No, we simply don't believe that it was greedy bank behavior that cause the meltdown. It was government-provided immunity. Nobody had to care about the credit quality of mortgages--they were Fannie Mae insured!
yes, the feds forgot to lock the doors. which allowed the robbers to steal the loot. so you blame the feds, and give the robbers a pass! and then, you conclude that the real solution to the robbery is to take off the doors entirely!
Attempting to choose what is good for us ranges from bad to disastrous...
the regulations don't tell you how to live your life, fool. the regulations simply prevent you from committing crimes. duh. is it your assertion that if we had no laws against mugging and no police to stop muggers that no one would get mugged? then why the hell do you believe that an unregulated marketplace will have no crimes committed? why are you so daft?...often because the regulators become pawns of the regulated.
on this part i agree with you 100%. so it is my assertion that we should get the graft and corruption out of the police department. meanwhile, you assert we should get rid of the police department!
the idea that the government created the greed in the hearts of bankers is obviously false, but it is more disturbing that so many people like yourself think that the banks needed government encouragements to act greedily
the community reinvestment farce is indeed a misstep by the government, and was wrong, and contributed to the 2008 meltdown, absolutely. but it is no more than propagandistic alternative reality mythmaking to believe this is the causative agent of the meltdown in 2008. do you do not see that it merely enabled simple human greed? it scares me about you and anyone else who believes this nonsense
"If the Federal government had stayed out of it, it wouldn't have happened."
you really believe that? you really believe a marketplace without regulation functions better?
at best, you can say government missteps hurt, and that the government needs better policy. but please don't tell me you actually and honestly believe that no government regulation somehow results in healthier marketplaces. if you honestly believe that, i really fear for this country, that somebody can be so deluded
please read up on economic history. please educate yourself about how the economy actually hurts. please admit to yourself that the marketplace's greatest enemies to stability and health are NATURAL enemies (manipulation by large players, simple human psychology of greed and then fear and panic). please wake up from the propaganda
that you need something that obvious "proved" means, at best, that you are simply blindly stubborn and are continuing to argue because you don't know when to admit when you are wrong
more likely, you are just trolling the hell out of me, in which case, congrats, i fell for it
for a moment there, i actually believed there was someone out there who was actually as daft as the deluded fool you were play-acting for the sake of a troll
again, congratulations, i actually believed you were real for a moment
the problem with the "destroy government" crowd is that we need strong regulations for something like the economy to work. since 1994 when the republicans took over congress, we have systematically taken away governmental regulatory powers over the economy and wall street. the result is the financial meltdown in 2008
so obviously, we need a strong central authority to monitor and control the economy to keep it healthy. the libertarian myth of unicorns and leprechauns and a marketplace which regulates itself is factually and historically false, just study the banking panics of the 1800s and why we had the great depression in the 1930s: this what you get with a marketplace that is not regulated. the natural state of the marketplace is manipulation of the market by its largest players (corporatism) and constant bubbles and pops (greed, then fear and panic: all you need is simple human psychology for that). the libertarian myth of a level headed marketplace of equals is mythmaking, not reality
that being said, there are plenty of areas of bloat where the government can and should be downsized. its just that i see no intelligence in the "destroy government" crowd, just a lot of people with an almost religious fanaticism to the idea of small government, ready to hack away at everything. we need intelligence on the issue: WHERE do we cut, because obviously we don't cut everything, especially with the need for the strong regulation of the economy
to deny that is to simply stand in complete denial of what 14 years of deregulation of the economy wrought in 2008
if you develop your social skills in a social environment, amongst your peers, you are well socialized. i'm sorry this is an incredibly controversial concept to you. truly, i am waaaay out there with that assertion (snicker)
but if you are isolated during your social formative years, and spoonfed preformed ideas by your parents, that you have no ability to examine or criticize (because you are not exposed to any other ideas), then you are not well socialized, your intellectual gifts are stunted (if your ideas aren't challenged, your mind doesn't develop), and you have become an unexamined narcissistic isolated troll who assumes they have a superior understanding of the world based on completely arbitrary disconnected signifiers (40% failure rate in marriages... solved by homeschooling! pffffffft)
i'm glad to see that the fringe continues to barricade themselves in isolation with their assumed sense of superiority. unexamined and uncritical of themselves, only critical of an outside world they don't even fully experience, surely this will preserve some exasperatingly awful ideas for generations to come! yay!
i was going to make a joke referencing "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," an effort i will now abandoned, having been humbled by your superior effort
in which those with poor social skills continue to put forth hilarious opinions about socialization
teenagers self-socialize. in fact, the "guidance" you refer to is often the first thing to be deconstructed and ridiculed in a teenage peer group
exposed to a large group of ideas, teenagers can sort out and figure out for themselves what are good ideas and bad ideas. this is the way it has always been, and always will be
the alternative you refer to, raising a teenager in social isolation, exposed only to a tiny subset of ideas (his parents) results in a teenager unable to compare and contrast with other social ideas, good or bad
now, plenty of adults have bad ideas. those teenagers with a parge peer group are able to see other social ideas, examine those ideas passed to them by their parents that might be bad, and wind up with ideas superior to that of his parents
but some parent have really, really bad social ideas. in fact, those with the most reactionary and wrong ideas often get very defensive about them, and isolate themselves, and their children: home schooling. now they are perpetuating those bad ideas in children they have purposefully isolated in a monoculture of ideas that the teenager has no ability to derive alternatives to, without any peer groups
so yet again we have the hilarious irony that some people, like you, actually believe the ludicrous: that social isolation results in better socialization. home schooled children have a colossal case of unexamined narcissism, an assumed sense of superiority. this is what home schooling results in: people with large egos and a large sense of superiority, of bad ideas formed in isolation, without any intellectual and social criticism of those mostly reactionary and self-isolating ideas in their formative years
homeschooling is a way for reactionary, narcissistic, antisocial and isolated parents to recreate the same malformed social skills in their children
You have a low logical IQ. You claim, without substantiation I may add, that home-schooled children are not socially well-developed. So, clearly, you believe that public schools do better in this regard.
well let's see: if i place a child in a social environment with his peers for months and years, a public school, as opposed to isolating the child without any peers, at home, one can logically conclude that the home schooled child is not as socially well-developed as the public school child. what other logic and substantiation do you need? i'm not understanding the basis by which you believe a child immersed in a social environment of his peers has the same social development as one who is isolated
and if the home schooled child does have some sort of social exposure: church groups or hunting clubs, for example, why do you assume that these peripheral, once weekly or once monthly groups are somehow equivalent to a daily immersion in a large group of peers? i seriously wonder on what basis you believe isolation for the majority of the week has social development equivalence to immersion amongst peers for the majority of the week. you seem like you are in a lot of denial about the simple and obvious truth here
However, it is patently obvious that the majority of people are NOT socially well-developed, despite having been through a public school system. Being socially well-developed certainly includes understanding and accepting (if not necessarily agreeing with) another person's position, having mutual respect, and exhibiting kindness and empathy --- as opposed to being narcissistic, greedy, and indifferent to other peoples rights, wants, and needs.
and again, we have the irony and the hilarious meta-commentary: you are demonstrating a low social iq here. the social assumptions are numerous:
1. that mutual respect, kindness and empathy are valid yardsticks for judging social development. there are about 30 different other variables you can easily consider as far as social development is concerned 2. that the home schooled child is going to somehow come out ahead in terms of mutual respect, kindness, and empathy, even if that were the valid yardstick. because isolating a child makes these social skills stronger? how? 3. that the various complaints and gripes you have about general society are valid. i find plenty of mutual respect, kindness, and empathy in my dealings with general society. this throws into question your ability to accurately gauge the state of society, which points to some form of social isolation on your part
and finally, and most ironically and hilariously, you display a colossal unexamined narcissism: "everyone out in the wider world is inferior and me in my isolated bunker is superior." a narcissism of self-derived superiority which creates the desire for, and is the creation of, homeschooling. with homeschooling, you have this self-perpetuating fringe of outsiders, who assume they are superior, for a whole arbitrary set of reasons that are not solved by, and in fact are increased by, homeschooling: lack of socialization
now excuse, me, i've overdosed on irony for the day
the issue is not the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the enforcers, the issue is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of what is being enforced
the very concept of copyright itself is coming under question as to its validity due to technological progress (the internet)
there is an entire body of legal status quo that was developed in an age of vcr tapes and vinyl records and xerox machines. much of it is fundamentally at odds with how the internet functions
such that renegade nongovernmental organizations exploiting this disconnect between legal status quo and technological status quo is genuinely dangerous
we are talking about the financial victimization of individuals of limited legal means who have committed no moral crime, but are simply riding the wave of technological progress... while being pulled down by an undertow of legal anachronism
much of ip law needs to be junked, due to the rise of the internet and the new status quo for how media is distributed. understandings of what is "right" and "wrong" based on dead technological eras are not valid. of course, they are still legally valid, and that's the whole problem with these free enterprise legal goon squads
what any of those complaints have to do with homeschooling versus public schooling, i have no idea
that you think your various gripes with society have their root, somehow, in homeschooling versus public schooling reveals a malformed ability to understand cause and effect on your part. that you think homeschooling is somehow a solution to your complaints is, ironically, a better commentary than anything you have explicitly written about a lack of socialization
you have a low social iq: your ability to reason about the makeup of society and why it is so is not very bright
"step outside your neonazi bunker and experience the world"
which is exactly what homeschool children need to do
go to a school, you have peers. schooled at home, what peers do you have? what more proof do you need of the plainly obvious?
homeschooling deprives children of peer contact. you can talk about pluses and minuses all you want, but disputing a simple truth just makes you look defensive and desperate
if you are getting a public education, you are, obviously, getting exposure to the dominant ideology
if by projection you mean that a public school education means you are indoctrinating your children into a fringe ideology, what is there to say about that?
it's also usually the realm of parents who want to indoctrinate their children into a fringe ideology. so you're creating these little brainwashed robots who, without any real peers, can't make up their own minds and put into the proper perspective the bullshit their parents are ramming down their throats
if your ideology is sound, you have no fear of your children comparing your beliefs with the beliefs of others. putting them in isolation to form their beliefs automatically betrays the fact that you fear exposure to other ideas. exposure to other ideas can only strengthen your own ideas. so sheltering your children, sheltering them from exposure to other ideas is a form of weakness, and automatically flags your ideas as suspect
is a rich guy and a bunch of women. yes, there are other more exotic forms of polygamy, but we're talking 99.99% of what actually occurs
this results in poor men without a chance for marriage, through no fault of their own. lots of angry loveless young men with no romantic future and nothing to lose is simply dangerous, and unfair. on a society and individual level, therefore, polygamy should remain illegal, as it does effect you and me, it does not occur in a vacuum
"Actually, dead people don't have limited freedom, they're just dead."
if at 9 am i choose to go to the coffee shop, order a 16 oz french roast, read slashdot on my laptop, get in a discussion with a stranger about footwear when its raining outside, then go walk to work, this represents a range of freedoms and choices
but if at 9 am i choose to swallow a shotgun, and do nothing after that, because i am dead, i have chosen to have a heck of a lot less freedom and choices than if i remained alive
when you're dead, you have zero freedom. choosing death is choosing to destroy your freedom. absolutely and literally
we can coherently talk about choices in one's life which limit your freedoms later. i am against such choices, because they are always made for malformed thinking. as a father, you will certainly warn your child about choosing their own slavery. life, in fact, is mostly about not getting your freedom limited, through bad choices
in reality, 99% of polygamy is a rich guy with a bunch of women
i mean, i can find a guy who can drive 100 mph all the time and never get in accident. so we should repeal speed limits?
the exotic outliers on the bell curve do not define anything. the fact that above 90 mph you are talking about lots of accidents, and that with polygamy a lot of women are sacrificing their happiness for financial stability and leaving a lot of poor men without the possibility of marriage (and all the negative effects of that) then obviously: no to polygamy, for obvious real world reasons
occam's razor my friend, it cuts through the bullshit well
i can build castles in the sky too, signifying nothing about reality
reality: almost any government is better than no government. civilization is impossible without government. deny that, and all your bullshit becomes possible. but of course, by denying the obvious, you're just living in crackpot land
in a democracy, rule is by consent of the ruled. that's as good as it is going to get. and no government is clearly worse than almost any kind of government
these are the spankingly obvious facts about your reality. accept them, there are no other choices, unless you wish to remain as you are: a blathering crackpot
in other words, they freely choose to limit their own freedoms
so what maximizes freedom?
1. preventing them from destroy their freedom 2. allowing them to freely choose to dissolve their freedom
i choose #1. it seems liek you choose #2. i believe, and i think i am being more logically coherent than you, that position #1 maximizes liberty and freedom more than #2
now expand this to other choices of slavery over freedom: to addictive drugs, to financial security, etc.
if a woman chooses to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman, she is pretty much giving up the chance for romance and love and sacrificing her pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial stability
i am certain you can produce for me examples of women who freely and out of love choose to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman. and i can produce to you examples of albino deer
the rare exotic fringe is not instructive as to reality. and for 99% of cases of polygamy, it is a woman surrendering her romantic possibilities for financial security with a rich man who has other women with him for the same romance-sacrificing reasons
you got a motel almost anywhere in the usa, and its likely to be run by an indian guy with the last name of patel
why?
basically, its a phenomenon of the immigrant experience: one random guy goes from country A to exotic foreign inscrutable country B. what should he do there? well, he tries career X, and he's successful at it. he writes home about it, and pretty soon a bunch of other guys, relatives usually, from country A are interested in pursuing career X in country B. its not because the patels are better at running hotels than the guptas and the ganeshes, or the chos or the mcneils, for that matter, but simply because people pursue what, and who, they know, that works
same goes with spelling bees and indian americans (but not american indians. i never understood why columbus made a silly mistake about where he thought he was, and we are STILL calling native residents of north america "indians". completely nonsensical)
Slashdot Mirror
No, we simply don't believe that it was greedy bank behavior that cause the meltdown. It was government-provided immunity. Nobody had to care about the credit quality of mortgages--they were Fannie Mae insured!
yes, the feds forgot to lock the doors. which allowed the robbers to steal the loot. so you blame the feds, and give the robbers a pass! and then, you conclude that the real solution to the robbery is to take off the doors entirely!
Attempting to choose what is good for us ranges from bad to disastrous...
the regulations don't tell you how to live your life, fool. the regulations simply prevent you from committing crimes. duh. is it your assertion that if we had no laws against mugging and no police to stop muggers that no one would get mugged? then why the hell do you believe that an unregulated marketplace will have no crimes committed? why are you so daft? ...often because the regulators become pawns of the regulated.
on this part i agree with you 100%. so it is my assertion that we should get the graft and corruption out of the police department. meanwhile, you assert we should get rid of the police department!
what the hell is wrong with you?
yes, it is a shame that so many democrats are so spineless and do not stand up to republican idiocies like market deregulation
the idea that the government created the greed in the hearts of bankers is obviously false, but it is more disturbing that so many people like yourself think that the banks needed government encouragements to act greedily
the community reinvestment farce is indeed a misstep by the government, and was wrong, and contributed to the 2008 meltdown, absolutely. but it is no more than propagandistic alternative reality mythmaking to believe this is the causative agent of the meltdown in 2008. do you do not see that it merely enabled simple human greed? it scares me about you and anyone else who believes this nonsense
"If the Federal government had stayed out of it, it wouldn't have happened."
you really believe that? you really believe a marketplace without regulation functions better?
at best, you can say government missteps hurt, and that the government needs better policy. but please don't tell me you actually and honestly believe that no government regulation somehow results in healthier marketplaces. if you honestly believe that, i really fear for this country, that somebody can be so deluded
please read up on economic history. please educate yourself about how the economy actually hurts. please admit to yourself that the marketplace's greatest enemies to stability and health are NATURAL enemies (manipulation by large players, simple human psychology of greed and then fear and panic). please wake up from the propaganda
leads to social skills
that you need something that obvious "proved" means, at best, that you are simply blindly stubborn and are continuing to argue because you don't know when to admit when you are wrong
more likely, you are just trolling the hell out of me, in which case, congrats, i fell for it
for a moment there, i actually believed there was someone out there who was actually as daft as the deluded fool you were play-acting for the sake of a troll
again, congratulations, i actually believed you were real for a moment
the problem with the "destroy government" crowd is that we need strong regulations for something like the economy to work. since 1994 when the republicans took over congress, we have systematically taken away governmental regulatory powers over the economy and wall street. the result is the financial meltdown in 2008
so obviously, we need a strong central authority to monitor and control the economy to keep it healthy. the libertarian myth of unicorns and leprechauns and a marketplace which regulates itself is factually and historically false, just study the banking panics of the 1800s and why we had the great depression in the 1930s: this what you get with a marketplace that is not regulated. the natural state of the marketplace is manipulation of the market by its largest players (corporatism) and constant bubbles and pops (greed, then fear and panic: all you need is simple human psychology for that). the libertarian myth of a level headed marketplace of equals is mythmaking, not reality
that being said, there are plenty of areas of bloat where the government can and should be downsized. its just that i see no intelligence in the "destroy government" crowd, just a lot of people with an almost religious fanaticism to the idea of small government, ready to hack away at everything. we need intelligence on the issue: WHERE do we cut, because obviously we don't cut everything, especially with the need for the strong regulation of the economy
to deny that is to simply stand in complete denial of what 14 years of deregulation of the economy wrought in 2008
the sky is blue?
do i need to prove the sun will rise tomorrow?
do you really need proof that socializing with your peers develops social skills?
if you develop your social skills in a social environment, amongst your peers, you are well socialized. i'm sorry this is an incredibly controversial concept to you. truly, i am waaaay out there with that assertion (snicker)
but if you are isolated during your social formative years, and spoonfed preformed ideas by your parents, that you have no ability to examine or criticize (because you are not exposed to any other ideas), then you are not well socialized, your intellectual gifts are stunted (if your ideas aren't challenged, your mind doesn't develop), and you have become an unexamined narcissistic isolated troll who assumes they have a superior understanding of the world based on completely arbitrary disconnected signifiers (40% failure rate in marriages... solved by homeschooling! pffffffft)
i'm glad to see that the fringe continues to barricade themselves in isolation with their assumed sense of superiority. unexamined and uncritical of themselves, only critical of an outside world they don't even fully experience, surely this will preserve some exasperatingly awful ideas for generations to come! yay!
i was going to make a joke referencing "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," an effort i will now abandoned, having been humbled by your superior effort
in which those with poor social skills continue to put forth hilarious opinions about socialization
teenagers self-socialize. in fact, the "guidance" you refer to is often the first thing to be deconstructed and ridiculed in a teenage peer group
exposed to a large group of ideas, teenagers can sort out and figure out for themselves what are good ideas and bad ideas. this is the way it has always been, and always will be
the alternative you refer to, raising a teenager in social isolation, exposed only to a tiny subset of ideas (his parents) results in a teenager unable to compare and contrast with other social ideas, good or bad
now, plenty of adults have bad ideas. those teenagers with a parge peer group are able to see other social ideas, examine those ideas passed to them by their parents that might be bad, and wind up with ideas superior to that of his parents
but some parent have really, really bad social ideas. in fact, those with the most reactionary and wrong ideas often get very defensive about them, and isolate themselves, and their children: home schooling. now they are perpetuating those bad ideas in children they have purposefully isolated in a monoculture of ideas that the teenager has no ability to derive alternatives to, without any peer groups
so yet again we have the hilarious irony that some people, like you, actually believe the ludicrous: that social isolation results in better socialization. home schooled children have a colossal case of unexamined narcissism, an assumed sense of superiority. this is what home schooling results in: people with large egos and a large sense of superiority, of bad ideas formed in isolation, without any intellectual and social criticism of those mostly reactionary and self-isolating ideas in their formative years
homeschooling is a way for reactionary, narcissistic, antisocial and isolated parents to recreate the same malformed social skills in their children
You have a low logical IQ. You claim, without substantiation I may add, that home-schooled children are not socially well-developed. So, clearly, you believe that public schools do better in this regard.
well let's see: if i place a child in a social environment with his peers for months and years, a public school, as opposed to isolating the child without any peers, at home, one can logically conclude that the home schooled child is not as socially well-developed as the public school child. what other logic and substantiation do you need? i'm not understanding the basis by which you believe a child immersed in a social environment of his peers has the same social development as one who is isolated
and if the home schooled child does have some sort of social exposure: church groups or hunting clubs, for example, why do you assume that these peripheral, once weekly or once monthly groups are somehow equivalent to a daily immersion in a large group of peers? i seriously wonder on what basis you believe isolation for the majority of the week has social development equivalence to immersion amongst peers for the majority of the week. you seem like you are in a lot of denial about the simple and obvious truth here
However, it is patently obvious that the majority of people are NOT socially well-developed, despite having been through a public school system. Being socially well-developed certainly includes understanding and accepting (if not necessarily agreeing with) another person's position, having mutual respect, and exhibiting kindness and empathy --- as opposed to being narcissistic, greedy, and indifferent to other peoples rights, wants, and needs.
and again, we have the irony and the hilarious meta-commentary: you are demonstrating a low social iq here. the social assumptions are numerous:
1. that mutual respect, kindness and empathy are valid yardsticks for judging social development. there are about 30 different other variables you can easily consider as far as social development is concerned
2. that the home schooled child is going to somehow come out ahead in terms of mutual respect, kindness, and empathy, even if that were the valid yardstick. because isolating a child makes these social skills stronger? how?
3. that the various complaints and gripes you have about general society are valid. i find plenty of mutual respect, kindness, and empathy in my dealings with general society. this throws into question your ability to accurately gauge the state of society, which points to some form of social isolation on your part
and finally, and most ironically and hilariously, you display a colossal unexamined narcissism: "everyone out in the wider world is inferior and me in my isolated bunker is superior." a narcissism of self-derived superiority which creates the desire for, and is the creation of, homeschooling. with homeschooling, you have this self-perpetuating fringe of outsiders, who assume they are superior, for a whole arbitrary set of reasons that are not solved by, and in fact are increased by, homeschooling: lack of socialization
now excuse, me, i've overdosed on irony for the day
the issue is not the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the enforcers, the issue is the legitimacy or illegitimacy of what is being enforced
the very concept of copyright itself is coming under question as to its validity due to technological progress (the internet)
there is an entire body of legal status quo that was developed in an age of vcr tapes and vinyl records and xerox machines. much of it is fundamentally at odds with how the internet functions
such that renegade nongovernmental organizations exploiting this disconnect between legal status quo and technological status quo is genuinely dangerous
we are talking about the financial victimization of individuals of limited legal means who have committed no moral crime, but are simply riding the wave of technological progress... while being pulled down by an undertow of legal anachronism
much of ip law needs to be junked, due to the rise of the internet and the new status quo for how media is distributed. understandings of what is "right" and "wrong" based on dead technological eras are not valid. of course, they are still legally valid, and that's the whole problem with these free enterprise legal goon squads
what any of those complaints have to do with homeschooling versus public schooling, i have no idea
that you think your various gripes with society have their root, somehow, in homeschooling versus public schooling reveals a malformed ability to understand cause and effect on your part. that you think homeschooling is somehow a solution to your complaints is, ironically, a better commentary than anything you have explicitly written about a lack of socialization
you have a low social iq: your ability to reason about the makeup of society and why it is so is not very bright
"step outside your neonazi bunker and experience the world"
which is exactly what homeschool children need to do
go to a school, you have peers. schooled at home, what peers do you have? what more proof do you need of the plainly obvious?
homeschooling deprives children of peer contact. you can talk about pluses and minuses all you want, but disputing a simple truth just makes you look defensive and desperate
if you are getting a public education, you are, obviously, getting exposure to the dominant ideology
if by projection you mean that a public school education means you are indoctrinating your children into a fringe ideology, what is there to say about that?
you believe the dominant ideology is the fringe?
that says a lot
creates children who are not very well socialized
it's also usually the realm of parents who want to indoctrinate their children into a fringe ideology. so you're creating these little brainwashed robots who, without any real peers, can't make up their own minds and put into the proper perspective the bullshit their parents are ramming down their throats
if your ideology is sound, you have no fear of your children comparing your beliefs with the beliefs of others. putting them in isolation to form their beliefs automatically betrays the fact that you fear exposure to other ideas. exposure to other ideas can only strengthen your own ideas. so sheltering your children, sheltering them from exposure to other ideas is a form of weakness, and automatically flags your ideas as suspect
you may wish later you had not done that
at which point, you will agree with me 100%
until then, you live in an ivory tower with opinions that are not valid or logically coherent in the real world
until you've bought your first pack of adult diapers
is a rich guy and a bunch of women. yes, there are other more exotic forms of polygamy, but we're talking 99.99% of what actually occurs
this results in poor men without a chance for marriage, through no fault of their own. lots of angry loveless young men with no romantic future and nothing to lose is simply dangerous, and unfair. on a society and individual level, therefore, polygamy should remain illegal, as it does effect you and me, it does not occur in a vacuum
"Actually, dead people don't have limited freedom, they're just dead."
if at 9 am i choose to go to the coffee shop, order a 16 oz french roast, read slashdot on my laptop, get in a discussion with a stranger about footwear when its raining outside, then go walk to work, this represents a range of freedoms and choices
but if at 9 am i choose to swallow a shotgun, and do nothing after that, because i am dead, i have chosen to have a heck of a lot less freedom and choices than if i remained alive
when you're dead, you have zero freedom. choosing death is choosing to destroy your freedom. absolutely and literally
we can coherently talk about choices in one's life which limit your freedoms later. i am against such choices, because they are always made for malformed thinking. as a father, you will certainly warn your child about choosing their own slavery. life, in fact, is mostly about not getting your freedom limited, through bad choices
in reality, 99% of polygamy is a rich guy with a bunch of women
i mean, i can find a guy who can drive 100 mph all the time and never get in accident. so we should repeal speed limits?
the exotic outliers on the bell curve do not define anything. the fact that above 90 mph you are talking about lots of accidents, and that with polygamy a lot of women are sacrificing their happiness for financial stability and leaving a lot of poor men without the possibility of marriage (and all the negative effects of that) then obviously: no to polygamy, for obvious real world reasons
occam's razor my friend, it cuts through the bullshit well
i can build castles in the sky too, signifying nothing about reality
reality: almost any government is better than no government. civilization is impossible without government. deny that, and all your bullshit becomes possible. but of course, by denying the obvious, you're just living in crackpot land
until next time, retard...
in a democracy, rule is by consent of the ruled. that's as good as it is going to get. and no government is clearly worse than almost any kind of government
these are the spankingly obvious facts about your reality. accept them, there are no other choices, unless you wish to remain as you are: a blathering crackpot
people commit suicide
in other words, they freely choose to limit their own freedoms
so what maximizes freedom?
1. preventing them from destroy their freedom
2. allowing them to freely choose to dissolve their freedom
i choose #1. it seems liek you choose #2. i believe, and i think i am being more logically coherent than you, that position #1 maximizes liberty and freedom more than #2
now expand this to other choices of slavery over freedom: to addictive drugs, to financial security, etc.
if a woman chooses to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman, she is pretty much giving up the chance for romance and love and sacrificing her pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial stability
i am certain you can produce for me examples of women who freely and out of love choose to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman. and i can produce to you examples of albino deer
the rare exotic fringe is not instructive as to reality. and for 99% of cases of polygamy, it is a woman surrendering her romantic possibilities for financial security with a rich man who has other women with him for the same romance-sacrificing reasons
welcome to planet earth, welcome to reality
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/04/magazine/a-patel-motel-cartel.html?pagewanted=all
you got a motel almost anywhere in the usa, and its likely to be run by an indian guy with the last name of patel
why?
basically, its a phenomenon of the immigrant experience: one random guy goes from country A to exotic foreign inscrutable country B. what should he do there? well, he tries career X, and he's successful at it. he writes home about it, and pretty soon a bunch of other guys, relatives usually, from country A are interested in pursuing career X in country B. its not because the patels are better at running hotels than the guptas and the ganeshes, or the chos or the mcneils, for that matter, but simply because people pursue what, and who, they know, that works
same goes with spelling bees and indian americans (but not american indians. i never understood why columbus made a silly mistake about where he thought he was, and we are STILL calling native residents of north america "indians". completely nonsensical)