"The fun part they didn't apparently check is that the 'Free Market' folks are also going to be the most likely to deny evolution....which is the ultimate 'free market'. "
I don't believe that the majority of purported "free marketers" are actually what they claim; I believe, that many who claim to be in favor of free markets, are mostly self-applying the label due to the usual American knee-jerk reaction to the "Socialism" bogeyman.
My run-ins with creationists in time fits this model rather well. They're not as much 'for' anything, as they are against its supposed polar opposite.
Then again, that does describe most people in the mainstream political chat-o-sphere these days...
"Global warming" as the term is generally used is not science."
It was, but was changed to because the dense skulls typically encountered in debates involving skeptics and denialists, who seemingly cannot accept that "global warming" doesn't mean that the globe is warming everywhere and at all times (ie. the "omg we just had a snowstorm, global warming is a FRAUD, rage" kind of sillyness).
"Climate Change" is very much harder to intentionally misunderstand in an effort to muddy the debate.
>In USA you have small government, no taxes and (snip)
The USA as a no-tax country, as you or others put forward, is a myth; the tax burden as a part of GDP is just under 30%, while in Europe, on average, is just over 40%.
That you get screwed on healthcare and by telcos is true, but a different matter.
>Excuse me, how does deregulation have anything to do with SEC incompetency? The financial services industry in America is one of the most regulated industries in the world.
Deregulation has nothing to do with it, but libertarians/free-marketers and their supposed nasty influence in the US halls of government is a easy dog to beat on, despite its non-existence (almost same non-existince that the people who put forward such silly notions demonstrate when their claims are challenged, as in this thread. Cue the tumbleweeds.).
Because of the massive dis-proportionality of the power being excerted in the cases you compare adn attempt to equivocate.
> The point was not the scope or extent of the power. The point was the arbitrary way that it is exercised and the fact that justification of its use is an afterthought if it is provided at all.
All humans are capable of such behavior, whether they are the parents of a child, sitting in a boardroom, or in government halls. On a side note, I usually see more such unjustified, either purely or by lies and coverups, behavior from politicians because of lack of accountability, also related to my earlier posts). But if this is your point, I must consider your argument largely irrelevant.
> It's the difference between "because I am in charge and I said so" versus "because I believe it's the most reasonable way to proceed, and here are my factual reasons explaining why I think so; please let me know if new evidence comes to light."
In the degree that morality and honesty matters, yes; in the degree that what matters are the consequences and harm from actions justified or not, the aforementioned dwindles.
>That distinction can be made whether the situation is "do we execute this possible terrorist?" or whether it's "how long should Junior be grounded?" So again, if your disproportionate concern for the scope of power has anything to do with the way authority is justified, or somehow makes my reasoning a strawman, you have not made your case.
Or you have missed it. Shortly explained, I'm pointing out differences in consequences of actions of the three examples, not the moral basis.
>Really? which part of history is that, exactly? I can't remember any totalitarian regime that didn't have hordes of people inmigrating to neighboring countries.
Those that had the opportunity. Many millions did not (fx. the victims of the Ukraninian Holodomor or the killing fields of Cambodia), or died trying. The deaths at the berlin wall is a minor though notable illustration.
> Sure in the worst ones many people were caught, usually when they tried to hide in the same country instead of getting out, but children trying to find refuge from their abusive parents within their own home usually fare no better.
>As for corporations, I've only got four words for you: modern day United States
I'm unsure about what you are trying to say, but keep in mind that corporations that gain tyrannical powers invariably do so with the aid of government; in fact, corporations are creations of laws of government. In cases where you do not have the ability to not-choose products, "services" or bein in servitude of a corporation, it is by and large always due to, or with the blessing of, government.
>While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).
True, but a strawman. Corporations rarely hold the broad scope of powers that governments do. Parents ditto. (Consumers can choose to not buy from a corporation they dislike; children can typically run away from abusive parents and seek refuge with neighbours and family. Seekign refuge from government is another matter entirely as history will show you.). Also, both of the aforementioned rarely their their so-called dicatatorial powers to the excesses that governments do, especially government led by politically-religious folks ala Charvez.
>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?
Because they are the soon-to-be world #1 economy, and no politician wants to have his country slapped with a Chinese embargo (resulting in lost trade and thus tax and duties income) because they stepped on some sore toes.
"I have a great idea, let me build the next iconic WiFi network (NetX) that allows Cell and PC's to use the frequency - only to find out that 5 years later it causes cancer, or impacts health somehow to the detrminent of tens of millions of Americans. That's capitalism???? That's irresponsible and wrong."
Your contention is that in the absence of government regulation, private companies (or in common parlance 'capitalism unfettered') will run rampant, and poison, cripple and eventaully kill their customers for short sighted profit.
You want to know something? That is pretty much what you already have today, despite this regulation that supposedly protects us. The real function that this 'consumer protection' does is to give free passes to big, well-connected companies to fuck consumers, and to burden their minor, less-connected competitiors to the point where they cannot market their alternatives that get held up in certification and testing, or they break under the administrative strain. Or both.
The biggest source of monopolies is irrefutably the government, not "capitalism", which is pretty much a bogeyman concept in most political discussions.
Have every government apologize for all cases of discrimination, murder, destruction, theft, pollution, pillage and enslavement that they have done in the past, and have them pledge to not do so in the future.
But that would be utopian, when the fact of the matter is that the electorate of all western nations in some form or degree wants the above. (Yes, that most likely includes you, the reader, as well.)
I was tempted to vote this post 'troll', but I decided just to ask here - is the above a troll, or just somebody who dont like scientists, and argues in a poor manner?
Slashdot Mirror
You can have my cigarettes, when you take them from my cold, dead, tar-spotted, cancerous h...
Oh blimey.
"The fun part they didn't apparently check is that the 'Free Market' folks are also going to be the most likely to deny evolution....which is the ultimate 'free market'. "
I don't believe that the majority of purported "free marketers" are actually what they claim; I believe, that many who claim to be in favor of free markets, are mostly self-applying the label due to the usual American knee-jerk reaction to the "Socialism" bogeyman.
My run-ins with creationists in time fits this model rather well. They're not as much 'for' anything, as they are against its supposed polar opposite.
Then again, that does describe most people in the mainstream political chat-o-sphere these days...
"Global warming" as the term is generally used is not science."
It was, but was changed to because the dense skulls typically encountered in debates involving skeptics and denialists, who seemingly cannot accept that "global warming" doesn't mean that the globe is warming everywhere and at all times (ie. the "omg we just had a snowstorm, global warming is a FRAUD, rage" kind of sillyness).
"Climate Change" is very much harder to intentionally misunderstand in an effort to muddy the debate.
Yugoslavia did this as well before the end of the cold war.
Comparing bandwidth is so much like a penis contest; Hong Kong has had Gigabit for 5 years or more; same with Korea.
Enter price into the comparison, and you have an argument.
>In USA you have small government, no taxes and (snip)
The USA as a no-tax country, as you or others put forward, is a myth; the tax burden as a part of GDP is just under 30%, while in Europe, on average, is just over 40%.
That you get screwed on healthcare and by telcos is true, but a different matter.
>Excuse me, how does deregulation have anything to do with SEC incompetency? The financial services industry in America is one of the most regulated industries in the world.
Deregulation has nothing to do with it, but libertarians/free-marketers and their supposed nasty influence in the US halls of government is a easy dog to beat on, despite its non-existence (almost same non-existince that the people who put forward such silly notions demonstrate when their claims are challenged, as in this thread. Cue the tumbleweeds.).
One free with every SUV bought!
>How is that a strawman?
Because of the massive dis-proportionality of the power being excerted in the cases you compare adn attempt to equivocate.
> The point was not the scope or extent of the power. The point was the arbitrary way that it is exercised and the fact that justification of its use is an afterthought if it is provided at all.
All humans are capable of such behavior, whether they are the parents of a child, sitting in a boardroom, or in government halls. On a side note, I usually see more such unjustified, either purely or by lies and coverups, behavior from politicians because of lack of accountability, also related to my earlier posts). But if this is your point, I must consider your argument largely irrelevant.
> It's the difference between "because I am in charge and I said so" versus "because I believe it's the most reasonable way to proceed, and here are my factual reasons explaining why I think so; please let me know if new evidence comes to light."
In the degree that morality and honesty matters, yes; in the degree that what matters are the consequences and harm from actions justified or not, the aforementioned dwindles.
>That distinction can be made whether the situation is "do we execute this possible terrorist?" or whether it's "how long should Junior be grounded?" So again, if your disproportionate concern for the scope of power has anything to do with the way authority is justified, or somehow makes my reasoning a strawman, you have not made your case.
Or you have missed it. Shortly explained, I'm pointing out differences in consequences of actions of the three examples, not the moral basis.
>Really? which part of history is that, exactly? I can't remember any totalitarian regime that didn't have hordes of people inmigrating to neighboring countries.
Those that had the opportunity. Many millions did not (fx. the victims of the Ukraninian Holodomor or the killing fields of Cambodia), or died trying. The deaths at the berlin wall is a minor though notable illustration.
> Sure in the worst ones many people were caught, usually when they tried to hide in the same country instead of getting out, but children trying to find refuge from their abusive parents within their own home usually fare no better.
>As for corporations, I've only got four words for you: modern day United States
I'm unsure about what you are trying to say, but keep in mind that corporations that gain tyrannical powers invariably do so with the aid of government; in fact, corporations are creations of laws of government. In cases where you do not have the ability to not-choose products, "services" or bein in servitude of a corporation, it is by and large always due to, or with the blessing of, government.
>While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).
True, but a strawman. Corporations rarely hold the broad scope of powers that governments do. Parents ditto. (Consumers can choose to not buy from a corporation they dislike; children can typically run away from abusive parents and seek refuge with neighbours and family. Seekign refuge from government is another matter entirely as history will show you.). Also, both of the aforementioned rarely their their so-called dicatatorial powers to the excesses that governments do, especially government led by politically-religious folks ala Charvez.
I use swf-dec and gnash.
Am I vulnerable?
Ok, that was retorical - bwahahah!
>Someone please explain to me why China is getting treated with kid gloves?
Because they are the soon-to-be world #1 economy, and no politician wants to have his country slapped with a Chinese embargo (resulting in lost trade and thus tax and duties income) because they stepped on some sore toes.
Slightly over 9000.
Sure, Linux will run on it. Just imagine a whole bunch of blades of these...!!
"I have a great idea, let me build the next iconic WiFi network (NetX) that allows Cell and PC's to use the frequency - only to find out that 5 years later it causes cancer, or impacts health somehow to the detrminent of tens of millions of Americans.
That's capitalism???? That's irresponsible and wrong."
Your contention is that in the absence of government regulation, private companies (or in common parlance 'capitalism unfettered') will run rampant, and poison, cripple and eventaully kill their customers for short sighted profit.
You want to know something? That is pretty much what you already have today, despite this regulation that supposedly protects us. The real function that this 'consumer protection' does is to give free passes to big, well-connected companies to fuck consumers, and to burden their minor, less-connected competitiors to the point where they cannot market their alternatives that get held up in certification and testing, or they break under the administrative strain. Or both.
Nevermind, missed the sarcasm. Sorry.
Your point being what exactly? That in absence of government regulation, everyone becomes a child pornographer? Or?
The biggest source of monopolies is irrefutably the government, not "capitalism", which is pretty much a bogeyman concept in most political discussions.
You manage to miss the point of the parent completely.
How about capping your bandwidth reserved to tor (or whatever you use) so low that only text material can feasibly be accessed through your node?
It's been a while since I had an exit node running, so I forot the lowest bandwith cap you can set. Is it 16 KB/sec or lower?
Refusing to do business with someone is punishment?
Have every government apologize for all cases of discrimination, murder, destruction, theft, pollution, pillage and enslavement that they have done in the past, and have them pledge to not do so in the future.
But that would be utopian, when the fact of the matter is that the electorate of all western nations in some form or degree wants the above. (Yes, that most likely includes you, the reader, as well.)
I have a fear that this book will also be gutted and destroyed when filmatized, just as Hollywood has done so many times before.
I was tempted to vote this post 'troll', but I decided just to ask here - is the above a troll, or just somebody who dont like scientists, and argues in a poor manner?