I presume you wouldn't say it was "wrong" of the United States to treat the American public the same way they treated Germany and Japan during WWII who our congress had declared war on.
So you're saying one can have a place to live, clothes to wear, and food to eat by performing a tiny fraction of the manual labor expected of the average worker 600 years ago? So I guess migrant workers must have brand new Toyotas and iPhones with all the work they do, right? What fantasy world do you live in?
Could it be because you (or someone you love) want more and more things? A new iPhone, a better car, a nicer TV? But a single person does not statistics make...
No, it's because necessities like food, clothing, and shelter have cost greater than zero.
Allowing, huh? Is there something you'd like to disallow? Spell it out... And then explain, why it would be ethical for you to compel — with threat of arms — the more successful to share their wealth with you to let you work less.
Yes, I'd like to disallow extreme stratification of wealth, which should be obvious from my previous post. I thought I already did spell it out. I believe it would be ethical for society to compel those who possess an inequitable share of wealth to share with those who do not from a purely utilitarian point of view: it would maximize the economic freedom in society, which is an optimal outcome if economic freedom is valued.
Sure. The beneficiaries of any action are always likely to consider the action "ethical". If you arguments are as tainted by an obvious conflict of interest as this one, you may want to reconsider your overall debating strategy.
Conflict of interest? Are you suggesting that I somehow stand to benefit from the mythical Robin Hood's deeds? Or was this statement unrelated to my mention of Robin Hood which you quote preceeding it?
Like most other Illiberals, you got your Robin Hood analogy all wrong. He was not robbing "the rich" to give gifts to the poor. He was robbing the tax-collectors to return to the taxed. Sheriff of Nottingham was — Robin's main enemy — was not his target for his wealth, but rather because he was an agent of the oppressive government (of King John). He was no Che Guevara — if a Robin Hood-like figure were to appear today, you'd dismiss him with the derision you and yours have shown to the Tea Party.
This is fascinating to me, as my familiarity with this fable is limited to its expression in pop culture. Wikipedia claims that "although such behaviour was not part of his original character, since the beginning of the 19th century he has become known for 'robbing from the rich and giving to the poor', assisted by a group of fellow outlaws known as his 'Merry Men'". This seems to contradict your claim. Additionally, looking over the remainder of the Wikipedia article, it seems that there were several mutually-contradictory traits ascribed to Robin Hood: in one tale he supports Richard the Lionheart, yet in another he opposes him. Let's just say that the "historically correct" view of Robin Hood is nonexistent, and that I referred explicitly to the Robin Hood of the last two centuries, not the Robin Hood of the 13th through 18th centuries. The one who was celebrated for being a Che Guevara, as you so elequently put it. Here, the Wikipedia article goes on to explicitly claim "The Robin Hood legend has been subject to numerous shifts and mutations throughout its history. Robin himself has evolved from a yeoman bandit to a national hero of epic proportions, who not only supports the poor by taking from the rich, but heroically defends the throne of England itself from unworthy and venal claimants."
Brief aside: The whole "threat of arms" thing is quite hyperbolic. I believe "threat of imprisonment" is more accurate, as I don't believe the IRS has any kill squads on payroll. Also, your "Illiberals" and "Tea Party" labels amuse me; I don't get caught up in group identities and evaluate issues and individuals on their individual merits. But kudos for sharing your archaic knowledge of the Robin Hood fable!
The metabolic pathways that apply to alcohol are totally different than those that apply to sugars, though they are both metabolized by hepatocytes (alcohol exclusively so). I recently learned this by studying the impact of alcohol (as opposed to carbohydrates) on a ketogenic diet. Is it possible for liver failure to be caused by eating too many cookies?
Anyway, I wasn't trying to make any health claims. I avoid HFCS for entirely political reasons and couldn't care less about the impact of HFCS on my health (since I don't eat it anyway).
Nobody has to work longer — nor harder — than they want to. Everybody is welcome to work exactly as much, as they need to in order to be able to afford, whatever they want.
And yet they do. Your response doesn't even attempt to explain that. I can speak for myself only: I work longer and harder than I want to due to the fact that I live in a society which ensures that this will happen by allowing for extreme stratification of wealth.
Irrelevant. No one — not even a billionaire — can be ethically forced to give a crumb of bread to a starving infant. Convinced — yes. Compelled — no...
Perhaps according to your system of ethics, which seems to value the inviolability of private property over the well-being of fellow humans. Many people don't subscribe to this form of ethics. For a long time, the Robin Hood of folklore was considered a hero for violating the private property of the wealthy for the benefit of those less fortunate. I suppose, based on your ethical system, that you'd consider him a villain?
I lived in Greenbush. I didn't notice any little kids because the 2 bedroom house I was renting (for <$800/month including heat) sat on hundreds of acres of forested land. By some unbelievable stroke of luck I was able to get decent DSL service.
When I was moving there, I almost bought a 15-year-old 8 bedroom house with 2 huge ass living rooms, giant 4 car garage, and detached shed, etc., because it was only $105k. This was circa 2006 while property values were still quite inflated. Maine is unbelievably cheap if you look "in the middle of nowhere", and with population density so low you never have to worry about kids. The Internet connectivity is indeed very hit or miss, and I was honestly expecting to be stuck with satellite or dialup. The employment situation is even worse. If you're not involved in healthcare or education, you're fucked. When I dropped out of grad school, my only options for income to finish out my lease were either door-to-door meat sales (?!?!) or taxi driver. I ended up driving cab for 10-12 hours a day, 6 days a week, which yielded almost enough to pay rent. Everything else (daily ration included 1 packet of ramen, 1 tallboy Budweiser, some loose tobacco and rolling papers) went on my credit cards, which were quite maxed out by the time I escaped. Great weight-loss plan, though:P
For more information, see here, here, or Rush's song Subdivisions.
While I myself am not a developer, I think it's based on the idea that a piece of land with an expensive structure on it is worth more than that same piece of land without that expensive structure, as long as there is demand for said structure. Since the structures we're talking about are housing units, and people generally prefer to not live outdoors, it stands to reason that there would be demand. Perhaps you're one of those people that prefers to live outdoors?
Neah, I'm a USSR-raised atheist, thank you very much.
Cool, me too! Well, Soviet-satellite-state-raised atheist, at least.
The cost of the "War on Poverty", since bla bla bla...
It's 2014. I've been hearing about tremendous productivity gains in the US labor market every year since I was granted asylum here (which was over 30 years ago). I've been hearing about amazing technological developments (and contributing to them, hopefully) that are letting fewer people do more things for equally long. And yet here we are, with you explaining to me that we need as large a percentage of our population to be working today as we did hundreds of years ago. Only after you explain how that can possible be will I entertain a conversation about trillions of dollars given to the poor.
Explain to me why we still need as large a percentage of our population working as we had 600 years ago? Are all these productivity gains a myth? Does technology not actually enable us to do more with less?
So is Russia in Europe or not? You say it is, but then don't seem to include the 17.1 km^2 of Russian land in your size comparison. What's up with that, you disingenuous fuck?
You people and your protestant work ethic. I just don't get it.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people really don't feel like busting ass every waking moment of their lives? And that maybe in "the greatest nation in the world" we could actually afford to ensure they get Internet access (not to mention a phone, vehicle, decent shelter, and food)?
No, that would be horrible. That would mean people get to not work their asses off. What a shame that would be, right? I mean, who would pay for it? Clearly the hundreds of billionaires we have in this country couldn't possibly afford to fund this kind of utopia, and even if they could, it would be so wrong of them to support people that are so lazy.
If you own your own property, that neighboring tract housing would likely result in a tremendous increase in property value for you, at which point you'd be able to sell and relocate to an affordable area that's free from the blight of little damn kids and freeloading farmers. I recommend Maine if you don't hate cold.
Hunts ketchup used to use sugar instead of HFCS. It no longer does. They still have a Hunts "Natural" ketchup that uses sugar, but I believe all of the other Hunts ketchup has reverted to once again using HFCS. Tell your hippie friends to read the label before simply assuming their Hunts is HFCS-free.
There's other reasons for avoiding HFCS besides wanting to lose weight or trying to be healthy. I avoid it because I hate corn farmers and wish the Cuban embargo would be lifted to dramatically decrease the cost of cane sugar.
With the last, they can keep all their stuff on drive (and you can just log into drive to help them), and you can chromote in to see their desktop and help. Even video-chat while chromoting.
Did dialup get that much faster since I last used it? I remember 56K, but I didn't know it'd gotten all the way to megabit connections now. Impressive!
Generally speaking, commuting to and from work is considered personal use. I travel to client sites frequently for work and get reimbursed at the federal rate (currently $0.56/mile for cars), but there's no way I'd get reimbursed for commuting to my normal place of business.
It's an expression of agreement, synonymous with "okay", "fuck yea", or "amen". It was popularized by Archbishop Don 'Magic' Juan and Snoop Dogg. Here, Snoop explains:
To me, that means to have God in everything you do. For example, "I'm trying to holla at these dizzles fo' shizzle, chuuch"
Amusingly, in that same segment (I remember watching this on television many years ago), Marylin Manson is asked what he thinks is meant by "chuuch". The above link lists his response as "I don't know. That might mean ass.", but the actual segment was much funnier in video form. Apparrently he was only shown the word in writing, so he pronounces it "chooch" (it's actually pronounced more like "church" with the 'r' removed) with a very quizzical look on his face. "Uh, chooch? I don't know. That might mean ass." Priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to check 'Post Anonymously'. Don't you just hate it when that happens?
Who's the Malthusian now, bitches?
I presume you wouldn't say it was "wrong" of the United States to treat the American public the same way they treated Germany and Japan during WWII who our congress had declared war on.
So you're saying one can have a place to live, clothes to wear, and food to eat by performing a tiny fraction of the manual labor expected of the average worker 600 years ago? So I guess migrant workers must have brand new Toyotas and iPhones with all the work they do, right? What fantasy world do you live in?
"Alice" is to LSD as "Molly" is to MDMA. I see the psychonaut segment of nerddom is underrepresented here...
Could it be because you (or someone you love) want more and more things? A new iPhone, a better car, a nicer TV? But a single person does not statistics make...
No, it's because necessities like food, clothing, and shelter have cost greater than zero.
Allowing, huh? Is there something you'd like to disallow? Spell it out... And then explain, why it would be ethical for you to compel — with threat of arms — the more successful to share their wealth with you to let you work less.
Yes, I'd like to disallow extreme stratification of wealth, which should be obvious from my previous post. I thought I already did spell it out. I believe it would be ethical for society to compel those who possess an inequitable share of wealth to share with those who do not from a purely utilitarian point of view: it would maximize the economic freedom in society, which is an optimal outcome if economic freedom is valued.
Sure. The beneficiaries of any action are always likely to consider the action "ethical". If you arguments are as tainted by an obvious conflict of interest as this one, you may want to reconsider your overall debating strategy.
Conflict of interest? Are you suggesting that I somehow stand to benefit from the mythical Robin Hood's deeds? Or was this statement unrelated to my mention of Robin Hood which you quote preceeding it?
Like most other Illiberals, you got your Robin Hood analogy all wrong. He was not robbing "the rich" to give gifts to the poor. He was robbing the tax-collectors to return to the taxed. Sheriff of Nottingham was — Robin's main enemy — was not his target for his wealth, but rather because he was an agent of the oppressive government (of King John). He was no Che Guevara — if a Robin Hood-like figure were to appear today, you'd dismiss him with the derision you and yours have shown to the Tea Party.
This is fascinating to me, as my familiarity with this fable is limited to its expression in pop culture. Wikipedia claims that "although such behaviour was not part of his original character, since the beginning of the 19th century he has become known for 'robbing from the rich and giving to the poor', assisted by a group of fellow outlaws known as his 'Merry Men'". This seems to contradict your claim. Additionally, looking over the remainder of the Wikipedia article, it seems that there were several mutually-contradictory traits ascribed to Robin Hood: in one tale he supports Richard the Lionheart, yet in another he opposes him. Let's just say that the "historically correct" view of Robin Hood is nonexistent, and that I referred explicitly to the Robin Hood of the last two centuries, not the Robin Hood of the 13th through 18th centuries. The one who was celebrated for being a Che Guevara, as you so elequently put it. Here, the Wikipedia article goes on to explicitly claim "The Robin Hood legend has been subject to numerous shifts and mutations throughout its history. Robin himself has evolved from a yeoman bandit to a national hero of epic proportions, who not only supports the poor by taking from the rich, but heroically defends the throne of England itself from unworthy and venal claimants."
Brief aside: The whole "threat of arms" thing is quite hyperbolic. I believe "threat of imprisonment" is more accurate, as I don't believe the IRS has any kill squads on payroll. Also, your "Illiberals" and "Tea Party" labels amuse me; I don't get caught up in group identities and evaluate issues and individuals on their individual merits. But kudos for sharing your archaic knowledge of the Robin Hood fable!
The metabolic pathways that apply to alcohol are totally different than those that apply to sugars, though they are both metabolized by hepatocytes (alcohol exclusively so). I recently learned this by studying the impact of alcohol (as opposed to carbohydrates) on a ketogenic diet. Is it possible for liver failure to be caused by eating too many cookies?
Anyway, I wasn't trying to make any health claims. I avoid HFCS for entirely political reasons and couldn't care less about the impact of HFCS on my health (since I don't eat it anyway).
Nobody has to work longer — nor harder — than they want to. Everybody is welcome to work exactly as much, as they need to in order to be able to afford, whatever they want.
And yet they do. Your response doesn't even attempt to explain that. I can speak for myself only: I work longer and harder than I want to due to the fact that I live in a society which ensures that this will happen by allowing for extreme stratification of wealth.
Irrelevant. No one — not even a billionaire — can be ethically forced to give a crumb of bread to a starving infant. Convinced — yes. Compelled — no...
Perhaps according to your system of ethics, which seems to value the inviolability of private property over the well-being of fellow humans. Many people don't subscribe to this form of ethics. For a long time, the Robin Hood of folklore was considered a hero for violating the private property of the wealthy for the benefit of those less fortunate. I suppose, based on your ethical system, that you'd consider him a villain?
I lived in Greenbush. I didn't notice any little kids because the 2 bedroom house I was renting (for <$800/month including heat) sat on hundreds of acres of forested land. By some unbelievable stroke of luck I was able to get decent DSL service.
:P
When I was moving there, I almost bought a 15-year-old 8 bedroom house with 2 huge ass living rooms, giant 4 car garage, and detached shed, etc., because it was only $105k. This was circa 2006 while property values were still quite inflated. Maine is unbelievably cheap if you look "in the middle of nowhere", and with population density so low you never have to worry about kids. The Internet connectivity is indeed very hit or miss, and I was honestly expecting to be stuck with satellite or dialup. The employment situation is even worse. If you're not involved in healthcare or education, you're fucked. When I dropped out of grad school, my only options for income to finish out my lease were either door-to-door meat sales (?!?!) or taxi driver. I ended up driving cab for 10-12 hours a day, 6 days a week, which yielded almost enough to pay rent. Everything else (daily ration included 1 packet of ramen, 1 tallboy Budweiser, some loose tobacco and rolling papers) went on my credit cards, which were quite maxed out by the time I escaped. Great weight-loss plan, though
For more information, see here, here, or Rush's song Subdivisions.
While I myself am not a developer, I think it's based on the idea that a piece of land with an expensive structure on it is worth more than that same piece of land without that expensive structure, as long as there is demand for said structure. Since the structures we're talking about are housing units, and people generally prefer to not live outdoors, it stands to reason that there would be demand. Perhaps you're one of those people that prefers to live outdoors?
Neah, I'm a USSR-raised atheist, thank you very much.
Cool, me too! Well, Soviet-satellite-state-raised atheist, at least.
The cost of the "War on Poverty", since bla bla bla...
It's 2014. I've been hearing about tremendous productivity gains in the US labor market every year since I was granted asylum here (which was over 30 years ago). I've been hearing about amazing technological developments (and contributing to them, hopefully) that are letting fewer people do more things for equally long. And yet here we are, with you explaining to me that we need as large a percentage of our population to be working today as we did hundreds of years ago. Only after you explain how that can possible be will I entertain a conversation about trillions of dollars given to the poor.
And this is bad because... ?
Explain to me why we still need as large a percentage of our population working as we had 600 years ago? Are all these productivity gains a myth? Does technology not actually enable us to do more with less?
So is Russia in Europe or not? You say it is, but then don't seem to include the 17.1 km^2 of Russian land in your size comparison. What's up with that, you disingenuous fuck?
You people and your protestant work ethic. I just don't get it.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe some people really don't feel like busting ass every waking moment of their lives? And that maybe in "the greatest nation in the world" we could actually afford to ensure they get Internet access (not to mention a phone, vehicle, decent shelter, and food)?
No, that would be horrible. That would mean people get to not work their asses off. What a shame that would be, right? I mean, who would pay for it? Clearly the hundreds of billionaires we have in this country couldn't possibly afford to fund this kind of utopia, and even if they could, it would be so wrong of them to support people that are so lazy.
If you own your own property, that neighboring tract housing would likely result in a tremendous increase in property value for you, at which point you'd be able to sell and relocate to an affordable area that's free from the blight of little damn kids and freeloading farmers. I recommend Maine if you don't hate cold.
Hunts ketchup used to use sugar instead of HFCS. It no longer does. They still have a Hunts "Natural" ketchup that uses sugar, but I believe all of the other Hunts ketchup has reverted to once again using HFCS. Tell your hippie friends to read the label before simply assuming their Hunts is HFCS-free.
There's other reasons for avoiding HFCS besides wanting to lose weight or trying to be healthy. I avoid it because I hate corn farmers and wish the Cuban embargo would be lifted to dramatically decrease the cost of cane sugar.
With the last, they can keep all their stuff on drive (and you can just log into drive to help them), and you can chromote in to see their desktop and help. Even video-chat while chromoting.
Did dialup get that much faster since I last used it? I remember 56K, but I didn't know it'd gotten all the way to megabit connections now. Impressive!
Generally speaking, commuting to and from work is considered personal use. I travel to client sites frequently for work and get reimbursed at the federal rate (currently $0.56/mile for cars), but there's no way I'd get reimbursed for commuting to my normal place of business.
To me, that means to have God in everything you do. For example, "I'm trying to holla at these dizzles fo' shizzle, chuuch"
Amusingly, in that same segment (I remember watching this on television many years ago), Marylin Manson is asked what he thinks is meant by "chuuch". The above link lists his response as "I don't know. That might mean ass.", but the actual segment was much funnier in video form. Apparrently he was only shown the word in writing, so he pronounces it "chooch" (it's actually pronounced more like "church" with the 'r' removed) with a very quizzical look on his face. "Uh, chooch? I don't know. That might mean ass." Priceless.
Ah, that makes sense then. For a second I thought Canadians were even more considerate than I knew them to be!
You're a horrible person for linking to Beta. Worse than the goatse guy.
Wait, your employer pays your fuel costs? And you're driving a Yaris instead of an F-450?!
I'll never understand Canadians.
Also noteworthy for prominently featuring a pogo stick and Packers helmet. That alone takes it way out of 'shitty' territory.
Then perhaps you're too old to understand?
An article about something that nobody gives a shit about
Son, you're too young to understand.