Remove this ad

avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#41 [url]

Jun 1 16 7:37 PM

plarblman wrote:

Long Tom wrote:
Marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a LEGAL institution!  It's like saying that owning a car is a religious institution.  If marriage were a religious institution, atheists be definition could not possibly legally marry.  

Marriage far predates marriage law. We're talking like ancient times here. Secular government had no authority over marriage until the early modern period.

As for whether atheists being unable to get married, it would be a moot point. If marriage is strictly a religious institution, atheists lose nothing by not getting married. If they want to form a couple, they can still do that. If they want to make vows, they can still do that. It simply won't be recognized under the formalities of a religion like it normally would, which they wouldn't even care about in the first place.

How about we say the government can give out civil unions (which would functionally and legally be identical to marriages today) but it has no authority on what religions consider is marriage? Is that a fair compromise?

*sigh* I feel like I'm arguing that the Pope is Catholic.

Marriage has ALWAYS been law, religious or otherwise.  Marriage is fundamentally law, as much as a contract to pay off your automobile loan.  Like I said, atheists have always had the right to marry.  Why do you think you can go to a Justice Of The Peace to marry, as opposed to a church?  (BTW, ship captains, contrary to popular myth do not have the legal right to marry couples, unless they are ordained ministers.)

Incidentally, guess why gay people demand the right to marry?  Contrary to what you say, civil unions simply are not identical to marriages,  So I learned on another forum.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#42 [url]

Jun 1 16 7:43 PM

peabrain wrote:

Beardfist wrote:
"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress should have made the change, I personally believe. However, regarding that specific case itself, as I recall it was being settled regarding some of the more nuanced shit regarding the benefits of married peoples, and Congress is loathe to actually go in and work in depth on any bill at any time. It's the branch of government I detest the most and would really enjoy fundamentally overhauling in ways that folk like Thomas Sowell have suggested: longer terms, but only ever single terms for reps and senators.

 

Just from a little cursory research, it looks like a lot of civil rights court cases were decided upon because Congress did not pass "corrective legislation."I think my favorite is Lawrence v. Texas.
 

Yeah, it's happened for a long time. Chief Justice Marshall is argued as the well from which it all sprung, though I largely agree with the limited ways in which he expanded the judiciary's power (notably judicial review). The extent to which it has risen lately, though, is pretty worrisome. Consider that, if the court had operated the way it was supposed to, 'separate but equal' laws would have been stricken down far sooner than Brown, as they clearly violated the constitution. But by using interprative judging, the at-the-time court found some obscure way to justify those laws--and, in effect, made similar ones legal throughout the country by setting precedent. This is why the court's current state is absolutely bogus, because it has many powers that it was not intended to do and could seriously upset political balance if the 4-1-4 de facto (it can operate with almost any number of justices iirc) balance is shifted. So many people are worried about Trump appointing justices, yet they support the SCOTUS effectively bypassing Congress to pass legislation. Well, you wouldn't need to worry if they weren't overextending their reach!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#43 [url]

Jun 1 16 8:32 PM

ohitsyou wrote:
Like, you will not find too many conservatives disagreeing that whales are mammals as they produce milk and give out live young.
WAIT WAIT SHUT UP A MINUTE WAIT. You're telling me whale cheese could be a thing? Maybe if we get the Japanese hooked on it they'll stop racing to eat them extinct, which would put that pile of hippie shit "Whale Wars" off the air...
.
ohitsyou wrote:
If you want to look at a party who always seems to have pockets in corporations, its deffintely the conservatives, becuase their more concerned in making a profit for themselves.
Oh, you are mistaken. Check out who Wall Street is giving more money to and you may have yourself a surprising revelation. Hillary Clinton didn't make 21 mil doing speeches because bankers enjoy the sound of her voice, and Wall Street threw way more cash at Obama than Mitt Romney. It's pretty easy to understand why, once you ignore the staggering amount of TV and movie fiction that depict conservatives feeding poor people to corporate furnaces and liberals defeating people killing the Earth by smoking pot and refusing to move.

A conservative doesn't want the government to decide who wins and loses in the markets, even soon-to-be markets like fried whale cheese with squid (favorite number one in Japan!). A liberal/socialist and hypothetical whale cheese monger, Shamu Swiss, on the other hand, will conspire to eliminate SS's competition in exchange for sweet kickbacks via regulations with exceptions that destroy their competition.
.
peabrain wrote:
Second, evolution is absolutely something you can observe. Where do you think antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains come from?
That's adaptation, not evolution. If evolution were provable it would be "The Law of Evolution" to use the proper scientific naming.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Sindy

Living Spambot

Posts: 833

#44 [url]

Jun 1 16 8:49 PM

A liberal/socialist and hypothetical whale cheese monger, Shamu Swiss, on the other hand, will conspire to eliminate SS's competition in exchange for sweet kickbacks via regulations with exceptions that destroy their competition.


​We talkin' the Nazi SS? Doubt they will be much intimidated by whale cheese :(
​It's worth a shot though! They've been gone 61 years by now! Can't -really- put much of a fight. Not even against whale cheese.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#45 [url]

Jun 1 16 8:53 PM

Sindy wrote:
A liberal/socialist and hypothetical whale cheese monger, Shamu Swiss, on the other hand, will conspire to eliminate SS's competition in exchange for sweet kickbacks via regulations with exceptions that destroy their competition.


​We talkin' the Nazi SS? Doubt they will be much intimidated by whale cheese :(
​It's worth a shot though! They've been gone 61 years by now! Can't -really- put much of a fight. Not even against whale cheese.
Why not? National Socialism was pretty big about choosing who would be in business and who wouldn't, which is why particularly big businesses (seemingly) paradoxically favor socialism. It's only under capitalism (with some regulations to prevent abuses like trusts or selling products at a loss) where competition would result in the best whale cheeses as well as the most economical whale cheeses being produced.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#46 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:01 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:

Sindy wrote:

A liberal/socialist and hypothetical whale cheese monger, Shamu Swiss, on the other hand, will conspire to eliminate SS's competition in exchange for sweet kickbacks via regulations with exceptions that destroy their competition.


​We talkin' the Nazi SS? Doubt they will be much intimidated by whale cheese :(
​It's worth a shot though! They've been gone 61 years by now! Can't -really- put much of a fight. Not even against whale cheese.

Why not? National Socialism was pretty big about choosing who would be in business and who wouldn't, which is why particularly big businesses (seemingly) paradoxically favor socialism. It's only under capitalism (with some regulations to prevent abuses like trusts or selling products at a loss) where competition would result in the best whale cheeses as well as the most economical whale cheeses being produced.

I've read the Osprey Publications book on the Allgemeine-SS (which took care of administrative  matters in Nazi Germany), and believe me, they certainly took over a lot of industries and got their financing from them.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Sindy

Living Spambot

Posts: 833

#47 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:06 PM

But would I, as a fucking commie, have to queue for my monthly ration of whale cheese?

​Or would it be such a luxury only our corrupt dictator which should be me would afford it?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#48 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:08 PM

Yeah, taking over the industries they believe they can run is the next step after seizing power. Business people tend to get confused about how valuable they will be to their new masters and wind up surprised there's no public outrage (in spite of knowing the media is wholly owned by the government). Even in potentially lucrative markets such as fried whale cheese with squid futures.
.

Sindy wrote:
But would I, as a fucking commie, have to queue for my monthly ration of whale cheese?

​Or would it be such a luxury only our corrupt dictator which should be me would afford it?
Corrupt Socialist dictatorships are all about powerful people trading people back the fruits of their own labor for "special favors".

Quote    Reply   
avatar

peabrain

Regular User

Posts: 167

#49 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:09 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
That's adaptation, not evolution. If evolution were provable it would be "The Law of Evolution" to use the proper scientific naming.
 

It's microevolution, if you want to get nit-picky, I guess. Adaptation is defined as an evolutionary process, in any case. And Theory means that it has a considerable body of evidence supporting it. As far as I understand "Law" is only used for mathematical statements, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#50 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:16 PM

Well, for the true Überwalkäse, the ideal is a system very different from what the US currently has. As ya point out, we're right now in this junky late-stage capitalism where business is horribly in bed with the government. I just have trouble imaging a system working for a country so big as the US where corruption is contained to an absolute minimum. Friedman points to Hong Kong's success as a laissez-faire economy, which I largely agree with, but it was some dinky little thing. Even if we decentralize power to the degree that we were supposed to, corruption via lobbying and special interests would creep into local politics and elections. More stringent shit, like the clear campaign finance laws that Germany boasts, would help so much. As would ejecting lobbyists from Government in virtually every way possible, and way more heavily boosting politician transparency. Even then, I dunno how much good it would do. And would there ever be political capital for that in the current climate?

nope

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#51 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:18 PM

peabrain wrote:
SmashLampjaw wrote:
That's adaptation, not evolution. If evolution were provable it would be "The Law of Evolution" to use the proper scientific naming. 
It's microevolution, if you want to get nit-picky, I guess.
I'm aware people pushing the whole "evolution can be proved" line call adaptation in bacteria "microevolution". The problem is that evolution requires traits to develop over time and be passed down genetically. In the case of bacterial reproduction, the new bacteria are made of the old bacteria, so whatever it was they did to adapt can only be said to be a part of the previous bacteria.
.
peabrain wrote:
Adaptation is defined as an evolutionary process, in any case.
No, a permanent adaptation that was passed down genetically would be proof of evolution. Adaptation itself happens at an individual level and is not a subset of evolution. For example, if you moved to a hotter climate from a colder climate, like many of the people fleeing NYC and New Jersey for Texas and Florida, there would be a period of thinking you were going to die every time you went outside during the summer. Eventually, your body will adapt to the heat, sweating more quickly, producing less heat on your own when outside, etc. That's not evolution. If you moved back to NYC while still adapted to the heat and had a child, that child would grow up adapting to the cold.
.
peabrain wrote:
And Theory means that it has a considerable body of evidence supporting it. As far as I understand "Law" is only used for mathematical statements, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, in science these terms have very specific meanings. A theory is an explanation for something that has been thoroughly proven, following thorough attempts to disprove it or to find a better answer, but which has not been conclusively, undeniably proven to be correct. A law is something which is undeniably proven correct, like the Laws of Thermodynamics of Laws of Motion. There's room (though not much) to reasonably doubt the Theory of Evolution without being an idiot; the same cannot be said for doubting the aforementioned laws.
.
Beardfist wrote:
As ya point out, we're right now in this junky late-stage capitalism where business is horribly in bed with the government.
Capitalism is not where the government intervenes in the market. That's socialism.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Sindy

Living Spambot

Posts: 833

#52 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:20 PM

Not even whale cheese has saved this mess.

​Truly our grate lord Chesus Rice has died in vain for our sins.

Serves him right, fucking commie



​I'm gonna kill myself if this starts a religious derail I swear...

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#53 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:27 PM

Yuku going insane for anyone else? I think we may have strayed too far from whale cheese and are feeding Thread 666 with our angst. I will bail for tonight and hope the forum's back to normal tomorrow.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

peabrain

Regular User

Posts: 167

#54 [url]

Jun 1 16 9:43 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
No, a permanent adaptation that was passed down genetically would be proof of evolution. Adaptation itself happens at an individual level and is not a subset of evolution. For example, if you moved to a hotter climate from a colder climate, like many of the people fleeing NYC and New Jersey for Texas and Florida, there would be a period of thinking you were going to die every time you went outside during the summer. Eventually, your body will adapt to the heat, sweating more quickly, producing less heat on your own when outside, etc. That's not evolution.

 

 
You're describing Lamarck's Theory, which was the idea that an individual passes on traits it acquired during its lifetime. Adaptation happens at the population level over many generations.
SmashLampjaw wrote:
No, in science these terms have very specific meanings. A theory is an explanation for something that has been thoroughly proven, following thorough attempts to disprove it or to find a better answer, but which has not been conclusively, undeniably proven to be correct. A law is something which is undeniably proven correct, like the Laws of Thermodynamics of Laws of Motion.


I haven't found an example of a Law that isn't a mathematical statement. The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Laws of Motion are all mathematical.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#55 [url]

Jun 1 16 10:04 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
Capitalism is not where the government intervenes in the market. That's socialism.

Well, I see socialism as intervention originating from the state. I see a somewhat inevitable flaw of capitalism as businesses themselves originating the push towards intervention, in order to monopolize or at the least drive off top competitors. It ultimately does not perhaps matter who started the motion, as the end result is the same: an unnatural skew created by extra-market forces. I argue this flaw as inevitable, I guess, from a point of cynicism: if government steels itself merely to interrupt trusts and monopolies, and otherwise does not intervene in the markets outside of perhaps sanctions or shortterm diplomatic exercises, then this problem never comes to a head. I don't see reason to believe that on a scale as big as the US, that balance can be maintained with our current structure of government. 

But I'm not so sure how to turn back the clock to reach a point at which business does not wield such a clout of power in government. Clearly going through governmental means is virtually impossible when lobbyists can orchestrate rigid defenses that abuse constitutional design. Raising mass sentiment is very hard, as business and media quite thoroughly censor a great deal. And, as we saw with that absolutely blood-boiling series of bailouts, we refuse even to allow businesses themselves to collapse under their own hubris. 

Personally, I have my eyes on Singapore and India, if only because I believe that region will be the next important economic hub. Singapore has a very strong pro-market approach, so far as I can tell, but it has a very censorious and authoritarian government. Still, it has largely earned the peoples' favor, and seems to self-regulate surprisingly well compared to other one-party "democracies" (looking at you, Jacob Zuma). India's rather already closer to a socialist system, but the way its parliament works... radical change never seems particularly far-off, and I've listened to a good number of prominent Indian scholars discuss why stronger socialism in the country would collapse given how massive and diverse it is, in terms of markets and ethnic cultures and geography. 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#56 [url]

Jun 1 16 10:13 PM

WAIT WAIT SHUT UP A MINUTE WAIT. You're telling me whale cheese could be a thing? Maybe if we get the Japanese hooked on it they'll stop racing to eat them extinct, which would put that pile of hippie shit "Whale Wars" off the air...

I know it sounds like I'm stating the obvious, but thats the point. As much crap we give conservatives, at least they have grounding with present reality. I'm just giving some credit to them for at least understanding that.

Oh, you are mistaken. Check out who Wall Street is giving more money to and you may have yourself a surprising revelation. Hillary Clinton didn't make 21 mil doing speeches because bankers enjoy the sound of her voice, and Wall Street threw way more cash at Obama than Mitt Romney. It's pretty easy to understand why, once you ignore the staggering amount of TV and movie fiction that depict conservatives feeding poor people to corporate furnaces and liberals defeating people killing the Earth by smoking pot and refusing to move.

A conservative doesn't want the government to decide who wins and loses in the markets, even soon-to-be markets like fried whale cheese with squid (favorite number one in Japan!). A liberal/socialist and hypothetical whale cheese monger, Shamu Swiss, on the other hand, will conspire to eliminate SS's competition in exchange for sweet kickbacks via regulations with exceptions that destroy their competition.


Yeah, I already pointed out that Hillary does have a lot of corporate donors. In fact, I'm hoping that she is competent enough with negiotiations with them that maybe something positive would come out of it. Yeah, Barack Obama did the same thing, but he's a pretty weak president, so I'm not suprised not much good came out of it.
However, going back to the topic at hand, corporations are not stupid, even I know that. If you just use the conservatitves all the time, it would be too obvious where you go for your good and services and then be accused of operating a monopoly. Also, there is an untaped market with the liberals, since conservatives know how corporations and money lawndering work, so corps dont get as much profit out of it for certain policies. Its also possible that even conservatives are aware of this, and know when to stay out of the corpoations ways. As Ive said, even conservatives are not stupid. 
The reason I said untapped market is that liberals are more oblivious to how corp work compared to whath the conservatives know. You heard of multiculturialism, right? As much as Liberals acted like they invented, its more of a corporate idea than a liberal one. I mean, if the idea is that we are all the same culture and people, which Liberals would think would make us stronger, woudnt it just be easier to make a buck off of us? Its more about cheap labor and lowering wages than it is about making us stronger. In fact, it makes us more suceptible to corps who just want to exploit it, and the liberals dont care becuase they care more appearing good to foreigners than they do their own citizens. (Look at Europe) So yes, Liberals are in the corporate hands, but there not as aware of it. At least the conservatives are aware what corporations do.

Look, all admit that some of these ideas sound like a conspiracy theory. And maybe some of these ideas are crazy. But the one thing I do want to get across is the conservatives are not stupid. I mean, what if its possible that their feigning stupidity? Its not that hard, as all you have to do to show your stupid is to prove that you are a failure. Its harder to prove sucess than it is to prove failure. Heck, its easy and profitable to pretend to be a failure. "I cant do anything, can you do it for me?" or "I says evolution does not exist, will you vote for me?" Just stop looking down upon them, becuase what makes conservatives dangerous is not that their dumb, its that they know how to act underhanded. Dont say they are a threat, respect them as a threat.

Last Edited By: ohitsyou Jun 1 16 10:25 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#57 [url]

Jun 1 16 10:29 PM

peabrain wrote:
SmashLampjaw wrote:
No, a permanent adaptation that was passed down genetically would be proof of evolution. Adaptation itself happens at an individual level and is not a subset of evolution. For example, if you moved to a hotter climate from a colder climate, like many of the people fleeing NYC and New Jersey for Texas and Florida, there would be a period of thinking you were going to die every time you went outside during the summer. Eventually, your body will adapt to the heat, sweating more quickly, producing less heat on your own when outside, etc. That's not evolution.
You're describing Lamarck's Theory, which was the idea that an individual passes on traits it acquired during its lifetime. Adaptation happens at the population level over many generations.
I was trying to break you of the notion adaptation is synonymous with evolution. If you want to apply what I said over generations, take the original example and have your great-great-(ad nauseum) granddaughter move back. The same will be true; the child will adapt to the cold in spite of your previous adaptations to heat. Proof of evolution (involving adaptation) would be more along the lines of the heat causes a genetic mutation in you, and your descendants, to the point your line eventually are another species altogether, and that these traits could be passed on genetically.
.
peabrain wrote:
SmashLampjaw wrote:
No, in science these terms have very specific meanings. A theory is an explanation for something that has been thoroughly proven, following thorough attempts to disprove it or to find a better answer, but which has not been conclusively, undeniably proven to be correct. A law is something which is undeniably proven correct, like the Laws of Thermodynamics of Laws of Motion.
I haven't found an example of a Law that isn't a mathematical statement. The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Laws of Motion are all mathematical.
The Laws of Thermodynamics describe the behavior of heat, not math. The Laws of Motion describe the foundations of inertia and potential energy, not math. The fact that they are the foundation for mathematical equations does not make them statements about math. If you have some other meaning when you say mathematical, I am not understanding it.
.
Beardfist wrote:
SmashLampjaw wrote:
Capitalism is not where the government intervenes in the market. That's socialism.
Well, I see socialism as intervention originating from the state. I see a somewhat inevitable flaw of capitalism as businesses themselves originating the push towards intervention, in order to monopolize or at the least drive off top competitors. It ultimately does not perhaps matter who started the motion, as the end result is the same: an unnatural skew created by extra-market forces. I argue this flaw as inevitable, I guess, from a point of cynicism
My point was socialism isn't a byproduct of capitalism. If you look at capitalism, what you see is the least complicated form of moving goods and services between people. The less extra bullshit that is involved, the less protection for the incompetent, the more wealth that the system generates. Socialism is one of several other forms of economies that only exist by sucking the blood out of capitalism. They appear where capitalism is because they feed upon it, not because capitalism creates them.
.
ohitsme wrote:
Yeah, I already pointed out that Hillary does have a lot of corporate donors.
Sorry I missed that. Yuku was freaking out a bit earlier.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#58 [url]

Jun 2 16 3:34 AM

At my senior high school lunch table, if somebody brought a container of chocolate ice cream from the cafteria, people would shout,
"Whale shit!  Yo-ho!"
"Fresh from the bottom, yo-ho!"

And when the person started eating it,
"Down the hatch!"

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#59 [url]

Jun 2 16 3:39 AM

@Ohitsyou-

You seem to have falled for the myth that liberal politicians are all pure-hearted angels who don't understand capitalism.  How wrong you are.

Every politician who has been around knows perfectly well about the power of corporations-and how limited said power is.  After all, corporations aren't always in collusion; there are such things as fighting and rivalries too.  What is in the interests of Corporation A is not in the interests of Corporation B.

Neither Hillary nor Barack are the angels you like to think they are.  That's just the image the put out to gullible voters.  Needless to say, neither of them fooled me for a minute.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,167

#60 [url]

Jun 2 16 5:22 AM

Beardfist wrote:
As ya point out, we're right now in this junky late-stage capitalism where business is horribly in bed with the government. I just have trouble imaging a system working for a country so big as the US where corruption is contained to an absolute minimum.

This is something that I've thought about, and I think the main issue here is that thanks to things such as economies of scale, when you only have a couple of really big business instead of many small businesses, you move away from the free market towards an imperfect market model where the few remaining competitors start taking cues from each other rather than truly trying to improve. In effect you have an oligarchic system where each company doesn't feel like it needs to improve because any frustrated customer's only options are either to go to a competitor who's only doing the exact same thing, or forgo any kind of service altogether. Just look at how much people hate cable companies.

My idea is that this is largely a result of structural problems. Again, thanks to economies of scale, things like manufacturing require massive factory systems to be feasible, thereby pricing out new startups that could bring necessary changes to the industry. The only time you ever see any improvements is in entirely new industries. IT became as successful and innovative as it was because nobody was foing what facebook / google etc was doing. And now that they're massive corporations with virtually no competition, people hate how terrible their service has become, and the only way to break into the business is to try and create something different enough to attract new users, rather than create a simple alternative since most people won't want to leave for a service that doesn't have a lot of content or users yet. What we need is a model that "decentralizes" industry, whether it's open source in IT, or small scale consumer manufacturers with the rise of 3D printing, so that we don't get this problem of the market being dominated by a few massive companies who get to dictate what direction the market goes in and have no incentive to improve. And it is possible to manufacture locally rather than depend on massive factories overseas; right now its limited to niche products and small batch products where takt time is more important than cost, but if the 3D printing industry matures enough where cost can be decreased dramatically, I could easily see it replacing a lot of consumer manufacturing for cheaper products. Like, say you want a blender. You can buy a deluxe $50 model at Sears, or a perfectly adequate $10 model fresh off the press at your local hardware store. That's the kind of thing I want to see.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help