z"Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?"
Yep, just like the govt. healthcare 'reform' coming up...wants you to pay for Jerome and Debbie Public down the block who can't seem to understand contraception, exercise, food that isn't fast food, and that smoking is bad for you.
You might do things the right way...but the govt. is wanting you to also pony up for those that don't know or won't do the right things in life...and to save them from their own ignorance/stupidity.
And you'd do what exactly? Just let them die? Just come out and admit it, why don't you. Your solution is basically, "I've got mine, which means I'm smart and I deserve it. If you don't have yours, it's because you don't deserve it. All problems experienced by anyone are completely their own fault. If you have a problem and you can't fix it, just fucking die already. "
I'd have a lot more respect for conservative ideology if it's practitioners would just admit they want the poor and unlucky to just. fucking. DIE. already.
Who pays for the schools? Do you only have private, for pay libraries in New Hampshire? Your emergency rooms turn away people who can't pay, contrary to Federal law? You've installed pay turnstiles at all your public parks?
You shouldn't look at this as paying for someone else's mistakes, but as a way to cover the cost of the benefit to us. We all would benefit from reduced spam, scams and malware, we all should pay. Given that spam makes up over 80% of Internet traffic, we could all download far more porn, far more quickly were spam to disappear.
This couldn't possibly lead to people caring any less than they already do. Sure, I would love to tax only the people who actually get a virus, but getting rid of the malware is more important than making idiots pay for something they don't understand.
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
That's pretty funny. What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions? What cut of the ISP bill does the government get? And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet, or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government?
Maybe if the government is so incompetent, we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services. Obviously, the private sector should be handling those services too, right? You like toll roads, right? Blackwater can easily do the job of the military, why are we letting the incompetent government protect us?
Well, I don't take it personally. Slashdot it a big place. I just met a five digit with a huge comment history that thinks just like me, and I'd somehow managed to miss all his posts for years.
I like you because you're almost, but not quite as smart and well educated as I am, so I can easily out-debate you. Any dumber, you'd be too boring to debate, any smarter and I'd actually have to work to win. Maybe you've just blocked out the humiliating memories of your defeats at my hands. I've heard that approach is a popular coping mechanism amongst the less gifted.
Exactly, large groups of people, who have no other options and no real security, do not change. Large groups of people who are secure and have options do change. That was the whole point of my comment, but thank you for reiterating it in your own words, perhaps it will help some people understand what I was saying more clearly.
Really now. Because modern research and experiment shows that people do not continue to rely on safety nets. People are motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity, not self interest. Look up games theory and games like the Dictator Game. People make choices, even when large sums of real money are on the line, that are not in their own self interest, but motivated by fairness.
No. The answer I gave is "no." I can only hope you are feigning cluelessness for rhetorical purposes.
"Theoretical" means something in common usage, it means a hunch, guess, or supposition. The modern synthesis of evolutionary thought is no more theoretical than Einstein's theory of gravity is theoretical. A 'theory' in science is not 'theoretical' in the common sense of that word. In science, if something is 'theoretical' we call that a 'hypothesis' not a 'theory.'
Your counter argument to mine is to claim that I said, "blah blah blah." You basically say, "I don't like your argument, therefore, it must be invalid." Nice.
I explained pretty clearly how one can have charity without freeloaders. I believe conservatives even have a simple term for it: "a hand up, not a handout."
If you want to throw in the towel and plainly admit to all Slashdot readers that you have been utterly bested and can come up with no better rebuttal than "blah blah blah," be my guest.
It won't be the first time I've demolished you in an argument and sent you home crying, and it won't be the last.
We aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at you
on
Trade Your Bible For Porn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Thanks, pudge. There's nothing I quite enjoy more than watching you get smacked down repeatedly, only to come back swinging with arguments that work only in your own mind. I bet you think you're winning this argument, don't you? Hilarious.
What is socialism, then? Look at most of the countries that consider themselves socialist democracies, and you will see they attempt to function as I've described. Socialism is not communism, it does not mean collective control over all resources, and it does not mean the state owns all property.
Okay, I will run that by you one more time. Do try to keep up.
People in desperate situations do not just give up and die. They take desperate actions. Not only do they not contribute to society, not only are they a drain, they are dangerous, and a destabilizing element.
Keeping people from desperation thus benefits society. Yes, they are 'freeloaders,' but that is better than being a desperate animal with the brains of a human. And, because people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest, when we help people out, they want to pay it back and contribute to society. They aren't freeloaders for long. They become productive, and as I'm sure we both agree that the economy is not a zero sum game, the more productive members of society we have, the more we all benefit.
See? Everyone benefits. So why should some people get away without paying for that benefit? If they are in a desperate situation themselves, I could understand, but if they can afford to pay for this benefit, and they don't, why should they continue to receive all the other benefits that come from living in a mutually beneficial society?
What statistics do you suggest I look at, exactly? And where do you get the idea I'm a liberal? I'm far scarier than that. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.
You do know the red states take more Federal money than they pay in taxes, right? Funny how people always like socialism that benefits them, isn't it? Funny how they can feed from the trough, and at the same time, claim it is immoral to feed from the trough, so no one else should.
The Kibbutzim? Okay, well, that was socialism, but the situation is complex, and the failures of the kibbutzim is not necessarily an indictment of socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
That all being said, flamebait? Really? I hate it just as much when it happens to people I disagree with as when it happens to me. "Flamebait" and "Troll" are not synonymous to "I disagree." I don't need your help, reactionary mods, I can make my arguments just fine without your 'helpful' down-moderation of my opponents.
Again, it is not 'Other people's money rather than their own.'
It is 'My own money, but I don't want other people freeloading off what I give, we should all pay since we all benefit."
In fact, I'm unsure of what chain of logic could even be used to arrive at your conclusion. Could you explain how you arrive at the conclusion that liberals don't pay taxes?
Man, I thought your 'lip service' comment was directed at me, and I was all set for a good huff. But it must not have been directed at me, because the actual body of your comment agrees with me.
BTW, I like your new sig. What ever happened with the movie? Last I checked on your blog, (a while ago) I think it was actually in post production. Any release? Any showings? It sounded kinda cool. I know we get in great big huffy arguments a lot, but I don't actually dislike you.
Wrong, the modern synthesis corrects many errors in the original theory, and adds a great deal to our understanding of evolution.
Maybe if you presented some concrete examples, I could understand what exactly you mean. But you don't, you just provide some generalities and vague speculation.
Oh, duh, right. Selection bias for college students, I thought you were talking about age because that is all the article mentions:
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
But you were talking about a different article that you had read, which DID focus on college students. I thought we were still referring to the article grub had mentioned.
Oh my goodness, someone doesn't understand how the IQ scale works. It is the percentage of intellectual age to actual age, and 100 is, by definition, average for any given age group.
Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing.
The idea that liberals give away 'other people's money' is ludicrous on the face of it. Liberals don't pay taxes? We're putting our money towards charity, too, but charity is a public good, and we demand that you pay your fair share of this shared good. When I give to a charity, you benefit. because the charity makes society a better place. Charities make the hungry and homeless less desperate, and less likely to steal your stuff. They make the useless and uneducated into productive citizens who grow the economy. Charities do all kinds of beneficial things, and everyone benefits, which is why everyone should pay.
Socialism is good for progress. In a climate of rapidly changing technology, a country has to be able to shift gears quickly. Whole outmoded industries need to be able to just die painlessly, without hurting the people in those industries. We need a social safety net so that people can leave old, obsolete careers without fear, and educational programs that will enable us to rapidly retool our society to take advantage of the next big thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not true. No corporation pays 30% of net profits as tax.
My point being, the original post made it sound as if there was a Federal sales tax on online transactions and Internet connectivity.
z"Does this mean that clueful people with secure computers are going to be required to pay to help clueless people with insecure computers?"
Yep, just like the govt. healthcare 'reform' coming up...wants you to pay for Jerome and Debbie Public down the block who can't seem to understand contraception, exercise, food that isn't fast food, and that smoking is bad for you.
You might do things the right way...but the govt. is wanting you to also pony up for those that don't know or won't do the right things in life...and to save them from their own ignorance/stupidity.
And you'd do what exactly? Just let them die? Just come out and admit it, why don't you. Your solution is basically, "I've got mine, which means I'm smart and I deserve it. If you don't have yours, it's because you don't deserve it. All problems experienced by anyone are completely their own fault. If you have a problem and you can't fix it, just fucking die already. "
I'd have a lot more respect for conservative ideology if it's practitioners would just admit they want the poor and unlucky to just. fucking. DIE. already.
Who pays for the schools? Do you only have private, for pay libraries in New Hampshire? Your emergency rooms turn away people who can't pay, contrary to Federal law? You've installed pay turnstiles at all your public parks?
You shouldn't look at this as paying for someone else's mistakes, but as a way to cover the cost of the benefit to us. We all would benefit from reduced spam, scams and malware, we all should pay. Given that spam makes up over 80% of Internet traffic, we could all download far more porn, far more quickly were spam to disappear.
This couldn't possibly lead to people caring any less than they already do. Sure, I would love to tax only the people who actually get a virus, but getting rid of the malware is more important than making idiots pay for something they don't understand.
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
That's pretty funny. What Federal taxes do we pay on online transactions? What cut of the ISP bill does the government get? And are we talking about the same government that created the Internet, or is this monstrously incompetent government a different government?
Maybe if the government is so incompetent, we should outsource such vital functions as roads and the armed services. Obviously, the private sector should be handling those services too, right? You like toll roads, right? Blackwater can easily do the job of the military, why are we letting the incompetent government protect us?
Well, I don't take it personally. Slashdot it a big place. I just met a five digit with a huge comment history that thinks just like me, and I'd somehow managed to miss all his posts for years.
I like you because you're almost, but not quite as smart and well educated as I am, so I can easily out-debate you. Any dumber, you'd be too boring to debate, any smarter and I'd actually have to work to win. Maybe you've just blocked out the humiliating memories of your defeats at my hands. I've heard that approach is a popular coping mechanism amongst the less gifted.
Good points, actually.
Exactly, large groups of people, who have no other options and no real security, do not change. Large groups of people who are secure and have options do change. That was the whole point of my comment, but thank you for reiterating it in your own words, perhaps it will help some people understand what I was saying more clearly.
Really now. Because modern research and experiment shows that people do not continue to rely on safety nets. People are motivated by ideals of fairness and reciprocity, not self interest. Look up games theory and games like the Dictator Game. People make choices, even when large sums of real money are on the line, that are not in their own self interest, but motivated by fairness.
And your explanation here, that is what American conservatives mean when they call Obama's policies 'socialist,' is it?
No. The answer I gave is "no." I can only hope you are feigning cluelessness for rhetorical purposes.
"Theoretical" means something in common usage, it means a hunch, guess, or supposition. The modern synthesis of evolutionary thought is no more theoretical than Einstein's theory of gravity is theoretical. A 'theory' in science is not 'theoretical' in the common sense of that word. In science, if something is 'theoretical' we call that a 'hypothesis' not a 'theory.'
Anarcho-syndicalism is not communism.
Your counter argument to mine is to claim that I said, "blah blah blah." You basically say, "I don't like your argument, therefore, it must be invalid." Nice.
I explained pretty clearly how one can have charity without freeloaders. I believe conservatives even have a simple term for it: "a hand up, not a handout."
If you want to throw in the towel and plainly admit to all Slashdot readers that you have been utterly bested and can come up with no better rebuttal than "blah blah blah," be my guest.
It won't be the first time I've demolished you in an argument and sent you home crying, and it won't be the last.
Thanks, pudge. There's nothing I quite enjoy more than watching you get smacked down repeatedly, only to come back swinging with arguments that work only in your own mind. I bet you think you're winning this argument, don't you? Hilarious.
What is socialism, then? Look at most of the countries that consider themselves socialist democracies, and you will see they attempt to function as I've described. Socialism is not communism, it does not mean collective control over all resources, and it does not mean the state owns all property.
Okay, I will run that by you one more time. Do try to keep up.
People in desperate situations do not just give up and die. They take desperate actions. Not only do they not contribute to society, not only are they a drain, they are dangerous, and a destabilizing element.
Keeping people from desperation thus benefits society. Yes, they are 'freeloaders,' but that is better than being a desperate animal with the brains of a human. And, because people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest, when we help people out, they want to pay it back and contribute to society. They aren't freeloaders for long. They become productive, and as I'm sure we both agree that the economy is not a zero sum game, the more productive members of society we have, the more we all benefit.
See? Everyone benefits. So why should some people get away without paying for that benefit? If they are in a desperate situation themselves, I could understand, but if they can afford to pay for this benefit, and they don't, why should they continue to receive all the other benefits that come from living in a mutually beneficial society?
What statistics do you suggest I look at, exactly? And where do you get the idea I'm a liberal? I'm far scarier than that. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist.
You do know the red states take more Federal money than they pay in taxes, right? Funny how people always like socialism that benefits them, isn't it? Funny how they can feed from the trough, and at the same time, claim it is immoral to feed from the trough, so no one else should.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Look how well socialism worked to turn a subsistence level farming community into an industrial powerhouse in under fifty years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
DeLorean? How was that remotely socialist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_Motor_Company
The Kibbutzim? Okay, well, that was socialism, but the situation is complex, and the failures of the kibbutzim is not necessarily an indictment of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
That all being said, flamebait? Really? I hate it just as much when it happens to people I disagree with as when it happens to me. "Flamebait" and "Troll" are not synonymous to "I disagree." I don't need your help, reactionary mods, I can make my arguments just fine without your 'helpful' down-moderation of my opponents.
Ah, crap, that's too bad. :/
Again, it is not 'Other people's money rather than their own.'
It is 'My own money, but I don't want other people freeloading off what I give, we should all pay since we all benefit."
In fact, I'm unsure of what chain of logic could even be used to arrive at your conclusion. Could you explain how you arrive at the conclusion that liberals don't pay taxes?
Man, I thought your 'lip service' comment was directed at me, and I was all set for a good huff. But it must not have been directed at me, because the actual body of your comment agrees with me.
BTW, I like your new sig. What ever happened with the movie? Last I checked on your blog, (a while ago) I think it was actually in post production. Any release? Any showings? It sounded kinda cool. I know we get in great big huffy arguments a lot, but I don't actually dislike you.
Wrong, the modern synthesis corrects many errors in the original theory, and adds a great deal to our understanding of evolution.
Maybe if you presented some concrete examples, I could understand what exactly you mean. But you don't, you just provide some generalities and vague speculation.
Oh, duh, right. Selection bias for college students, I thought you were talking about age because that is all the article mentions:
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
But you were talking about a different article that you had read, which DID focus on college students. I thought we were still referring to the article grub had mentioned.
Yep, great article in SciAm recently on this very topic. We had to evolve hairlessness and lots of sweat glands before we could evolve big brains.
Oh my goodness, someone doesn't understand how the IQ scale works. It is the percentage of intellectual age to actual age, and 100 is, by definition, average for any given age group.
You must be a conservative, right? It shows.
Back up your wild assertions with some links, or everyone will be forced to conclude you just made that up. Here's one rebuttal to the assertion: http://immorallogic.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberal-vs-conservative-giving.html
Basically, if you don't count donations to churches, the gap disappears. And why should you? Even when a church does charitable work, it comes with a sermon which is basically a sales pitch to join something very like an MLM scheme. It isn't charity, it's marketing.
The idea that liberals give away 'other people's money' is ludicrous on the face of it. Liberals don't pay taxes? We're putting our money towards charity, too, but charity is a public good, and we demand that you pay your fair share of this shared good. When I give to a charity, you benefit. because the charity makes society a better place. Charities make the hungry and homeless less desperate, and less likely to steal your stuff. They make the useless and uneducated into productive citizens who grow the economy. Charities do all kinds of beneficial things, and everyone benefits, which is why everyone should pay.
Socialism is good for progress. In a climate of rapidly changing technology, a country has to be able to shift gears quickly. Whole outmoded industries need to be able to just die painlessly, without hurting the people in those industries. We need a social safety net so that people can leave old, obsolete careers without fear, and educational programs that will enable us to rapidly retool our society to take advantage of the next big thing.