I never said I don't give directly. The state should definitely take care of the poor, the disabled, the addicted, you know, everyone with needs. Those things are too big for individuals to fix as are roads and infrastructure. Those too proud to want help would still be free to start their own private charity or get help from private charity if they are so anti-government. I'm sure those people too would not want to drive on government roads, attend government schools, use government paramedics, or government firemen, etc. You know, to keep themselves pure like Ayn Rand (Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum) would want them to be.
I suppose you're happier in a world where private corporations own everything and you slave away as a cog in their process while owning nothing. That's fine, I myself would rather own a piece of it and have my fellow humans taken care of because that is what a civilized society does.
You're right. Conditions are necessary as they are in any real-life case. All humans require adequate, food, water, and safety for survival. Love seems to be more necessary for the newborns for healthy development though it should be there for optimality at any age.
You're right of course that one doesn't have to be religious to have a moral objection to abortion. One does have to be religious to be batshit insane loco crazy against abortion to the point of being willing to murder or wish death and all sorts of evil on people who make choices that disagree with their religious zealotry. More often than not, their religious fervor doesn't allow them to see the perversion they've made of their religion in the name of following their misinterpreted and misapplied doctrine.
You take it incorrectly but nice try creating an absurd argument to rail against. I favor something like the Norwegian model, where every citizen benefits from oil extracted in their country. A non-profit that administered our natural resources and contracted extraction, distillation and distributions services and profits went to us would be fantastic. Before you tear down the idea, know that you too, the famed "Crimson Avenger" would benefit in this scenario. But, if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, feel free to do so, sadly, a lack of rationality is par-for-the-course in today's discourse.
Given adequate food, water, love, and safety, yes, it can survive on its own. Scientists also don't use "my holy book written by a series of half insane ancient jewish guys says so" as the criteria.
I am happy to have lifted your spirits. Hope you are doing well.
Remember that many of us are in support of people with crippling illnesses getting the help they need and are happy to pay taxes toward those ends. Same as we are happy to help support those who are in less-than-fortunate economic circumstances through the bad choice they made in being born to non-wealthy parents, or having been caught up in the racist legal system.
An embryo has the potential to be a human but as it can't survive on its own, it isn't a human. Also, you aren't pro-life, you're pro-birth. Pro-life people don't want to incarcerate human beings for the thought crime of getting high on "disallowed" drugs.
Nuclear power is not the best option as its inherent dangers aren't worth the benefit. Solar, wind, water are much better options for power with less greenhouse gasses.
Science has never weighed in in GMOs, only corporations have lobbied to get them permitted with _zero_ long-term (or even short-term) studies having been performed on their effect on the human race. Vaccines have been shown to be ineffective in many cases thus adjuvants are added to "create" a reaction. Gluten is also harmful for most human beings but corporatist "science" (and sugared cereal) has convinced most of us that wheat is good for us.
Corporate run science with no oversight (our current situation) isn't science.
I hate drumpft in ways that most of you can't imagine beginning to fathom. I am however in favor of tariffs, protectionism is how economies are built and industries fostered. It is what got China so big so quick. We need strategic tariffs to protect our industries. Instead of protecting extractionist and unadvanced industries like chemically based agriculture, we should be protecting and holding on to high-technology and advanced manufacturing. Our current policies are geared toward making us a third-world agricultural country.
Applying math to a theoretical model does not make something a science. Economics is not science, it has no basis (no laws of physics) other than theories which have been proven false and inapplicable in all meaningful situations.
I doubt you'll continue with the smug attitude when your children blame you for the horror drumpf will have visited upon their future. Sadly, drumpf won't finish his term and the much more focusedly evil penis breath pence will.
The oil industry exploits a natural resource at the expense of the environment, to sell a product to the masses, which enriches the elites. Subsidies help to enrich the already wealthy by extracting wealth from the masses by selling what by-rights belongs to all of humanity..
German corporations keep their industrial base intact in the face of globalism. This is why the German economy hums along, still making great products from cars to pencil sharpeners. Their robust industrial base is due to the fact that it enshrined in their constitution (which our socialist generals at the end of WW2 dictated to them), that rank-and-file employees make up 50% of an advisory board for each corporation. This is why their corporations are not soulless psychopaths that American corporations are.
Don't you have some other pro-dRumpft forums to visit? Or places to troll with your russian-bot friends?
I'm a bit concerned about your math skills, or you were up too late past your bedtime, or mom was yelling at you to unlock the door this instant.... You were correct about water though, it is indeed wet, great job you!
Rick, you are claiming not to be ignorant of technical matters, so you don't fear things that other technically aware people do. Do you claim to posses sole knowledge about the possibilities and probabilities of near future software advancements? Because some of us are very technically aware and do fear the upcoming software driven job Armageddon. It seems that you are stuck in a paradigm where you think that wholesale loss of jobs requires human-type and human level AI. No one is arguing that such AI is what we see taking the jobs. Very specific, niche AI is all that is required to take a lawyer's job, an engineer's job, a software programmer's job. Once it takes one job in a field, thousands of and hundreds of thousands of job will fall in that field, because software is incredibly easy to replicate, and cheap as the cost of a few GB of data and some processor time. So, argue against what we're looking at, not some straw-man that you created just so you could flog it.
Not to derail the conversation too much but you also wrote this on a different topic:
I'm taking bets on how long it'll be until someone inadvertently creates a new genetic disease in some reckless attempt to cure something else. Also taking lower-odds bets on how long until someone dies of cancer caused by gene modification 'therapy'.
Which seems inconsistent with your harping on people being afraid of science and the future. Are you afraid in that case because you're not too solid on the science? I don't disagree with your premise btw, just bringing it up so you can see that even you have some trepidations about the future and the disasters that science unchecked can bring.
Awareness of their capability and potential for disruption is not the same as fear. Of course if fear is your primary emotion, then everything looks like fear to you. OTOH if as the AC points out, you are dRumpft then there's no point in discussing anything beyond 140 characters cause you've already lost interest.
Rick, despite your lavish use of all-caps words and bolding of text (combined at times even), jeff4747 made more logical statements that hang together and thus he wins the argument. I guess the lesson here is that yelling and raising your voice doesn't necessarily add up to a more cogent argument or a better thought process (does it ever?).
Slashdot Mirror
I never said I don't give directly. The state should definitely take care of the poor, the disabled, the addicted, you know, everyone with needs. Those things are too big for individuals to fix as are roads and infrastructure.
Those too proud to want help would still be free to start their own private charity or get help from private charity if they are so anti-government. I'm sure those people too would not want to drive on government roads, attend government schools, use government paramedics, or government firemen, etc. You know, to keep themselves pure like Ayn Rand (Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum) would want them to be.
Why is that a question? Why is it relevant?
I suppose you're happier in a world where private corporations own everything and you slave away as a cog in their process while owning nothing. That's fine, I myself would rather own a piece of it and have my fellow humans taken care of because that is what a civilized society does.
Your particular situation or views doesn't change mine. Best wishes!
You're right. Conditions are necessary as they are in any real-life case. All humans require adequate, food, water, and safety for survival. Love seems to be more necessary for the newborns for healthy development though it should be there for optimality at any age.
You're right of course that one doesn't have to be religious to have a moral objection to abortion. One does have to be religious to be batshit insane loco crazy against abortion to the point of being willing to murder or wish death and all sorts of evil on people who make choices that disagree with their religious zealotry. More often than not, their religious fervor doesn't allow them to see the perversion they've made of their religion in the name of following their misinterpreted and misapplied doctrine.
You take it incorrectly but nice try creating an absurd argument to rail against.
I favor something like the Norwegian model, where every citizen benefits from oil extracted in their country. A non-profit that administered our natural resources and contracted extraction, distillation and distributions services and profits went to us would be fantastic. Before you tear down the idea, know that you too, the famed "Crimson Avenger" would benefit in this scenario. But, if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, feel free to do so, sadly, a lack of rationality is par-for-the-course in today's discourse.
Given adequate food, water, love, and safety, yes, it can survive on its own.
Scientists also don't use "my holy book written by a series of half insane ancient jewish guys says so" as the criteria.
I am happy to have lifted your spirits. Hope you are doing well.
Remember that many of us are in support of people with crippling illnesses getting the help they need and are happy to pay taxes toward those ends. Same as we are happy to help support those who are in less-than-fortunate economic circumstances through the bad choice they made in being born to non-wealthy parents, or having been caught up in the racist legal system.
Only if they feel like going slumming
Yeah, but unfortunately we are living in an alternate reality that closely mirrors Idiocracy and/or Back to the Future 2.
yay! I found another moron to "foe"
Brave words from an AC
None of what you said is correct.
An embryo has the potential to be a human but as it can't survive on its own, it isn't a human. Also, you aren't pro-life, you're pro-birth. Pro-life people don't want to incarcerate human beings for the thought crime of getting high on "disallowed" drugs.
Nuclear power is not the best option as its inherent dangers aren't worth the benefit. Solar, wind, water are much better options for power with less greenhouse gasses.
Science has never weighed in in GMOs, only corporations have lobbied to get them permitted with _zero_ long-term (or even short-term) studies having been performed on their effect on the human race. Vaccines have been shown to be ineffective in many cases thus adjuvants are added to "create" a reaction. Gluten is also harmful for most human beings but corporatist "science" (and sugared cereal) has convinced most of us that wheat is good for us.
Corporate run science with no oversight (our current situation) isn't science.
I hate drumpft in ways that most of you can't imagine beginning to fathom. I am however in favor of tariffs, protectionism is how economies are built and industries fostered. It is what got China so big so quick. We need strategic tariffs to protect our industries. Instead of protecting extractionist and unadvanced industries like chemically based agriculture, we should be protecting and holding on to high-technology and advanced manufacturing. Our current policies are geared toward making us a third-world agricultural country.
Applying math to a theoretical model does not make something a science. Economics is not science, it has no basis (no laws of physics) other than theories which have been proven false and inapplicable in all meaningful situations.
I doubt you'll continue with the smug attitude when your children blame you for the horror drumpf will have visited upon their future. Sadly, drumpf won't finish his term and the much more focusedly evil penis breath pence will.
You might want to ask for an increase in your meds. Also, please ask someone to hold your guns if the voices keep coming.
Thanks for posting this. I was too demotivated by the volume of ignorance to reply to the idiotic rightist AC poster.
I like it when the little red LED next to a user's name gets confirmed with their new posts... It cuts out ambiguity.
The oil industry exploits a natural resource at the expense of the environment, to sell a product to the masses, which enriches the elites. Subsidies help to enrich the already wealthy by extracting wealth from the masses by selling what by-rights belongs to all of humanity..
You forgot "the Gays"! Don't forget "the Gays"! and Drugs!
I'm guessing you wear your MAGA hat on your way to work...
German corporations keep their industrial base intact in the face of globalism. This is why the German economy hums along, still making great products from cars to pencil sharpeners. Their robust industrial base is due to the fact that it enshrined in their constitution (which our socialist generals at the end of WW2 dictated to them), that rank-and-file employees make up 50% of an advisory board for each corporation. This is why their corporations are not soulless psychopaths that American corporations are.
Don't you have some other pro-dRumpft forums to visit? Or places to troll with your russian-bot friends?
I'm a bit concerned about your math skills, or you were up too late past your bedtime, or mom was yelling at you to unlock the door this instant.... You were correct about water though, it is indeed wet, great job you!
Rick, you are claiming not to be ignorant of technical matters, so you don't fear things that other technically aware people do. Do you claim to posses sole knowledge about the possibilities and probabilities of near future software advancements? Because some of us are very technically aware and do fear the upcoming software driven job Armageddon. It seems that you are stuck in a paradigm where you think that wholesale loss of jobs requires human-type and human level AI. No one is arguing that such AI is what we see taking the jobs. Very specific, niche AI is all that is required to take a lawyer's job, an engineer's job, a software programmer's job. Once it takes one job in a field, thousands of and hundreds of thousands of job will fall in that field, because software is incredibly easy to replicate, and cheap as the cost of a few GB of data and some processor time. So, argue against what we're looking at, not some straw-man that you created just so you could flog it.
Not to derail the conversation too much but you also wrote this on a different topic:
I'm taking bets on how long it'll be until someone inadvertently creates a new genetic disease in some reckless attempt to cure something else.
Also taking lower-odds bets on how long until someone dies of cancer caused by gene modification 'therapy'.
Which seems inconsistent with your harping on people being afraid of science and the future. Are you afraid in that case because you're not too solid on the science? I don't disagree with your premise btw, just bringing it up so you can see that even you have some trepidations about the future and the disasters that science unchecked can bring.
Hmm. Do you have anything meaningful to respond with?
Awareness of their capability and potential for disruption is not the same as fear. Of course if fear is your primary emotion, then everything looks like fear to you. OTOH if as the AC points out, you are dRumpft then there's no point in discussing anything beyond 140 characters cause you've already lost interest.
Rick, despite your lavish use of all-caps words and bolding of text (combined at times even), jeff4747 made more logical statements that hang together and thus he wins the argument. I guess the lesson here is that yelling and raising your voice doesn't necessarily add up to a more cogent argument or a better thought process (does it ever?).