Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
Phi for All's Profile
Reputation: 1303
Glorious Leader
- Group:
- Moderators
- Active Posts:
- 12,359 (4.19 per day)
- Most Active In:
- The Lounge (2767 posts)
- Joined:
- 26-April 04
- Profile Views:
- 14,494
- Last Active:
Today, 04:14 PM- Currently:
- Offline
My Information
- Member Title:
- Electric Chairman
- Age:
- 55 years old
- Birthday:
- May 13, 1957
- Gender:
-
Male
- Location:
- CO, USA
- Interests:
- Hiking, Writing, Theater
- College Major/Degree:
- U of CO/Communications
- Favorite Area of Science:
- 51
- Biography:
- Busy married father
- Occupation:
- Consultant
Contact Information
- E-mail:
- Click here to e-mail me
Latest Visitors
-
sammy7 
22 May 2012 - 21:55 -
space stuff 
21 May 2012 - 13:00 -
Greg H. 
21 May 2012 - 00:57 -
ewmon 
20 May 2012 - 02:04 -
mississippichem 
19 May 2012 - 00:02 -
jeskill 
18 May 2012 - 03:55 -
ajb 
17 May 2012 - 21:38 -
elfmotat 
17 May 2012 - 05:07 -
Moontanman 
12 May 2012 - 23:54 -
kraus18 
11 May 2012 - 12:26
Topics I've Started
-
Moderators and Free Speech
6 May 2012 - 07:34 PM
Athena, on 6 May 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:The point of a public trail is assuring justice and it gives the established power legitimacy. Like discussing our constitution and freedom of religion and freedom of speech, is about increasing political awareness, so too the subject of the importance of a trail.
I think the moderation rules we have currently are enough. I would be loathe to add some sort of public trial for any offenses. I've seen heavy-handedness at other forums and I'm convinced it stifles discussion. For every person like you who wants a spotlight placed on their alleged transgressions, there are probably twenty people who would rather move on to more interesting things.
Athena, many replies to your posts are like zapatos' above. You seem to have so much to say to us that it all comes bubbling up at once and many of your sentences have little relationship to each other. You jump from passionate rants to out-of-context anecdotes to defense of concepts that few understand. You have a great deal of potential but I think you need to think more about editing yourself (not censoring yourself, but editing for clarity and focus). I don't mean to offend, but looking back over some of your content, there are a lot of people who are telling you they don't know what you're talking about. You can do better; you're intelligent and passionate, and that has a lot of potential for interesting discussions. -
Taxes
8 April 2012 - 02:20 AM
This is for everyone in every country. I'd like to discuss the best use of government tax revenues.
Personally, I think there are some areas where people in a society can get the best benefits for their money by pooling it via taxes. As I've mentioned before, things like medical insurance, prisons and education don't fit the standard business models. Maintaining a growing customer base for prisons is antithetical to what you want prisons for.
I think welfare is a great investment in your citizens. Too often, people only look at the smaller percentage of people who abuse welfare systems, and fail to see the greater percentage of people who truly need them, so we end up not wanting to help anyone. Welfare helps in many unseen ways as well, like reducing the reasons people turn to crime.
Scientific research is something that almost never fails to benefit everyone in a society. Public roads, parks, libraries and community centers are all great investments as well.
Subsidies can help business get a start in a new sector but there has to be a cutoff point where the subsidies stop. It's crazy to spend taxpayer dollars to make profitable businesses even more profitable ad infinitum.
Certainly not a comprehensive list but I wanted to start with some areas that have been discussed lately. -
Let's Define "Freedom"
5 April 2012 - 05:30 PM
What does freedom mean to you, as a member of your society? Are government controls necessary to preserve it or do they stifle it? -
Corporate Personhood
5 April 2012 - 03:46 PM
What are your thoughts about the Supreme Court decision to give corporations the rights of People? For reference, it's known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.
I feel that it's an atrocity, and according to most polls, nearly 80% of the American public agree with me. Yet the ruling persists, and it's going to profoundly affect the presidential elections this year in ways that can never be appreciated by the real People in this country.
For those who feel this is a partisan issue, the ruling basically overturned the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, sponsored jointly by Democrat Senator Russ Feingold and Republican Senator (and former presidential candidate) John McCain. This is strictly corporate maneuvering designed to influence legislation and appropriations in their favor at the expense of the real taxpayers (which many corporations are NOT). Indeed, it has led to forcing the Pentagon to purchase military equipment it doesn't want, doesn't need, and doesn't see a use for. Fortunately, this particular misuse of public funds got overturned, but if Republicans get their way this fall, it will all be back on the table next year.
This is what unlimited corporate lobbying has brought us to. Can this really be what the Supreme Court wants for the People it serves? -
A Generative Economy
5 April 2012 - 03:07 PM
I've been reading a really excellent article in Yes! magazine about ways to relax the stranglehold corporations have on our economy, our politics and our lives. Being in business my whole life, I fully recognize the need for corporate charters, but I feel they have become far too influential in the legislative process that's designed to regulate them and assure proper checks and balances.
My biggest concern is that when profit is the single motivating drive for corporate existence, all the other reasons for loving a capitalist economy are jeopardized. Job security, stability, compensation, environmental concerns, efficiency, quality, long-term goals, emotional and personal investment, all these important considerations fall off the table when stockholders and corporate boards are looking only at the bottom line.
It's not enough to simply tighten regulations. That's just another opportunity for slick lawyers and special interest groups to influence legislators in their favor. To truly flourish as a society, what we need is to realize businesses that focus solely on profit are not generative enough for successful modern economies. We can't sustain positive growth when so many jobs are destroyed each year, even if they're replaced. We need to start asking ourselves if our own investments in time, loyalty, hard work, happiness, social structure, health and well-being -- what some would call real wealth -- are equal or greater than the money that Wall Street financiers solely (and soullessly) worship.
I encourage you to read this article and let me know what you think. I'll highlight my favorite bit:
http://www.yesmagazi...1d-corporations
Quote
We can't get where we need to go by starting with corporations and asking how to restrain them, regulate them, or rein them in. We need to start with life, with human life and the life of the planet, and ask: How do we generate the conditions for life's flourishing? Will we continue to rely on ownership architectures organized around growth and maximum income for the few? Or can we shift to new ownership models organized around keeping this planet and all its inhabitants thriving?
Friends
-

blike
-

Dudde
-

swansont
-

mooeypoo
-

Cap'n ...
-

vixenell
-

Aegir
-

lucaspa
-

Severian
-

Pangloss
-

calbiterol
-

bascule
-

Aeternus
-

Saryctos
-

Edtharan
-

jeskill
-

hadi1121
-

D H
-

ajb
-

ParanoiA
-

foodchain
-

CDarwin
-

falcon9393
-
antimatter
-
.jpg)
mrsemmapeel
-

Iggy
-

cameron ma...
-

Kaeroll
-

OliviaMcQ
-

toastywombel
-

michel123456
-

jen_a_n
-

ewmon
-

japan rock...
-

TheLivingM...
-

imatfaal
-

zheng shen...
-

hypervalen...
-

JMJones0424
-

*MTGURL*
-

emeraldgirl08
-

Chap
-

Adi00
-

RichardG
-

Sondess
-

Purephysics
-

emilievak
-

sheldysheldon
-

Dr Who
-

tonyw
Showing 50 random friends of 133 (View all)

Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
Find My Content
Display name history
Comments
Moontanman
24 Feb 2012 - 00:05URAIN
07 Jan 2012 - 16:59Phi, Is 'theory' word only belongs to science? Do you show me, where I misused the theory word, by calling my theory as scientific.
In PPP theory and in speculation also I have said that it is Metaphysics theory. You may see theory or Speculation, for clarification.
michel123456
19 Dec 2011 - 21:59http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1549881/pg1
Appolinaria
15 Nov 2011 - 01:28emeraldgirl08
02 Nov 2011 - 18:16Appolinaria
27 Oct 2011 - 03:45cant banning be a little harsh?
i think he was a little eccentric but had good intentions
:/
what if his wife died, his kids disowned him, he lives in complete solitude and joining the forum was his last attempt at curing his loneliness and we kick him out.
regardless, banning someone probably ma...
Appolinaria
04 Oct 2011 - 02:59emeraldgirl08
11 Sep 2011 - 03:49transitedphase
27 Apr 2011 - 09:00Ringer
29 Mar 2011 - 02:31Royston
08 May 2010 - 12:12michel123456
10 Apr 2010 - 09:31OliviaMcQ
19 Jul 2009 - 09:32OliviaMcQ
18 Jul 2009 - 21:04OliviaMcQ
18 Jul 2009 - 13:04