Ramshutu

Yeah you’re trolling. You can’t be serious.

The suggestion that people can live off 5 hours sleep, live in tents, have six days off a year, only socialize with their coworker, send their children off for adoption, can definitely get and keep a job with no home address and to ask to use other people’s houses for showers, and cleaning; and to suggest they live off fast food, and won’t be aocially isolated, that being forced to find a job within 2 miles of where they live.

That’s not possible.

In the real world, there would be riots, it would not be close to ever being accepted, people would refuse to pay taxes, and states would secede. This policy is ridiculous and inhuman to a degree that it can’t possible be serious.

Enforcement would be impossible, and you’d find the poor working for barter, not earning anything and not paying taxes as they have no money - all so they can keep their kids and not need to work 12 hours a day. You know, parents tend not to want to give up their kids.

Basically, your looking at systemic collapse of the entire US capitalist system, and probably overthrow of the government from the tens of millions of poor people you’re trying to force to give up their kids, live in a tent and eat nothing but fast food.

This is not practical, it’s barely human and it doesn’t even bother to account for either basic human nature, or to hold any actual empathy from the individuals it would harm.

The fact that you do not seem to understand the practical and personal impact on the millions of lives you will be destroying with these objectively ridiculous ideas, and the fact that you dismiss the practical flaws and human issues with even more nonsensical answers that make even less sense.

You’re either trolling, you’re an idiot; or your insane.

And Just FYI that’s not an ad hominem attack. An Ad Hom attack is when I attack you instead of your position. I’m attacking you because of your position: among others the idea that you think it’s practical to ask 15 million families to give up their children, and you somehow think it’s going to happen....

And again, you appear to be calling foul of understanding how reality works.

Your “plan”, and I use that phrase very liberally here: effectively mandates every one who is currently unemployed and/or is below the poverty line to work crippling 12 hour days on all but 5 days in the entire year.

You also require - in order for this to be financially viable - these individuals to live in tents, and seem to not realize the issue of hygiene and lack of address is not conducive to keeping a job.

Not only that, you’re forcing the poor - who likely can’t buy or maintain a car due to cost, to find work within walking distance (which given my time living in the US, walking distance is about 200m), massively limiting options.

In addition, you’d effectively end up forcing all low income families and single parents - of which google tells me is about 15 million (http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html) to put their children up for adoption.

Of course, you don’t seem to account for the increased costs of an adoption and foster system - which is now going to be 40 times larger than it is today, nor the social fall out of how these systems on balance inhibit the potential of the individuals.

Your also not accounting for the health problems associated with over work, crippling stress, and emotional trauma of having to give up your children, remain socially isolated due to having to work all but 1.5 hours every single day for your entire life. Given that social isolation raises risks of suicide; it’s not looking good for poor people is it!

Let’s not forget they can eat fast food. 3 meals a day, 360 days, even coming in cheap at $3 per meal, that adds up to what? $3600 - that’s $1000 more than you have in your spreadsheet.

Not to mention the devastating health effects of being able to eat nothing but fast food. 

What do you think that would do to health premiums?

Maybe if they can’t afford for fast food, and don’t have time for actual food: perhaps you can let them eat cake?


This “plan”, again liberally, would basically destroy your country. 

Even if the tens of millions of people in poverty somehow put up with it, sent their kids up for adoption - the reality is that you will be devastating their lives, and setting up levels of social animosity that will set the US up for violent revolt - as has happened in literally every country where the oppression of the poor rises to the insanity you’re suggesting.



The ridiculous notion of people living in tents, or trivializing working 12 hour days without a break, as if someone can simply wake up one day, get a job, and then start work; is almost as ridiculous as the idea that all rapists can work as trained construction workers, or work 70 years to pay a ridiculous victim tax.

Boiling down increasingly complex socio economic conditions, individual personal motivations, and individual situations to such naive and overly simplistic “solutions” doesn’t work, and is so naive that I have to question your sanity.

Actually no: I have, and have for a while had “I understand what is physically possible and reasonable”, your proposal is mostly a convoluted combination of wishful thinking, naive assertions that don’t take into consideration any practicalities - and just plain nonsense.

“Temporarily”. So, let’s say you find a way to get rapists to earn money. Somehow. Minimum wage for 12 hour days - presuming they don’t drop dead or die: they have to pay their personal tax, assuming the state pays for their food and accommodation - that minimum wage will earn them 18k per year. Which means that they’ll be able to pay their 1.25m fee in 70 years.

Given the current average lifespan in the US around 79 years, and the apparent lack of 10 year old rapists. This is just a ridiculous and poorly thought out idea that has almost no hope of ever being practical.

It’s sarcasm. You are proposing a fine for individuals who go to a doctor, request and STD test, and have it come back positive.

Congratulations: you’ve now given every teenager and every young adult a massively compelling motive not to get tested for an STD. This will have the complete opposite effect that you’re proposing. Which should be obvious.

Lol.

Okay. So hear me out, this will be a little bit complex to understand. 

You and “people” are different. What is possible for you, may not be possible for others. Some people have children, and must find a job that have hours that are less than 12-16 per day. Not everyone can get a job at stop and shop, they may not be presentable, they may not pass an interview, there may not be one nearby. There may not be many jobs in the area, the available jobs may not be a job they are qualified for.

This is not even considering the retired, housewives, and students that don’t even participate in the workforce.

But it is nice that you would recommend any other human being work 12 hour days 360 days a year. You should try it for a few weeks!

If I have to explain to you why it’s not reasonable or practical to expect human beings to work 360 days per year, 12 hours a day; then quite frankly at this point I would have to despair at the quality of the US education system.

People have kids, they have to pay for child care; they have to see friends, family, relax, they need time to reach their jobs. They have to manage their personal hygiene, shop for groceries, cook and prepare food, etc. 

If they have a job 2 miles from where they live ( because they won’t be able to have a car -right). If they’re fit and healthy, they could make than in 30 minutes. So that’s an extra hour in the day. Then there is hygiene and cleaning. An extra 30 minutes. Food prep and eating/cleaning up time 60 minutes. Let’s presume people have a shit on work time : if you get that that’s a total of 22.5 hours per day if you sleep the recommended 8 hours.

You have shopping twice a week (no car remember! Can’t carry everything), so that’s an hour to get there and back x 2;

30 minute shop x 2 so that’s 3 hours. (So two days worth of spare time). 

This is presuming people don’t have children. Children need to be dropped off at school, played with, bonded with, etc.

I mean good lord man: you are not serious here? You’re tying to troll us, right?

Well, lord or king is fine. 

I do appear to rule the land of saltiness though.

No I have it! The best bit of this is that poor people will have no problem paying the $12k tax because they can just live in a tent and work 12 hour days for the entire year with the except Christmas, Boxing Day. Easter Sunday, labour day and Presidents’ Day. 

Their lazy asses need to work 12 hours on New Year’s Eve and Day though. And when they’re sick..

No, No! The unintended pregnancy tax is the best!

“Excuse me miss, was your pregnancy intentional”

”what if I say no?”

”then we tax you $5000”

”then, uh. Yes! I totally meant to have this baby!”

”excellent, then you are exempt!”

“Mr President, we appear to have a 748204819% increase in teenagers getting pregnant on purpose”

I like the 1.25m rape Tax, because if there’s one thing we know about rapists, it’s that they’re all millionaires.

I almost like it as much as the STD tax - because, we all know everyone with an STD is going to rush to get tested for STDs now that they come with multiple hundred dollar penalties. Everyone is sure to chose “not have sex” over “not get tested”.

Or maybe the $12k per person charge is the best, because the one thing we know about the unemployed, the retired, those in poverty, those supporting multiple adults on minimum jobs, is that they can afford thousands of dollars in extra tax per year.

Wait - I have a brilliant idea! Why don’t you just tax rapists $100 billion dollars??? That will make al your money!

This spreadsheet is unintentionally hilarious

what do I do if I have cankles and don’t look good in thigh highs?

Not everyone will agree with me, and that’s fair. I never had a background in formal debate; more public speech and political and philosophical discussion - which tends to be what informs the things I value most of my analysis. 

I’m not a game theorist judge : for me, making a better, more logical argument, with better reasoning and more warrant counts for more than saying the correct phrases at the right time in the debate; if you raise a cast iron case that is unchallengeable, I’m not going to award your opponent points if you miss something.. While you feel able to justify using something other than the strength of arguments to judge a debate - I’m not: especially somewhere like here.

In reality discounting a good argument based on a technicality is just as much of an intervention as the reverse. That being said, as I pointed out, I do consider the flow, and how a debate pans out: and was explicit to say that I can go the other way based on the debate dynamic and it’s changes. 

Its a tough call: but debate is about the exchange of arguments, logic and reason; that’s what I feel debates should be awarded on. I have yet to see anyone provide any sort of compelling reason why a great argument should lose out because one side forgets to say “I extend”.

My thinking here - and my PMs are full of people who disagree with me - is that if arguments would have won the debate, and the primary reason to award the win the other way is missing out some debate formality, or detail outside the logic of the argumentation, the arguments mean more.

I tend to feel that bad arguments should not be raised above good arguments on technicalities - only by warrant. 

There is something to be said about the failure to extend changing the debate dynamic and how it may have played out : so to be honest there are cases where I would have gone the other way in the case where the good argument is small or throwaway compared to the rest.

But here it looks like there was a great argument that destroyed the opponent, and the only reason not to award the win seems to be mostly that the team didn’t say “I extend point 3”, to me that doesn’t feel fair.

Put me down as a tentative yes.

Worst zombie movie ever

Pay them in relation to their fulfillment of campaign promises and pledges.

I wouldn’t push him to verify too hard. He'll fold on you!

 https://www.askideas.com/media/22/Ha-Ha-Ha-No-Funny-Owl-Picture.jpg

I get what you’re doing, I’m just pointing out it’s ridiculous pseudoscience, and your relying on equivocation to justify it.

Let me break it down.

Magnetic fields exist. We know that, it’s not contentious. We understand how they work, it is measurable, testable, and quantifiable through mathematics and field equations.

Magnetic fields are evidence of a magnetic force. 

What your doing, is pseudoscientific equivocation. Let me explain what you’re doing, and where your logic falls flat on its face:

You have this magic morphic field you don’t seem to want to describe, elaborate and quantify. 

You randomly assert that a magnetic field is a type of morphic field as you assert it has the same properties. You then assert that because you have arbitrarily asserted that your magnetic field is a morphic field - that your magic fields exist.

No. That’s bad logic.

For example - there is a transcendental physical force that binds all matter and can be used to manipulate physical objects - lets call this “The Force”

A magnetic field is a transcendental physical force that binds all matter and can be used to manipulate physical objects - so this is evidence that The Force exists - as magnetic fields are a form of this Force.

No. Basic logical reasoning doesn’t work this way.

if you can mix your metaphors when everyone else is losing theirs - you’ll be a man, my son.

collective for weapons.

I don’t know what you’re proposing.

However, as you appeared to reject the notion that “morphic field” is exactly the same thing as a magnetic field, presumably there is some difference, that for some odd reason you’re refusing to elaborate on.

As I said, you’re just using equivocation and pseudoscientific woo to try and sound valid. 

 

If a morphic field is a magnetic field then the term is meaningless.

if a morphic field is more than a magnetic field, then the existence of a magnetic field doesn’t prove morphic fields exist.

Its just pseudoscientific equivocation. You’re trying to argue your magic field is identical to a magnetic field for the purposes of proof, then you want to propose that morphic fields do all sorts of interesting woo on top of it.

Impart force.

What you’re doing is just plane old pseudoscientific equivocation.

You have a very bland and generic sounding thing, that you deliberately seem to not want to describe, explain, or go into any details around: you use generic terminology like “control”, to ambiguously define what it does or how it works in a way that doesn’t important any information: then attempt to argue the ambiguous properties apply to something else ambiguously - and claim that one proves the other.

Given that you’re not going into any detail, defining properties, behaviour, defining limitations, etc concerning your “morphic field”, you can’t claim magnetic fields are evidence of it - as can’t even really define what they are

Magnetic fields impart force based on a variety of electro-magnetic and charge properties of an object.

It does not “control form and activity”, nor does it “control everything”.

So, morphic fields do more than magnetic fields? If that’s the case then magnetic fields are not evidence of morphic fields.

IE: this thread is basically claiming Magnetic fields exist is evidence that magnetic fields exist.

Hardly groundbreaking science.

So Morphic field is a meaningless term that basically means “magnetic field”.

What do you mean by “organizes structure and activity”

A magnetic field mostly just imparts force based on a specific measurable criteria.

What is a morphic field

its actually good from the point of view of a voter imo, its much easier to disentangle everything. I’m much more public style, creation/God/Philsophy style debate than formal.

I'm thinking of that, or actually a decent quality debate. My main issue is the time constraints. I could debate the hind legs of an actuary mega donkey, but researching a topic I’m not already familiar with is quite time consuming. That’s why I save most of my debates on topics that I’m very familiar with.

Aside from a few Type1 debates (which I accepted just so RM didn’t snap them all up), I try and engage in debates where I’m forced to explain or convey details and intricacies of science or policy. Plus blahmonkey is far too formal for my liking. I find it can get in the way of my style

Of course

Even that isn’t fully accurate - a statistical link between traits and the number of offspring that themselves survive to reproduce: but the more accurate it is, the harder it is to understand!

You can phrase it as “The evil committed by Christopher Columbus has been exaggerated”, you’d go first, and you’d probably want to launch into arguments in support of that first of all. 

Waiving first round is mainly when you want your opponent to have BoP.

Mutation is what causes the variaion of traits that are used in selective breeding.

We can also objectively observe them in reality.

She asserts without any evidence, or justification.

To start with, let’s Assume your quote is just a grotesque oversimplification of genetics that glosses over gene duplication and events that add genetic material: Im assuming you have a firm and specific idea of exactly what aspect of evolution requires something over and above “more or less of what you started with”?

 

But the principle behind the two are roughly the same, right?

Right now, bioremediation technology isn’t sufficient - and mostly only reduces the mobility of radionucleotides (it doesn’t remove them)

pffft technicalities!

yeah that’s there’s been this sort of evolution in the past isn’t contentious - and I believe that’s a typically understood form of evolution: I’m talking about present day. The only examples I know of are things like heart disease immunity in Italy and height in Holland. It’s not as broad now as there is not so much selective pressure.

what you may see in the western world is a delay in the onset of menapause. That’s something I can see.

In terms of races, there’s likely little evolution going on as there is not as substantial selective pressure going on (though there is some in some cases).

With regards to alternatives, there isn’t really. It’s mostly a set of conjecture, non explanations, hand waving and undemonstrable assertions that are volunteered as plausible after intellectually dishonesty rejections of evolution have been forwarded.

I’m suggesting running as a means of improving General mood and outline: you don’t have to go out the door and run a marathon. Just do a little more than walk.

I think you’re talking about wax sculptures; not nuclear reactors.

churches - and specifically religion are a good example, yes. 

Cars and designed things - somewhat: but not really, too many non evolutionary jumps due to non heridary things: though there are facets. Cigarette lighters being hijacked in many models as just power sockets are a great one!

Another great example is language. 

You should consider it - if you don’t have any major physical issues. I’m not talking about running a marathon: just 1minte slow jog/1 minute walks for 15 minutes to start with.

In my last post, I meant to say that if rocks had those properties - they would evolve (and they would). They should don’t have those properties. There are some very interesting examples of non life forms that have those properties: can you think of a few? :)

It’s actually important here, you hear pastors or the anti-science anti-evolution people talking about cars, and inanimate objects in relation to evolution - in actuality you’ll often find they fall down onto a false dichotomy by comparing things that evolve with things that don’t have those properties. When you apply those properties to the cars they talk about: you start seeing their logical flaws.

Have you tried running?