|
vampirism
Stranger


Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922133 - 07/23/04 08:46 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
and what about the native americans before that? they're weren't exactly fairly traded with or anything.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: vampirism]
#2922138 - 07/23/04 08:49 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, and that was wrong. So what?
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922143 - 07/23/04 08:51 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
We've been through this before. There is no justification for stealing from someone just because they occupy a particular piece of land.
yes we have, and you certainly haven't proved a thing. you do accept that land is owned by a society though. and those who choose to live on that society's land must conform to the laws that society has created or else accept the consequences. that's the whole idea of political sovereignty within borders. its like when a father says "well while you live under my roof, you'll live by my rules"
Quote:
America has one of the highest depression rates in the world, and the level of happiness has continued to decrease as the economy has grown. Our economy does not need to be as big as it is now, though it probably would be even if we didn't have public education.
source? I only ask for one because i've read very different sociological studies. one saying that the u.s. has something like the third highest quality of life in the world (which includes happiness), another that has said that self-reported happiness has stayed about the same as the economy has grown. one thing is for sure: life expectancy and health has drastically improved. And what are you trying to argue? that the u.s. is relatively unhappy because it has public education (surely the happier countries are still industrialized countries who have public education systems) or are you trying to argue that public education actually makes people unhappy (which is both extremely illogical and correlatory)?
Quote:
Interesting. How many rags to riches stories do you hear about now vs. 100 years ago? Back then, the American dream was alive and well. Immigrants would come over without a penny to their name, and many became tycoons within a generation. Don't see much of that now.
not only is that purely anectdotal, but you didnt even live back then so you don't know how many stories there were being told. and obviously those stories would be exagerrated, glamorized and dramatized with each telling. plenty of people have gone from rags to riches nowadays--it might take a bit longer because there is not as much free oil and gold to be discovered and exploited.
Quote:
Funny--they have apprenticeships in many European countries, yet they don't seem to have those problems.
ahh, you mean for older children? i have no problem with that. i do not support government funding for adults' education. i think less people should be going to college than currently do. waste of time for many of them (and for tax dollars) it seems to me.
|
vampirism
Stranger


Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922147 - 07/23/04 08:52 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
well its just that America wasn't quite founded on fighting against theft and evil and such- it was founded on the blood of many innocents as well.
thats all not really arguing anything major here
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922179 - 07/23/04 09:11 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There is no justification for stealing from someone just because they occupy a particular piece of land.
come to think of it, isn't that what you're little 'land-value tax' is all about? in order to live on a particular piece of land, you must pay money or else men with guns will come to take it from you and/or remove you from your land.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Tao]
#2922195 - 07/23/04 09:19 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
We've been through this before. There is no justification for stealing from someone just because they occupy a particular piece of land.
yes we have, and you certainly haven't proved a thing. you do accept that land is owned by a society though. and those who choose to live on that society's land must conform to the laws that society has created or else accept the consequences. that's the whole idea of political sovereignty within borders. its like when a father says "well while you live under my roof, you'll live by my rules"
Ah, so if we were to become a dictatorship, you would accept that because if you don't like it, you can leave. Correct?
Quote:
Quote:
America has one of the highest depression rates in the world, and the level of happiness has continued to decrease as the economy has grown. Our economy does not need to be as big as it is now, though it probably would be even if we didn't have public education.
source? I only ask for one because i've read very different sociological studies. one saying that the u.s. has something like the third highest quality of life in the world (which includes happiness), another that has said that self-reported happiness has stayed about the same as the economy has grown. one thing is for sure: life expectancy and health has drastically improved. And what are you trying to argue? that the u.s. is relatively unhappy because it has public education (surely the happier countries are still industrialized countries who have public education systems) or are you trying to argue that public education actually makes people unhappy (which is both extremely illogical and correlatory)?
http://www.newdream.org/discuss/myers.html
"Consider 1957, when economist John Galbraith was about to describe the United States as the Affluent Society. That year, Americans? per person income, expressed in today?s dollars, was $8700. Today it is $20,000. Compared to 1957, we are now "the doubly affluent society"?with double what money buys. We have twice as many cars per person. We eat out two and a half times as often. In the late 1950s, few Americans had dishwashers, clothes dryers, or air conditioning; today, most do.
So, believing that a little more money would make us a little happier and that it?s very important to be very well off, are we indeed now?after four decades of rising affluence--happier? Are we happier with espresso coffee, caller ID, suitcases on wheels, and Post-It notes than before?
We are not. Since 1957, the number of Americans who say they are "very happy" has declined from 35 to 32 percent. Meanwhile, the divorce rate has doubled, the teen suicide rate has nearly tripled, the violent crime rate has nearly quadrupled (even after the recent decline), and more people than ever (especially teens and young adults) are depressed."
What I'm arguing here is not that public school has made people unhappy, but that a better economy does not equal a better society.
Quote:
Quote:
Interesting. How many rags to riches stories do you hear about now vs. 100 years ago? Back then, the American dream was alive and well. Immigrants would come over without a penny to their name, and many became tycoons within a generation. Don't see much of that now.
not only is that purely anectdotal, but you didnt even live back then so you don't know how many stories there were being told. and obviously those stories would be exagerrated, glamorized and dramatized with each telling. plenty of people have gone from rags to riches nowadays--it might take a bit longer because there is not as much free oil and gold to be discovered and exploited.
Maybe it was a bit anecdotal, but it does come to show that you do not need a public education to move up in society.
Quote:
Quote:
Funny--they have apprenticeships in many European countries, yet they don't seem to have those problems.
ahh, you mean for older children? i have no problem with that. i do not support government funding for adults' education. i think less people should be going to college than currently do. waste of time for many of them (and for tax dollars) it seems to me.
Good something we agree on.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Tao]
#2922209 - 07/23/04 09:23 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
There is no justification for stealing from someone just because they occupy a particular piece of land.
come to think of it, isn't that what you're little 'land-value tax' is all about? in order to live on a particular piece of land, you must pay money or else men with guns will come to take it from you and/or remove you from your land.
No. You do not get taxed for living on a piece of land, only owning the title to it. Therefore, landlords would be taxed, but not those living on their property. And it is only taking the income gained from that land. This is not stealing, as the land belongs to society, so any income generated by it should also go to society.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Tao]
#2922225 - 07/23/04 09:36 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said: yes we have, and you certainly haven't proved a thing. you do accept that land is owned by a society though.
Huh? What society has title to land?
Quote:
and those who choose to live on that society's land must conform to the laws that society has created or else accept the consequences.
You are conflating society with government, the two are not the same. Is a dictator who makes the laws society? Is a president who issues executive orders the society?
Quote:
that's the whole idea of political sovereignty within borders. its like when a father says "well while you live under my roof, you'll live by my rules"
No, it's not the same. Government is not my big daddy. You make look upon government as a child looks upon a father, but some of us are adults.
Quote:
Interesting. How many rags to riches stories do you hear about now vs. 100 years ago? Back then, the American dream was alive and well. Immigrants would come over without a penny to their name, and many became tycoons within a generation. Don't see much of that now.
Yes and those immigrants were often NOT the recipients of any public education. Funny how that works out...
Quote:
not only is that purely anectdotal, but you didnt even live back then so you don't know how many stories there were being told. and obviously those stories would be exagerrated, glamorized and dramatized with each telling.
Just because you lack the imagination to make it on your own does not mean it doesn't happen or didn't happen. There are historical records of it happening... Andrew Carnegie Amadeo Peter Giannini (founder of Bank of America) Henry J. Kaiser (founder of Kaiser Steel & Kaiser Permanente) The above were found in a total of 3 minutes on internet searches. Check out their education levels...
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922238 - 07/23/04 09:41 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ah, so if we were to become a dictatorship, you would accept that because if you don't like it, you can leave. Correct?
the society owns the land so it must be the society that creates the laws through a democratic form of government. if the society chose to have a dictatorship then yes, i would leave. just as i would leave if i were placed in pre-wwII germany.
and 35 to 32% from one survey on something as extremely unreliable as self-reported happiness (and it wasnt even "are you happy or not" i take it, but "how happy are you") is completely statistically irrelevant.
Quote:
it does come to show that you do not need a public education to move up in society.
sorry what 'showed' that? and people rich enough to make the proper investment to become extremely rich would have needed capital to begin with. and in earlier times when america was being founded, there were a lot more beginning opportunties as it was a whole new market. and that only accounts for business opportunities. please explain how an uneducated person is going to get a good salary job. no public education is not an absolute prerequisite for social mobility, but you cannot possibily argue that it does not significantly increase it.
so you believe that a society does not have political authority within the boundary of the land that it 'owns'?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Tao]
#2922269 - 07/23/04 09:55 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
Ah, so if we were to become a dictatorship, you would accept that because if you don't like it, you can leave. Correct?
the society owns the land so it must be the society that creates the laws through a democratic form of government. if the society chose to have a dictatorship then yes, i would leave. just as i would leave if i were placed in pre-wwII germany.
Answer my question: Does the fact that you can leave make it ok? I'm sure the Jews that stayed behind and went to the concentration camps would love to hear your answer.
Quote:
and 35 to 32% from one survey on something as extremely unreliable as self-reported happiness (and it wasnt even "are you happy or not" i take it, but "how happy are you") is completely statistically irrelevant.
How so?
Quote:
Quote:
it does come to show that you do not need a public education to move up in society.
sorry what 'showed' that? and people rich enough to make the proper investment to become extremely rich would have needed capital to begin with. and in earlier times when america was being founded, there were a lot more beginning opportunties as it was a whole new market. and that only accounts for business opportunities. please explain how an uneducated person is going to get a good salary job. no public education is not an absolute prerequisite for social mobility, but you cannot possibily argue that it does not significantly increase it.
Like I said, you can start off with an apprenticeship at some manual labor job. This will keep enough money rolling in to keep your head above water(assuming you're not irresponsible enough to have children before you can afford to raise them). Meanwhile, there are libraries available for those who wish to educate themselves. Most intelligent people I've met have learned most of the things they know outside of school. There are many people who simply take a test to get their G.E.D. so they can finish High School early. Anything school can teach you can be learned independently.
Quote:
so you believe that a society does not have political authority within the boundary of the land that it 'owns'?
I believe that political authority is not absolute, and must respect people's natural rights in order to be legitimate.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Tao]
#2922291 - 07/23/04 10:04 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said: and people rich enough to make the proper investment to become extremely rich would have needed capital to begin with.
Just because you lack the imagination and drive to do it does not mean it isn't possible. People still come to this country with nothing, work hard, save and and build wealth.
Quote:
... and in earlier times when america was being founded, there were a lot more beginning opportunties as it was a whole new market.
Bullshit. You remind me of that guy who was the head of the patent office and said it should be shut down because there were no more things to be invented. People like you who lack imagination and fortitude will never do it because they believe it can't be done. Those who are open to possibilities and are willing to work hard are the ones who accomplish things, not the closed minded nay sayers.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Evolving]
#2922333 - 07/23/04 10:30 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Huh? What society has title to land?
that was directed to ss7 and his personal views on the subject
Quote:
You are conflating society with government, the two are not the same.
you've said this before and i still disagree. a democratic government is designed to represent the interests of a society.
Quote:
Is a dictator who makes the laws society?
not if he/she is the head of a non-democratic government.
Quote:
Is a president who issues executive orders the society?
he represents the society if he is democratically elected, yes (though as a side note i feel the electoral college is undemocratic, i felt so the first time i heard about it, before 2000).
Quote:
that's the whole idea of political sovereignty within borders. its like when a father says "well while you live under my roof, you'll live by my rules"
No, it's not the same. Government is not my big daddy. You make look upon government as a child looks upon a father, but some of us are adults.
that was referring to the society's roof and the society's laws. i understand you disagree that it is the society's roof or that the society is represented by a democratic government.
Quote:
Just because you lack the imagination to make it on your own does not mean it doesn't happen or didn't happen.
nowhere did i say it didnt happen i said there was no evidence that it happened more back then than it does now.
Quote:
Just because you lack the imagination and drive to do it does not mean it isn't possible.
again, i never said it was impossible, just that it was less likely to happen w/o public education and that publicly-funded education brings children up closer to the playing field making for better competition when they first enter the market.
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922349 - 07/23/04 10:39 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Does the fact that you can leave make it ok?
what do you mean 'make it ok'? if i cast my vote and the country is going in a way so completely opposite of my own views, than I leave. There were disagreeing minorities in pre-wwII germany, they would have been more helpful by leaving than by staying and being forced to fight for the nazis.
Quote:
and 35 to 32% from one survey on something as extremely unreliable as self-reported happiness (and it wasnt even "are you happy or not" i take it, but "how happy are you") is completely statistically irrelevant.
How so?
How so?! because its a small number (3%) its only one survey (scientific experiments must be repeated to be make a theory) and self-reporting is always an unreliable method of surveying on even factual objective questions--psychology openly admits that--much less on something as abstract as someone's 'happiness'.
Quote:
I believe that political authority is not absolute, and must respect people's natural rights in order to be legitimate.
unfortunately natural rights are just something humans have created on their own to justify why they 'deserve' what they deeply desire. open your mind a bit, read a book/take a class on metaethics.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Tao]
#2922376 - 07/23/04 10:47 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
Does the fact that you can leave make it ok?
what do you mean 'make it ok'? if i cast my vote and the country is going in a way so completely opposite of my own views, than I leave. There were disagreeing minorities in pre-wwII germany, they would have been more helpful by leaving than by staying and being forced to fight for the nazis.
Forget about how they could have been more helpful. Does the fact that they could have left justify the fate of those who stayed behind?
Quote:
Quote:
and 35 to 32% from one survey on something as extremely unreliable as self-reported happiness (and it wasnt even "are you happy or not" i take it, but "how happy are you") is completely statistically irrelevant.
How so?
How so?! because its a small number (3%) its only one survey (scientific experiments must be repeated to be make a theory) and self-reporting is always an unreliable method of surveying on even factual objective questions--psychology openly admits that--much less on something as abstract as someone's 'happiness'.
First off, how do you know it was just one survey? Second, what about the other statistics mentioned in the same paragraph?
Quote:
Quote:
I believe that political authority is not absolute, and must respect people's natural rights in order to be legitimate.
unfortunately natural rights are just something humans have created on their own to justify why they 'deserve' what they deeply desire. open your mind a bit, read a book/take a class on metaethics.
I've taken an Ethics course in college already. The book we read briefly attempted to debunk natural rights, and failed miserably.
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922413 - 07/23/04 11:03 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I've taken an Ethics course in college already. The book we read briefly attempted to debunk natural rights, and failed miserably.
I said metaethics--http://www.free-definition.com/Meta-ethics.html what you took was a class in normative ethics.
Quote:
First off, how do you know it was just one survey?
well you only mentioned one survey with an unconvincing 3% difference. don't surveys usually have +-% error?
Quote:
Second, what about the other statistics mentioned in the same paragraph?
well the divorce rate could easily be due to the women's liberation movement and secularization so that couples don't feel forced to committ to a marriage as much as they used to. the crime rate could be due to the drug war and any number of other things. this is all extremely, extremely correlatory to the point where its practically useless. "Well in this time period, X rose while Y decreased. Therefore X causes Y to decrease".
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922428 - 07/23/04 11:17 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Does the fact that they could have left justify the fate of those who stayed behind?
you're begging the question that there is moral objectivity, which there is not. If there is, once again, please prove it to me. No philosopher during history has ever been able to do so, so you'll forgive me if I sincerely doubt your ability to do so. If youre asking me whether I disagree with the actions of the dictator, yes i do, which is why i voted (and hypothetically would have been politically active) against him in the first place.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Tao]
#2922451 - 07/23/04 11:24 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Are you or are you not in a political forum, and do you or do you not argue in support of your opinions of what is right and what is wrong? If there is no moral objectivity, then why should we listen to you? It's just your opinion, and everyone else's is just as valid, so why argue at all? How can we argue over right and wrong if there are not certain values which are universally recognized?
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Tao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 11 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: silversoul7]
#2922486 - 07/23/04 11:41 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said: Are you or are you not in a political forum, and do you or do you not argue in support of your opinions of what is right and what is wrong? If there is no moral objectivity, then why should we listen to you? It's just your opinion, and everyone else's is just as valid, so why argue at all? How can we argue over right and wrong if there are not certain values which are universally recognized?
there is arguing over the best way to accomplish a goal that both sides desire. there is refuting misinformation, offering pertinent information and interpreting that information. but a lot of my time here I do in fact try to spend convincing (particularly the libertarians on the board it seems) that they are not unquestionably and objectively right but in fact merely hold a different set of values. But yes, trying to argue what is a right value to hold and what is a wrong value hold is mostly fruitless. One can only rely on persuasion (like C.L. Stevenson's emotivism). Persuasion is done by finding a root desire that both sides have and then showing how your solution satisfies that common desire better. However I think you exagerrate that all of the discussions on this board are simply arguing what values are right and which are wrong. What values would you say are 'universally recognized'? Killing others? What about in self defense? What about existentialists? Killing children? Infanticide used to be common. Theft? Communism. Blasphemy? Atheists. Suicide? Heaven's Gate Cult. There is no value that is universally recognized. People even disagree with psychological egoism, that individual happiness is universally valued.
|
aleighe
Stranger
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 5
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: Zahid]
#2937991 - 07/28/04 08:16 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
oh will ya just piss off with those lame stories.
The fact is if America had any pansy John Kerry or Bill Clinton as a president when the 9/11 happpened it would of all being hug giving. G. B went out there.. got the barstards.. killed the ****.. in the middle of returning democracy to a depleated Iraq..has all the big terrorist scared and in hiding..and is in the end ( which may be far away ) giving all of us fairy pro everything countries a chance at a more peaceful life.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!


Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Former professor: Bush not qualified for President [Re: aleighe]
#2938002 - 07/28/04 08:20 PM (19 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The fact is if America had any pansy John Kerry or Bill Clinton as a president when the 9/11 happpened it would of all being hug giving.
Most retarded statement of the day
--------------------
  "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
|