you object to the term teabagger because of negative connotations
but fascist is perfectly acceptable to describe government run healthcare
hey, asshole: is canada fascist? is denmark fascist?
in many objective measurements of freedom, these countries, with universal socialist healthcare, and high taxes, are much more free than the usa. the usa, in fact, is already highly fascist, according to your methodology, in a number of ways, while socialist countries are more free in the avenues you care about
so you play your retarded propagandistic game of label-making for the purpose of smearing. i'll tell you what: as an objective measure of maximizing my freedom in this world, i see many "fascist" "socialist" countries besides the usa doing a much better job of that (how about FREEDOM FROM DISEASE you fucking ignorant "patriots")
you meanwhile keep up the good fight... for maximizing corporate profits. pffffffffft
every criticism you have delivered and do not in any way deny the negatives you cite
i would like to clue you into to one small teensy weensy point you seem to have overlooked:
even with all of those negatives you elucidate...
ITS STILL WAY FUCKING BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM
duh!
"compare and contrast": its a useful mental skill. examining government run healthcare in a vacuum of all other choices, and it looks like shit. but examined in the context of other possible systems, it simply comes out better
oh sure, i'm certain you can find some small avenues where government run healthcare is worse than what we have now, but as an OVERALL system, examining the overall web of costs and benefits, it comes out ahead of what we currently have
next time: 1. compare and contrast with other choices 2. examine it in the universe of all financial and societal effects, not small avenues of loss or gain
then you have wisdom. but right now, whether willfully or out of honest ignorance, you only have propaganda: half-truths
the way the usa currently works, the economic incentives are to treat diabetes and heart disease when they are extremely expensive end stage deadly conditions. that's why american health care is "better": it delivers lavish expensive care when you are extremely sick. other countries PREVENT YOU FROM BECOMING THAT SICK IN THE FIRST PLACE. imagine fucking that
in a country that actually *gasp* values the health of its people, there is economic inventive to PREVENT people from becoming dangerously diabetic or with heart disease. gee, what a radical fucking concept
of course, the teabagger morons will complain the government is trying to run their lives. you know, they should be free to weigh 400 pounds, chain drink 42 ounce big gulp soft drinks and chain smoke. and that anyone should suggest this is unhealthy and that they should change their lifestyle to save society cash, well this is of course deeply offensive and freedom destroying socialism, right?
as patriotic americans, they should have extremely expensive end stage heart failure care at a relatively young age... that they can't even afford. see, its ok to expect lavish services... just not ok to pay for them
fucking teabagger morons
you're absolutely correct
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
a politician, for example, cannot afford to call people teabagger morons
however, i am not a politician. i am not trying to appeal to anyone. i traffic in ugly truths, not serene lies
i am simply stating the facts. and the simple facts are, plain as day evident to anyone except themselves, the tea party philosophy is the philosophy of the low iq
you won't find those words on any lips of any politician, at least in public. either those politicians gleefully courting their easily manipulated votes, or those politicians loathe to deal with the cesspool of mental filth that they are, or both, at the same time
so: thank you for the advice. at the moment i become a politician (meaning, never), i will begin to worry about offending teabagger retards
there are many costs that you do not outline that are hidden, but cost you MORE than all of the numbers you have outlined above
there are two ways to pay the healthcare bill: 1. in your face, upfront, and immediate 2. in hidden ways that hurt you more over time than if you had just bitten the bullet and paid the bill up front
the difference between the two approaches is also largely the difference between wisdom and ignorance. teabagger and libertarian philosophy is simply based on the ignorance of the hidden costs. that's why its so appealing to the unintelligent rabble
oh you will pay, one way or another, for healthcare, mark my words
universal healthcare just happens to be the cheapest way to do it. but its also the most overt. that's the only reason you reject it, because its in your face, rather than in the subtle and hidden costs that are much larger
dear libertarians and tea baggers:
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividends
if you don't pay for it overtly, you pay for the lack of universal healthcare in terms of easily preventable heart conditions complicating into more expensive conditions, breadwinners out of work because they can't treat their diabetes leading to their children to become street criminals, mumps and whooping cough outbreaks because vaccination is too complicated for the poor, people out sick more often because of inadequate healthcare, personal bankruptcies leading to losses at financial institutions due to sudden and expensive healthcare, etc.
in other words, you pay for healthcare, one way or another, no matter what your policy is
its just that universal healthcare is the CHEAPEST way to pay for it. but since the cost is overt and in your face, you reject it. but this simply means you don't understand the roundabout MORE EXPENSIVE and hidden ways you pay for it if you DON'T have universal healthcare
in other words, libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated. what happens if you DON'T pay for healthcare as a society? people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth? they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid? you yourself never need a helping hand? think about reality, then form an opinion
there are PLENTY of areas of life that should NEVER be public, and should always be private, for a number of reasons. capitalism, in fact, is the most useful engine for the creation of wealth ever invented by man. the point is, for SOME sectors of life, not all, making some thing run by the government actually is the CHEAPEST AND MOST EFFICIENT way for that sector to function
in other words, simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to the idea of free markets does NOT answer all questions in life, JUST AS TRUE as a simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to communist ideas does not work. but socialism, as understood by the rest of the first world, is simple the concept that SOME, not ALL, sectors of life require the government to run it for MAXIMUM FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY
a society with a capitalist engine, with socialist safety nets grafted on, is SUPERIOR and MORE EFFICIENT than a purely capitalist society. this really is the objective financially solid truth, not an opinion. lose your utopianism please: in life, simplistic absolutist philosophies, such as a fanatic devotion to individual reliance, DOES NOT WORK IN ALL FORMS. you are part of a society. as such, you contribute financially to it so that SOME functions in your life. by doing that some functions in your life are simply handled MORE CHEAPLY than if you handled them yourself. life is complicated, and requires a moderation between competing needs. understand this about the world, and drop your extremist ideologies
there is such a concept as the common good. there is such a concept as personal reliance. both are paragons of virtue that, in the real world, exist in tension in how they work. the idea is to find a BALANCE between the two ideals, not to simplemindedly adhere to one or the other polar extreme
teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you. you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment. that's the simple obvious truth
in an ideal world, anyone could make any fan fiction they wanted on the world of lotr, star wars, star trek, etc, without fear that the freeloading useless children or grandchildren and their lawyers aren't able to shut the fanfic down, because, for some reason, the useless turds deserve to live off the proceeds of a STORY or a SONG or a MOVIE their ancestors wrote
how does that make sense?
no: fans should make all the fiction they want. let the cream float to the top, let the drek sink, and let these world be thus adequately and enjoyably explored by all
intellectual property as an idea is pure fucking bullshit, philosophical failure, and incompatible with western ideals of liberty. it impoverishes our culture
intellectual property law requires our outright hostility and must be destroyed
1. being responsible about sex and teenagers, and 2. locking people up against their will
so you've given us a wonderful example of the kind of psychological immaturity that makes sex amongst half monkey teenagers a threat to society and their own lives
teenagers are lightweights in the prefrontal cortex. until they develop little more heft in their executive functions of responsibility and planning, you heavily monitor them, to save them, and you, and your society, from disease and unwanted pregnancy
physical maturity unfortunately does not equal psychological maturity
does not result in happiness. it results in unintended pregnancy and disease. are you happy with herpes and unwanted kids?
of course, you will respond that people will use protection. and i agree 100%. but that's not the FREE AND OPEN attitude you referred to, now is it? monkeys humping are free and open. homo sapiens wrapping their pecker or taking a birth control pill meanwhile are being RESPONSIBLE, not free and open. i don't know why you see some uneducated morons humping and spreading dozens of oprhans and awful diseases as a definition of success
so until your half-monkey teenagers develop a little more heft in their prefrontal cortexes, you bind them up in rules and taboos, to save them and your society from disease and unwanted kids, so you, your society, and the physically developed but psychologically immature teenagers have happy lives
can result in fatal or permanently life-altering disease
and, of course, pregnancy. duh
combine this with the fact that teenagers are universally fucking retarded (they're green, they're psychologically immature), and it makes a hell of a lot of sense to bind sex up in taboos and rules
sex is immensely pleasurable. its also an emotional minefield. there is no such thing, nor will there ever be, a successful human society with a cavalier attitude towards sex. sex is extremely powerful. as such, it is treated, and should be treated, extremely carefully, and always will be
it will be hard to nail tolkien's tone in a made up "middle movie". even if it isn't "studio committee of frat boys"ed to death, lotr fundamentalist fanboys will eviscerate it. they can deal with no tom bombadil, since its a story line that's so out of touch with the rest of lotr that it can safely be surgically removed, but whatever they do with the rumored necromancer plotline for this "middle movie" they better be damn respectful to the world of lotr:
so little is sketched by tolkien of them and the world to the east of mordor they went too, that it could make for some great lotr-type stories without stepping on any middle earth toes or the fanboys who guard the mythology's continuity
it could have an east asian or russian mythology theme, keeping in touch with all those maps that overlay mordor with either germany, transylvania, or the middle east
whenever there is a power imbalance: little guy versus organization, things like desperation can move idiots to sign really stupid contracts. therefore, if the contract itself is abusive and usurious, it does not matter that you signed the contract, what matters is that one side of the contract, the one with more power, agreed to put someone in a financially abusive situation
i can make a contract that says "if you are a day late, i get your firstborn", and some idiot will still sign that contract. because people are idiots. but the observation does not end there: evil is worse than stupid
making abusive contracts is a form of preying on the weak and helpless and stupid. the weak and helpless and stupid must be protected by society, not because they deserve it, but because the assholes who prey on them get even more powerful, and pretty soon they're enforcing abusive terms on average intelligence folks of average means
so for a well functioning society, you need to punish the usurious, you need to punish those who make up abusive terms. they are far far worse than complete idiots
drm turns what should be a clean exchange of goods into a means of control
it rankles anyone with a sense of the principles of liberty and freedom
it is doomed to failure, in any mode, simply because it pisses off those who are now controlled simply because they engaged in commerce: it sullies your brand image. it makes people hate any company that engages in drm
consists of interrupting people in the privacy of their homes, and trying to convince them to buy crap they don't need, and doing your damnedest to keep them from hanging up
telemarketing jobs should not exist, period. they are harassment, especially in regards to the elderly. even if half the population is unemployed: fuck telemarketers, burn the entire industry to the ground
if china surpasses the usa on some measure: trade, military might, miles of high speed rail, good for china. but its not a zero sum game: life in the usa will still be good. the usa can detach from the world if it wanted to because its might, its projection of power, is an aftereffect of its domestic strength. in other words, the domestic strength of the usa is not dependent upon that foreign force projection (except in the realm of petroleum, which is why we need to go all nuclear/coal/solar and electric cars asap... but the usa was on a trajectory of world dominance even before petroleum became important in this world)
in fact, there's plenty of places in the world that whine about the usa, like pakistan, that are mightily dependent on usa aid and usa power to continue to exist the way they do. no more aid to pakistan: hello fundie nutjobs taking over the country (and its nukes, and therefore war with india). no american bases in japan: japan deals with china and north korea by itself. what the hell we're still doing in germany though, i have no idea, russia is toothless. american foreign military bases and economic aid really serve the countries those foreign bases/ economic aid are in more than they serve the usa, in terms of security and stability. i have no problem giving those up. and besides lip service given to the whining local radicals, neither do the people in power in those countries either: they know the real score
as for rome, rome actively depended upon the parasitical feeding off of and tribute from subjugated states. but the usa is an empire unto itself: we have everything we need domestically. in fact, if we stop importing from china, we'll simply revive a lot of moribund manufacturing sectors in the usa that will only help job growth. and that might still happen if china gets unstable. but right now, china is just too damn cheap
the usa rose to dominate millenia and centuries old cultures and nations in under 200 years. why? because of our constitution, the values of our society. in other words, the situation with rome is: might makes right. but the situation in the usa is: right makes might
"right" in the sense that how the usa organizes its people and the values people believes in here. it actually works better than in other countries with competing values that are OBJECTIVELY inferior. for example, saudi arabia does not value woman's rights. which you may say is morally equivalent to the usa's valuing of women's rights. but in terms of the power of its societies to manufacture happiness and stability and economic prosperity, allowing half the population become wage earners simply means your society is objectively more powerful, more "right".
and this why the whole world is gradually becoming democracies since the usa came about: the rest of the world slowly absorbs the wisdom of the american governmental and social model and abandons their archaic governmental structures like monarchy, theocracy, despotism, etc
it fills you with warmth to describe your acquaintances as friends, but they are simply not your friends, objectively speaking
people used to correspond with each other in longhand script individually. then it was the occasional phone call and greeting cards. now, the value of facebook is it makes this job of acquaintance maintenance easier, automatic, and corporate. but therefore also more impersonal. not that that matters, since we're only talking about acquaintances, not true friends. so you can visit a webpage and see some stale pictures they make available for a zone of acquaintances, ok. but this is not real friendship, don't you see that?
acquaintance maintenance is inevitably impersonal to one degree or another: words and media put up for consumption by a zone of people on the periphery of our lives. meanwhile, true friendship never is impersonal, its always words and meaning meant explicitly and ONLY for you, and no one else
you're dialing down the meaning of friendship in your life. what i am saying is that it is a shame to miss out on other people's lives, but don't confuse looking at pictures meant for consumption by a bunch of people on the periphery, with social interaction that is unique to you, and only meant for you
i admire the military and you guys make great sacrifices for the sake of us civilians. and you can have great friendships with those you serve with, perhaps richer than in civilian life due to the potential mortality of the decisions that are made in that friendship. but don't mistake the fact that military tours of duty interrupt and disjoint your social landscape. in fact, that's one of the sacrifices of being in the military
what you are describing is called acquaintance maintenance, and its been going on since forever. people used to correspond with each other in longhand script individually. then it was the occasional phone call and greeting cards. now, the value of facebook is it makes this job of acquaintance maintenance easier, automatic, and corporate. but therefore also more impersonal. not that that matters, since we're only talking about acquaintances, not true friends. acquaintance maintenance is inevitably impersonal to one degree or another. true friendship never is impersonal
but you will notice that i am actually arguing with clueless people here who believe this facebook quasisocial existence is a REPLACEMENT for real friendship
you just have to admit that there are two realms in your life:
1. friends: 2 or 3 you are intimate with emotionally on a daily basis 2. acquaintances: dozens of people on the periphery. this is in flux: these people can become friends, or move out of your life, or stay on the periphery for a long time. such as family and "friends" you only see a few times a year. go ahead continue calling them "friends" if it makes you feel better, but that is not objectively what they are. they are acquaintances. it is not possible to have a true friend... that you only see a few times year. friendship doesn't work that way. acquaintanceship DOES.
whether you disbelieve or dislike or protest this fact is besides the point. its simply objectively the truth about the quality of your life
you don't work 11 hour days and have rich friendships outside your job. its simply not possible, unless they are with people at your job
which is fine: plenty of people have traded in their quality of life in order to get ahead in their careers, if only temporarily. but you need to admit what you are doing to yourself, and stop fooling yourself otherwise: your social life has been decimated, and plenty of people you call "friends" are at this point only acquaintances, no matter what you say otherwise
and they will tell you, without a sense of doubt or irony on their part, that they think that their shallow life of dozens of people who are simply their acquaintances, is no worse than someone with only a handful of deep and meaningful relationships, with genuine friends
i think that there are people whose masks are on so tight, that they don't understand, believe in, or have not yet experienced, the idea of complete honesty with a dear friend. objectively speaking, i think the emotional life of such people is smaller, more shallow, and more psychologically unhealthy. such people would also object if i describe the people they call friends as, objectively, actually only their acquaintances. based on the vapid emptiness of what is actually shared with their so-called "friends" though, i don't see how real friendship can enter the equation. of course, they will say otherwise. which just means they know no better than shallowness
people with dozens of friends have no real friends. or they actually do have close friends, two or three, and have a circle of acquaintances they only call "friends" only out of expediency. of course, this is always in flux. additionally, having a shallow empty public relations facade does not negate the existence of a deeper inner social life. as you say, facebook is a tool. it has its uses. but hewing ONLY to this empty shallow facade, as something as worthy as a genuine friendship: that sends up warning flags for me. to believe that you can have genuine friendships only over the web, or that dozens and dozens of "friends" is actually the same as two or three close real friends, this is a falsehood
i sincerely believe what i am saying. so am i trolling? i believe with complete conviction in the words i've just written. now you can consider me to be a troll if it suits your view of the world, but i am saying these words in honesty: there are shallow empty people in this world, and some don't even know the extent of how shallow they are, and are therefore hostile to the concept that shallowness exists, or that shallowness exists in their lives
Slashdot Mirror
you object to the term teabagger because of negative connotations
but fascist is perfectly acceptable to describe government run healthcare
hey, asshole: is canada fascist? is denmark fascist?
in many objective measurements of freedom, these countries, with universal socialist healthcare, and high taxes, are much more free than the usa. the usa, in fact, is already highly fascist, according to your methodology, in a number of ways, while socialist countries are more free in the avenues you care about
so you play your retarded propagandistic game of label-making for the purpose of smearing. i'll tell you what: as an objective measure of maximizing my freedom in this world, i see many "fascist" "socialist" countries besides the usa doing a much better job of that (how about FREEDOM FROM DISEASE you fucking ignorant "patriots")
you meanwhile keep up the good fight... for maximizing corporate profits. pffffffffft
fucking teabagger morons
every criticism you have delivered and do not in any way deny the negatives you cite
i would like to clue you into to one small teensy weensy point you seem to have overlooked:
even with all of those negatives you elucidate...
ITS STILL WAY FUCKING BETTER THAN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM
duh!
"compare and contrast": its a useful mental skill. examining government run healthcare in a vacuum of all other choices, and it looks like shit. but examined in the context of other possible systems, it simply comes out better
oh sure, i'm certain you can find some small avenues where government run healthcare is worse than what we have now, but as an OVERALL system, examining the overall web of costs and benefits, it comes out ahead of what we currently have
next time:
1. compare and contrast with other choices
2. examine it in the universe of all financial and societal effects, not small avenues of loss or gain
then you have wisdom. but right now, whether willfully or out of honest ignorance, you only have propaganda: half-truths
the way the usa currently works, the economic incentives are to treat diabetes and heart disease when they are extremely expensive end stage deadly conditions. that's why american health care is "better": it delivers lavish expensive care when you are extremely sick. other countries PREVENT YOU FROM BECOMING THAT SICK IN THE FIRST PLACE. imagine fucking that
in a country that actually *gasp* values the health of its people, there is economic inventive to PREVENT people from becoming dangerously diabetic or with heart disease. gee, what a radical fucking concept
of course, the teabagger morons will complain the government is trying to run their lives. you know, they should be free to weigh 400 pounds, chain drink 42 ounce big gulp soft drinks and chain smoke. and that anyone should suggest this is unhealthy and that they should change their lifestyle to save society cash, well this is of course deeply offensive and freedom destroying socialism, right?
as patriotic americans, they should have extremely expensive end stage heart failure care at a relatively young age... that they can't even afford. see, its ok to expect lavish services... just not ok to pay for them
fucking teabagger morons
a politician, for example, cannot afford to call people teabagger morons
however, i am not a politician. i am not trying to appeal to anyone. i traffic in ugly truths, not serene lies
i am simply stating the facts. and the simple facts are, plain as day evident to anyone except themselves, the tea party philosophy is the philosophy of the low iq
you won't find those words on any lips of any politician, at least in public. either those politicians gleefully courting their easily manipulated votes, or those politicians loathe to deal with the cesspool of mental filth that they are, or both, at the same time
so: thank you for the advice. at the moment i become a politician (meaning, never), i will begin to worry about offending teabagger retards
to see the hidden costs
there are many costs that you do not outline that are hidden, but cost you MORE than all of the numbers you have outlined above
there are two ways to pay the healthcare bill:
1. in your face, upfront, and immediate
2. in hidden ways that hurt you more over time than if you had just bitten the bullet and paid the bill up front
the difference between the two approaches is also largely the difference between wisdom and ignorance. teabagger and libertarian philosophy is simply based on the ignorance of the hidden costs. that's why its so appealing to the unintelligent rabble
oh you will pay, one way or another, for healthcare, mark my words
universal healthcare just happens to be the cheapest way to do it. but its also the most overt. that's the only reason you reject it, because its in your face, rather than in the subtle and hidden costs that are much larger
universal healthcare is a form of investment in your society that pays dividends
if you don't pay for it overtly, you pay for the lack of universal healthcare in terms of easily preventable heart conditions complicating into more expensive conditions, breadwinners out of work because they can't treat their diabetes leading to their children to become street criminals, mumps and whooping cough outbreaks because vaccination is too complicated for the poor, people out sick more often because of inadequate healthcare, personal bankruptcies leading to losses at financial institutions due to sudden and expensive healthcare, etc.
in other words, you pay for healthcare, one way or another, no matter what your policy is
its just that universal healthcare is the CHEAPEST way to pay for it. but since the cost is overt and in your face, you reject it. but this simply means you don't understand the roundabout MORE EXPENSIVE and hidden ways you pay for it if you DON'T have universal healthcare
in other words, libertarian and tea bagger rejection of universal healthcare is based on a lack of ability to understand that life is complicated. what happens if you DON'T pay for healthcare as a society? people who get sick just disappear off the face of the earth? they are all paragons of personal financial virtue and never need aid? you yourself never need a helping hand? think about reality, then form an opinion
there are PLENTY of areas of life that should NEVER be public, and should always be private, for a number of reasons. capitalism, in fact, is the most useful engine for the creation of wealth ever invented by man. the point is, for SOME sectors of life, not all, making some thing run by the government actually is the CHEAPEST AND MOST EFFICIENT way for that sector to function
in other words, simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to the idea of free markets does NOT answer all questions in life, JUST AS TRUE as a simplistic, fundamentalist adherence to communist ideas does not work. but socialism, as understood by the rest of the first world, is simple the concept that SOME, not ALL, sectors of life require the government to run it for MAXIMUM FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY
a society with a capitalist engine, with socialist safety nets grafted on, is SUPERIOR and MORE EFFICIENT than a purely capitalist society. this really is the objective financially solid truth, not an opinion. lose your utopianism please: in life, simplistic absolutist philosophies, such as a fanatic devotion to individual reliance, DOES NOT WORK IN ALL FORMS. you are part of a society. as such, you contribute financially to it so that SOME functions in your life. by doing that some functions in your life are simply handled MORE CHEAPLY than if you handled them yourself. life is complicated, and requires a moderation between competing needs. understand this about the world, and drop your extremist ideologies
there is such a concept as the common good. there is such a concept as personal reliance. both are paragons of virtue that, in the real world, exist in tension in how they work. the idea is to find a BALANCE between the two ideals, not to simplemindedly adhere to one or the other polar extreme
teabaggers and libertarians: in SOME avenues of life, not all, the government is good, and works for you. you reject it at the price of your own impoverishment. that's the simple obvious truth
i am referring to
in which a completely unrelated fear of yours is projected onto my words and what i am communicating
me: "sex should be curtailed by teenagers because of disease and pregnancy"
you: "so you're trying to make me feel guilty?"
wtf?
seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
are 14 yo?
i despise intellectual property
in an ideal world, anyone could make any fan fiction they wanted on the world of lotr, star wars, star trek, etc, without fear that the freeloading useless children or grandchildren and their lawyers aren't able to shut the fanfic down, because, for some reason, the useless turds deserve to live off the proceeds of a STORY or a SONG or a MOVIE their ancestors wrote
how does that make sense?
no: fans should make all the fiction they want. let the cream float to the top, let the drek sink, and let these world be thus adequately and enjoyably explored by all
intellectual property as an idea is pure fucking bullshit, philosophical failure, and incompatible with western ideals of liberty. it impoverishes our culture
intellectual property law requires our outright hostility and must be destroyed
the inability to perceive the difference between
1. being responsible about sex and teenagers, and
2. locking people up against their will
so you've given us a wonderful example of the kind of psychological immaturity that makes sex amongst half monkey teenagers a threat to society and their own lives
teenagers are lightweights in the prefrontal cortex. until they develop little more heft in their executive functions of responsibility and planning, you heavily monitor them, to save them, and you, and your society, from disease and unwanted pregnancy
physical maturity unfortunately does not equal psychological maturity
understand?
does not result in happiness. it results in unintended pregnancy and disease. are you happy with herpes and unwanted kids?
of course, you will respond that people will use protection. and i agree 100%. but that's not the FREE AND OPEN attitude you referred to, now is it? monkeys humping are free and open. homo sapiens wrapping their pecker or taking a birth control pill meanwhile are being RESPONSIBLE, not free and open. i don't know why you see some uneducated morons humping and spreading dozens of oprhans and awful diseases as a definition of success
so until your half-monkey teenagers develop a little more heft in their prefrontal cortexes, you bind them up in rules and taboos, to save them and your society from disease and unwanted kids, so you, your society, and the physically developed but psychologically immature teenagers have happy lives
got it?
can result in fatal or permanently life-altering disease
and, of course, pregnancy. duh
combine this with the fact that teenagers are universally fucking retarded (they're green, they're psychologically immature), and it makes a hell of a lot of sense to bind sex up in taboos and rules
sex is immensely pleasurable. its also an emotional minefield. there is no such thing, nor will there ever be, a successful human society with a cavalier attitude towards sex. sex is extremely powerful. as such, it is treated, and should be treated, extremely carefully, and always will be
deal with it
you lick the frog...
mod this guy +6 funny
thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion
duh
it will be hard to nail tolkien's tone in a made up "middle movie". even if it isn't "studio committee of frat boys"ed to death, lotr fundamentalist fanboys will eviscerate it. they can deal with no tom bombadil, since its a story line that's so out of touch with the rest of lotr that it can safely be surgically removed, but whatever they do with the rumored necromancer plotline for this "middle movie" they better be damn respectful to the world of lotr:
http://www.storyscape.net/hobbit_necromancer.html
as an aside, i always thought a good jumping off point for lotr fanfiction/ hollywood exploitation would be an examination of the blue wizards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Wizards
so little is sketched by tolkien of them and the world to the east of mordor they went too, that it could make for some great lotr-type stories without stepping on any middle earth toes or the fanboys who guard the mythology's continuity
it could have an east asian or russian mythology theme, keeping in touch with all those maps that overlay mordor with either germany, transylvania, or the middle east
and maybe we would get more oliphants! ;-P
because i don't ride in other people's cars, my car costs are zero
except for car payments, financing, gasoline, repairs, insurance, inspection, registration, tolls, oil change...
whenever there is a power imbalance: little guy versus organization, things like desperation can move idiots to sign really stupid contracts. therefore, if the contract itself is abusive and usurious, it does not matter that you signed the contract, what matters is that one side of the contract, the one with more power, agreed to put someone in a financially abusive situation
i can make a contract that says "if you are a day late, i get your firstborn", and some idiot will still sign that contract. because people are idiots. but the observation does not end there: evil is worse than stupid
making abusive contracts is a form of preying on the weak and helpless and stupid. the weak and helpless and stupid must be protected by society, not because they deserve it, but because the assholes who prey on them get even more powerful, and pretty soon they're enforcing abusive terms on average intelligence folks of average means
so for a well functioning society, you need to punish the usurious, you need to punish those who make up abusive terms. they are far far worse than complete idiots
drm turns what should be a clean exchange of goods into a means of control
it rankles anyone with a sense of the principles of liberty and freedom
it is doomed to failure, in any mode, simply because it pisses off those who are now controlled simply because they engaged in commerce: it sullies your brand image. it makes people hate any company that engages in drm
consists of interrupting people in the privacy of their homes, and trying to convince them to buy crap they don't need, and doing your damnedest to keep them from hanging up
telemarketing jobs should not exist, period. they are harassment, especially in regards to the elderly. even if half the population is unemployed: fuck telemarketers, burn the entire industry to the ground
but consider what your friendship with the guy in australia would be like
if you actually saw him every day
because of nike sweatshops in indonesia
if china surpasses the usa on some measure: trade, military might, miles of high speed rail, good for china. but its not a zero sum game: life in the usa will still be good. the usa can detach from the world if it wanted to because its might, its projection of power, is an aftereffect of its domestic strength. in other words, the domestic strength of the usa is not dependent upon that foreign force projection (except in the realm of petroleum, which is why we need to go all nuclear/coal/solar and electric cars asap... but the usa was on a trajectory of world dominance even before petroleum became important in this world)
in fact, there's plenty of places in the world that whine about the usa, like pakistan, that are mightily dependent on usa aid and usa power to continue to exist the way they do. no more aid to pakistan: hello fundie nutjobs taking over the country (and its nukes, and therefore war with india). no american bases in japan: japan deals with china and north korea by itself. what the hell we're still doing in germany though, i have no idea, russia is toothless. american foreign military bases and economic aid really serve the countries those foreign bases/ economic aid are in more than they serve the usa, in terms of security and stability. i have no problem giving those up. and besides lip service given to the whining local radicals, neither do the people in power in those countries either: they know the real score
as for rome, rome actively depended upon the parasitical feeding off of and tribute from subjugated states. but the usa is an empire unto itself: we have everything we need domestically. in fact, if we stop importing from china, we'll simply revive a lot of moribund manufacturing sectors in the usa that will only help job growth. and that might still happen if china gets unstable. but right now, china is just too damn cheap
the usa rose to dominate millenia and centuries old cultures and nations in under 200 years. why? because of our constitution, the values of our society. in other words, the situation with rome is: might makes right. but the situation in the usa is: right makes might
"right" in the sense that how the usa organizes its people and the values people believes in here. it actually works better than in other countries with competing values that are OBJECTIVELY inferior. for example, saudi arabia does not value woman's rights. which you may say is morally equivalent to the usa's valuing of women's rights. but in terms of the power of its societies to manufacture happiness and stability and economic prosperity, allowing half the population become wage earners simply means your society is objectively more powerful, more "right".
and this why the whole world is gradually becoming democracies since the usa came about: the rest of the world slowly absorbs the wisdom of the american governmental and social model and abandons their archaic governmental structures like monarchy, theocracy, despotism, etc
it fills you with warmth to describe your acquaintances as friends, but they are simply not your friends, objectively speaking
people used to correspond with each other in longhand script individually. then it was the occasional phone call and greeting cards. now, the value of facebook is it makes this job of acquaintance maintenance easier, automatic, and corporate. but therefore also more impersonal. not that that matters, since we're only talking about acquaintances, not true friends. so you can visit a webpage and see some stale pictures they make available for a zone of acquaintances, ok. but this is not real friendship, don't you see that?
acquaintance maintenance is inevitably impersonal to one degree or another: words and media put up for consumption by a zone of people on the periphery of our lives. meanwhile, true friendship never is impersonal, its always words and meaning meant explicitly and ONLY for you, and no one else
you're dialing down the meaning of friendship in your life. what i am saying is that it is a shame to miss out on other people's lives, but don't confuse looking at pictures meant for consumption by a bunch of people on the periphery, with social interaction that is unique to you, and only meant for you
i admire the military and you guys make great sacrifices for the sake of us civilians. and you can have great friendships with those you serve with, perhaps richer than in civilian life due to the potential mortality of the decisions that are made in that friendship. but don't mistake the fact that military tours of duty interrupt and disjoint your social landscape. in fact, that's one of the sacrifices of being in the military
what you are describing is called acquaintance maintenance, and its been going on since forever. people used to correspond with each other in longhand script individually. then it was the occasional phone call and greeting cards. now, the value of facebook is it makes this job of acquaintance maintenance easier, automatic, and corporate. but therefore also more impersonal. not that that matters, since we're only talking about acquaintances, not true friends. acquaintance maintenance is inevitably impersonal to one degree or another. true friendship never is impersonal
but you will notice that i am actually arguing with clueless people here who believe this facebook quasisocial existence is a REPLACEMENT for real friendship
you just have to admit that there are two realms in your life:
1. friends: 2 or 3 you are intimate with emotionally on a daily basis
2. acquaintances: dozens of people on the periphery. this is in flux: these people can become friends, or move out of your life, or stay on the periphery for a long time. such as family and "friends" you only see a few times a year. go ahead continue calling them "friends" if it makes you feel better, but that is not objectively what they are. they are acquaintances. it is not possible to have a true friend... that you only see a few times year. friendship doesn't work that way. acquaintanceship DOES.
then your only true friend is your job
whether you disbelieve or dislike or protest this fact is besides the point. its simply objectively the truth about the quality of your life
you don't work 11 hour days and have rich friendships outside your job. its simply not possible, unless they are with people at your job
which is fine: plenty of people have traded in their quality of life in order to get ahead in their careers, if only temporarily. but you need to admit what you are doing to yourself, and stop fooling yourself otherwise: your social life has been decimated, and plenty of people you call "friends" are at this point only acquaintances, no matter what you say otherwise
and they will tell you, without a sense of doubt or irony on their part, that they think that their shallow life of dozens of people who are simply their acquaintances, is no worse than someone with only a handful of deep and meaningful relationships, with genuine friends
i think that there are people whose masks are on so tight, that they don't understand, believe in, or have not yet experienced, the idea of complete honesty with a dear friend. objectively speaking, i think the emotional life of such people is smaller, more shallow, and more psychologically unhealthy. such people would also object if i describe the people they call friends as, objectively, actually only their acquaintances. based on the vapid emptiness of what is actually shared with their so-called "friends" though, i don't see how real friendship can enter the equation. of course, they will say otherwise. which just means they know no better than shallowness
people with dozens of friends have no real friends. or they actually do have close friends, two or three, and have a circle of acquaintances they only call "friends" only out of expediency. of course, this is always in flux. additionally, having a shallow empty public relations facade does not negate the existence of a deeper inner social life. as you say, facebook is a tool. it has its uses. but hewing ONLY to this empty shallow facade, as something as worthy as a genuine friendship: that sends up warning flags for me. to believe that you can have genuine friendships only over the web, or that dozens and dozens of "friends" is actually the same as two or three close real friends, this is a falsehood
i sincerely believe what i am saying. so am i trolling? i believe with complete conviction in the words i've just written. now you can consider me to be a troll if it suits your view of the world, but i am saying these words in honesty: there are shallow empty people in this world, and some don't even know the extent of how shallow they are, and are therefore hostile to the concept that shallowness exists, or that shallowness exists in their lives