Nero. For example, I know of nothing Nero did that would compare to "causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." If the argument is: "this is not a prophecy proper... it refers to current events... fulfilled clearly by Nero... but let's not take it too literally..." Then I can't follow that reasoning. But I understand that this is a common theory.
While I think this is mostly a pointless sidebar by now, I do welcome you to start with a few minutes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast. If you consider this a literal prophecy of the coming end of the world, what exactly do you believe this mark to mean? Will everyone be forced to have a tattoo of the numerals 666 (what is the significance of that number anyway)?
Perhaps it's confirmation bias, perhaps not. This would take longer than it takes to post to slashdot to resolve. I would suggest that confirmation bias can operate both ways (skeptics and true believers alike), as I've been in many conversations where the debate gets shut down because some 'result' is 'well-known' by 'researchers' or something or another. Perhaps, but I have to make up my own mind in the matter... and there is no substitute for rolling up your sleeves and getting into it.
No doubt. And for what it's worth, I grew up in a Baptist church in a religious family. My transition occurred over 15 years or more as I researched to support my assumptions and slowly was forced to accept that I couldn't. As piece after piece slowly fell away, I could either stop and close my mind or I could take the next step and challenge my bigger core beliefs. I chose the latter and here I am today, a so-called skeptic.
However, if we can agree that Daniel stabilized a generation or two before Jesus...suddenly some 'impossible' prophecies became 'likely' to come true.
There are several things that you need to keep in mind regarding the so-called prophesies of Jesus - such as the writers of the Gospels were very familiar with the existing prophesies and certainly would have needed their new demi-god to fulfill them if they were going to recruit more followers, and Jesus was but one of many who were proclaimed to be the Messiah (either self-claimed or given the title by others). And, just like followers of other soothsayers, you seem happy to assume that yet-unfulfilled visions are just around the corner. Most of Daniel's prophecies took only a century or so but we've waited over 2000 years for that third temple? When I read Daniel I see a strange mixture of specific prophesies that coincidentally match up fairly well with the history of the region, stirred up with a bunch of extremely vague stories that sound more like Nostradamus. Of course, I'm not going into it looking for confirmation of what I already know to be true.
And if there ever is a third temple it would be built on the Dome of Rock, and that sounds like a big conflict waiting to happen, which is 'foretold' in other prophecies.
And, here we see a big danger in these prophesies. Just as followers of Jesus needed his story to fit the existing prophesies (see the torturous twisting of his family tree to tie him to King David or the need for a virgin birth, for example), there are Christian sects today actively promoting this conflict in the Middle East because they believe it is necessary in order for the return of Christ. They believe they can trigger the Rapture by making the Jews and Muslims slaughter each other.
Lucas was clearly mining ALL kinds of myths when he
True, true. There may be a slight difference in degree. The events of the Apocalypse are beyond Nero (but just barely) in many ways, and there are wild things like the infamous 'mark of the beast' that had no historic precedent at the time
My comment was directed at your reference to Hitler, not to the writings of John of Patmos in general. As for the mark of the beast, there is a sizable segment of biblical historians who are convinced that this clearly refers to Nero and nothing more. As you likely know, the Jews would have been familiar with the number values of their letters, and 666 neatly converts to Nero (there's actually an even older fragment of the book that pretty clearly says 616, which also converts to a common alternate spelling of Nero).
Rather I'm saying, IF you already believe in God and in Jesus in particular, THEN John in many ways is consistent with the old testament, things Jesus has been reported to have said, and ALSO, there is a good chance that these are yet FUTURE events because, and so forth, etc, etc.
But doesn't this quickly get you into the common circular logic of the average Christian? Why do you believe in God and Jesus? Because the Bible tells you so. How do know what the Bible says is right? Because it is the word of God. Round and around we go. If you don't already believe in God and Jesus then these writings likely mean little to you. If you believe in God and Jesus, it is because these writings already mean something to you.
However, I WILL say that in Daniel there are some prophecies that we could debate like this. I mean, you and I could actually debate the dating of the texts, the interpretations, and if, in fact, they came true or not. It still would not qualify as 'proving' anything though.
The problem usually occurs when a new discovery or strong theory sheds doubt on some tenet (no matter how minor) of Christianity, so it must be crushed. A challenge to anything is a challenge to all. I'm, of course, not speaking of you specifically. However, when research shows the Daniel was still being revised and rewritten within a generation or two of Jesus but most mainline sects want to date it much earlier due to their existing convictions, we quickly reach an impasse.
Well, for me, because it complements the (supposedly) recorded words of Jesus. In other words, the theology of John of Patmos (for me) is VERY consistent with Jesus... to the point where in the prophecy where Jesus is supposed to be talking... I - this is 100% belief however, faith - believe that Jesus is talking to John.
And why wouldn't it? Given that John was very likely familiar with the early editions of the Gospels, he should have known what we would expect Jesus to say.
Is it ridiculous? I suppose. Is it ridiculous when Obi Wan talks to Luke via force apparitions? Yeah, but we enjoy the idea of it. We like the idea that there is some order, meaning to the universe...
That is a great example. Both are fairly entertaining epic stories set mostly outside the realm of reality. The average person would have no trouble labeling the idea of the Force and Jedi Knights as fiction, yet would not dare do the same to the Christian Force and their own Luke Skywalker.
I believe John because his vision resonates with my faith.
And, again, you and John have similar ideas because you both read the same stories.
I read anything I can. I treat the gospels as suspect historical accounts, nothing more, not the 'inherent word of God'.
That's good to hear. Unfortunately for you, you've just marked yourself a heretic for 99% of mainline Christians :)
The Gospel of Thomas or Mary doesn't really do it for me... seems inconsistent with the Jesus in the other books. Oh, guess what? The Gospel of John (not t
Which is NOT to say that believing these (or some of these) prophecies are true is necessarily irrational. If you KNOW you don't have scientific or empirical proof, YET you still believe that God exists and that he spoke to one of us through a dream/hallucination/vision 2000 years ago, AND you find it consistent with other prophecies (Ezekiel, Isaiah) and things that Christ is supposed to have said, that is perfectly sound reasoning.
But, shouldn't it matter that the author of The Apocalypse of John most assuredly was quite familiar with the earlier prophecies in Ezekiel and Isaiah? Shouldn't it matter that archeology and historical research indicates that the books of the Old Testament were revised many times over the centuries prior to the time of Jesus? Shouldn't it matter that the writers of the four Gospels likewise were familiar with the earlier prophesies when they scribed their works, and they also built upon each other? Doesn't these somewhat solid facts weigh into your acceptance of the supposed prophecies?
A good example of why I do lend credence (not proof!) to biblical prophecies is something like this: I don't think that the Bible "predicted" Hitler. However, there are "predictions" (warnings) of a world dictator that tries to exterminate the Jews and Christians on an unprecedented, global scale. I think before Hitler this would have seemed like a fantasy. I think after Hitler we can see that there is something dark in human nature... and the Bible was talking about it 2000 years ago.
I am quite certain that the Jews of the first century AD and early Christians both would have had no trouble accepting the story of a "world" dictator who tries to exterminate the Jews and Christians. It would have been no fantasy to the Jewish and Christian world that was ruled by the iron fist of Roman emperors like Nero.
And a scenario like that is clearly no longer science fiction. And all too probable. And there are many other things ('meteor' impacts, fire that reigns down on the planet, large armies, instant global communication, etc. etc.) that seem all too 'normal' in modern times yet must have seemed like the insane ravings of a cultist 2000 years ago.
And crazy ideas like an earth-centered universe, a round earth, natural explanations for earthquakes and eclipses, and countless other things that religion historically claimed to answer (and sometimes violently so), but we now know better. Yet, I'm not sure how this lends any support to anything you've said.
On slashdot, if you say you believe in a "God" you are instantly labeled irrational and are assumed to have failed eighth grade science... how much worse is it to admit that you believe that you believe that he told us something important via one man's wild nightmare, that is, John of Patmos?
Why this one? There were many apocalyptic writing circulating during the second and third centuries. Why did this one become the accepted one, despite much opposition to it during the third and fourth centuries? It's not even in many early canon, including the Peshitta. If you want to reason yourself into this, I'd love to hear why you believe this particular writing. Of course, that also introduces the sticky issue of translations and lost works, to which I've never gotten a reasonable answer from any believer.
I'll grant that we can argue the semantics of whether or not the US is officially in a recession. However, I will take issue with your agreement that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong".
First, lack of a formally declared recession does not mean that the economy is strong or fundamentally sound. In reading your numerous posts in this discussion, I see you arguing the definition of a recession and how you believe the media and politicians have used FUD, but I find nothing to actually support a sound economy. In fact, even a layman's understanding of economics and the US economy would show real problems with the base upon which the US has lived for decades.
Real domestic production - e.g. manufacturing - has declined significantly, yet the economy continued to grow on the back of massive debt at all levels (individual consumers, businesses, and government) and the real estate market. While the real estate market certainly generated some ancillary real growth via construction, most of the so-called growth was simply magic money created by the financial industry. Now we see a lot of that supposed equity evaporating, which has further exacerbated the massive levels of debt undertaken.
Given that the US economy has in just the last three or four decades shifted from producer to consumer and financed it with massive debt, how can you suggest that the fundamentals are strong?
Well, forget about having a technician. There just aren't enough of them. They are understaffed even to fix their ATMs, there's no way in hell they can install a tech all day in every polling location, even assuming you could get them all to go through the non-partisan . Even having a few floating around is out of the question.
Just to correct a host of problems with your first paragraph.
That said, I do agree with your basic sentiment. Kanawha County (next door to Putnam County) reported that they don't even have contact information for the ES&S technician supposedly assigned to them.
Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT. I'd take that in a heartbeat over having my effective hourly rate start slowly dropping after I hit 40 hours for the week, since my pay won't change no matter how long I stay...
Any HR manager with half a brain takes that into account when determining pay rates. The one hourly guy in my IT department will be going to salaried at the end of this year and his pay rate will increase to compensate for the lost overtime. If you are working salaried for the same pay rate as you would get as an hourly employee, then you certainly have a point.
The simple fact that your are the one contributing to your 401k means that you're in control of your money, if you don't like the 401k plan your employer uses then use another one and forgo the matching funds which are few and far between anyways. This way you start investing in your retirement when you 25 and you end up with a mighty decent chunk of change by the time you choose to retire. You can also of course use that money once you retire to further invest in funds if you feel confident to risk your retirement funds while in retirement. With a couple of million dollars in your fund you can probably feel comfortable investing a hundred thousand or so which will give you enough gains if you invest properly or will a loss you can live with.
Since you're looking at this from the employee's perspective here, an employer-provided retirement plan is free icing on the cake. To repeat what I said earlier, like most, my defined-benefits pension plan costs me nothing. I can participate in the 401K if like.
As for the mortgage meltdown, it was a result of more idiotic thinking, why on earth would they think people could pay their mortgage if the payments went up 50%?
I wasn't talking about the people who sold bad loans by greedy mortgage officers; I was referring to those telling the lies to the borrowers, those bundling the mortgages to hide the risk, those selling the bundles to investors.
More than not reacting accordingly all through the 80s they continued increasing pensions instead of increasing salaries.
We certainly agree here. This "put off 'til tomorrow" attitude is the root of their problems and it goes back at least 30 years prior to the 80s. Increasing pensions rather than salaries kept the unions happy and kept the income sheets looking great.
You state how I speak from ignorance and then go on to support my statements exactly. GM did not start setting aside money when the employee enrolled in the pension plan. As a result when it came time for people to retire they had to use current profits to support it. As more and more retire it only gets harder for them, Sorry, but idiotic is indeed the way to describe this behavior.
I assume you have some reference that shows GM didn't put money into the pension plan until people started retiring? For good or ill, corporate pension plans are never 100% funded; this isn't a GM oddity. However, GM did spend on their retirement plans and continues to. The problem with setting aside 100% of the cost is that inflation and increased health care costs means that what they set aside in 1973 is nowhere near enough to meet the commitment's true cost, and they had no way of knowing that in 1973.
In regards to 401ks being somehow unsafe, short of total collapse of the economy you can always shift your investments from low-risk funds to different low-risk funds if they aren't performing.
You can shift your money only as allowed by your 401K administrator. For example, the plan at the company where I work has very few options and not enough to properly mitigate your risk. Further, as the mortgage meltdown should have demonstrated to you, investing is risky and there are many dishonest people gaming the system. Fraud at an investment firm could wipe out a company's 401K. An economic slowdown or poor investment decisions on your part could result in less money than you put into it (after inflation) by the time you retire.
It may not be 100% safe but its a few orders of magnitude better than a pension. Potentially you get a lot more too since you can start a 401k whenever you want.
But you also need to consider that most defined-benefit pension plans are 100% employer funded. I don't pay a dime out of my paycheck for the pension plan here but the 401K is funded primarily by my (pre-tax) contributions. My employer has a very weak 401K match; most of the company's costs for this plan is from the overhead.
You didn't say anything literally wrong there -- just, your casual framing of it implied less avoidability than there was.
I argued elsewhere in this thread that GM's problems are directly due to the shortsightedness of company and union officials in the 50s and 60s. They committed themselves to costs that no company could bear in any economy.
Sure: pretty much every historical account of GM.
I asked for support of your claims regarding Japanese pension law. My understanding of it doesn't jive with what you claimed.
But I think we're talking about different things here: you're talking about the governmental pensions, I'm talking about the corporate pensions, and yes Japan did have problems with her national pension plans as you say, but no the corporate ones did not for the reasons I mention, and yes in a national system one advantage is that you have broader base of workers to dump the costs on when you mess up, but no that's not a different problem *in kind* from what GM is going through.
Again, I ask if you have anything that supports your understanding of their pension system, because it is my understanding that Japan has a national pension plan that covers all employees. Large employers may opt out to some degree but only if they provide benefits above and beyond the national plan. This was somewhat explained in the PDF that I linked in my last response. For the record, union leaders tried to get Detroit to push the US government for a similar national pension system in the 50s but the executives instead shot themselves (and the rest of corporate America) in the foot by refusing to support the union plan.
If a pension plan (corporate or governmental) wants to make up for poor planning by dumping more costs on the workers, it faces limits in that the workers can decide they're getting screwed, and go work where they don't get gored to pay old people and the mistakes of planners.
That's why they cut back benefits to retirees first. What options does a retired employee have?
Don't be ridiculous. They should only have to fund the benefits the employee has already earned, at their present *discounted* value. After working there a year, he's owed an annuity in e.g. 29 years for $20/month, so they need to have bought a third-party annuity covering that, which will cost something like $100.
The problem is that the future costs are unknown. Health care costs, prescriptions in particular, have outpaced inflation by a lot recently. All these retirement plans that included health care benefits suddenly see their promises costing significantly more than anyone predicted a decade ago. Additionally, pension plans are huge investment vehicles which exposes them to some risk over the long term; the alternative means to let the lose value due to inflation.
There needn't (and *shouldn't*) be any relationship between the current profitability of a company and its ability to pay deferred compensation to workers for work already performed. If the funds are set aside in advance, the retirees are accounted for, irrespective of the ability of the company to earn a profit. This holds true regardless of how many retirees the company has.
Same as above. Unless you're thinking of retirement plans as nothing but a fixed monthly check, I would like to know how you think this is possible.