People will smugly believe whatever they want, and eschew arguments that don't fit their worldview
Since nearly all scientific researc supports the theory AGW, it's the deniers that should be grouped together with young-earthers, and creationists, not the other way around.
Sure. And in many cases, it's clearly evident where "deniers" are clinging to false and/or politically motivated ideas. However, those who zealously believe every idea that supports causal AGW seem equally unwilling to look inward in this fashion - blindly accepting others publications as absolute truth (without ever reading a single word). In my opinion, there are a few parallels with religion that can be drawn. Many of these people are unwilling to give a moment's consideration to a different viewpoint. Further, many in that crowd are quick to associate those who point this behavior out as "deniers" rather than simply being someone who is simply irked by their perception of politicization of science. I should say that it's not fair to categorize anyone on either "side" as all the same.
I'm regularly amazed at how this issue has motivated so many to believe that scientific consensus is both part of the scientific method and infallible.
Shouldn't a truly scientific community welcome (un-politically biased) dissent and skepticism? It this not how truth is uncovered and a part of the scientific process at large? Discounting anyone who questions data interpretation or methodology is the same trick that the religious have used for millennia. Calling that part of science does not make it any more valid.
Even if AGW were conclusively disproven, many of those folks wouldn't believe it.
Show me.
Show you that if causal AGW were disproven that many people who dogmatically cling to the principles wouldn't believe it? That would take disproving causal AGW, which I am not able to do. I don't have a dog in this fight, my friend. My point has little to do with any causal anthropogenic relationship to global warming. I offer more of a social commentary.
I can offer you some casual links that you can interpret in your own way. Go to any internet forum (Slashdot, for example) and critically examine the language (and some of the anger within) of many environmentalists. The language (and associated hyperbole) is very similar to that of people with strong religious beliefs. Further, the logical extensions between the two are quite similar.
How many have dismissed evidence of the earth's age being > 6k years? How many have dismissed the theory of evolution?
People will smugly believe whatever they want, and eschew arguments that don't fit their worldview. People can't be forced to believe anything, and no amount of evidence will change what people will believe.
Couldn't the same be said for climate change zealots?
Hard to determine, really. We haven't yet encountered a circumstance where the competent scientists (I believe you may have mistyped that phrase as "zealots" in your post) have firmly espoused a position that contradicts available evidence, based in implausible and improbable theories of error or conspiracy.
.
Nope - I didn't mistype that. I meant zealots - as in those who dogmatically believe in causal AGW without considering science, slant, or motivation behind funding sources; inherently associating anyone who questions the politicization of both "sides" with having chosen a "side".
That being said - I believe you may have misinterpreted my use of the term.
Since I can see where the assumptions are leading here, I should offer a disclaimer. For what it's worth, I'm not one of "them" (whomever "they" may be). My opinions are neither representative of, derivative of, or a typical example of any person's beliefs but my own.
The (erroneous, and much disproved) argument made by the anti-vaccine crowd is, explicitly, that the thimerosal causes autism.
No, that's some anti-vaccine people saying that. The actual hypothesis that was proposed was that the combination vaccine for MMR somehow allowed one component to lodge in the gut, or get through to the brain - I don't recall the story, but it was MMR not Mercury. The obvious solution was to test by giving the vaccines separately. I don't know how that ever turned out.
Anyway, many in the anti-vaccination crowd conflate all the supposedly bad things associated with them, leading some to think mercury causes autism.
My understanding was that the individual MMR vaccination components were given separately in Japan, and no causal conclusions were drawn. (Sorry, no source)
The zealots are well supported by many peer-reviewed scientific articles, so no, it's not the same.
I still equate their passion and zeal to that of religious folks. Even if AGW were conclusively disproven, many of those folks wouldn't believe it. This is my issue with the whole "debate", it is politicized science, which makes information coming from both "sides" suspect. On the other hand, this study appears to be promising.
There is no amount or type of evidence, even in principle, which would answer climate change sceptics. They will disavow the fundimental principles of science if that is what is necessary to protect their beliefs.
Couldn't the same be said for climate change zealots?
It's to cheat on tax numnuts. Corporations pay a lower tax rate, income can be fudged into capital tax gains by making certain types of investments and cashing in those investments. A substantial portion of the income can be written off as tax deductible investment expenditures. Why do you think the psychopathic right wants no tax on corporations, so they can shift all personal income into a corporation. A corporation is a company created by charter, that charter stating it purpose etc' and with nominated directors to maintain corporation status it must be audited to ensure the corporations funds are managed legally. It is all a tac cheating fudge, a shift of criminal liabilities to a non prosecutable entity and a straight up socialisation of risk with privatisation of profits.
Normally, I wouldn't add my $0.02 into an already uncivilized comment thread with absolutes and insults abound...but I'll try to dispel some confusion in the hope that we can keep this polite and civilized: Corporate income tax is significantly higher than personal income tax in America. Yes, there are some companies who have moved profitable divisions offshore, and thus do not pay taxes on income not generated in America. This appears to be the exception, not the rule. Second, I'm not sure that heavy-handed tactics will reap benefits here, as they tend to penalize those who do pay taxes. Raising business income taxes further may have a few negative effects as well: 1. Higher business income tax will mean that the consumers will simply pay more. Remember that when it comes down to the bottom line, this stuff just gets passed down the chain to whomever ultimately foots the bill (the consumer). 2. Chase business away from the US entirely - and this means that we lose on the tax basis and we also lose jobs.
Yes, and Canada has even more space and fewer people than the U.S. The poster could of helped us by identifying the island. After all, one of the estimated 30000 islands in Georgian bay is very different than one up north, and even more different than Toronto Island.
Screw that - nobody is bigger than America. Them's fightin' words.
Sounds like you have better consumer protection than we do. Some states here require a 30-day warranty, but more often than not; it's caveat emptor. Anyway, as long as you pass the MOT, right? (We don't have anything like that here. The closest thing we have to MOT is a safety inspection, where they check to make sure that all of the lights are working and your tires and brake pads aren't worn. Some states also check emissions - but that's it.)
...Integra type R. Yep, you heard that right... I'm using about 25 pence (about 40 cents) for every mile I drive, just on fuel, with a 1.8 litre car (note to Americans - that's just over 100 cubic inches... had to look that one up, because despite using gallons for fuel, I've never ever dealt with cubic inches)
Most Americans understand liters/cc in displacement. Generally old people, drivers of classic American iron, and die-hard American car people use CI. I still have to run a conversion in my head when I hear engine displacement in cubic inches (I believe it's 16.39). Maybe I've been driving European and Asian cars for too long. We do still use SAE HP units though, but I'm pretty sure that's the same in the EU (unlike the metric PS). The reality is that I have a pretty good idea where the commonalities are from watching a lot of Top Gear.
Also, nice ride. There aren't a lot of real Type R's in the US. In the late 90's, there were a lot of fake Type R's running around (GS-R's with fart-can exhausts, massive wings, and R stickers all over them). Now, I only tend to see real ones at the track.
We wouldn't understand what you meant by "$9 a gallon for gas", as not only do we not use gallons, the "gallon" the old people know here is a different size to yours; we don't use dollars (and the exchange rate has varied quite a lot over the past couple of years (between 1.3 and 2.1 USD per GBP, currently ~1.6)); and we call it petrol, not "gas". Google says the prices I've seen work out at between 8.3 and 9.0 USD/US gallon at current exchange rate.
My car averages around 400 miles on £70 (aka a full tank) of fuel at the moment, you? That works out about 35 British mpg or about 29 American mpg. That's mostly motorway driving (aka >70mph). It would be better if I drove better.
Not going to disagree on the amount of "urban trash" we have though.
So...how do you like paying (the equivalent of) $9 USD for a gallon (or for 3.78 liters) of petrol?
On a side note - I find your post to be a bit silly. It's not like Britons are unable to understand the concept of US Dollars and US gallons and have never experienced and kind of currency or measurement conversion.
You can't earn a vast fortune without exploiting the labor of others. Or at least, I don't think it is possible, I have yet to see a single counter-example. But even if it were possible, I would advocate taxing you as if you had, because I think it is beyond the capability of our governments to judge that sensibly. And since you're a hypothetically good person, you won't mind being merely incredibly wealthy rather than insanely wealthy.
At the core is a major philosophical difference that shapes our beliefs - we'll probably never agree on the details, since the core is so different. I don't believe that this is a zero-sum game. I believe in a fair deal.
The notion that they have 'earned' it is laughable. They have acquired it, but that is not the same thing. Exploiting others to fund your extravagant lifestyle isn't 'earning' in any sane sense of the word.
The top acquirers are benefiting from our society, they should be paying for it.
Perhaps the point on earning versus acquiring versus exploitation is where you and I differ. I guess it's not fair to generalize everybody on either end. Do you really believe that we're all involved in a zero-sum game? That there is no such thing as a fair deal? If you or I really wanted a piece of the pie, what's to stop us from trying to start our own business? Desire? If I start my own business, risking my livelyhood and life savings to do it; and I do it fairly while earning a vast fortune - where is the line between earning and acquiring? Would I have to pay less taxes than those who you deem exploiters of the masses? Who gets to decide that?
No-one is a fair judge and the question is an extremely hard one. I do have a perfect solution: dictatorship and no concept of economy beyond actual, tangible resources. Sadly this requires perfect humans, especially in the dictatorship role and is essentially a non-solution with how human nature works. We're not perfect little machines.
I believe there is inherent flaws with how society works and the very concept of profit is essentially "money from nothing" with no tangible ties to actual resources, but unless we all suddenly decide to work together perfectly and in harmony with the needs of all taken into perfect measurement I got no real solution, only a feeling of wrongness. I know this is being intellectually dishonest, but I have not the power of will to devote my life to revolution - I prefer to finish my computer science graduation and living my imperfect life in an imperfect world.
Wow - your post is pretty refreshing. I don't think that you're being intellectually dishonest at all (I don't have a better idea to offer either). There's a point somewhere revolving around the inherent fact that life is not fair and the realization that there is no ideal. It's always gonna feel a little bit wrong. It doesn't mean that we can't strive to make it incrementally better, but I honestly don't believe that it's ever going to be right for everyone all the time.
I'd prefer just to tax the extremes back down in line with sanity. There's no need to have the top 1% control 50% of all assets.
It's more like 38%. But the extremes are already taxed more than anyone else - it's how progressive tax works (I didn't mean for that to sound too jerky - I know that you know this, I just wanted to throw it out there...and I don't feel like racking my brain during my lunchtime to find a better way to say it). The top earners foot the majority of the nation's tax bill. Do they persevere because of a problem with the system, or because of talent/drive/risk tolerance/etc? Perhaps a little bit of each. Still, I definitely don't like the idea of redistribution of wealth. Take even more money away from people who have earned it and then letting the government mismanage it en masse just isn't appealing to me. I'd rather let them keep what they earned than disincentivise (or even penalize) financial success.
I agree that there are plenty of examples of people who have pushed the system a little too far, criminally or not. However, I'm pretty concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You seem to have little concept about the difference between need and greed. Excess and starvation. These are extremes, but valid variations exist.
In short: you're greedy when you exploit others for advantages beyond your basic need, or more commonly above the need of those your exploit. Most people (sadly) is guilty of this to differing degrees, indeed I think no-one completely devoid of this particular survival strategy, but that does not make me blind to or undisgusted with how the economy of resources works today ie. capitalism.
Aah - the zero sum game argument. I really have a hard time with that one. I realize that my country has a long way to go, and that there are still working people in America who are hungry. Still, the average citizen's standard of living is among the highest in the world. Given this (and again, there is certainly room for improvement) - do you have a better solution?
In any case, as I read how you differentiate, I fail to see why two (or more) parties can't benefit from a business arrangement (e.g. any profit margin). What is my incentive to innovate or accept significant risk if I should not profit (beyond what you see as my basic need)? Also, what if my basic need is different than yours? Who is a fair judge of what one's basic need is? What if my basic need is a roof over my head and yours is the security of a few million dollars for a rainy day?
Recent evidence would seem to suggest that said greedy people do not wind up contributing in a meaningful way, but instead wind up finding every edge case they can to try to skim off the productivity of others.
So what? There are bastards among all walks of life. Examples are purely anecdotal - and for all of your anecdotal examples, I can likely produce a counter. As an American, I'm grateful for the opportunity to succeed - even if I don't get to be in the top 1%, this country's environment has made for one of the (if not the) best standards of living the world has ever seen for everybody.
If we did away with it all, what would the alternative be? Give it all to the government to run? Career politicians whose ambition isn't lust for money, but lust for power? That doesn't sound like a good alternative to me. Give it to bureaucrats who have no incentive to build a better mousetrap? No thanks. We've got a long way to go to continue bettering ourselves, but I still like the idea of harnessing our inherent desire for capital gain to move us forward. I don't think that this is going to change. I know that the Soviets had a really hard time eschewing greed. I know that these are all extreme alternatives, but your statement echoes a pretty extreme viewpoint.
Actually, "fuck" is intended to be vulgar. If it were not, another vulgar word would have to be invented. Consider instead "sex" and all others which refer to sex without vulgar, violent or dominating undertones.
I don't think that I agree with this. While this may have been a valid observation many years ago, I believe that the idea of the word "fuck" being vulgar (in an absolute sense) is not longer completely valid. It completely depends on the intent of the user. There's a massive difference between saying "aw, fuck it" and "fuck that pussy - hard". One is a colloquialism, and the other is intentionally vulgar.
There's no need for me to go into how "fuck" has worked its way into every part of speech in American English. My point is that the use of an expletive does not, in and of itself, suggest a vulgar intent. It can be intended and/or used that way, but this is not absolute.
I see where you're coming from. I don't particularly care for anyone rummaging through my trash, either. I don't like having to shred anything that's even remotely confidential...but it is what it is. You're right - it probably isn't right.
If it is, it shouldn't be. The trash is mine until the garbage truck picks it up, then it belongs to whoever runs the garbage truck.
If I park my car on the curb and leave it unlocked, you don't have any right to go rifling through it. You shouldn't be able to do that with my trash can, either.
BTW, when I catch people going through my trash can, I ask them to politely leave. They always do when they see the pistol holstered on my belt. Yay, open carry!
Why? It's refuse that you left out in the open. The police don't need to get a warrant to rifle through your trash, why would anyone else? It's trash that you left out - you clearly don't want it anymore and have no expectation of privacy. This Wikipedia article refutes your expectation of privacy, and discusses your car analogy. I'm honestly not sure whether this just relates to government officials, or extends to the public as well.
Nice troll with the pistol comment, BTW. I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.
I wouldn't be concerned with that, the batteries are generally placed low in the car, meaning that they don't move the center of mass upwards. Placed correctly they should have no impact on the ability take a hard turn.
Slashdot Mirror
Since nearly all scientific researc supports the theory AGW, it's the deniers that should be grouped together with young-earthers, and creationists, not the other way around.
Sure. And in many cases, it's clearly evident where "deniers" are clinging to false and/or politically motivated ideas. However, those who zealously believe every idea that supports causal AGW seem equally unwilling to look inward in this fashion - blindly accepting others publications as absolute truth (without ever reading a single word). In my opinion, there are a few parallels with religion that can be drawn. Many of these people are unwilling to give a moment's consideration to a different viewpoint. Further, many in that crowd are quick to associate those who point this behavior out as "deniers" rather than simply being someone who is simply irked by their perception of politicization of science. I should say that it's not fair to categorize anyone on either "side" as all the same.
I'm regularly amazed at how this issue has motivated so many to believe that scientific consensus is both part of the scientific method and infallible.
Shouldn't a truly scientific community welcome (un-politically biased) dissent and skepticism? It this not how truth is uncovered and a part of the scientific process at large? Discounting anyone who questions data interpretation or methodology is the same trick that the religious have used for millennia. Calling that part of science does not make it any more valid.
Show me.
Show you that if causal AGW were disproven that many people who dogmatically cling to the principles wouldn't believe it? That would take disproving causal AGW, which I am not able to do. I don't have a dog in this fight, my friend. My point has little to do with any causal anthropogenic relationship to global warming. I offer more of a social commentary.
I can offer you some casual links that you can interpret in your own way. Go to any internet forum (Slashdot, for example) and critically examine the language (and some of the anger within) of many environmentalists. The language (and associated hyperbole) is very similar to that of people with strong religious beliefs. Further, the logical extensions between the two are quite similar.
How many have dismissed evidence of the earth's age being > 6k years? How many have dismissed the theory of evolution?
People will smugly believe whatever they want, and eschew arguments that don't fit their worldview. People can't be forced to believe anything, and no amount of evidence will change what people will believe.
Couldn't the same be said for climate change zealots?
Hard to determine, really. We haven't yet encountered a circumstance where the competent scientists (I believe you may have mistyped that phrase as "zealots" in your post) have firmly espoused a position that contradicts available evidence, based in implausible and improbable theories of error or conspiracy.
.
Nope - I didn't mistype that. I meant zealots - as in those who dogmatically believe in causal AGW without considering science, slant, or motivation behind funding sources; inherently associating anyone who questions the politicization of both "sides" with having chosen a "side".
That being said - I believe you may have misinterpreted my use of the term.
Since I can see where the assumptions are leading here, I should offer a disclaimer. For what it's worth, I'm not one of "them" (whomever "they" may be). My opinions are neither representative of, derivative of, or a typical example of any person's beliefs but my own.
No, that's some anti-vaccine people saying that. The actual hypothesis that was proposed was that the combination vaccine for MMR somehow allowed one component to lodge in the gut, or get through to the brain - I don't recall the story, but it was MMR not Mercury. The obvious solution was to test by giving the vaccines separately. I don't know how that ever turned out. Anyway, many in the anti-vaccination crowd conflate all the supposedly bad things associated with them, leading some to think mercury causes autism.
My understanding was that the individual MMR vaccination components were given separately in Japan, and no causal conclusions were drawn. (Sorry, no source)
The zealots are well supported by many peer-reviewed scientific articles, so no, it's not the same.
I still equate their passion and zeal to that of religious folks. Even if AGW were conclusively disproven, many of those folks wouldn't believe it. This is my issue with the whole "debate", it is politicized science, which makes information coming from both "sides" suspect. On the other hand, this study appears to be promising.
Yes, because this ban will conclusively prove that correlation equals causation. :)
There is no amount or type of evidence, even in principle, which would answer climate change sceptics. They will disavow the fundimental principles of science if that is what is necessary to protect their beliefs.
Couldn't the same be said for climate change zealots?
So much for a polite and civilized discussion. I'm done.
It's to cheat on tax numnuts. Corporations pay a lower tax rate, income can be fudged into capital tax gains by making certain types of investments and cashing in those investments. A substantial portion of the income can be written off as tax deductible investment expenditures. Why do you think the psychopathic right wants no tax on corporations, so they can shift all personal income into a corporation. A corporation is a company created by charter, that charter stating it purpose etc' and with nominated directors to maintain corporation status it must be audited to ensure the corporations funds are managed legally. It is all a tac cheating fudge, a shift of criminal liabilities to a non prosecutable entity and a straight up socialisation of risk with privatisation of profits.
Normally, I wouldn't add my $0.02 into an already uncivilized comment thread with absolutes and insults abound...but I'll try to dispel some confusion in the hope that we can keep this polite and civilized: Corporate income tax is significantly higher than personal income tax in America. Yes, there are some companies who have moved profitable divisions offshore, and thus do not pay taxes on income not generated in America. This appears to be the exception, not the rule. Second, I'm not sure that heavy-handed tactics will reap benefits here, as they tend to penalize those who do pay taxes. Raising business income taxes further may have a few negative effects as well: 1. Higher business income tax will mean that the consumers will simply pay more. Remember that when it comes down to the bottom line, this stuff just gets passed down the chain to whomever ultimately foots the bill (the consumer). 2. Chase business away from the US entirely - and this means that we lose on the tax basis and we also lose jobs.
Yes, and Canada has even more space and fewer people than the U.S. The poster could of helped us by identifying the island. After all, one of the estimated 30000 islands in Georgian bay is very different than one up north, and even more different than Toronto Island.
Screw that - nobody is bigger than America. Them's fightin' words.
Sounds like you have better consumer protection than we do. Some states here require a 30-day warranty, but more often than not; it's caveat emptor. Anyway, as long as you pass the MOT, right? (We don't have anything like that here. The closest thing we have to MOT is a safety inspection, where they check to make sure that all of the lights are working and your tires and brake pads aren't worn. Some states also check emissions - but that's it.)
...Integra type R. Yep, you heard that right... I'm using about 25 pence (about 40 cents) for every mile I drive, just on fuel, with a 1.8 litre car (note to Americans - that's just over 100 cubic inches... had to look that one up, because despite using gallons for fuel, I've never ever dealt with cubic inches)
Most Americans understand liters/cc in displacement. Generally old people, drivers of classic American iron, and die-hard American car people use CI. I still have to run a conversion in my head when I hear engine displacement in cubic inches (I believe it's 16.39). Maybe I've been driving European and Asian cars for too long. We do still use SAE HP units though, but I'm pretty sure that's the same in the EU (unlike the metric PS). The reality is that I have a pretty good idea where the commonalities are from watching a lot of Top Gear.
Also, nice ride. There aren't a lot of real Type R's in the US. In the late 90's, there were a lot of fake Type R's running around (GS-R's with fart-can exhausts, massive wings, and R stickers all over them). Now, I only tend to see real ones at the track.
We wouldn't understand what you meant by "$9 a gallon for gas", as not only do we not use gallons, the "gallon" the old people know here is a different size to yours; we don't use dollars (and the exchange rate has varied quite a lot over the past couple of years (between 1.3 and 2.1 USD per GBP, currently ~1.6)); and we call it petrol, not "gas". Google says the prices I've seen work out at between 8.3 and 9.0 USD/US gallon at current exchange rate. My car averages around 400 miles on £70 (aka a full tank) of fuel at the moment, you? That works out about 35 British mpg or about 29 American mpg. That's mostly motorway driving (aka >70mph). It would be better if I drove better.
Not going to disagree on the amount of "urban trash" we have though.
So...how do you like paying (the equivalent of) $9 USD for a gallon (or for 3.78 liters) of petrol?
On a side note - I find your post to be a bit silly. It's not like Britons are unable to understand the concept of US Dollars and US gallons and have never experienced and kind of currency or measurement conversion.
Tracking the locations of cell towers != tracking a user
So - at what level of resolution does tracking become a problem?
You can't earn a vast fortune without exploiting the labor of others. Or at least, I don't think it is possible, I have yet to see a single counter-example. But even if it were possible, I would advocate taxing you as if you had, because I think it is beyond the capability of our governments to judge that sensibly. And since you're a hypothetically good person, you won't mind being merely incredibly wealthy rather than insanely wealthy.
At the core is a major philosophical difference that shapes our beliefs - we'll probably never agree on the details, since the core is so different. I don't believe that this is a zero-sum game. I believe in a fair deal.
The notion that they have 'earned' it is laughable. They have acquired it, but that is not the same thing. Exploiting others to fund your extravagant lifestyle isn't 'earning' in any sane sense of the word.
The top acquirers are benefiting from our society, they should be paying for it.
Perhaps the point on earning versus acquiring versus exploitation is where you and I differ. I guess it's not fair to generalize everybody on either end. Do you really believe that we're all involved in a zero-sum game? That there is no such thing as a fair deal? If you or I really wanted a piece of the pie, what's to stop us from trying to start our own business? Desire? If I start my own business, risking my livelyhood and life savings to do it; and I do it fairly while earning a vast fortune - where is the line between earning and acquiring? Would I have to pay less taxes than those who you deem exploiters of the masses? Who gets to decide that?
No-one is a fair judge and the question is an extremely hard one. I do have a perfect solution: dictatorship and no concept of economy beyond actual, tangible resources. Sadly this requires perfect humans, especially in the dictatorship role and is essentially a non-solution with how human nature works. We're not perfect little machines.
I believe there is inherent flaws with how society works and the very concept of profit is essentially "money from nothing" with no tangible ties to actual resources, but unless we all suddenly decide to work together perfectly and in harmony with the needs of all taken into perfect measurement I got no real solution, only a feeling of wrongness. I know this is being intellectually dishonest, but I have not the power of will to devote my life to revolution - I prefer to finish my computer science graduation and living my imperfect life in an imperfect world.
Wow - your post is pretty refreshing. I don't think that you're being intellectually dishonest at all (I don't have a better idea to offer either). There's a point somewhere revolving around the inherent fact that life is not fair and the realization that there is no ideal. It's always gonna feel a little bit wrong. It doesn't mean that we can't strive to make it incrementally better, but I honestly don't believe that it's ever going to be right for everyone all the time.
I'd prefer just to tax the extremes back down in line with sanity. There's no need to have the top 1% control 50% of all assets.
It's more like 38%. But the extremes are already taxed more than anyone else - it's how progressive tax works (I didn't mean for that to sound too jerky - I know that you know this, I just wanted to throw it out there...and I don't feel like racking my brain during my lunchtime to find a better way to say it). The top earners foot the majority of the nation's tax bill. Do they persevere because of a problem with the system, or because of talent/drive/risk tolerance/etc? Perhaps a little bit of each. Still, I definitely don't like the idea of redistribution of wealth. Take even more money away from people who have earned it and then letting the government mismanage it en masse just isn't appealing to me. I'd rather let them keep what they earned than disincentivise (or even penalize) financial success.
I agree that there are plenty of examples of people who have pushed the system a little too far, criminally or not. However, I'm pretty concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You seem to have little concept about the difference between need and greed. Excess and starvation. These are extremes, but valid variations exist. In short: you're greedy when you exploit others for advantages beyond your basic need, or more commonly above the need of those your exploit. Most people (sadly) is guilty of this to differing degrees, indeed I think no-one completely devoid of this particular survival strategy, but that does not make me blind to or undisgusted with how the economy of resources works today ie. capitalism.
Aah - the zero sum game argument. I really have a hard time with that one. I realize that my country has a long way to go, and that there are still working people in America who are hungry. Still, the average citizen's standard of living is among the highest in the world. Given this (and again, there is certainly room for improvement) - do you have a better solution?
In any case, as I read how you differentiate, I fail to see why two (or more) parties can't benefit from a business arrangement (e.g. any profit margin). What is my incentive to innovate or accept significant risk if I should not profit (beyond what you see as my basic need)? Also, what if my basic need is different than yours? Who is a fair judge of what one's basic need is? What if my basic need is a roof over my head and yours is the security of a few million dollars for a rainy day?
Recent evidence would seem to suggest that said greedy people do not wind up contributing in a meaningful way, but instead wind up finding every edge case they can to try to skim off the productivity of others.
So what? There are bastards among all walks of life. Examples are purely anecdotal - and for all of your anecdotal examples, I can likely produce a counter. As an American, I'm grateful for the opportunity to succeed - even if I don't get to be in the top 1%, this country's environment has made for one of the (if not the) best standards of living the world has ever seen for everybody.
If we did away with it all, what would the alternative be? Give it all to the government to run? Career politicians whose ambition isn't lust for money, but lust for power? That doesn't sound like a good alternative to me. Give it to bureaucrats who have no incentive to build a better mousetrap? No thanks. We've got a long way to go to continue bettering ourselves, but I still like the idea of harnessing our inherent desire for capital gain to move us forward. I don't think that this is going to change. I know that the Soviets had a really hard time eschewing greed. I know that these are all extreme alternatives, but your statement echoes a pretty extreme viewpoint.
Sign me up. I will pwn you all at CS!
Actually, "fuck" is intended to be vulgar. If it were not, another vulgar word would have to be invented. Consider instead "sex" and all others which refer to sex without vulgar, violent or dominating undertones.
I don't think that I agree with this. While this may have been a valid observation many years ago, I believe that the idea of the word "fuck" being vulgar (in an absolute sense) is not longer completely valid. It completely depends on the intent of the user. There's a massive difference between saying "aw, fuck it" and "fuck that pussy - hard". One is a colloquialism, and the other is intentionally vulgar.
There's no need for me to go into how "fuck" has worked its way into every part of speech in American English. My point is that the use of an expletive does not, in and of itself, suggest a vulgar intent. It can be intended and/or used that way, but this is not absolute.
I see where you're coming from. I don't particularly care for anyone rummaging through my trash, either. I don't like having to shred anything that's even remotely confidential...but it is what it is. You're right - it probably isn't right.
If it is, it shouldn't be. The trash is mine until the garbage truck picks it up, then it belongs to whoever runs the garbage truck.
If I park my car on the curb and leave it unlocked, you don't have any right to go rifling through it. You shouldn't be able to do that with my trash can, either.
BTW, when I catch people going through my trash can, I ask them to politely leave. They always do when they see the pistol holstered on my belt. Yay, open carry!
Why? It's refuse that you left out in the open. The police don't need to get a warrant to rifle through your trash, why would anyone else? It's trash that you left out - you clearly don't want it anymore and have no expectation of privacy. This Wikipedia article refutes your expectation of privacy, and discusses your car analogy. I'm honestly not sure whether this just relates to government officials, or extends to the public as well.
Nice troll with the pistol comment, BTW. I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.
I wouldn't be concerned with that, the batteries are generally placed low in the car, meaning that they don't move the center of mass upwards. Placed correctly they should have no impact on the ability take a hard turn.
Yeah, weight has never affected handling ;)