Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/2/07 06:02 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: I went because I didn't want to regret not going. It was fun, but hardly something I'll "remember forever."

Trust me, you wouldn't have regretted not going.

This place is a madhouse.

And I agree lazydrunk. Peewee's Playhouse FTW. And that monster who ate cats. Alf. I don't really remember either, but we have a couple seasons of Peewee on DVD now. What an insane show.

At 3/30/07 09:40 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I didn't know you knew German... when did you start with it?

Couple years ago. It's horrible.

At 4/1/07 01:40 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Newgrounds fails at April Fool's Day.

The joke is that they're actually going to upgrade the site someday, right? =P

At 3/31/07 09:40 AM, Slizor wrote: How about getting a job that involves use of critical thinking and knowledge of current affairs?

Those are pretty few and far between, you idealist you.

To say that any single person "defeated communism" is meaningless tripe. The Soviet Union collapsed because it was an untenable system. It would have happened whether or not we elected a senile actor.

At 3/30/07 02:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Guilliani lacks the moral characteristics for a man for president.

Incorrect. Guiliani lacks your morals for you to vote for him. We've had presidents who are pro-choice and divorcees.

I just don't like his morals.

Better. But this doesn't answer the topic-starters question of why we don't hear much about him.

At 3/30/07 02:44 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Expierencing it yourself.
Self exploration, travel, talking, reading, watching listening.
Stay active, stay critical.
Become more cultural, learn some more on culturals, foods, religions, customs ect ect.
Try not to be just book smart but have common sense.

Masturbation? Talking about sports? Watching squirrels running around? I think your suggestions are vague and vapid. How does cooking new foods allow me to continue to think critically? Don't take offense, I'm trying to get you to rephrase that. If experience was all that was needed, then it would seem that everyone might be more invested in things outside of their immediate bubble, yes?

They're a satellite of the US. I agree with Gunter, obviously most powerful, dominant country in the Middle East. But they're still to this day dependent on US aid.

Have any suggestions on how to combat cynicism and apathy? I feel like most people become apathetic after they come to the assumption that they cannot change things. So the first step in combatting apathy is empowering people by showing them how they can make a difference in the world. Eh?

So I'm about to graduate, and thinking about the future. I'm not going to be going on for another degree, at least for the time being, and I'm presented with the problem of how to continue my education. I think there's the danger of getting a job and becoming so invested in it and life in general that your critical thinking suffers, and you miss out on events, and how to interpret the world around us. I feel as if this happens to most people the world over, but I'm not ready to veg out just yet. I have my ideas of staying active and informed politically, but I'd like to hear from the peanut gallery first!

Also, after pondering that, I'd like to hear what you believe is effective or not. Staying up on the news (traditional or new media?), reading books or other sources that go "further" than the news, becoming involved in political action or study groups, attending lectures and speakers, events, or...?

At 3/30/07 12:42 PM, fli wrote: You MUST get R. Crumb's Kafka.
Not a graphic novel... not a comic...
psychedelic graphics and writing...

For 10 bucks, you'll enjoy reading it over and over again.

I love R. Crumb. My Zippo has a Crumb drawing on it. What Kafka book is it? I'll definitely check it out..

*goes hunting on amazon.com*

I've got quite a few books I need to order actually..

I support euthanasia if the person is in a condition to be able to request it, or if they have left a living will or clearly dictated their wishes to the next of kin.

At 3/27/07 08:31 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Me neither, but I'm surprised that someone hasn't come out yet saying "Well, if Bush wasn't so against stem cell research/environmental regulations/whatever, Snow would have a cure he could take."

Is this why you made the topic?

And I can think of many worse ways to go than with cancer and able to afford treatment. Come on.

Giuliani isn't tall enough to be president.

You know what's even more fun than reading Kafka?

Reading Kafka in German.

Ach!

The topic starter does realize that Canada's healthcare system is ranked consistently better than America's by any number of benchmarks, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and, most significantly, the WHO's World Health Reports (arguably the most extensive / far-reaching research available).

All the while spending less than half as much per capita as Americans.

Just FYI.

.... Stay in school kids.

At 3/27/07 12:53 AM, Death-Cannon wrote: Oops forgot the 100 of 100000 link:

Link 3

That doesn't work, that's an "average" over the entire time that Saddam was in power. This included numerous civil uprisings and massacres in the '80s and early '90s.

And to compare the "violent death rate" of Iraq to US cities (as your second link does) is truly asinine, considering that US cities have accurate statistics, while Iraq is.. well. A war zone. Look at your first two links. They contradict themselves hardcore. The first link cites 9,000 "violent" deaths a year, the second cites an AP estimate of 13,700 in 2006 (and from the same link, the Iraq government says 16,200). But we must also admit that many deaths are going unreported because of the horrid conditions of hospitals and the civil sector in Iraq. Finally, I'd contest the idea that looking solely at "violent" deaths is very meaningful in the first place.

Thanks for the links though.

At 3/26/07 09:09 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually, I'm not basing my arguments on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence would be the stats you quote from a college course. However, since this is essentially a theoretical/philosophical discussion we have the latitude to bring in personal experience (which is subjective and NOT empirical in nature because it cannot be quantified).

Also, you're talking about two different things when you're talking about government and society. What you've been talking about is governmental responsibility for the poor and worst off. However, society encompasses so much more than government.

What I believe is that the government is the least well suited to help the people at the bottom of the barrel. Family, churches and philantropists are much better suited at helping those people. Afterall if Bill Gates or those guys from Ben & Jerry's do not see results from a failing charity they can defund it and put that money where it will make a difference. However, once the government starts a program it is going to continue to be funded whether it produces results or not. This is a waste of tax-payer money, that could be better spent in my pocket!

I'll grant that unarguable statistics are empirical if you acknowledge that personal experience is empirical. This is a huge concession on my part, take it. =P

Yes, society encompasses much more than government. Civil society (church, Ben & Jerry) certainly has a place in aiding the worse off. I don't believe that civil society or charity can have a large enough impact, however. Government has the ability to redistribute income on a scale that wouldn't otherwise be done. Bill Gates isn't the norm. Eastern Europe might be a very interesting place to watch over the next few decades. Following the fall of the wall, they've becoming very liberal (in the classical sense) with little in the way of government programs, and even flat income taxes. Whether civil society will be able to adequately serve the worst off remains to be seen. I could again point out the destitute conditions of the worst off before the 20th century in the US, (pre-safety net) but you could counter with something about societal changes, how nowadays the belief in universal human dignity (or what have you) is more widespread..

It is exceptionally relevant, and it is not a contradiction. Each and everyone of us has the power to change the direction of our future...if we so choose to do it. Our past influences who we are and does set up a pattern of behavior, however it does not dictate that we will continue on that path. This is free will, and it threatens liberals because it means that people to some degree share the responsibility for whatever position they occupy in society whether it be high or low.

Naw, this is irrelevant. i've already acknowledged the need to believe in "free will" and the need to be responsible for our actions.

Ummm...there was even specialization of labor in hunter-gather societies. The guy who was a better hunter would do more hunting than say a person who was skilled at making arrowheads. Then there was the gathering. I read a news story about how women see more shades of red than men. The belief is that this is due to a biological specialization for gathering, that in primitive societies this was useful in telling poison berries from edible berries. So you see, the specialization of labor is hard-wired into human beings regardless of level of civilization.
And actually, true equality began with property rights. This was where a person could say that an object or parcel of land was theirs, that they had done something to earn it and that no one could take it away based upon their physical ability to. Now there have been times that certain stratas of a society will deny other stratas these rights, but that is an error of the society...not property rights.

There was specialization of labor, but it wasn't stratified as with the beginning of agriculture. Everyone's worth and labor was essentially equivalent because it was equally necessary. After some began farming, this created excess food so everyone wasn't involved in primarily food product, and true specialization and stratification began in earnest. But I don't see this line of discussion as going anywhere..

The idea that the existence of property rights creates equality is warped. Property (/agriculture) was the first step in creating a stratified economy, and economic inequality begets social / political inequality.

And I am challenging flawed assumptions...yours. This notion of "positive" vs "negative" property rights is simply Marxism in a new form. Afterall, you just spouted some Marxist thought when you said inequality began with property rights.
Furthermore, you are redefining my philosophy to put me in a box that does not threaten your initial arguments in this thread. I am a libertarian. I do concede a certain amount of government intervention...but overall I believe it should be less than it is today. And that is something that puts me at odds with both liberals and conservatives.

The fact that something I said might sound similar to what something Marx said, does not mean I'm a Marxist or arguing for communism. As far as libertarianism, I began this thread addressing the traditional libertarian argument that the sole rights that ought to be expected are negative, property rights chief amongst them. The presence of government welfare (however "limited") is not libertarianism in the truest sense. I'm not redefining your philosophy, I'm addressing a philosophy you only partly take stock in.

At 3/25/07 10:01 PM, Death-Cannon wrote: It wasn't just the Germans.

It was a simplified example, I didn't say the Germans deserved all blame. Save the history lesson. And I'd like a source stating that the violent death rate was 100 per 100,000 in 2002. And how about one for the 45 in a 100,000 too, for that matter.

At 3/25/07 05:49 PM, TheMason wrote: See this is where our worldviews and life experiences clash. Where I grew up at was in rural Missouri. And parent's education level was not a good predictor/indicator of going to college. Both my parents went to college, true, BUT they were the first to go to college. In fact when my dad told his parents he was going, his mom's reaction was "What the hell would you want to do that for?" My best friend; neither parent went to college. My ex-wife...no indoor plumbing...she's an MD now. I did not grow up in suburbia but an economically depressed rural farming community. I've seen people succeed because they wanted to, but I've also seen a great many not succeed because they simply did not want to put forth the effort. And that is CHOOSING to be poor and unsuccessful.

And yes, we are a sum of our past experiences. However, our future is not dictated by these experiences and origins (like they are in the DPRK). I have seen several people use their disadvantageous past/origins as their driving motive to succeed.

I'm not basing this view on empirical evidence as you keep doing. The college thing is based on stats. Empirically, I similarly break the rule. I grew up in rural VT and NY. Neither of my parents graduated from college. The first four or five years of my life we lived on the top of a mountain in Vermont, where the rent was free during the winter. (We were doing the landlord as much a favor as she us.) We had no running water. We had an outhouse and the nearest water was a stream several miles away (downhill). My parents had chosen to live there. It was a decent existence. None of this changes my belief that society has a responsibility to its worst off.

You contradicted yourself in the second paragraph. Our futures are dictated by our past experiences, whether or not people "use the experiences" as motive to succeed. Using them for motivation or for despair (or to rob a liquor store), it's still reacting to our past experiences, bud. But I'm not sure where this line of thought came from or how relevant it is. We're just reacting to what's happened to us, but I acknowledge that we still need to take responsibility for our lives. (If only for a utilitarian consideration of a just relatively civilized society.)

It goes further back than specialized labor. There have always been humans who cannot stand still, the immovable movers. They are driven to always be producing. However, there are those people (and always have been) who want nothing more out of life than to just scrape out a meager existance. Yeah, they'll bitch about being poor and disadvantaged...but when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road they reveal this bitching is just talk.

Before the specialization of labor humans lived in communal hunter-gatherer societies where practically everyone was looked out for. True economic inequality began with property rights and agriculture, where we suddenly got a choice in how we live our lives. (Obviously I'm not advocating a return to hunting-gathering......)

So what more do you want than we've got right now? We are at full employment. There are many ways to get job skills be it vocational training or college. If people are not taking advantage of them, it means there are deeper issues of human nature that need to be addressed...and not by the addition of a government program.
And it does. Again, what more do you want? There is equalization of opportunity/training/education in this country. The fact that some people haven't taken advantage of it, doesn't meant that the government can maximize it any further.

This thread isn't really about suggesting concrete changes. It's about challenging flawed assumptions. I would not call you a libertarian of any stripe after what you've conceded in this thread for example. You've acknowledge the value of a certain amount of government intervention. (The amount that is just is again, something I'm not entirely interested in arguing ATM.)

Then do me a favor and don't "editorialize" on material you're only vaguely familiar with. :-)

Ayn Rand is not the end-all, be-all of libertarian thought. She's just one author whose knob is constantly slobbed on. =P

How does a democratic state that values positive rights (I'm thinking the US here..) slowly descend into a totalitarian state? North Korea doesn't seem to be a good example since it's never really had a history (that I know of) of democratic rule.. Recently. Nor is it a particularly "liberal" state, in the definition I've been using..

At 3/24/07 05:41 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Do you make it spin, and do risky maneuvers like in commercials?

Yes. Sex?

At 3/24/07 05:43 PM, fli wrote: With the price of gas going up and the other car being old... I might as well make myself an investment and buy a hybrid. Expensive yeah... but-- It's better for the environment and I don't see the difference of paying a lot now or paying a lot through out the years.

Right now hybrids really don't pay for themselves. I mean, technically it could, if you drove for a living and put a lot of miles on it. But the initial cost is $$$, and down the road there will be huge costs associated with replacing the battery ($3000+) and the misc. other systems.

For someone wanting good gas mileage, I would tell them to get a diesel. This really pretty much limits you to VW, but a nice diesel Golf can get the same mileage as a hybrid. Diesel is a little more expensive than regular unleaded, but the cars are cheap. Emissions are comparable to gasoline-powered cars; you're just emitting different stuff. But you live in California, and I'm unsure of the availability of diesel passenger cars right now. The US as a whole as switching to low-particular diesel fuel, and this means a lot of changes all over the country.

In short... BUY A MINI FLI!! Get a new base model Cooper, according to the rat bastards that estimate fuel economy, it'll get 32/40 city/highway. But I've averaged more than my "rated" highway driving, so if you're miserly you can prolly get +40mpg in mixed driving. mmmmm.. And you'll love driving it, trust me. =P

At 3/24/07 06:05 PM, Nylo wrote: I'm not saying that libertarianism is the best choice of political ideology, I'm saying that the liberal method of "moderate" intervention is worse.

Then make an argument for it.

At 3/25/07 03:09 PM, TheMason wrote: However, what I'm arguing against is the idea that your conseptualization of "positive" rights will eventually lead to: socialism.

Then we're not even talking about the same things. I'm not saying that positive rights leads to socialism, I'm not even advocating socialism.

You dodged my point rather artfully. You assume that just because a person is poor and lacks job skills that they have not choosen this life for themselves. Furthermore, what your ultimate goal appears to be is an equalization of outcomes rather than an equalization of opportunity. And this is the moral equivalent of looting.

Now do not get me wrong. I am not an extreme or radical libertarian. Student Aid is a good thing. Emergency unemployment assistance is a good thing. But at some point you have to understand that there will people who will exist at the fringe because they do not want to do what it takes to make a better life. My point in my story about my ex-wife is that I have seen people lift themselves up, yet I've also seen people who don't want to work to get the training you're arguing for. Why then should they be deserving of being able to go out and buy a computer or XBox360, when they haven't done anything to deserve it?

I neither dodged nor assumed anything. Poor people choose poverty just as much as the rich "choose" being rich. You know what the number one indicator of whether or not someone attends college? Whether or not their parents did. It's not if they were read to, or abused, or any sort of parenting style. I look at "free will" as a sort of falsehood that we nonetheless have to believe in, to hold people accountable to their actions (and therefor to keep a structured society). But what we do in our lives is entirely a result of what our lives have been. Economic mobility is real, and people born poor can change their lot in life. This is especially true today, as a result of things that you acknowledge as useful, student aid, unemployment, etc.

My goal is not equalization of outcomes (the elimination of economic inequality, right?). Economic inequality is a mainstay of a tiered economy. It's a constant, and has been since specialized labor first began. I have no illusions. People will always live "at the fringe," if for no other reason than because a certain amount of unemployment minimizes inflation and is a "good" thing for the economy.

I am trying to make a distinction between actually equalizing (maximizing for all) opportunity, and the illusion of doing such. A level "playing field" is useless if one "team" has unlimited resources while the other doesn't. I'm not advocating unlimited, no-strings-attached welfare, for people to buy xboxes and crack. You're strawmanning. I believe the government has a role in bettering the lives of those who want it and strive for it. Unemployment or tax credits for those seeking or working for low wages. Student aid, etc. (I won't go into healthcare as the "right" to it is a whole other question..) In the end I'm not even sure what we're arguing about.

What reality? The reality that there are some people who are poor because they want to be...or rather they do not want to put forth the effort to lift themselves out of the hole they are in. You ignore the reality that this is a choice, and not always as simple as not having access to training.

I am impressed, have you actually read Atlas Shrugged or just going off a Professor's book review?

I am countering one extreme in juxtaposing the DPRK with the US. But without constraint on the government, an over-focus on "positive" rights can often lead into Totalitarianism. The DPRK, USSR & PRC all have operated under the ideal of protecting the little man and the oppressed from all sorts of types of nefarious oppressors.

The reality that allowed your wife to go to college, get an education, and a decent job. The reality that we respect positive rights today in America. And that this hasn't led to a totalitarian government. (Nor seems to be.) No, it isn't as simple as not having access to training / education. Your wife 200 years ago might have been barred from even dreaming of having a better opportunity (simply as a result of being a woman). She might have been eminently qualified yet still barred from a decent occupation. For example. I can only reiterate that of course it's impossible for strict equality of opportunity, of economic position in life, or anything. But to the extent that government can maximize opportunity for all, without significantly impacting the quality of life or dignity of any, then it ought to.

I've never read Atlas Shrugged, or a book review of it. I've read libertarian theory. I wiki'd the name you threw out. And finally, I've never advocated a government "without restraints," in this topic or any other.

At 3/24/07 09:45 PM, Nylo wrote: I don't know, Red Skunk. That's kind of like saying World War II violence was the fault of those who came to push the Germans back. Because it's true in one aspect, but a REALLY limited-view aspect.

No, that's a false comparison. I'm saying that the aggressors and instigators of the war hold the most responsibility. Comparing this to WW2, that'd be the Germans. And I really find it humorous people would disagree with this.

At 3/23/07 09:45 PM, Proteas wrote: It's a car. Whoopee shit.

I'm sorry that you can't help but resort to shitting on other's happiness. =]

My car pwns you proteas.

At 3/24/07 01:57 PM, Nylo wrote: The modern-liberals dominate what it means to be a liberal; common-sense libs are far and too few between these days.

I think you're straw-manning the opposition so that you don't need to make a coherent argument..

At 3/23/07 02:21 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: Resumes are fun. Cover letters are shit.

I'm a cover letter virgin. But that's to change shortly.

At 3/23/07 04:02 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Does College Transcripts also float your boat.

No they does not. But that's just a once or twice deal.

At 3/23/07 06:22 PM, Proteas wrote: ... I just wanted some Super Mario wallpapers from 4chan, not a fucking FBI visit. That's all.

Yeah, but it's Mario and Luigi gangbanging the mushroom guy!

And sorry but I gotta whore just one pic. It's so FRICKIN AWESOME.

At 3/23/07 03:19 PM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: O really? So that means that people are wise enough to decide for themselves to smoke or not, but they just don't have the right to smoke as much as the gov. likes them to do, so the goverment taxes them.

I'm not sure how taxing tobacco use is a uniquely liberal idea. As far as I see it, the reasons for higher taxes on tobacco are for public health concerns, and not the protection of rights (which I've been focusing on).

At 3/23/07 12:49 PM, TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID wrote: Liberalism (socialism 'round here) fails by making the assumption nobody can care for him-/herselves. Libertarism fails by assuming everyone can.

You're mispresenting both viewpoints. Both liberals and libertarians believe that people can "care" for themselves. The two positions are different ways of protecting rights.

Here's a phun poll. How many people around here need to dick around with resumes?

I actually sorta like doing it, now that I have stuff to put on it. Most of the time is spent formatting, keeping it to a single page, and using really asinine words. Hella entertaining.

I'm at my internship and have little to do. Meh.