-->
@badger
All of which gets you where exactly? Another billionaire?
Well, I got a haircut last week. Didn't run into a lot of billionaires at the shop. Nice lady too.
what are some of your radical but controversial opinions
Posts
Total:
146
-->
@Greyparrot
And what's the ultimate end in this philosophy, GP? You realise this is inane, right? We have a problem of an elite few owning the entire means of production. Are we going to find nice ladies to provide for all the needs of our lives?
-->
@badger
I want you to make your point. I've written exactly what I think in my posts here tonight. You're wasting my time with this nonsense.
There's a simple solution: enjoy your night, sir.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's also the end all and be all of IOU's...try getting a bank loan with no collateral.
Good point. Not even a remedial view of Economics would suggest that (fiat) money = economy.
-->
@Athias
You have no point to make then. Taxation is theft. Equality is illogical. Labour cartels should be dissolved. Meaningless nonsense, the whole lot.
-->
@Athias
Without money and of a free market you have only barter, and that's some stone age lookin' shit. Money = economy.
-->
@badger
And what's the ultimate end in this philosophy, GP? You realise this is inane, right? We have a problem of an elite few owning the entire means of production. Are we going to find nice ladies to provide for all the needs of our lives?
Statistically, it is far more likely to lose around half of your wealth and more to a mediocre woman than any one hyper-motivated billionaire.
Far more likely. I'm not worried about the billionaires.
-->
@badger
Enjoy your night, sir.
Goodnight, sir.
-->
@Earth
America and Canada should just form some sort of EU lite organization then.
NAFTA
-->
@TWS1405
No one want's to see those in that video procreating. No one.
Except themselves and their families and friends.
And I doubt that most reasonable people would deny them them the right to procreate.
So you assuming to represent the views of everyone, is a tad arrogant to say the least.
Perhaps you think that you are somehow perfect.
-->
@TWS1405
What an interesting individual you are.
-->
@oromagi
I know but that's far too small of any interest to justify two Senators
Washington DC has more people than Vermont and Wyoming.
Another kooky idea I've had is to rewrite the Constitution to give each state one Senator and then the top 50 most populous cities elect a Senator. That would definitely create new imbalances in power but would also be far more democratic then the current scheme. DC would get a Senator in that scheme.
The most populous cities would be changing quite often though. Maybe not the top 10 but certainly the bottom 10.
I believe men should rinse or dab their penis head after a piss, not just women. I also believe in wiping one's anus after a shit, with wettened toilet paper and using soap with the last wipe.
-->
@zedvictor4
No one want's to see those in that video procreating. No one.Except themselves and their families and friends.And I doubt that most reasonable people would deny them them the right to procreate.So you assuming to represent the views of everyone, is a tad arrogant to say the least.Perhaps you think that you are somehow perfect.
Perhaps you think you're a pseudo know-it-all with a crystal ball that shows you what others think, right! *facepalm*
Going off of basic laws of attraction, yeah, I can speak for [nearly] everyone when it comes to those displayed in that spoof video.
Most reasonable people would not want them to procreate. No more than they would drug addicts, the perpetually homeless, and violent criminals.
-->
@Ehyeh
I call it like I see it, and never sugarcoat it either.
-->
@TWS1405
You were the one that said "no one" twice.
No one is everyone, so no one is a patently incorrect assertion.
Procreational drive is such that Laws of attraction have very little influence.
Socio-psychological influenced stereotyping and expectations are a separate issue.
-->
@zedvictor4
Semantics argument.
Only other ugly degenerates screw other ugly degenerates, thus leading to more even worse, far more uglier degenerates. They are all poster children for eugenics.
-->
@TWS1405
beauty is in the eye of the beholder
-->
@3RU7AL
Then there are a lot of blind beholders out there that know not of physical beauty.
-->
@TWS1405
Then there are a lot of blind beholders out there that know not of physical beauty.
everyone who disagrees with you is either, disingenuous, intellectually and or morally blind, purely and irrevocably dense, or pure evilz
-->
@3RU7AL
@TWS1405
Contextually "blind beholders" is a contradiction in terms.
Beauty is only skin deep.
True.
Who knows what ravages beneath.
And how much cosmetic illusion hides the truth.
Who would be the most honest judge of physical beauty.
The blind or the sighted?
-->
@zedvictor4
Contextually "blind beholders" is a contradiction in terms.
That term was taken out of context, as it was meant figuratively and not literally because there is more than one way to "see."
Who would be the most honest judge of physical beauty.The blind or the sighted?
The sciences (e.g., psychology) and what history has taught us about physical beauty.
There is no civilization in the Universe more advanced than what exists on earth right now.
What people underestimate is how weird the human brain is. Many of the foundational ideas and concepts that we take for granted are random, idiosyncratic oddities that probably won't be repeated elsewhere by sheer chance. But without these weird ideas being taken for granted, whatever life might exist will remain primitive.
Everyone who says "atheism has no morals" is correct.
Suppose that the current generation of atheists chooses to behave morally. Heck, let's even suppose that, due to factors corresponding to privilege like a good education, they seem to be "the most moral" people of their time.
Nonetheless, everyone who's alive today will die and be replaced with new people. Such as, for example, the children of today's atheists. Not having been taught religion, or even having been actively taught by their parents that religion is false, they won't feel burdened to prove that they're simultaneously good people and atheists. As such, they'll have their own choice to make about morality: act like it's extremely important even though it's just a social construct, or do whatever they want?
Eventually, some generation will choose to do what they want and disregard morality. And once that happens, that's pretty much it for society. Given that standards for education, a key driver for atheist morality, are steadily declining in the West or at least in America, and given that atheism is gaining in popularity among the non-privileged classes, I suspect that this day won't be so very far off.
Even if modern civilization is prepared to fully and sustainably replace religious morality with an effective atheist morality, all of that will go flying out the window should civilization collapse and a new prolonged Dark Age set in. Even in a best case scenario, then, atheism is only prepared to thrive in a wealthy modern neoliberal society, which we cannot merely assume will continue for sure (see peak oil, the rise of communist China, America's rapid and unstoppable accumulation of national debt, etc).
-->
@Double_R
You can expect anything you want, putting it in practice is another matter entirely
Yeah I definitely wouldn’t expect any change regarding what I mentioned within a century. It seems that the idea that mass democracy is an inherent good is just instinctively ingrained in virtually everybody and would remain so for a minimum of at least three generations.
Mainly just idle speculation. Closest thing possible is just making sure people are competent and industrious enough to get a voting ID.
My father did not graduate high school and was by all means illiterate. I used to have to read him his mail. That didn't stop him from despite coming from nothing, amassing a real estate portfolio that by the time he died was worth over $2 million. He's been dead for 15 years now, yet his wife and 6 kids to this day still get checks from his accomplishments.
There are always definitely outliers, but the idea is to focus on the most common cases of people that don’t finish high school and can’t read. A handful of them are very successful, but that is so far from the mean, that the outliers don’t make the idea bad. Maybe literacy isnt the best test, but it is probably one of the better vetting choices for the ability to be informed if one is so inclined to be.
And as far as being informed goes, could you of the top of your head tell me the flight numbers of the 4 plains on 9/11? The times they crashed? The whereabout of various pubic officials? The messages left by the victims?You know who could tell you all of this? 9/11 truthers. So it turns out the people "most informed" of the events of that day also tend to be the people who think the twin towers collapsed not because of the plane crashes and ensuing fires, but because of a carefully crafted controlled demolition using thermite bombs.
No, I think that informedness wouldn’t be a primary measure as far as issues go. I don’t think you could have a non-biased version of that kind of informedness
I think that knowing what your candidate’s stances are, however, would be useful. Just simple things. Do they want to raise or lower taxes, how do they plan to deal with illegal immigration, abortion beliefs, and other major election issues.
Earlier you said uniformed people make bad decisions that impact everyone else, but every vote impacts everyone else so who are you to determine that your vote impacting them is ok but their vote impacting you is not?
I think that having 80% of people eligible to vote voting versus 60% isn’t necessarily better. It may lead to better results, and it may also lead to worse results.
I think getting hung up on this idea of democracy as a some axiomatic good instead of simply being a system that tends to lead to better outcomes is a mistake.
There are hierarchies at companies, in families, in clubs, in schools, and countless other organizations. We believe that some people based on their experience, education, or other trait make them more inclined to make better decisions. It is something that is universally recognized, but it becomes a sensitive topic where votes are concerned.
The bar doesn’t need to be super high, but I think that nothing other than living 18 years is a bit too low.
-->
@Swagnarok
There is no civilization in the Universe more advanced than what exists on earth right now.
Can’t prove it but this is my belief as well. I also believe pretty firmly that the speed of light is insurmountable, so even if there were other civilizations we wouldn’t be able to meet them unless they were extremely close
-->
@Swagnarok
Eventually, some generation will choose to do what they want and disregard morality. And once that happens, that's pretty much it for society. Given that standards for education, a key driver for atheist morality, are steadily declining in the West or at least in America, and given that atheism is gaining in popularity among the non-privileged classes, I suspect that this day won't be so very far off.
One thing I’ve been thinking about a lot lately is that many of the social trends where I feel our society is really going off track aren’t that different than things that have existed historically. For example, I’m completely horrified and disgusted by “gender affirming care” that mutilates children, and while I understand support for abortion early on I’m completely disgusted by the idea of late term abortion (which is the position half the country takes now) and the “shout your abortion” stuff I think is quite wrong. And yet even in “trad” societies not very long ago similar things happened. Boys were castrated to become eunuchs or to preserve a certain singing voice. Infanticide was extremely common all over the world, and less common but still heard of was ritualistic child sacrifice
It took two millennia of Christian ethics to get where we are. Is it a surprise that the first “pagan” generation in the west for who knows how long starts acting…well, a little more “pagan” so to speak? Part of me wonders if those behaviors are just the inherent behaviors of unsocialized man
"International law" assumes that said laws actually enforce an order. If an existing framework doesn't fulfill that requirement, then no alternative is illegitimate that does, all other things being equal.
If the UN is perpetually gridlocked, then it cannot be the source of legitimacy for intervening in foreign countries wherever there's need to intervene. Similarly, it cannot forbid countries from intervening if a non-gridlocked UN probably would intervene. The ethical and legal mandate to take action shifts to whoever is willing. If the US unilaterally invaded North Korea tomorrow, freed the concentration camp prisoners, restored civil liberties, and reunified it with South Korea, nothing that the UN did could make it unlawful.
-->
@thett3
Can’t prove it but this is my belief as well. I also believe pretty firmly that the speed of light is insurmountable, so even if there were other civilizations we wouldn’t be able to meet them unless they were extremely close
This whole thing rings of religious belief haha. I have great faith in the human capacity for science tbh. I don't think the speed of light is insurmountable. We thought a lot of things were insurmountable. Einstein thought we'd never harness the power of the atom. I mean what we've done in 100 years is so very impressive really. But moving our gelatinous (some more than others) bodies over immense space is another thing entirely.
We've been seriously handicapped right from the beginning. Teleportation and wormholes are such fanciful ideas. I mean cryosleep is a half plausible idea, but that's still snail's pace humanity. I think humanity will touch stars, but it's gonna be slow.