Stop scrolling. Click here. Everybody look what's goin' down.
- Thread starter ChuQue37
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well when an anime starts I start thinking from the point of view of the person first shown. I don't mean like a 5 minute introduction. I mean like watching that person as if he/she/it was the main character. But when they sunddenlly switch to a different character and I find out he/she/it is actually the main character I get pissed. Since I have to change my whole point of view. I'd compare it to looking from the eyes of a bird to looking from the eyes of, say, a fish. Sure they both exist in the same world, and are related to some extent. But it just makes me rage.bahumat42 said:
Capcha: stand up guy
spartan231490 said:
"On to the good stuff. Governments don't need to be controlled, but any objective look at history shows that governments will eventually start exploiting their people"
I'd say that a truly objective view on history probably wouldn't make moral judgements such as what constitutes exploitation, however, I'd say in long-form human history we basically have only a few epochs, first a nomadic paleolithic era, a communal-farming neolithic era, thousands of years of strife, the enlightenment and modern era. In every era there has been what I would consider, rather defensibly I'd presume, near total exploitation of populace by their governments, every era except the first that is. Could you tell me, where this historical case you are referencing comes from? I do not know of a single government that started off unexploitative that gradually moved towards exploitation (before you reference Fascism, those were not gradual!). A handful of countries with their modern democracies exist in a state of what I would consider to be the least exploitative era of the existence of man since paleolithic times. People are still exploited in these countries, but less by their governments and more by the corrupting hand of private enterprise. I do not disagree with you that it is a logical next step that a good government given the power to exploit its people may over a very long period of time try to, I just think that the government, although it should be carefully watched, does not represent an omnipotent force that wishes to control us, again, at least not Western Democracy anyway.
"I was a little unclear it seems. I didn't mean to imply that the McDonald's/Box scenario is... the fault of the person involved... I know people who made enough of a living on minimum wage to eventually get an education and good job."
Then I inferred this in error. Nevertheless it leads into a point I'd like to make; I believe that an individual who makes terrible decisions should not be denied the same freedom as an individual who makes the most calm, level-headed, well thought out, logically sound, and rational decisions. I don't think that this is a stance that is or should be controversial. Also, minimum wage is a program that does protect the freedom of an individual, when tied to a cost of living - either speculative or real, it may not provide an individual with a very satisfying or wealthy life, but it does protect them from being forced into wage-slaving by private enterprise, it preserves freedom.
"On a slightly less relevant, but very important(IMO) note: Talent has nothing to do with opportunity. Talent is mostly made up of practice anyway..."
I would respectfully disagree with you on this point. However much I would like to believe that natural talent is an illusion, the facts, both genetic and sociological, do not support this belief. It is true that hard work may trump talent, but the hard work of the untalented will always be trumped by the hard work of the talented. Whatever the case though, I feel that this has been debated far more in-depthly, and far more convincingly on both sides, by men of far greater stature than both of us combined and represents the so called struggle between "nature and nurture" within the various scientific institutions and publications of the world and I am willing to leave it at that.
"Another tangent: I'm against universal healthcare. I think it's stupid simply because federal level governments are horribly inefficient and corrupt..."
I will vehemently disagree with you on this point Spartan. I am Canadian, and I have seen our Health Care system wonderfully and publicly managed on a single-payer government monopoly (for the most part) model for my entire life, and I have seen it run only slightly less than perfectly given the resources at hand and the sparseness of our population. I will give you an example. Until recently wait times for diagnostic scanning tests in Canada were bordering on the insane, but with proper investment 6 years ago our government made the proper expansions and now they are still what some would consider unacceptably high, but are now within internationally accepted ranges. The Canadian Government, in coordination with the Provinces acted in a way that was timely, rational, compassionate and guaranteed an improved quality of life for Canadians, and a strengthened social safety net for years to come. I wouldn't call that stupid, horribly inefficient or corrupt - even in jest!
"We would be much better off if we took steps to reduce the cost of healthcare. it has skyrocketed in the past 30-40 years..."
The skyrocketing cost of health care, if we are to use that term, is related to advances in technology in most Western countries. It is unavoidable and requires a careful compromise that is difficult and unpalatable even amongst ethicists - the just allocation of scarce resources. In the USA costs are inflated by another factor as well as the rising cost of new technology - the HMO. It represents a middleman not seen in countries with Universal Health Care, one that robs the consumer and inflates the cost of doing business. They provide no necessary service and reap obscene profits. Canada spends the least out of any Western country on health care per capita - and we have the best results according to the medical evidence. We have no HMOs.
"mostly because of ludicrous malpractice lawsuits and over-regulation..."
Over-regulation? I fail to see that. I think that the system south of the border may appear to be only over-regulated as a symptom of an unsustainable system. As long as there is a businessman in between the patient and their doctor, costs will inflate and people will suffer. A single-payer system with a government monopoly is not the only viable option, but it is a good one. It is one where every doctor is a government employee and the standards of their practice are not standards of business, but standards of ethics. Imagine a system where no doctor sets their own prices. In Canada a family doctor starts at $200,000 a year salary, they end their practice making $250,000 per year unless they also do other things. Doctors don't collect Ferraris here while children go unvaccinated. Remove the business aspect of medicine and you remove much of the cost of doing said business.
As for the frivolous lawsuits, I believe that this represents a much deeper problem than can be answered by health care reform. However, imagine a system where one does not need to sue to keep both their thumbs after an accident or surgical mistake - one where no insurance company makes this necessary or attractive - and I imagine you would have solved half the problem right there.
"Ur last 3 paragraphs are a little unclear to me in my current state, so feel free to point out if you think i misunderstood you."
No problem
"Point of Fact: I would consider myself a reform liberal as well(well, technically I consider myself an independent..."
I really feel I need to talk to you more to understand this position. I mean private messaging or something. I really think I might be misunderstanding American terminology and would like to inform myself of it. I always imagined "Independent" as a lack of affiliation with or support for any particular political party. It seems that you are using this word to mean a completely different thing though - you are using it to denote a political philosophy (unless I am mistaken). I would really like to discuss this with you further to fully grasp the American meaning of this word.
"To take an extreme example that my philosophy professor used in my class last semester: If the government makes it illegal for one man to punch another in the face for no reason, is that government protecting a person's right to not get punched in the face, or infringing a person's right to punch someone in the face?""
That's it though, all Liberal Democracies (a distinction that is identical to my previous use of "Western" but more precise) must make a compromise in such situations. This compromise is where opinions differ, but usually it will favour those who have less power in any given conflict. I will not, nor could I ever hope to, provide judgement on every single compromise, but this will lead into my next point.
"Like I said, it's a very moral statement, "your freedom ends where mine begins. Mine ends where yours begins," but it is functionally useless, because it does nothing to define that line in any real sense, because protecting someone from another person is inherently taking away the other person's right to harm them."
You've hit the nail on the head! It is a moral. It is a guiding principle behind the law- but not the law itself. It is a similar maxim as "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" in that it advocates no specific action, it defines no specific rules, and yet it can immediately be understood for what it is - a philosophy that informs the law. As I said before, the law, at least through a (reform?) liberal viewpoint anyway, is a series of compromises between individuals informed by this one guiding principle. Any good law is written in this context, any good government is guided by it, and the bad counterparts of both are devoid of it.
"Do you unilaterally protect the unborn child's right to life, or do you protect the mother's right to decide the fate of her own body? Or let's talk about many penal codes which regulate how high your grass can grow."
This is totally personal opinion here, but I think the more pressing issue in the abortion debate is can we classify the unborn as persons? If so then abortion is obviously wrong; if not then it is as obviously benign an action as lancing a cyst and it would be tyrannical to deny a woman the right to such a procedure. There is no middle ground. Also, I consider items as ephemeral and speculative as property value to be such a poor justification for removing someone's rights that I can never see it to be fair. I should be able to paint my garage door plaid if I want to!
But from this we have healthy debate. From Liberalism every contentious issue is seen as an issue of compromise between two sides informed by that one guiding principle. What we do not have is invocations of right or wrong, and we certainly do not have personality politics or people's best guesses as to what God's opinion on a subject is.
I feel the rest of your on-topic post is an affirmation of what I have now laid before you. Except I see this as evidence that Reform Liberalism isn't just an intelligent or informed choice as a political philosophy - it is the only rational one.
"Finally, you don't come off as confrontational at all, and I apologize if I do. If I attack flaws in ur logic, it's not because i think that you're wrong, but because i think that every philosophy has some flaws in it, and the only way we can fix that is by thinking about it."
In all honesty I didn't think I did either, but I was aware that it could be a possibility. I preemptively made that statement to make sure as to not stifle the seed of a debate that was so wonderfully sprouting forth. Also, I'm Canadian.
"As for us already working out who will watch the watchers, I think you would be surprised. In my opinion, the US government is already something of a circus to create the illusion of an illusion of choice(God that's confusing, i will try to clarify tomorrow if you want) rather than a true meaningful representational government, and i think this happened because our founding fathers chose the wrong people to watch the watchers. Still, It has been a pretty damn good compromise, and will continue to be for a long time yet to come."
I would like an explanation. I also agree with you. The Jeffersonian system has major flaws - but so does the Westminster system! The difference is that in the Westminster system the flaws are anticipated and there is a system in place to lessen their effect - largely due to the age of the system and the trial and error that has gone on for centuries, not some enlightened status. The major problem with the Jeffersonian system is that it incorrectly selects its enemies. To Jefferson (and others), the major enemy of democracy was the rise of a tyrant, probably from the military who would form out of their bureaucratic framework an administrative dictatorship or an empire (they were looking back at Julius Caesar). What Jefferson et al could not foresee was that in the American system people would organise into self-interested and powerful groups who would use their power to lobby the government. These groups have no interest in real political power, just making things better for their members often at the cost of the rest of society. The American Founders anticipated a Caesar or Napoleon (who came afterwards, whatever) when the real enemy of the system were the merchants and Barons of industry. The difference is that Caesar wants to take over the system and destroy it, the Barons just want a cut of the action, and so the system is corrupted by them as a result.
Also, this is our contribution to this thread! How original is a calm, respectful political debate that didn't mention Hitler and leads to mutual enlightenment for all involved amirite?
Smoke. Please smoke. It's good for you. If you don't smoke cigarettes, that's what will kill you. They are delicious, promote excellent lung health, and, fortunately for all smokers, could lead to the use of other, more addictive and deadly drugs. Don't you want to be addicted to cigarettes? You don't? Really?
You moron.
You moron.
Yes you can go wrong with bronies.
tl;dr does not equate to random, as large walls of text is synonymous with cool stories, copypasta and mundane people.
OT: Wallow Walloa, Walla Wall-al; O do believe i ofund a banana¿
tl;dr does not equate to random, as large walls of text is synonymous with cool stories, copypasta and mundane people.
OT: Wallow Walloa, Walla Wall-al; O do believe i ofund a banana¿
I'm an english man who doesn't like tea. Or fried eggs, or bacon. (admittedly, I haven't tried them since I was a fickle child, so that might have changed.)Bird Evil said:
On the short walk from the train to my office there is a river, in that river there are fish, dragonflies and ducks.
I sometimes stop for a brief moment to talk to the ducks, ask them how their day has been so far, if they have any plans.
I don't get a response but I like to feel that the duck likes the moment of company.
(reading that back makes me sound demented... oh well, must at least be origonal.)
I sometimes stop for a brief moment to talk to the ducks, ask them how their day has been so far, if they have any plans.
I don't get a response but I like to feel that the duck likes the moment of company.
(reading that back makes me sound demented... oh well, must at least be origonal.)
I think you just won this thread.quantum mechanic said:
---
How about a video game in which you play as a woman named Walter Smeltings. Walter must travel through 5 kingdoms where she must defeat the nobility and royalty by completing a variety of minigames like throwing fish off of buildings, break-dance-fighting against miniature cities, spanking princesses and of course, hangman. The color pallet of the game will be nothing but cool colors like blues and greens and whatnot.
I wish people that are detrimental to the betterment of society at large would commit suicide en mass.
Also, the new spyro games are terrible. They should just remake gateway to glimmer like zelda has been doing with ocarina of time.
Also, the new spyro games are terrible. They should just remake gateway to glimmer like zelda has been doing with ocarina of time.
Feet are evil and must be destroyed before they take over the world.
Before you cast aside my seemingly random post; think about it. If feet should decide to take over the world, they outnumber us nearly two to one. There are almost twice as many feet in the world as there are humans who could fight them off, so we would definitely be massacred.
If that's not enough to convince you, think of this: how many evil people do you know of that do not have feet? I'm pretty sure that if it isn't the number zero, it isn't a large number.
Before you cast aside my seemingly random post; think about it. If feet should decide to take over the world, they outnumber us nearly two to one. There are almost twice as many feet in the world as there are humans who could fight them off, so we would definitely be massacred.
If that's not enough to convince you, think of this: how many evil people do you know of that do not have feet? I'm pretty sure that if it isn't the number zero, it isn't a large number.
I think that, while the majority of my post may not be original, it may make you think. A lot of governments, according to conspiracy theorists, do not want you to think but rather to remain stupid so that you can never see what they want to hit you with next. But even in this fascination with the cloaked and hooded body that is the government, I feel that too many people detach themselves from life. Too many people always look at the big picture and lose sight of what is right before them. I'd like to show (Read: Copy and paste from my English poetry book) this poem to you all.
Epic - Patrick Kavanagh
I have lived in important places, times
When great events were decided: who owned
That half a rood of rock, a no-man's land
Surrounded by our pitchfork-armed claims.
I heard the Duffys shouting 'Damn your soul'
And old McCabe stripped to the waist, seen
Step the plot defying blue cast-steel -
'Here is the march along these iron stones'
That was the year of the Munich bother. Which
Was most important? I inclined
To lose my faith in Ballyrush and Gortin
Till Homer's ghost came whispering to my mind
He said: I made the Iliad from such
A local row. Gods make their own importance.
(I don't actually know how spoiler tags work on these forums! I'll spoiler the poem if someone PM's me and tells me how)
Gods make their own importance. Too many people worry about the big picture, despite the fact that it is always the little things that make people happy. The moment your girlfriend breaks up with you, a memorable birthday gift, that one time you got a Nuke playing Call of Duty.
Don't be fooled into thinking your life will only have meaning if you are part of the bigger picture, because your memory will be full of only little moments.
Epic - Patrick Kavanagh
I have lived in important places, times
When great events were decided: who owned
That half a rood of rock, a no-man's land
Surrounded by our pitchfork-armed claims.
I heard the Duffys shouting 'Damn your soul'
And old McCabe stripped to the waist, seen
Step the plot defying blue cast-steel -
'Here is the march along these iron stones'
That was the year of the Munich bother. Which
Was most important? I inclined
To lose my faith in Ballyrush and Gortin
Till Homer's ghost came whispering to my mind
He said: I made the Iliad from such
A local row. Gods make their own importance.
(I don't actually know how spoiler tags work on these forums! I'll spoiler the poem if someone PM's me and tells me how)
Gods make their own importance. Too many people worry about the big picture, despite the fact that it is always the little things that make people happy. The moment your girlfriend breaks up with you, a memorable birthday gift, that one time you got a Nuke playing Call of Duty.
Don't be fooled into thinking your life will only have meaning if you are part of the bigger picture, because your memory will be full of only little moments.