Total posts: 7,093
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That was when the middle class developed
There is no "middle class". Only the working class and the owning class.
industrialization played a huge role but the working conditions were horrible.
For many they still are. Industrialization made the world wealthy not egalitarian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It is inaccurate to say that four people = one barber shop quartet? That fifty pennies = one roll? That is inaccurate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Jesus never discussed politics. Not wanting money changers in the church was out of respect for God it had nothing to do with politics. He fed the hungry because they showed up to see him and he wanted them to be full enough to hear what he was saying to them that's not politics that's common f****** sense. Jesus believed in God and the church and self-responsibility. That's not indicative to any political party no matter what either side thinks.
You are correct that the term socialism had not been coined but eschewing personal wealth in favor of feeding the poor is socialism by definition regardless of one's motives for being socialist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I mean yeah but strictly speaking if you break anything in two you have two things. I under what you mean about the necessity of a contextual constant for math to be efficacious but that constant isn't a real thing. We made it up for our own purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You can change that outcome only by redefining a term, which you keep trying to do by redefining the number 1
The term one can be applied only in context and that changes.
Jim Carey = one person.
Ten billion people give or take = one human race.
A doctor, a lawyer, a cake decorator and a registered nurse might = one barber shop quartet.
Eight potatoes might = one pot of mash.
So...
1= 1
And
10,000,000,000 = 1
And
4 = 1
And
8 = 1
Numbers themselves are meaningless without context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Science too has doctrines.
Category error. Science is a method for uncovering truth not a personal philosophy or religion. In as much as you could call the method a doctrine it is still predicated on evidence and repeatable peer reviewed results which is exactly how it functions.
No religious doctrine is based on evidence.
Religion often corrects itself. We might say the bible is true. But we certainly also say that our interpretation of it is not. It is man's interpretation.
The bible is self contradictory and scientifically inaccurate. Its head deity is a morally bankrupt thug with traits that are logically inconsistent with each other. It is provably fictional and even worse interpretation aside IT CAN NOT CHANGE. If the bible says something false it says that thing forever.
the principle of logic is on faith unseen.
Incorrect. Logic is actually just a methodology and it is relied upon not because of natural faith in the religious sense but specifically because it has great utility. Not faith unseen but faith which is constantly tested and put to the test as people use logic to solve problems.
Past experience is not the arbiter of truth.
While technically accurate without evaluating past events we have no model for predicting future events. Say what you like about reasonable expectations based on past experience but we did all our learning in the past and the lessons of the future will not be ours until it becomes our past.
Scientific textbooks are simply people's testimonies.
The experiments in most textbooks are repeatable. You can do a handful yourself.
Only that everything - has a faith basis.
Only in the pedantic sense. Only if you define every belief as faith. There is a difference between "faith" based on evidence and "faith" based on faith. To pretend otherwise is to construct a strawman.
Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith. And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.That's funny. I don't believe in chance and I'm unaware of anything truly random. (Being a skeptic that means I don't believe in the random)Also and I hate to be a stickler but you are aware that no current cosmology suggests that anything came form nothing right?Ok.
Since you agree with my rebuttal here then your above assertion must be incorrect. I don't need chance in my world view and I don't claim anything ever came from nothing or that there even ever was nothing in the sense you are using the word.
What is gravity?
The tendency of mass to attract mass.
How do we measure such a thing?
Mathematically.
What causes gravity?
Mass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Funny one. Jesus was no socialist. He was a big fan of voluntarism. A big fan of private institutions. And not of compulsion.
He was anti capitalist and pro wealth redistribution. I hate to break it to you but that's socialist.
Created:
Even the tip of the iceberg we can see is very widespread and ugly.Ugly compared to what? Belgium?
Ugly compared to a hypothetical situation where police didn't shoot people.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This is unwise for anyone but there are some people who are far more likely to be shot out of hand by police in this situation than others.Yeah, men are much more likely to be shot by those sexist officers.
And some men are FAR more likely to be shot than others. If you would like to know the difference pick up some paint swatches.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In general I think men ought to take more responsibility for contraception so don't expect much sympathy from me.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You've been thinking about this a lot. Sometimes you have to work a thought through to say you really had it at all. I'm not sure how I feel about enforced vasectomies. I am in favor of offering them freely and the same about reversing them but I am not ready to endorse removing agency in that way. Also what if there is a disaster and all the sperm are lost? That seems like a bad idea biologically... also also that would make procreation much more labor intensive and expensive and I thought you were in favor of not saddling people with indebtedness they do not agree to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The problem with this argument, secularmerlin, is that according to your rationale, business wouldn't have even employed workers that were unnecessary. So who would they eliminate? And how would they "discover" they were unnecessary?
That is in fact my point. Assuming no business would knowingly employ unnecessary workers (and you have given me no reason to believe otherwise) there is no one else to eliminate. A minimum wage increase is therefore immaterial to who is necessarily employed.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the byproduct of minimum-wage. This is just your shoehorning in an unsubstantiated necessity of the minimum wage.
I maintain that if a business cannot afford to pay their workforce a living wage then they cannot afford to be in business. If the only thing keeping you in business is that you get to exploit people more then you do not have my sympathy.
There can never a be Capitalist State. Capitalism by definition excludes the State.
Nonsense. You just pointed out the cronyism that makes our current state a capitalist state. Also without the implicit threat of state enforced violence no one would acknowledge the right of corperations to own the means of production at the expense of their own starvation. Capitalism cannot exist without the state.
The procurement of resources can be secured by voluntary agreement.
It could but under our current capitalist state resources are used to coerce the cooperation of the proletariat. Resources are never voluntarily given under capitalism. Giving anything away voluntarily is anathema to capitalism. Things are only given in exchange for payment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well i don't think Canada will be too keen but I'll ask them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The 13th amendment allows an exception for a punishment for a crime.I don't want prisoners living off government assistance for their sentence. Slavery I think is the only way they can pay off their debts.
Slavery is morally reprehensible. I'm afraid that doesn't change just because you want some people to be slaves and if the thirteenth amendment disagrees then it is wrong on this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No, it's not. The minimum wage necessarily creates unemployment.
All businesses are already on the lookout for any possible ways of trimming the fat. No buisness purposefully employs workers that are not essential for a company to function. It can therefore be assumed that all businesses have already eliminated any unnecessary workers they know of and would promptly eliminate a y that they discovered were unnecessary. This is a truism regardless of the minimum wage a d therefore any argument to the contrary doesn't hold water.
Much of inflation has to do with a nation's monetary policy. While the minimum wage can increase inflation, the lion's share is due to printing money.
Well stated. Therefore a y argument to the contrary doesn't hold water.
An increase in the minimum wage affects small businesses the most because they hire the most low-skilled/unskilled labor.
Every business has expences.if your profit doesn't exceed your expenses then in the capitalist model you should fail. This is the essence of competitive economy. Paying for labor is one of the primary expenses. If you cannot afford to pay your workforce a minimum wage perhaps you shouldn't be in business. Also I have never heard this argument used to support lowering lot rents, utility costs, cleaning supplies or shipping fees. Are only those least able to afford to support someone else's small business (those who work at minimum wage) expected to sacrifice to give small business a chance? No this argument doesn't hold water either.
It's in part a manifestation of the partnership between crony corporations and the State.
You just described a capitalist state. This is the best case scenario for capitalism. Capitalism cannot be supported without the state's support. How else would they secure the means of production besides the threat of police violence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What enslaving prisoners would do is the revenue generated from the prisoner's slave labor goes to the victim(s) of the crime.
Slavery was supposed to have been abolished. I do not support this policy. Slavery is not a suitable punishment or a suitable living condition for anyone.
Then that politician would be a terrible person. The innocents being bombed weren't costing tax payers a penny to live, and I'm anti war as a matter of principle. Bombing the civilians to kill the terroists isn't a good idea
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does the Crow go back to it's roost in an evening and sit brooding over how it will get the bastard next time he sees it?
I don't know how I would confirm or deny that but the "grudge" would seem to be multi generational.
Created:
Posted in:
It is silly to think that employers would employ fewer workers if minimum wage increases. There is already no incentive to have more workers than absolutely necessary. If you are worried about people with redundant jobs will become unemployed then you need not worry about minimum wage as this has already happened and continues to happen.
It is silly to say that inflation will take away everyone's buying power if we raise minimum wage since inflation continues despite the stagnation of minimum wage. If you are worried about inflation then you need not worry about minimum wage as this has already happened and continues to happen.
It is silly to say that small businesses will be unable to compete if we raise minimum wage since capitalism already tends towards monopolies. If you are worried that most of the world's wealth will he concentrated into the hands of just a few companies giving them an unfair advantage over small businesses then you need not worry about minimum wage as this has already happened and continues to happen.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you support voluntary compliance with law authorities? If a rapist doesn't feel like getting arrested it should be a viable option?
How do these law authorities know who is and isnot a rapist just by looking at them?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you support arrest resistors as a protected class?
Nonviolent protest is protected by the constitution. Innocent until guilt is proved is the required default by law. "Resisting arrest" is not a crime in and of itself.
Do you support voluntary compliance with the law? For example, if you just spent 45 minutes raping a woman on a train, should it be optional to submit to an arrest when law enforcement shows up?
Steps should be taken to protect the public. If possible these steps should be nonviolent. First responders should perhaps not be armed and trained to see everyone as a potentially dangerous criminal. Us versus them is a terrible attitude to have about the people you are sworn to protect.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I meant authority of the law.
The authority of the law or the authority of police?
I'll do my best to answer both. Laws only have authority when enforced like any set of rules. Enforcement can be as simple as social stigma but in the modern world is often enforced by police violence or the threat of police violence whether explicit or implicit. Is might makes right the authority you endorse? I do not. I do not recognize the right of police to do violence to me although this would hardly stop them from doing me violence. I do not recognize their authority only the danger they represent as the strong arm of the capitalist state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The animal response would be instinctive, whereas the human response is intellectual.
I remain unconvinced that humans react intellectually to being done injury. I think humans instinctively too. You may be unnecessarily splitting hairs here.
Created:
You could give everything you own to the poor without ever helping in their plight. Rather than helping them you would only be joining them.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There is nothing we can do under the current system. The very fact that the bank would foreclose on you and the family would lose their home regardless of what you want IS the problem. I'm not sure what to do short of bloody bloody revolution which I do not actually want to see in my lifetime. I would propose a system where the purpose of a bank is to help people keep their homes not take them away or better yet no banks at all but that is NOT our current system. Our current system is one of systematic oppression in the name of profit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Not really a grudge.....More like remembering and acting defensively.
What exactly is the practical difference between the two?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Either you support the law or you do not. There is no grey area.
Patently absurd. I can absolutely support laws that protect the public and simultaneously resist laws which are unjust.
Also the founding fathers definitely were not in support of English law.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
99.5% of cops don’t kill people for fun.
Irrelevant to my question please answer my question.
It’s really simple. Obey their commands and you’ll be fine. If a cop tells you to step out of the vehicle, you do it. If a cop tells you to stop resisting, you do it. End of story.
Always with the threats.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Assuming black and blue lives matter equally would you say that these lives matter more or less than the right of police to commit second degree murder without fear of investigation and possible prosecution?I would say that lives matter more than this right.All Lives Matter.
Ok but could you answer the question?
Which matters more? Someone's life or a police man's right to kill someone without fear of investigation and possible prosecution?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You mean not everyone knows that the best thing to do when pulled over is yell at cops while vigorously digging in the glove compartment?
This is unwise for anyone but there are some people who are far more likely to be shot out of hand by police in this situation than others. If you are interested which group you are in the statistics are a matter of public record although deaths by police, like suicides, are somewhat under reported so we can only guess how pervasive the problem actually is. Even the tip of the iceberg we can see is very widespread and ugly.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If me renting a house to a family in exchange for money is denying people the right to shelter
That depends. What would you do if the they could not or refused to pay? They still would need shelter. If your answer is that you would initiate eviction proceedings then yes that is what you are doing. In that case you would be engaged in extortion not offering shelter.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If me renting a house to a family in exchange for money is denying people the right to shelter then is the grocery store down the road denying people the right to food by selling it to them in exchange for money? Would removing the threat of police action for robbing of grocery stores solve the problem of hunger?
When a grocery refuses food to those who cannot afford it that is precisely what is happening. Removing the threat of police violence (and the locks from the dumpsters) would certainly make it safer for the poor to reclaim the discarded food.
Created:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
is the grocery store down the road denying people the right to food by selling it to them in exchange for moneyyes, specifically poor people.
Well stated
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Blue Lives Matter.
Assuming black and blue lives matter equally would you say that these lives matter more or less than the right of police to commit second degree murder without fear of investigation and possible prosecution?
I would say that lives matter more than this right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Shrug
I said it was unclear to what degree the animals are motivated by revenge.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Bottom line without the implicit threat of police violence to enforce your ownership no one would choose to die of exposure rather than live in the property in question. Removal of that threat would largely solve the problem I think.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well in a perfect world you simply agree to stop owning it. Ideally no one would have to force you to acknowledge the right to shelter of others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/grudge-holding-crows-pass-on-their-anger-to-family-and-friends
There are a whole host of articles like this about crows and elephants trainers have long known that their charges apparently remember someone who has done them injury and react aggressively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Do any animals, other than human, practice the above policy? I dont think so.
Well elephants and crows are both known to hold a grudge but it is unclear to what degree they are assigning guilt.
Created:
Posted in:
I take that as a no, which is quite extreme. It’s to suggest that if someone were to say, murder your child, you would be fine with that person going on to live their life as if nothing happened provided they don’t do it to anyone else. You’re entitled to that view though.
I understand the emotional reaction from losing a loved one and would likely have a very visceral reaction... which is exactly why my judgement would be impaired and I should under no circumstances be allowed to have a say in the verdict or the sentencing in the case.
We’re also not talking about the death penalty. I think it’s pretty well established that the death penalty does little to nothing to deter murder which makes sense because compared to life in prison, the person if caught will essentially lose the remainder of their life either way. But getting caught is irrelevant if there is effectively no punishment at all.
IF the death penalty does little or nothing to deter murder AND effectively no punishment at all does little or nothing to deter murder THEN there is no benefit to the death penalty beyond no punishment whatsoever.
In any case I am not opposed to taking steps to prevent further murder. You are the one who specifically created a hypothetical where "it were somehow possible to be guaranteed that person 1 would never again become a danger to anyone". That is not generally the case. In general the public should be protected from murders. (You will notice my focus is on protecting the public and not on punishing the guilty).
Created:
In fact I posit to you that if food shelter and education were free."The First Law of Thermodynamics", translated into plain English is "There is no such thing as a free lunch"."Conservation of energy" is a basic law of physics that cannot be violated.There is no such thing as free anything in the natural world of physical laws.
Free in the sense that we invest in humanity. We supply their basic needs and their education and as a result we have a highly educated citizenry which benefits everyone. Any such investment will be more than worth it in innovation.
Industrialization made the world wealthy not capitalism.In the real world, machines and tools that produce products often require a substantial investment of resources. Investments are capital.
Money is made up. If all you invest into a project is capital you haven't actually invested anything real at all. Machines and tools are made by and operated by workers exclusively. No investors are required. We don't need them feeding off of every transaction like vampires despite popular belief.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I understand that. I am asking how you would go about that. For example you say you would make it illegal for me to own a rental property. That would obviously preclude me from buying a second one but does not answer what I would have to do with the one I already have.
Well if you own a property that you do not live in then you own a property you do not need. You would stop owning it because we agree no one should be homeless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If it were somehow possible to be guaranteed that person 1 would never again become a danger to anyone, would you support no punishment at all?
I have little interest in justice whatever that means to you personally.
Also, where does deterrence factor into your equation?
Based on its utility of course. How effective is this deterrent? Is the death penalty really a deterrent? It doesn't seem to me that murder was prevented even in the days of hanging mobs and lynchings.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What is the suggestion here? Use eminent domain to purchase all investment properties nationwide then sell to the renters?
I am suggesting we abolish the land lord class. That we outlaw eviction. That we discontinue ownership of residential property by corperations and also by private citizens that do not live on said property at peat part of the year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sure.But.
Sure butt
Most people are in favor of child labor laws, weekends off, making a living wage, paid sick leave. These are all socialist initiatives. Socialism isn't the opposite of capitalism and in a much as capitalists are the enemy of socialism it is only in those areas where human suffering is profitable.
Created:
Posted in:
So this "intrinsic value" necessarily obligates me to "do something" as it concerns another's suffering, whether I'm a willful participant or not?
IF something(one) has intrinsic value THEN you will treat it/them as valuable.
Your actions say far more than your words when it comes to which humans you find worthwhile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And communism is a philosophers pipedream.
Assuming communism is impossible that hardly means we cannot or should not institute social programs that benefit humanity. Don't let the inability to have perfection be the enemy of incremental change for the better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think you should wright a book about this. All the best science fiction is based on scientific inaccuracies that sound intuitively possible.
Created:
Posted in:
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and no one can force me to donate a kidney even if I choose to make my living as a bartender and I am professionally responsible for some individuals kidney disease. See how that works? Consent to bartend is not consent to donate a kidney.
In particular anyone who believes in stand your ground laws must be in favor of abortion or logically inconsistent.
(IF a person is justified using deadly force against someone they have never met who is on their porch THEN they are definitely justified using deadly force on someone they have never met who is in their vagina.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It (sin) is why Jesus died on the cross.
Actually assuming any historicity in the story I'm pretty sure Jesus was crucified for being a socialist, ridiculing the rich is dangerous buisness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
faith is a set of doctrines.
How is this untrue of a jehovah witness or a bhudist?
A peer reviewed scientific observation does not make the science true, does it? Like a consensus of scientific opinion does not make it true either. It might be true - but it might be wrong. Studies show that science itself has a half life. Science changes.
Precisely. Science self corrects. Religion cannot. This addition of possible fault and subsequent revision is exactly how science advances.
My point is that people trust or believe in the principles of logic - not by a logical process - but out of faith
There us a difference between "faith" in something whose efficacy is measurable and faith in things unseen. I have a reasonable expectation based on past experience. You have a book which makes a claim. The two are unequal as pathways to truth.
I just don't think all scientists actually use the scientific method properly.
And this the peer review process. In any case all humans use the scientific method to some degree. It is how a baby learns to wiggle its toes. That it is sometimes improperly observed doesn't mean it is not the single best method ever discovered by humans for discovering truths about the natural world. Opposed to religion which even if you are right about personally (which I remain skeptical of) has led many people to untruth. People like bhudists and muslims... unless you do think they believe truth.
How does one prove logic to be logically true? You can't.
Meaningless. Word salad
Logic is not true or false it is efficacious.
I love science
Indeed you need science to maintain your life but I don't need any god(s) in mine. Science is the thing we both agree exists and is useful so it is a bad example when trying to convince me of some faith based claim.
Without God, a person has to endeavour to construct a position to enable chance, randomness, to develop or evolve or bring laws into existence from nothing. This is faith. And it is blind faith. Not reasonable faith.
That's funny. I don't believe in chance and I'm unaware of anything truly random. (Being a skeptic that means I don't believe in the random)
Also and I hate to be a stickler but you are aware that no current cosmology suggests that anything came form nothing right?
Hey since we both like experiments let's try one. Explain to me how I can confirm for myself that gravity exists and then explain how I can do the same with some god(s) and we can discuss which method is more likely to yield results.
Created: