JustinW

The heart has nothing to do with emotion . It may affect our decision or mood in reaction to damage but the emotional response would still be the minds flight or fight nature to adapt and survive. Creating a reaction designed to initiate a response benefitting life longevity.

 

Funny thing about the car.......I would have 1st thought about it as the heart being the motor and the driver being the mind, since they are analytically providing the same functions for their systems.

 

Also, existence doesn't rely on observation to exist. Just because we do not observe something doesn't mean that something didn't effect something that we happened to observe afterward? Our observation of anything at all is a fare the reason for everything.

 

Maybe.... maybe not.....

 

Knowing the answer to the question, "Why?" is halfway to enlightenment., and there are arguably 2. Because and Why Not

I have a theory that may explain gravity in a way that works with light bending and the correlation between (density of an object and degree of gravitational force).

 

I was thinking about centrifugal force and why dense objects gravitate while less dense eject objects from them. This idea may have a bunch of holes explaining why it doesn't work the way im thinking.

I also thought about hearing a story that two ships afloat in the ocean will also gravitate toward one another if left adrift. So I applied the that to dense matter adrift in the ocean of ether or space. Though the property characteristics are so far apart couldn't the same force characteristics still be possible?

 

When an object moves through water the water bends around it. If the ether of space worked in this same fashion, it would explain why light bends in the space around a dense object, wouldn't it?

 

Also, an object is under more pressure as it ascends into deeper elevations of water. So if the ether of space is like a see of water, the objects adrift through it would experience the bending of ether "also bending light" as well as having a positive pressure of depth that would act on the surface at a rate measure equal to the degree of density + pressure.?

Couldn't the reason for oceanic attractions adrift be used to explain at least two observations of gravitational forces, and if so, would mean that we are not pulled by gravity but rather held/pushed by gravity?

 

I know there are probably some things that would have to apply to this but I am but a simple ponderer of ponderable things in a world full of things to ponder on.

I would be grateful for any knowledge on the ideas subject.

the unit of measure for time is relative to each participant in that it is measured by a constant shared by each viewer equally. i reject the idea of those who view time as a physical entity that turns the hands of the clock or has any bearing on reality other than human social organization.

3 guys want 1 room. The manager charges them 30 dollars. Each guy pays 10 dollars. After a little while the manager remembers the room is only 25 dollars and sends the bell boy 5, 1dollar bills to refund the 3 guys. Since the 5 cant be split evenly between the 3, the boy only returns 3 dollars and pockets the other 2. If each guy now has only 9 dollars invested (27), and the bellboy now has 2, (29). where is the missing dollar?

Huh? What do mean? Is there something I missed, or is everybody supposed to get what seems like an inside joke? The truth of that debate was that Obama was off his game and Romney jumped on it.

 

I particularly enjoyed the exchange in which Obama claimed that Romney was getting a tax break for moving companies over seas. Romney was correct in denying that. Not that he wasn't getting a tax break for moving companies, but with the way Obama worded it, he was correct in denying it. When looked at a little closer, Romney does recieve tax breaks for moving a company, but what the left would have you believe is that it is only a break for moving a company overseas, when in reality the break comes from moving a company anywhere, whether domestically or internationally the tax break is the same. This is why when Obama said it was a break for moving a company overseas, Romney was correct in saying that in his 20 plus years of being in business that he had never heard of such a thing. Another thing that struck me as negative by Obama was his reprimand of the moderator, saying that he would have had 5 more seconds if he wasn't interuppted, then proceeded to take 20 more seconds to finish. It just seemed a little pompass to me. All in all I would say that Romney came out on top in that debate, although I would have to agree with most of the commentators that I've heard, and say that it was by no means a game changer.

Phi,

 

I think we need a practical, legal definition of life

True, but...scientifically it is understood that life begins at conception and ends normally in senescence. To arbitrarilly pick a point in the life cycle that qualifies for protection under law seems arrogant. If you choose 26 weeks as the beginning, you open the door to subjective discrestion. Example being, once it is determined that the beginning is subjective, it could be determined out of convenience that anything younger than an adolescent is abortive.

 

Zapatos,

 

Unfortunately I don't think any concession to the pro-life crowd short of 'life begins at conception' will do.

And that is the reason that some also take this view. I myself being one.

 

 

 

 

Oh...by the way, good to see you fellows again. It's been awhile.

iNow,

I would like to comment on something, if I may.

This reminds me of the outrage Obama is facing by his "You didn't build that comment." You act as if your personal efforts and drive alone led to your success... I am trying to call attention to the fact that freedom and liberty take different shapes and have different forms and that sometimes real harm is done by prioritizing the abstract over the tangible... the individual over the sum of the parts.

 

 

The first bolded part that I have quoted you on is absolutely true and in no way argues your point. In fact, I would say it's counterproductive in that it's an individual's liberty that is the main reason for the sum of its parts being what they are. There was outrage towards Obama's statement because it underscored his leaning towards socialism and the push to dictate people into excersizing values that others want them to (even if it is not their own). So what, if a person makes it somewhere in life due to the people who have helped or inspired them. Does that mean that individual liberty isn't the reason that person made it somewhere? Hell no. It was individual liberty that allowed others to get themselves into a position to give that help/inspiration.

Just to put my two cents in here, and not that there has been a plausible machine built thus far, but a form of free energy could be the vacuum energy of space. I'm waiting on the next big idea that comes along to make it possible to extract energy from space itself. If this could be done, it would be an infinite supply. So therefore would be free.

One thing that I have heard of that goes along with the title of the OP, if not the intent of the OP, is something called the color constant. http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7uGtfeNP2hkAw0ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyZW5xbmQ4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGUjVfNzc-/SIG=11t9ra1o3/EXP=1340337709/**http%3a//web.media.mit.edu/~wad/color/exp1/ This might explain it a little better than I can. It was rather interesting at any rate. When someone asks if we see things the same way as someone else, we can honestly say no. I was watching a show the other day that showed how different cultures were able to distinguish shades of color that other cultures couldn't because of their language. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of the brain tricking us into see something that is actually different than the way we are precieving it.

A trip,

The term marriage does not belong to us. At all.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you just slightly.

 

My argument was centered around the fact that a "marriage" is a religious ceremony, having nothing to do with legal standing. I've been away for a while and thought about it a little. I realized the inaccuracy in this side of the argument. Even if we did classify "marriage" as a religious institution, who's to say that a same sex couple couldn't be "married" within a religion that accepts such? I see that this point has been made while I was away and it is something I should have thought of from the first.

 

This is what it says in Wiki under "Marriage Ceremony", and I think this comes closer to explaining why I differed between a "marriage" and a civil union.

"A marriage is usually formalized at a wedding or marriage ceremony. The ceremony may be officiated either by a religious official, by a government official or by a state approved celebrant. In many European and some Latin American countries, any religious ceremony must be held separately from the required civil ceremony. Some countries – such as Belgium, Bulgaria, France, the Netherlands, Romania and Turkey^[81] – require that a civil ceremony take place before any religious one. In some countries – notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain – both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) – the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage is not recognized by government under the law.

 

While some countries, such as Australia, permit marriages to be held in private and at any location, others, including England and Wales, require that the civil ceremony be conducted in a place open to the public and specially sanctioned by law. In England, the place of marriage need no longer be a church or register office, but could also be a hotel, historic building or other venue that has obtained the necessary license. An exception can be made in the case of marriage by special emergency license, which is normally granted only when one of the parties is terminally ill. Rules about where and when persons can marry vary from place to place. Some regulations require that one of the parties reside in the locality of the registry office.

 

Within the parameters set by the law of the jurisdiction in which a marriage or wedding takes place, each religious authority has rules for the manner in which weddings are to be conducted by their officials and members."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iNow,

 

You are making a huge assumption, here. As in North Carolina this month, even using a different term was not acceptable. Why do you continue to suggest that changing the term will solve the issue when we have evidence from as recently as the last 30 days that shows the contrary?

I think you are correct here and that JohnB might have it in an earlier post when he mentioned that this was ultimately a societal decision. And everybody knows that society doesn't always make those decisions based on logic more than feeling.

Phi,

 

If marriage is a religious institution, then a government that separates religion from state has no right to intervene. But just because historically marriages have been performed in churches doesn't necessarily make marriage a religious institution.

 

So you're saying that marriages started from a basis of law rather than religion. Who's law? And I guess that would have been a secular law huh? Sounds like we had some pretty up-to-date ancestors.

 

 

I would challenge the idea that marriage is inherently religious in nature. Formal marriage bondings happened before organized religions, usually as a diplomatic way to join tribes. So historically, marriage predates religion.

 

So you're saying those TRIBES were strictly secular. What time period do you suggest for this?

 

 

Marriage is basically a contract performed as a ceremony with witnesses to acknowledge its validity. Marriages can be performed without any religious context whatsoever. If you want to change the definition of marriage to require religious content, you're going to have to explain it to all the people who have marriage licenses signed by a Justice of the Peace in a secular ceremony held in a government office. Good luck.

This is percisely why I included heterosexuals, that do not have a religious ceremony, in the definition of civil unions also. Civil unions may be performed without any religious context, but the argument is whether a "marriage" can be. And since I maintain that marriages have been majorily religious institutions, I believe that a "marriage" should be defined by the common practice of the religion that performs it.

Polednice made some interesting points which I will have to think about and adress in a minute.

 

 

Hopefully not too far off-topic, but is it a religious ceremony when a politician is sworn into office, just because they swear on a Bible?

I'm surprised they haven't gotten rid of that yet as well. It's getting to where you can't even say the word God anywhere public these days. I wouldn't call that a ceremony any more than swearing an oath to tell truth in a court of law would be.

 

ydoaPs,

Oh, and here I thought the historical basis of marriage was a legal contract between families.

Like I asked Phi above, Who's law? What time period did this "secular" law begin?

 

John Cuthber,

 

I strongly suspect that marriage (or at least some sort of pair bonding) predates any religion.

I think it's only relatively recently that religion got involved.

 

Pair bonding may pre-date religion, but the ceromony involved? You would think that there would have to be a problem dealing with the ceremony before somone came up with a laws to solve such a problem.(hence contract) Which was the subsequental law that encompassed marriage to provide rights to one's spouce. So therefore I still maintain that law came after religious ceremony, not the other way around.

 

 

 

Polednice,

 

I had to think about this for a second, but have come to the conclusion that what you suggest has little to bear on the matter. On both of your points it would be like saying that the Mason's headquarters doesn't dictate the rules of other masonic lodges. If you join a club, follow the rules, or find another club.

 

2) Given the availability of churches willing to conduct same-sex marriages, same-sex couples will have no desire whatsoever to demand a religious ceremony from an institution that condemns homosexuality.

And here, why a church? And doesn't the phrasing of civil union coupled with all the legality that currently encompasses a marriage not solve the problem? It's just a term, and since religion has historically claimed this term, why not let 'em have at it? It seems irrational to spend so much time, energy, money on such a silly thing as the phrasing of a contract. Doesn't it?

 

Arete,

 

As a result, the prevention of gay marriage in Australia results in indirect discrimination against gay couples

I can see the problem with this here, and I agree. But I still think that civil unions encompassing all the rights that embody a marriage will solve it.

JohnB,

 

I've been thinking about this subsidy thing for awhile. I have had a few conversations with Phi about subsidies before, and since, have come to the conclusion that subsidies do not fit in with my ideological view point. That being said I can see where in some cases they may be necessary, but even when necessary, undesirable from my point of view. Maybe I'm just a stickler on giving people handouts that I don't see as warranted.

 

Anyway...as far as "same day out-of-pocket expense" for a particular visit, I spend just about the same as you. Except... I don't have to go through the hassle of paying more on arrival, then having to go out of my way to get a refund.

 

The quickest answer I can give about what freedoms that my system gives me more than your's gives you, is that I have the freedom of not having someone dictate what I do, how I do it, and when I do it, just to get medical attention. Other than the normal constraints of a private business system. Which in my mind is more acceptable coming from a market rather than a government's political agenda.

It seems that people want all that's good and nothing that's bad, without realizing that everything good has it's bad points. In order for those people to control this they have to do so by government intervention. Doing things in this manner only make for a larger control by government, which equates to having more rules, conditions, mandates, taxes, crime, etc...

 

I just thought I'd add that if you're really in a hurry for a checkup that doesn't cost, go to your local airport.

 

You'll get a free x-ray and breast exam for the ladies and if you mention terrorism they'll throw in a free colonoscopy.

 

There's always a cheap way out.

Touche`, I never thought of it that way. The biggest arguments I've been in on that subject were about those things being more of an inconvenience rather than an attack on personal freedom. But that's another topic altogether.

Once again I have heard a rant about how the ban for gay marriage is forcing people's religion onto others. I have always found this to be a hypocritical point of view and somewhat inaccurate at the very least. Historically marriage has been a religious institution. The basis of marriage was to make a vow in the sight of God and for all men to bear witness to that vow. Since marriage is a religious ceremony, the hypocricy and the denial of the freedom to practice ones own religion comes in to play when the freedom to define it as a religious act under the practices of that religion are denied. Marriages that do not meet this criteria, whether same sex or not, should fall under the definition of a civil union. This means any union that is not performed by a religious leader, or vows taken in the sight of the God of that religion. (whatever God or religion that may be) I do believe that everyone should have the same legal rights to their spouces whether they are same sex spouces or not. I also believe they should fall under the scope of civil union instead of a marriage. This also goes for heterosexual unions that are performed by a justice of the peace. They shouldn't be classified as a marriage if they are not performed with a religious meaning. Marriage is not a law. It is just recognized by the law. If civil unions could give the same rights to information, property, etc..., then it should be sufficient in the eyes of rational people. BUT, by demanding that you be included in a religious act without any regard for that religions practices defiles the sanctaty of that institution.

 

I can understand the outrage of not being included in an institution when that institution is recognized by law, and given rights that are denied to others, but shouldn't the passing of civil union rights that encompasses the same body as a marriage be sufficient enough without having to impede on someone's religion?

 

I know that this has been talked about here before, but knowing that there are bound to be alot that disagree with me, I would like to know what is wrong with my take on this issue.

Phi,

 

First, the war in Iraq, which became the War on Terror.

I know this kinda sounds barbaric, but being the warring nation that we are, what does the justification matter? It seems to me that it would have happened sooner or later anyway, no matter what the justification. And the justification that is being used is just to satisfy those that need it. To me it seems that the big dog will always get what it wants, and this matter of "ethics" has only been an issue over the past few centuries.

 

Second, torture has been proven many times to be unreliable. Why use something so ineffective that comes with such a high ethical price tag?

2 things on this. First, where has it been proven unreliable and by who? Second, why is it unethical and to what type of person is it unethical? It seems that ethics is a fluid subject, only a fad such as political correctness. So why base such choices on ethics rather than results.

 

Aren't our greatest advancements achieved when cooperation enables us to use our brains instead of our brawn?

I'm not too sure about that. Some of our greatest advancements have been through showing off our brawn. We got to space when we did by showing off our strength. We ended the 2nd world war by exacting our strength. Is there something your meaning here that I'm missing.

 

I think we are being manipulated by some of those in power who have used practically unlimited resources to figure out the dynamics of our interactions as a society. When so much of the world is willing to be non-violent, how does the US find so many people to wage war on?

I don't see this as an accurate statement. There is violence all over the world right now. I would have to say there is more at time now than there used to be.

 

Besides assuming that non-violence is against our very nature, the other aspect of this statement that bothers me is that the rational act of looking for smarter, more effective, more sophisticated methods for dealing with our problems is even considered an ethical "dilemma". Where along the line did being smart get such a bad reputation?

I think you're trying to connect two things that alot of times have nothing to do with one another. Alot of times violence IS the smarter action to take. The only people that say otherwise are those that reject it on ethical grounds which are as fluid and varying as emotional response.

 

Moontanman,

 

Can we continue to progress with such manipulation going on from the top?

This seems to imply that we aren't keeping up with the rest of the world. Or that we're falling behind in some way. What is different about our manipulation from the top that is so different from the rest? And why does it matter?

 

I think so, but it will be a struggle and so many people seem to want to be told what to do from day to day it's very scary.

I've said this before, but I guess it only depends on what your talking about before it becomes scary to anyone else. I find it hard to believe when people talk about this type of manipulation. Like they are the ones that are magically seeing through the manipulation that is supposed to encompass everyone unknowingly. Maybe they are being manipulated into objecting a certain type of manipulation.Like this:

Another part of it is that so many people are blissfully unaware of just how much they are manipulated, From pop culture and entertainers to religion and politicians. So few people are aware of the huge amount of power the ones who have the data have.

Are you sure you weren't manipulated into think this way by a group that you admire or agree with more than another?

 

Imatfaal,

 

I am not sure that any characteristic will survive examination across sexes, nationalities, races, historical periods, religions, or cultures.

Maybe not definitively or by specific situation, but I think you can easily generalize people's characteristics across sexes, nationalities, races, historical periods, religions, and especially cultures.

 

Firstly - your vignette of the hanged man; this does not sound like justice - it appears to be murder.

I think this is where we will more than likely disagree. The first thing that I wouldn't think upon seeing someone hanged is "that's murder". The first thing I would think is "what did he do to deserve it". I think this difference in opinion, or reaction, or whatever you want to call it, is what prompted me to ask these questions.

 

It hardens the hearts of the already committed and persuades the uncertain of the need to fight.

Did the human brain flip-flop in the last few decades or something? That wasn't what anyone used to think about that sort of thing. And I believe that a person being scared for their lives or in tremendous pain isn't thinking about loyalty. Especially under tremendous pain. Everyone cracks eventually. The hardened heart argument doesn't work for me, especially coming from academia or a politition.

 

Look at the figures of people killed by the 'allies' versus those killed by terrorist - even on the most cold-hearted calculus would you be willing to accept those figures in reverse, no, then why should they? This is not a punishment for a crime - it is the taking of revenge , and it is also not even directed at the right people.

Which allies? When, where?

 

 

Polednice,

Thus, even if we were to accept a natural violent streak (I think "competitive" would be a more appropriate word), that does not mean that we have a predisposition towards fully institutionalised cruelty wherever possible.

I didn't say we do, and can agree that we shouldn't be cruel wherever possible.

 

Besides, you could look at it the other way, and say that we are naturally social creatures with empathy and conscious awareness, therefore it's in our interests to maintain the least cruel society possible. It all depends how you frame it, and that indicates that there's something wrong with looking at the question in those terms in the first place.

I don't believe I framed the question as being so one sided. I just implied that cruelty has been a way of life for humanity, and wondered why there was such a big push away from violence for the sake of something like a mood that could change abruptly in the future depending upon circumstances.

 

I also don't think it makes much sense to extrapolate that we will become a society where nobody is punished for anything (and remember that competition ≠ violence ≠ punishment). Instead, I think we will make a happy transition from a retributive judicial system to one that is fully rehabilitative, rather than just superficially so.

I don't think I want to live in a world that rehabilitates child molestors. Call me old fasion, but I think a little more cruelty is in order. There are some things that I believe cruelty is called for. This seems to be my biggest point in writing this topic. With the varying differences in ethical opinions, who's to say how much cruelty is deserved? And why isn't a certain amount of indifference not more prevailant in these situations?

luegi,

 

second, if you have an empty bag, but there is a mechanical apparatus that expands the bag, what will the empty space be filled with?

Negative (vacuum) pressure. Which brings up a question that I have yet to find an answer to also.

 

JohnStu,

When one makes the bag larger in a vacuum, since space is not a substance, it does not react with the bag at all, rather it stays the same (I am talking about space here not Einstein's space-time construct), so when the bag volumn is increased, we do not consider space, as it does not fill up, but rather is a grid.

 

Are you saying that with the bag expanding, in a vacuum, that it would not build vacuum pressure inside the bag? Even once the threshold is crossed that allows there to be a greater amount of vacuum inside the bag than outside?

 

 

Pantheory,

 

"Empty space" here on Earth and within galactic and intergalactic space, is filled with the Zero Point Field. This is a known energy field called Zero Point Energy. There is also thought to be theoretical particulates within this field such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum foam, etc. It could be called the aether.

The less matter that you have in a space (the bag), the greater the amount of vacuum in the space. And visa versa. It doesn't seem accurate to say that "nothing/space" is the cause of this pressure change. And it also only seems accurate to say that matter is the cause of possitive pressure when matter builds up in a space. Matter would seem to be an unlikely culperate for vacuum pressure to build once matter is taken out of a space. So what is the exact cause of vacuum in that space (bag), if not the space itself?

I wanted to bring this up in another thread, but out of possible rebuke for not being on topic, I thought I had better just start a new one. There are some who think the current war on terror and the recent war in Iraq were wrong. Along with that, there are those who think enhanced interrogation to be wrong. But why? Is it not in a human's nature to be violent? Was it not the norm throughout history for humans to be cruel? What is so different between then and now that makes these types of acts so undesirable? I ran into this: http://www.livescience.com/2231-humans-crave-violence-sex.html while browsing around a bit.

 

I've also seen how justice was done to those that have been accussed of one thing or another throughout recent history. Like here in America, our type of justice has been fairly cruel throughout our short history. Reminding me of a photo I saw of a man and boy (around the age of 10 or 12) looking upon the scene of a man that was left hanging by the neck in the middle of the street. The man hanging wasn't what really got my attention, but rather the look on the man and boy's faces. It was a look of total indifference. It made me reflect on my own indifference towards acts, that I was surprised to learn, that others were appalled by. I wondered why some thought this way while others didn't, and still wonder what has changed to include humane treatment of one's enemies? Especially where a security threat is conscerned that could be deterred by such acts as enhanced interrogation?

 

Is this a moral dilemma, or an ethical dilemma that seems to be driving some to push for non-violence, when in fact it is a thing that goes against our very nature? It seems as time goes by our level of cruelty involved in the justice that we administer diminishes. Is this something that will continue to happen until nobody is punished for anything? Or will things maintain a balance of a certain "acceptable" amount of cruelty?

I think I started to notice these differences in some discussions I was having on human rights, humane treatment of an enemy, and enhanced interrogation right/wrong. It was my indifference towards the outcome of these acts that people found appalling and I couldn't understand why they were so emotionally charged about it. Do some fight their nature while other embrace it? And why?

 

Sorry for this thing being so scattered. Just jump in on anything here. I'm sure it will iron itself out and become a more stable topic.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7t0jjLpPARgAbkBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydjVrZDFlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODg-/SIG=138278ai5/EXP=1337654435/**http%3a//au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/13743929/putin-tightens-grip-with-new-government/

 

Is this what we can look forward to by further socializing government, or is it that the Russian people just aren't vigilant enough? Is this not an example of tyrannical domination bordering on dictatorship? Also, doesn't the strangle hold that Putin has seem to be a direct result of governmental control?

Md65...,

 

I mean, what are we going to tell Barbara Schwartz

Even though it's spelled differently I felt that it couldn't get any wierder. I was wrong.

 

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGkkwrS7ZPDx4A551XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyODNyM25nBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGRDVfODg-/SIG=12fa13913/EXP=1337375659/**http%3a//home.snafu.de/tilman/Barbara_Schwarz_17.12.2007.html

Once again, you start with a sentence that makes any further discussion moot. This is the way you view governments, so nothing I can say will ever get past this insurmountable wall.

How is a government without limitation not tyrannical? How was my statement inaccurate?

 

More of the same. You're Begging the Question, automatically judging government to be "without limits", "hey, let's all just start from THAT premise, folks, so my argument is that much stronger!" You can't base a valid argument on such a poor foundation.

For such a "poor foundation" you seem to be lacking in a meaningfull response. I wasn't judging government to have no limitations. I was implying that the more limitations that are given up, the closer a government gets to being like a government without any.

 

 

Justin, we've had some good discussions. You've made some good points in the past, but now I feel like you're having to distort my points or move the goalposts in order to keep your arguments valid. You NEED me to be some kind of anti-capitalist communist in order for your stance to make sense.

This is how you start your reply to something that I clearly stated wasn't even written in this thread to begin with? How is that making you out to be anything when it wasn't even written in response to you or even with you in mind? And I understand that you would like me to believe that you take the best parts of any political philosophy and incorporate them, but I see that as just being too damn convenient.

 

 

I think a big part of our freedom in the US is being stifled by the unfair advantage big business has with their political clout, their ability to stay in the face of candidates and politicians in a way that a normal person can afford to do. I feel big business has had too great an influence in forming new laws that give them even greater power.

 

I've said before that we agree on this. Polititions and citizens alike need to understand that the political arena is just like a free market. If the public's not satisfied with the product they'll switch companies. And though we agree that this is a problem, it will have to become a crisis before there is something done about it.

 

 

not under-the-table manipulation free from proper market pressures.

Extremely well put.

 

 

When you shrug and say, "It's in their nature", you're telling me that nothing I say will ever make this NOT about your personal view of what business can get away with in this country. When you claim, "Government is tyrannical by nature", I have no hope of ever talking to you about the best ways our government can help make our lives better. And when you talk about progressive laws being about playing on people's compassion for one another, you'll never be able to understand what the consequences of allowing businesspeople to manipulate politicians are.

I think you're confusing something here. I never thought this conversation was JUST about big business. When I say it is a businesses nature to profit in any way they can, it is because it's true. I've never said that businesses couldn't be limited to what and how they do things. I think this is an assumption on your part because I have disagreed with most of the proposed solutions, again, not the objection. When I say a government is tyyrannical by nature, it's because history has shown it to be true. Name one government that had no limits that has not been tyrannical.

 

And I also think people have assumed that I don't believe in laws at all, which is not true either. There are laws that can be passed that prevent any businesses underhandedness. The lack of limitation is what I'm more conscerned about when it comes to freedom, and you have yet to tell me how that philosophy is wrong, except that you can't argue against my "insurmountable wall".

Phi,

 

If you take a closer look at the numbers, you'll see that they don't add up.

That's because they aren't adding up the numbers in the column to arrive at the "all offenses" number. All offenses can include anything else that's considered criminal.

 

But after some further thought I do reconsider my statement. Obviously not just homicide, but also assault is higher here. That being said I still don't see how that can be tied to government run healthcare. The cause could just as likely be that pot is legal in most of those countries.

You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this concept. Would you really want to live in a society like that?

We already live in a world like that. Although it's not perfect it's not as bad as some make it seem either.

 

although after that emergency is taken care of, then your on your own

Just like when they put out the fire.

 

We already pay enough taxes. Too much if you ask me. This reform bill that was passed...how do you think it will effect employer provided insurance? I think once this mandate is implimented you'll see most employers dropping their employees health coverage for the simple fact that the penalty they would have to pay for not providing it is outrageously cheaper than the premiums they pay. What goes with that is a major job loss in the insurance business, ultimately shrinking the insurance market to what we see in europe. Do you think the government is ready or can handle, with any efficiency, such an abrupt change? And how big of an effect do you see job losses in the insurance industry having?

 

Generally in places where there's universal healthcare, there's generally less crime, I think people in those places are happier that they do not have to worry about as much.

Are you sure? The last 2001 interpol statistics show that crime rates in the EU were much higher than the US. http://danmark.wordpress.com/2006/07/01/last-comparison-of-crime-rates-between-nations-ever/ I didn't feel like going through all the numbers in the interpol stats, but here is the first site that popped up who had them. You can see that with all offenses per 100,000 residents, the US was much lower.

Easy there folks. From what I get from the conversation is, that although something may have happened with a mod at sometime, the intent of the conversation is not directed at mods in particular. The use of mods as an example is to lay out a scenario of what the issue is that Athena wants to talk about. In no way does she have to prove that a mod did something wrong, but has already supported her side of the conversation by conveying the thought that people today do not understand the general philosophy of a democracy. I think it would be better to encompass the context as a whole instead of breaking down each and every comment that is made. I think the conversation is a little deeper than mod bashing, and has nothing to do with mods other than establishing a scenario. I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation if given a chance.

Phi, before I respond I wanted to share something that I wrote in another thread. I think it applies to the topic and I wanted to get some feed back on it without having to write it all over again.

 

Keep in mind I was replying to someone who suggested that lack of compassion equals tyranny: "Upon reading this one sentence, my immediate thought was that a tyrant can also be compassionate. As in my signature below, C.S. Lewis said,"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." I believe we can see this happening today. A government is tyrannical by nature. Without limits, it has no other direction to turn, and this direction is slowly achieved through laws that are passed by playing on people's compassion for one another. People believe that somehow government has a conscience and are willing to give up their liberties for the sake of comfort and security. We see this with certain laws that have been passed recently. Anywhere from healthcare to national security laws, they have all had one thing in common. The deminishing of individual liberties for the sake of comfort and security. Some people claim that we can keep government misdeeds in check if only the population is vigilant enough. I ask, historically, where has that worked? Germany? Russia? China? The Middle East especially. They were not given the opportunity to be vigilant in the way the US has, and now their citizens are being put to slaughter by their own governments because they wish to have the freedom that they lack. I believe that our founders wanted our vigilance to be aimed at the limitation of governments power and control. If we remain vigilant in order to limit government's power and control, their misdeeds will also be limited for that LACK of power and control. I think that people sometimes do not realize that the absence of individual power and freedom only leads to submissive servitude. You were indeed correct in the "trial" thread when you said that if we do not understand history, then it is bound to repeat itself. And where, throughout history, has the loss of individual freedom been good for the wellfare of it's citizens? You can also see an example of this with most nations that have banned it's citizens from arming themselves. The ban is proposed through a conscientious decision based on the fact that people don't want to see others get killed. But the reprecussions of that are normally that the freedom and power to defend ourselves is taken away, and the law abiding citezen is defenseless against a person who didn't follow the law in the first place. All for the sake of comfort and security. I say that our comfort is provided through our fortitude to provide for ourselves as well as our families. And our security resides in our ability to hold onto our individual liberties. The more these things are lost upon us, the more we will submitt ourselves to the servitude of tyranny.Well...enough of my preaching on that subject."

 

 

Phi,

And if a corporation is allowed to own these roads, where are your free-market principles when that corporation's trucks don't have to pay like everyone else?

Of the top of my head it only makes sense from a business perspective, but I doubt someone would y a road just so their trucks can pass without payment. They would have to have a crap load of trucks to make that pay for itself. So, yeahy company! But on a more serious note, where is that happening? Is this just a hypothetical? Because I haven't seen where this has been an issue.(not to say that because I haaven't heard of it, it's not) What examples are there of corporations using one company to advantage another unfairly?

 

And these are just the kinds of laws that the corporations work to erode as soon as they're in place (or corrupt as they're being written). The corporations have the resources to stay in the face of the politicians on a daily basis, and they always will when it means such a huge return on their investment in our political system.

So why not deal with that problem, instead of creating a whole new set of problems just to minimize (not stop) the original problem?

 

Corporate lobbying through the US Camber of Commerce to extend the Bush tax cuts are a matter of public record. Here is a letter from the USCOC's EVP of Gov't Affairs which states:

And this does nothing to answer my question. Are those same corporations moving their companies overseas when a certain area of their costs are relieved by tax cuts? By my understanding, in '04 and '05 tax breaks were implemented for overseas corporations. While the corporate tax was cut domesticly, which was followed by a period of growth in that area, it still did nothing to incintivize those overseas corporations to make the move back. Lobbying to extend those tax cuts were just as much for domestic corporations as it was for anything else.

 

http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Corporate_taxes_and_Economic_Growth_FEB.pdf

 

 

And it's clear, since the Bush tax cuts really couldn't help create jobs anyway (the CEOs who stood to gain the most by the tax cuts weren't hiring workers with their own money, they were using the corporation's money, duh

Give me an example. Look...it takes money to make. Why do you think that the more money taken away from a company results in more growth, rather than the more money a company gets to keep allows it to grow? I'm not getting your way of thinking on this.

 

 

Nice strawman. "I'm not like you, I don't want to strengthen government control over the populace!" I absolutely HATE it when you pull this garbage, Justin. It makes me feel like I'm just wasting my time. Please stop trying to widen the brush I'm using to paint with.

This is a discussion on freedom in general. And when I broaden that brush, it is only because that is the eventual outcome of the path that you propose. Not because I'm trying to undermind any of your points. Freedom is not a mystical thing to me. I've been thrown in a cell a few times and anyone who has felt that frustration and despair knows that freedom is not to be taken lightly. Our vigilance should not be an afterthought. If you were around a caged lion, would you leave the lock off thinking that your vigilance would keep you from being eaten once it got out? Or would your vigilance be more to the tune of keeping that lock in place to prevent the option of being eaten in the first place?

 

It IS our own fault, but the fix is stalled by people like you who defend the practices of big business because you think any objection is an attack on ALL free market policies. You refuse to see that the corporations, not ALL of them, might have been allowed to take things too far in their favor.

You have me wrong here. It is not your objections that I argue against. It is the solutions that you propose that I am leary of. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one solution that you propose that doesn't include government control of the entity you're objecting to.

 

 

Why does it have to pit only two companies against each other? Any company that was on the opposite side of the "green" meter probably hated the whole program. And these are just the companies that needed it most and would NEVER have moved this way without the EPA's campaign.

After a little thought I find that I don't completely reject the notion of PSAs. But this is only if they can maintain a non-biased form of publication, which in my mind wouldn't be maintained that easily. And, just as an afterthought, what makes you so sure those companies wouldn't have evolved to include a more environmentally sound business practice? I usually see the environmental aspect of a business much like the safety aspect of business. Money spent toward both goals usually shows an increase in productivity and cost savings. Why do you think that those businesses wouldn't have recognized this and eventually worked toward accomplishing such a goal?

Athena,

 

On the other hand if blind justice is not also compassionate, then once again it is tyranny and not justice.

Upon reading this one sentence, my immediate thought was that a tyrant can also be compassionate. As in my signature below, C.S. Lewis said,"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." I believe we can see this happening today. A government is tyrannical by nature. Without limits, it has no other direction to turn, and this direction is slowly achieved through laws that are passed by playing on people's compassion for one another. People believe that somehow government has a conscience and are willing to give up their liberties for the sake of comfort and security. We see this with certain laws that have been passed recently. Anywhere from healthcare to national security laws, they have all had one thing in common. The deminishing of individual liberties for the sake of comfort and security. Some people claim that we can keep government misdeeds in check if only the population is vigilant enough. I ask, historically, where has that worked? Germany? Russia? China? The Middle East especially. They were not given the opportunity to be vigilant in the way the US has, and now their citizens are being put to slaughter by their own governments because they wish to have the freedom that they lack. I believe that our founders wanted our vigilance to be aimed at the limitation of governments power and control. If we remain vigilant in order to limit government's power and control, their misdeeds will also be limited for that LACK of power and control. I think that people sometimes do not realize that the absence of individual power and freedom only leads to submissive servitude. You were indeed correct in the "trial" thread when you said that if we do not understand history, then it is bound to repeat itself. And where, throughout history, has the loss of individual freedom been good for the wellfare of it's citizens? You can also see an example of this with most nations that have banned it's citizens from arming themselves. The ban is proposed through a conscientious decision based on the fact that people don't want to see others get killed. But the reprecussions of that are normally that the freedom and power to defend ourselves is taken away, and the law abiding citezen is defenseless against a person who didn't follow the law in the first place. All for the sake of comfort and security. I say that our comfort is provided through our fortitude to provide for ourselves as well as our families. And our security resides in our ability to hold onto our individual liberties. The more these things are lost upon us, the more we will submitt ourselves to the servitude of tyranny.Well...enough of my preaching on that subject.

 

 

 

Like an all white jury judging a young Black man, may not lead to the same justice as he would receive if the jury were Black and from his own neighborhood. I think we need to be able to identify with the person being judged, and have some personal understanding of this person's life? This is the opposite of being blind.

Too true. In fact, a lot of states have taken steps to include more diversity in the jury selection prossess to cut down on those types of prejudices. Although when you think about, all humans are automatically predisposed to prejudices. Whether it is something as simple as bad haircut or disconcerting body language. As long as humans are judging other humans, the judgements passed will never be truly blind.

 

Laugh, our huge corporations have personhood and individuals do not.

Phi for all would also find the humor in that I would imagine. We've been in several discussions on that very topic, and I find that I'm still on the fence where that is conscerned.

 

from my point of view, family values have been damaged by industrialization, wars, and then our institutions, which increasingly crush individual liberty and power?

Maybe you could take this statement a little further. I feel that with as general as it is, I could probably carry on about it for two whole pages.

If a majority of people don't want to pay for it then they will see what it's like to have a fire-station let your house burn to the ground unless you pay them, which already happened in the early 20th century. Can you even imagine what would happen if police were privatized?

The analogy for this would be an equal to an ER. As the fire station is paid to put out the fire, the ER is paid to keep you from dying. A fire station doesn't rebuild your house, just like an ER doesn't rebuild your body. So we already have the medical equivelant of a fire station. NEXT.